Ukraine 21: On the Attack with a Giant Phallic Spear

[The Anti-Targ]

27 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

A goverment employee suggesting the use of newspeak to frame an issue. Nothing to see here move along. 

pfft you know nothing.

The decision was made by the committee for appropriateness evaluation and revenue allocation that the parties of the producers of the audio-visual material submitted to the platform for public consumption had been zero-rated for the material that was provided to the party of the first party, which was determined to be a minor mis-allocation of revenue materials for the purposes of recompensing all parties in a manner that accurately reflects the optimal financial viability of the platform to ensure the party of the first party is receiving those revenues from sources that the committee for appropriateness evaluation and revenue allocation determines to be suitable to the nature and purpose of the aduio-visual material placed on the party of the first party's platform for public consumption. Having evaluated all relevant factors, The Committee (for appropriateness evaluation and revenue allocation), has concluded that the parties of the producers of the audio-visual material having hitherto been zero-rated for the material that was provided to the party of the first party for a trivial circumscribed temporal duration due to anomalous and unforeseeable multi-factorial factors of causation should be re-rated to accordingly return to the revenue allocation arrangement that was allocated hitherto the hitherto trivial circumscribed temporal duration of the previous zero-rating for the material that was provided to the party of the first party.

[Padraig]

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not sure how realistic the scenario of Russian vs Ukraine round 3 in 2029 or whatever.  

Just to be clear.   I wasn't talking about realism.  I was talking about Russia's current tactics (however successful they turn out to be).  Russia clearly isn't backing down, whether we think it is foolhardy or not.  They haven't a good track record  admittedly but they still control a decent portion of Ukraine.  Ukraine may regain some more of that but Russia will continue to throw bodies at the problem, which could eventually stop the advance (plus coming winter).  And once the advance stops, it will be ever harder to restart it (this obviously is the same for both sides but Russia seems much more willing to risk lives).

I'll let you guys figure out the likelihood of success but it is certainly non-zero.  So basically, I see where Kal is coming on this.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

A year ago, the idea that the leader of Kazakhstan would keep Putin waiting was ridiculous.

And that was Turkey right?

2 hours ago, Wade1865 said:

Padraig -- it's not a US-enforced stability, but a -facilitated stability, which is in the interests of all parties at this point.

Ok.  I don't understand that but no reason I should.

[Maithanet]

27 minutes ago, Padraig said:

And that was Turkey right?

I knew I should have double-checked.  According to this, the Kazakh leader was the one who (while on the same stage as Putin) denounced the recognition of dnr/lnr, and Russia's unilateral actions in general.  Several leaders have recently kept Putin waiting, including Turkey and Kyrgyzstan.  

[Wade1865]

59 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Ok.  I don't understand that but no reason I should.

Padraig — of course, I wouldn’t expect you to see the situation as I do! That’s why I post here, to consider and possibly integrate other people’s thoughts; though I don’t recall you speculating as much as I do, hahaha.

We have different perspectives, and my framework is most likely more game-like, more amoral, more realpolitik, and possibly even more sociopathic relative to yours..

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

Just to be clear.   I wasn't talking about realism.  I was talking about Russia's current tactics (however successful they turn out to be).  Russia clearly isn't backing down, whether we think it is foolhardy or not.  They haven't a good track record  admittedly but they still control a decent portion of Ukraine.  Ukraine may regain some more of that but Russia will continue to throw bodies at the problem, which could eventually stop the advance (plus coming winter).  And once the advance stops, it will be ever harder to restart it (this obviously is the same for both sides but Russia seems much more willing to risk lives).

My suspicion is the odds are at least 50-50 Russia will not exist in its current form by 2029...or even 2025.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is Lukashenko really going to order Belarussian Troops into Ukraine… will he last in power in Minsk if he does?

 

[Werthead]

7 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Is Lukashenko really going to order Belarussian Troops into Ukraine… will he last in power in Minsk if he does?

