How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[steve_bank]

Putin is threatening to attack 'new trargets' if USA supplies long range missiles and says it will only prolong the war.

Are there any places in Ukraine that have not been hit? I wonder if Putin is in total denial. All he can do is keep on keeping on.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Russian soldiers refusing to fight in Ukraine

Because of their experiences on the front line, some troops are seeking legal advice to avoid being redeployed.

www.bbc.com

Some Russian troops are refusing to return to fight in Ukraine because of their experiences on the front line at the start of the invasion, according to Russian human rights lawyers and activists. The BBC has been speaking to one such soldier.
"I don't want to go [back to Ukraine] to kill and be killed," says Sergey - not his real name - who spent five weeks fighting in Ukraine earlier this year.
He is now home in Russia, having taken legal advice to avoid being sent back to the front line. Sergey is just one of hundreds of Russian soldiers understood to have been seeking such advice.
Sergey says he is traumatised by his experience in Ukraine.
"I had thought that we were the Russian army, the most super-duper in the world," says the young man bitterly. Instead they were expected to operate without even basic equipment, such as night vision devices, he says.
"We were like blind kittens. I'm shocked by our army. It wouldn't cost much to equip us. Why wasn't it done?"

A lawyer told Sergey and two like-minded colleagues to return their arms and go back to their unit's headquarters - where they should file a letter explaining that they were "morally and psychologically exhausted" and could not continue fighting in Ukraine.
Sergey was told that returning to the unit was important because simply leaving could be interpreted as desertion, which can result in a two-year sentence in a disciplinary battalion.
Army commanders try to intimidate contract soldiers into staying with their units, according to Russian human rights lawyer Alexei Tabalov. But he stresses that Russian military law does include clauses which allow soldiers to refuse to fight if they don't want to.
Human rights activist Sergei Krivenko says he is not aware of any prosecutions of those refusing to return to the front.

One commander in northern Russia requested a criminal case be brought against his subordinate who would not return to Ukraine, but a military prosecutor refused to proceed, according to documents seen by the BBC. Such an action would be "premature" without having assessed the harm to the military service he was involved in, the prosecutor said.
And there is no guarantee that more prosecutions might not emerge in the future.
Soldiers like Sergey - reluctant to return to the front line - are not unusual, according to Ruslan Leviev, the editor of Conflict Intelligence Team, a media project investigating the experiences of the Russian military in Ukraine through confidential interviews and open source material.
Leviev says his team estimates a sizeable minority of the Russian contract soldiers sent to Ukraine to fight in the initial invasion refused to go back again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Putin is threatening to attack 'new trargets' if USA supplies long range missiles and says it will only prolong the war.

Are there any places in Ukraine that have not been hit? I wonder if Putin is in total denial. All he can do is keep on keeping on.

He's saber rattling. He's not going to widen the war.

 

[Copernicus]

The problem I have with Macron's statement is that it was very public and very clumsy. It appears that he is grandstanding in an effort to promote himself as a peacemaker and possibly ingratiate himself with Putin. Instead, he has displayed weakness of resolve, angered Ukraine, and likely displeased Putin with his condescending announcement that Russia was being humiliated. If you don't want to humiliate someone, it is not a good idea to make a point of telling that person that they are being humiliated. It just inflames the situation more.

It seems clear that Russia cannot contemplate giving up territory that it has acquired so painfully, and Ukraine cannot give up claims on territory it has lost so painfully. Nevertheless, it would be better for everyone to call a ceasefire now and try to work out some kind of armistice. Nobody is going to come out of this a winner. The damage to the warring parties and the rest of the world is bad enough, but things will only get worse the longer it goes on.

 

[Jayjay]

Putin is threatening to attack 'new targets' if USA supplies long range missiles and says it will only prolong the war.

Are there any places in Ukraine that have not been hit? I wonder if Putin is in total denial. All he can do is keep on keeping on.

It could have been a bluff, or a reference to recent strikes in Kyiv that allegedly hit European tanks and armored vehicles. Although Kyiv is hardly a pristine new target.

Other possible "new targets":

1) Power plants (including nuclear) on Ukrainian side.
2) Bridges over Dnieper river (hard to hit though, especially if Russia is running out of high accuracy missiles)
3) Border crossings between Ukraine and Poland, maybe spilling a bit on Polish side.
4) Weapon deliveries before they cross to Ukraine.
5) US automated surveillance drones in the Black Sea.
6) Satellites (not sure if capability even exists, and that would be a major upset globally)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Putin is threatening to attack 'new targets' if USA supplies long range missiles and says it will only prolong the war.

Are there any places in Ukraine that have not been hit? I wonder if Putin is in total denial. All he can do is keep on keeping on.

It could have been a bluff, or a reference to recent strikes in Kyiv that allegedly hit European tanks and armored vehicles. Although Kyiv is hardly a pristine new target.

Other possible "new targets":

1) Power plants (including nuclear) on Ukrainian side.
2) Bridges over Dnieper river (hard to hit though, especially if Russia is running out of high accuracy missiles)
3) Border crossings between Ukraine and Poland, maybe spilling a bit on Polish side.
4) Weapon deliveries before they cross to Ukraine.
5) US automated surveillance drones in the Black Sea.
6) Satellites (not sure if capability even exists, and that would be a major upset globally)

I do not think he would be so insane as to consider 4-6. 3 isn't even likely.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Putin is threatening to attack 'new targets' if USA supplies long range missiles and says it will only prolong the war.

Are there any places in Ukraine that have not been hit? I wonder if Putin is in total denial. All he can do is keep on keeping on.

It could have been a bluff, or a reference to recent strikes in Kyiv that allegedly hit European tanks and armored vehicles. Although Kyiv is hardly a pristine new target.

Other possible "new targets":

1) Power plants (including nuclear) on Ukrainian side.
2) Bridges over Dnieper river (hard to hit though, especially if Russia is running out of high accuracy missiles)
3) Border crossings between Ukraine and Poland, maybe spilling a bit on Polish side.
4) Weapon deliveries before they cross to Ukraine.
5) US automated surveillance drones in the Black Sea.
6) Satellites (not sure if capability even exists, and that would be a major upset globally)

I do not think he would be so insane as to consider 4-6. 3 isn't even likely.

6) They took out Viasat at the beginning of the war and they've been unsuccessfully trying to take out Starlink since. But Starlink can be updated multiple times a day and has its security built in rather than layered on at the end.
Of course physically taking out satellites when there are thousands of them in LEO is hardly practical. When the system is fully up (42,000 satellites), hundreds of these satellites could probably be off line at any one time without degrading the system overall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Putin is threatening to attack 'new targets' if USA supplies long range missiles and says it will only prolong the war.

Are there any places in Ukraine that have not been hit? I wonder if Putin is in total denial. All he can do is keep on keeping on.

It could have been a bluff, or a reference to recent strikes in Kyiv that allegedly hit European tanks and armored vehicles. Although Kyiv is hardly a pristine new target.

Other possible "new targets":

1) Power plants (including nuclear) on Ukrainian side.
2) Bridges over Dnieper river (hard to hit though, especially if Russia is running out of high accuracy missiles)
3) Border crossings between Ukraine and Poland, maybe spilling a bit on Polish side.
4) Weapon deliveries before they cross to Ukraine.
5) US automated surveillance drones in the Black Sea.
6) Satellites (not sure if capability even exists, and that would be a major upset globally)

I do not think he would be so insane as to consider 4-6. 3 isn't even likely.

6) They took out Viasat at the beginning of the war and they've been unsuccessfully trying to take out Starlink since. But Starlink can be updated multiple times a day and has its security built in rather than layered on at the end.
Of course physically taking out satellites when there are thousands of them in LEO is hardly practical. When the system is fully up (42,000 satellites), hundreds of these satellites could probably be off line at any one time without degrading the system overall.

Jamming isn't the same as taking out.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another Russian General down.

 

[ZiprHead]

Russia will respond if the UK and US supply longer range missiles to Ukraine

Russia's foreign minister says his troops will respond to the UK and US sending long-range missiles to Ukraine, by pushing back Ukrainian forces further.