Difficult to say. Perhaps the stupidity has finally spread to him? Just a couple of days ago he was saying that Belarus was going to receive around 1,000 Russian "advisors," but even with Belarus fully mobilised (which it isn't, at all), he probably couldn't put more than 20,000 troops on the border, optimistically. Any more and he'd have to strip the borders with Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. The un-engaged troops in NW Ukraine would probably mop them up pretty quickly, given the limitations on the possible areas of advance (trying to advance directly on Kyiv from the north would go far more badly than in March, given how Ukraine has rebuilt the defences along that axis).

[Loge]

Apparently Belarus is sending tanks to Russia. They appear to be T-72A (an old model) from storage. I guess that means they won't send troops.

 

[Werthead]

I wonder if there is an argument for Poland to put 10,000 troops on the Belarusian border and slipping Lukachenko a nod and a wink. "Oh no, Vlad, the Poles are up to shenanigans, I need all of my troops on the Polish border in case they try something. Sorry, pal." Lukachenko might even be grateful for that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This woman who objects to protesters on the sidewalk outside the Russian Embassy in DC has moved to the FO of the FAFO paradigm:

 

[broken one]

11 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I wonder if there is an argument for Poland to put 10,000 troops on the Belarusian border

That would be quite escalatory move of naughty, imperialistic Poland 

 

 

 

[Maithanet]

Paying attention these last 8 months, Wert (and some Ukrainian sources) have really convinced me that Lukashenko will do anything he can to avoid deploying his army to Ukraine. His troops are poorly equipped, poorly led, totally unmotivated, and they would be facing veteran, well equipped Ukrainians.  Belarus could send at most 20k troops, and the Ukrainians could certainly defeat that army with a force half its size. 

Lukashenko's political survival depends on walking the tightrope of keeping Russia happy and not actually fighting in Ukraine.  And he knows it. 

[Werthead]

29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Paying attention these last 8 months, Wert (and some Ukrainian sources) have really convinced me that Lukashenko will do anything he can to avoid deploying his army to Ukraine. His troops are poorly equipped, poorly led, totally unmotivated, and they would be facing veteran, well equipped Ukrainians.  Belarus could send at most 20k troops, and the Ukrainians could certainly defeat that army with a force half its size. 

Lukashenko's political survival depends on walking the tightrope of keeping Russia happy and not actually fighting in Ukraine.  And he knows it. 

The only thing I can think of is that he's reached the end of Putin's rope and Putin's basically told him to deploy his troops or Russia will fuck him up personally, and I don't think Lukashenko can easily pivot to being in the anti-Putin camp and say no to him.

That's the only situation in which I can see Belarus joining the conflict.

[kiko]

3 hours ago, broken one said:

That would be quite escalatory move of naughty, imperialistic Poland 

 

 

 

I know that's a joke but tbf, I'm quite happy that Germany is keeping at least some military equipment. I trust PiS as far as I can throw them.

[Werthead]

Nothing to worry about here, just Elon Musk having direct phone calls with Putin.

Although, one interesting bit from this is that Putin seems to regard a Ukrainian ground invasion of Crimea as the threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons.

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Nothing to worry about here, just Elon Musk having direct phone calls with Putin.

Although, one interesting bit from this is that Putin seems to regard a Ukrainian ground invasion of Crimea as the threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons.

Elon Musk is remarkably like Trump in that respect; whoever he talks to last appears to have major sway on him. It's hilarious to me that he's just willing to take Putin's words at face value without a single bit of introspection or caution. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

40 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Although, one interesting bit from this is that Putin seems to regard a Ukrainian ground invasion of Crimea as the threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons.

I doubt that there will be much international tolerance for Putin's nuclear blackmail. 

[JGP]

11 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I doubt that there will be much international tolerance for Putin's nuclear blackmail. 

So dry I laughed out loud.

 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

28 minutes ago, JGP said:

So dry I laughed out loud.

If it's too dry, I can add the word "moist" in there. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

Although, one interesting bit from this is that Putin seems to regard a Ukrainian ground invasion of Crimea as the threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons.

Yes that is sobering. What is the likelyhood of a eventual Ukrainian ground invasion of Crimea?