"The longer the range of the weapons that [the West] supplies, the further we will push back the line from which Neo-Nazis can threaten the Russian Federation," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference, responding to a question from BBC Russia Editor Steve Rosenberg.

Russia has claimed that neo-Nazism is rife in Ukraine - a claim that's been dismissed by Kyiv and Western nations as baseless.

I would think that if Russia could push back that line they would already be doing so.

 

[Copernicus]

Another Russian General down.

This piqued my interest, because the famous Field Marshall Mikhail Kutuzov, featured in Tolstoy's War and Peace, was part of the Russian victory against Napoleon's invasion of Russia in the War of 1812. I have not been able to confirm that there is any relationship between modern General Roman Kutuzov and the famous one-eyed Mikhail Kutuzov, so the name could just be coincidental.

 

[Tigers!]

The problem I have with Macron's statement is that it was very public and very clumsy. It appears that he is grandstanding in an effort to promote himself as a peacemaker and possibly ingratiate himself with Putin. Instead, he has displayed weakness of resolve, angered Ukraine, and likely displeased Putin with his condescending announcement that Russia was being humiliated. If you don't want to humiliate someone, it is not a good idea to make a point of telling that person that they are being humiliated. It just inflames the situation more.

I am sure that there is a white flag factory in France. Macron could send a large bundle of them to Ukraine.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Your post makes zero sense. You don't like the Ukrainian Oligarchs. Fine. You don't like those oligarch meanies who now own rubble and ruin. Fine. Do you give a fucking shit about their families? How about all the innocent civilians? Their children? I donated money to a group that rescued hundreds of children dying of cancer that was finally evacuated. Their story was heart breaking. Do you give a shit about them? Do you give a shit about all the environmental damage that Russia is causing? Do you give a shit about the millions of people world wide who will suffer because Russia won't let Ukraine export their grain? How about the world wide inflation that is affecting the world? Have you been to the store lately?

Right there in your own post you gave the answer to your own question and you don't even know it. You said YOU donated money to a group. Find. I have absolutely no problem with that, and even commend it. But we're not talking about what YOU are doing, we are talking about what you and yours all want the government to do.

When it comes to that, your very emotional argument means nothing. "Don't you care about X? Don't you care about Y" Don't you care about deciding things on merits other than emotion?

It is because everything has been decided on emotion for the last 20 years that we are experiencing food shortages right now. Your "feelings" aren't going to feed the hungry, cold rational action will. And when you say "oh but I meant well", I won't give a damn about that.

Actually you won't say "oh but I meant well" because that would mean admitting that letting your feelings trump reality is wrong, and that feels bad so you won't do that.

You bet I get emotional about it.

Yes, you have emotion. Too bad that's all you have.

That's pretty deep Jason! I notice that you tend to post in this thread just after the Russians have a few victories. This must be a happy time for you.

When all you have is emotion, I expect temper tantrums like that.

Again, very deep! I'm actually much more optimistic that [Russia] will lose. What you don't understand is that when the invader attacks, the people rally around the defender. At some point, the Russians will need to return home. The Ukrainians are at home. They are fighting for their land. It's not Russia's land. And all the other border countries and the so-called neutral countries are joining NATO and will make future Russian invasions much more difficult. [Russia] has lost incredible soft power. [Russia] has great power as a gas station, but it is dwindling. Wait until Europe is off the Russian oil/gas. This is coming soon. Russia will become what it fears the most - insignificant.

 

[Jayjay]

That's pretty deep Jason! I notice that you tend to post in this thread just after the Russians have a few victories. This must be a happy time for you.

When all you have is emotion, I expect temper tantrums like that.

Again, very deep! I'm actually much more optimistic that your side will lose. What you don't understand is that when the invader attacks, the people rally around the defender. At some point, the Russians will need to return home. The Ukrainians are at home. They are fighting for their land. It's not Russia's land. And all the other border countries and the so-called neutral countries are joining NATO and will make future Russian invasions much more difficult. Your side has lost incredible soft power. Your side has great power as a gas station, but it is dwindling. Wait until Europe is off the Russian oil/gas. This is coming soon. Russia will become what it fears the most - insignificant.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jason an American isolationist rather than overt pro-Russian? If so, it's unfair to label him as the latter. Besides, the probability of someone posting "just after the Russians have a few victories" is pretty high because Russia is still having (small) victories almost daily. I don't think you can deduce anyone's pro-Russian tendencies based on that.

Your optimism about the outcome of the war is only half right. It's doubtful that Russia will exit the territories it's currently occupying, and will likely be able to get Luhansk and Donetsk before the war is over. But it will be and should be made as costly as possible. Right now, Ukraine is still strapped for basic equipment and ammunition, and stopping Russian advances will not be cheap.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your post makes zero sense. You don't like the Ukrainian Oligarchs. Fine. You don't like those oligarch meanies who now own rubble and ruin. Fine. Do you give a fucking shit about their families? How about all the innocent civilians? Their children? I donated money to a group that rescued hundreds of children dying of cancer that was finally evacuated. Their story was heart breaking. Do you give a shit about them? Do you give a shit about all the environmental damage that Russia is causing? Do you give a shit about the millions of people world wide who will suffer because Russia won't let Ukraine export their grain? How about the world wide inflation that is affecting the world? Have you been to the store lately?

Right there in your own post you gave the answer to your own question and you don't even know it. You said YOU donated money to a group. Find. I have absolutely no problem with that, and even commend it. But we're not talking about what YOU are doing, we are talking about what you and yours all want the government to do.

When it comes to that, your very emotional argument means nothing. "Don't you care about X? Don't you care about Y" Don't you care about deciding things on merits other than emotion?

It is because everything has been decided on emotion for the last 20 years that we are experiencing food shortages right now. Your "feelings" aren't going to feed the hungry, cold rational action will. And when you say "oh but I meant well", I won't give a damn about that.

Actually you won't say "oh but I meant well" because that would mean admitting that letting your feelings trump reality is wrong, and that feels bad so you won't do that.

You bet I get emotional about it.

Yes, you have emotion. Too bad that's all you have.

That's pretty deep Jason! I notice that you tend to post in this thread just after the Russians have a few victories. This must be a happy time for you.

When all you have is emotion, I expect temper tantrums like that.

Again, very deep! I'm actually much more optimistic that your side will lose. What you don't understand is that when the invader attacks, the people rally around the defender. At some point, the Russians will need to return home. The Ukrainians are at home. They are fighting for their land. It's not Russia's land. And all the other border countries and the so-called neutral countries are joining NATO and will make future Russian invasions much more difficult. Your side has lost incredible soft power. Your side has great power as a gas station, but it is dwindling. Wait until Europe is off the Russian oil/gas. This is coming soon. Russia will become what it fears the most - insignificant North Korea.

Minor edit.

 

[Harry Bosch]

That's pretty deep Jason! I notice that you tend to post in this thread just after the Russians have a few victories. This must be a happy time for you.

When all you have is emotion, I expect temper tantrums like that.

Again, very deep! I'm actually much more optimistic that your side will lose. What you don't understand is that when the invader attacks, the people rally around the defender. At some point, the Russians will need to return home. The Ukrainians are at home. They are fighting for their land. It's not Russia's land. And all the other border countries and the so-called neutral countries are joining NATO and will make future Russian invasions much more difficult. Your side has lost incredible soft power. Your side has great power as a gas station, but it is dwindling. Wait until Europe is off the Russian oil/gas. This is coming soon. Russia will become what it fears the most - insignificant.

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jason an American isolationist rather than overt pro-Russian? If so, it's unfair to label him as the latter. Besides, the probability of someone posting "just after the Russians have a few victories" is pretty high because Russia is still having (small) victories almost daily. I don't think you can deduce anyone's pro-Russian tendencies based on that.

Your optimism about the outcome of the war is only half right. It's doubtful that Russia will exit the territories it's currently occupying, and will likely be able to get Luhansk and Donetsk before the war is over. But it will be and should be made as costly as possible. Right now, Ukraine is still strapped for basic equipment and ammunition, and stopping Russian advances will not be cheap.

He's an American isolationist: ........ unless there's a republican in charge. I'm just pushing back at the glee that many have at the misery the Ukrainians are suffering. Yes, the Russians will have some victories. But at what cost? They have created far more enemies and have lost allies. The Russian war has greatly energized and motivated NATO. Russia has pushed the west into diversifying away from Russian oil/gas. This will be the biggest downfall for Russia. A gas station doesn't have much value if it can't sell it's gas. Selling to China and India isn't nearly as profitable for Putin. And finally, Ukraine has beaten most of Putin's goals. It isn't going to de-arm. Russia was unable to conquer the Northern part. It wasn't able to take away Odessa (Ukraine's port). Most important of all: Russia has united Ukraine into hating Russia. Russia will have an angry neighbor on its border for generations. Before the invasion, Ukraine was really 50-50 between the west and the east. No longer. Russia will be the big loser in the long term.

 

[Gun Nut]

Your post makes zero sense. You don't like the Ukrainian Oligarchs. Fine. You don't like those oligarch meanies who now own rubble and ruin. Fine. Do you give a fucking shit about their families? How about all the innocent civilians? Their children? I donated money to a group that rescued hundreds of children dying of cancer that was finally evacuated. Their story was heart breaking. Do you give a shit about them? Do you give a shit about all the environmental damage that Russia is causing? Do you give a shit about the millions of people world wide who will suffer because Russia won't let Ukraine export their grain? How about the world wide inflation that is affecting the world? Have you been to the store lately?

Right there in your own post you gave the answer to your own question and you don't even know it. You said YOU donated money to a group. Find. I have absolutely no problem with that, and even commend it. But we're not talking about what YOU are doing, we are talking about what you and yours all want the government to do.

When it comes to that, your very emotional argument means nothing. "Don't you care about X? Don't you care about Y" Don't you care about deciding things on merits other than emotion?

It is because everything has been decided on emotion for the last 20 years that we are experiencing food shortages right now. Your "feelings" aren't going to feed the hungry, cold rational action will. And when you say "oh but I meant well", I won't give a damn about that.

Actually you won't say "oh but I meant well" because that would mean admitting that letting your feelings trump reality is wrong, and that feels bad so you won't do that.

You bet I get emotional about it. I have family members (in-laws) in Europe that have a Ukranian family living with them. I've heard the stories. I pretty much agree with President Biden on almost his actions in aiding Ukraine today. A weakened Russia will likely not invade a NATO country. If Nato is attacked, it's WW3. And we're screwed. But bottom line, I believe that sovereign countries should not be invaded. Period. End of story. I would support Ukraine even if Russia weren't threatening NATO. I think that we should arm and resupply Ukraine to the greatest extent possible. Mostly with defensive weapons. But they need longer range weapons to take out Russian artillery in Ukraine. I would understand; but I would not support Ukraine attacking Russia land. I think that the west should do everything possible to encourage Russia to return home. This would include massive sanctions. Bankrupt the fuckers. I think that we also need to figure out a way to get the grain out of Ukraine. The grain needs to be shipped out via Odessa. If we don't figure out a way, millions could starve. At this time, the only way that i see to do this is to send the Russian ships around Odessa to the bottom of the ocean. The Ukrainians could accomplish this hopefully with better longer range anti-ship missiles and better intelligence.

If you know a better way to peace - I'm all ears!

Call Poopies bluff and nuke Moscow. I believe the rusted-solid ballistic missiles they built 40 years ago will not launch / no longer exist. His threats are based on ancient reputation alone, and I, for one, am willing to bet Earth on that. Every silo has been looted by conscripts for anything they can trade for a loaf of bread, and are presently useless.

You are free to stake anything you own, up to and including your life; But you cannot bet with my stuff or my life as the stake.

I can't, no. The Pentagon can, does all the time, and will again soon.

 

[lpetrich]

So far, the war is stalemated, with neither side advancing very much. But Ukraine is now getting a lot of battlefield missiles from the US and European countries, and that may enable Ukraine to advance, like in the south toward Crimea, cutting off Kherson.


To all those people who have come and gone across Ukraine over the millennia, I must note some earlier ones.

 Neolithic Europe - wheat was domesticated around 10,000 BCE, at the beginning of the Holocene, in the central part of the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, in NE Syria, NW Iraq, and SW Turkey. That was the first agriculture, though it was separately invented in several other places over the early to mid Holocene. Agriculture enabled greater population densities than was possible with foraging - hunting and gathering - and populations of farmers spread out from where they'd invented agriculture.

Middle Eastern farmers spread into Europe, N Africa, NE Africa, and S Asia, and in Europe, after arriving in Greece in about 6500 BCE, they split in two. The southern wave - makers of  Cardium pottery - arrived in S Italy by 5500 BCE, N Italy by 5000 BCE, and E Spain by 4500 BCE. The northern wave -  Linear Pottery culture - arrived in E Central Europe by 5000 BCE, C Germany by 4500 BCE, and NW France by 4000 BCE.

They had an offshoot that moved eastward, the  Cucuteni–Trypillia culture in NE Romania, Moldova, and W Ukraine in 5500 - 2750 BCE. Some of its settlements had as many of 3,000 structures and 20,000 - 46,000 people, thus being some the largest cities in the world in their time, around 4000 - 3500 BCE.

 

[lpetrich]

One can go back even further, to the Paleolithic. Most of our ancestors back then did NOT live in caves, because there aren't very many caves, and because most people discovered to have similar technology did not live in caves. So the living-in-caves stereotype is preservation bias - that's where our ancestors' remains are best preserved. In fact, there is evidence of Paleolithic human habitation far away from any caves -- Eastern European mammoth-bone huts.

Perhaps the Oldest Surviving Architecture : History of Information - Perhaps the Oldest Surviving Architecture - Circa 23000 to 12000 BCE

Huts built from mammoth bones (Offsite Link) found along the Dniepr river valley of Ukraine, and at locations near ChernihivOffsite Link, in Moravia, Czech Republic, and in southern Poland, that date between 23,000 BCE and 12,000 BCE, may be the earliest structures built by prehistoric man, and thus the earliest examples of architecture. Some of the most notable of these mammoth bone huts were found in Mezhyrich (Offsite Link) (Межиріч, Mezhirich), a village in central Ukraine located in the Kaniv Raion (district) of the Cherkasy Oblast, approximately 22 km from the region's administrative center, Kaniv, near the point where the Rosava River flows into the Ros'. Since 1966 at least four collapsed mammoth bone structures have been discovered in Mezhirich.

Mezhirich / Mezhyrich / Mejiritch /Межиріч - Mammoth Camp - goes into more detail

A Mysterious 25,000-Year-Old Structure Built of the Bones of 60 Mammoths | Science| Smithsonian Magazine - "The purpose of such an elaborate structure remains a big open question"

A jaw-dropping example of Ice Age architecture has been unearthed on Russia’s forest steppe: a huge, circular structure built with the bones of at least 60 woolly mammoths. But exactly why hunter-gatherers enduring the frigid realities of life 25,000 years ago would construct the 40-foot diameter building is a fascinating question.

At Kostenki, Russia, a little across the border north of Kharkiv.

 Aurignacian - the first members of our present species to move into Europe: 43,000 - 26,000 years ago. Their sites are in southern Europe, with a northern boundary going between the English Channel and E Ukraine. Yes, some sites in Ukraine, like in Siuren, Crimea.

Before these first of the Cro-Magnon people were members of earlier species, like the Neanderthals, and before them, Homo erectus / ergaster. But Ukraine was on the borderline of their range. Were Ukrainian winters too cold for them?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm actually much more optimistic that your side will lose.

Non-internventionism lost a long time ago. There are people of limited intellect who think if you don't support Side A that means you support Side B, but surely you do not make that irrational mistake.

What you don't understand is that when the invader attacks, the people rally around the defender.

Since you say my side will lose, please tell me the last time non-internventionists invaded anywhere.

At some point, the Russians will need to return home. The Ukrainians are at home. They are fighting for their land. It's not Russia's land. And all the other border countries and the so-called neutral countries are joining NATO and will make future Russian invasions much more difficult. Your side has lost incredible soft power. Your side has great power as a gas station, but it is dwindling. Wait until Europe is off the Russian oil/gas. This is coming soon. Russia will become what it fears the most - insignificant.

Irrelevant to my position. Do you have anything to add other than your emotional outbursts?