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

[Elixir]

I’m still wondering why Barbos’ handlers don’t realize how he is painting all Russians as stupid and barbaric.
I’m pretty sure they’re not that bad, given the Russians I’ve met. But what Barbos puts forth is … pitiful.

 

[Copernicus]

I’m still wondering why Barbos’ handlers don’t realize how he is painting all Russians as stupid and barbaric.
I’m pretty sure they’re not that bad, given the Russians I’ve met. But what Barbos puts forth is … pitiful.

It's not that different from the kind of rubbish that right wingers in the US put forth to convince themselves to elect people like Donald Trump. The similarity between ordinary Russians and ordinary Americans is uncanny sometimes. It's not that hard to counter it by dredging up stories of American invasions of other countries, so Russians are being constantly told that they are just following in the footsteps of America and other Western countries, even if it is bad behavior on the face of it.

What barbos gives us here is material that is designed to manipulate Russians, so it sounds terribly out of tune when played to a foreign audience. It fits a different narrative. Russia enablers in the US, e.g. conservative Republican supporters of Donald Trump, play on somewhat different themes to try to excuse what is happening in Ukraine. They don't call the Ukrainians Nazis, because that kind of rhetoric is designed more for Russian ears. Russians have grown up immersed in stories about the terrible things that the Nazis did to Russia and the patriotic struggle to reclaim Russian territory. Americans have their own WWII stories, but American territory was never attacked or occupied by German occupiers. So the Hitler rhetoric sounds more cartoonish and overdone to American ears. The Ukrainians use the same rhetoric against Russians, and so do we. But this is really more of a wag-the-dog strategy by Putin to maintain his grip on power. They are stuck in this war, and they are stuck with Putin now.

 

[Jayjay]

UK MOD says that Ukrainian forces have likely established a bridgehead south of the Ingulets River, which forms the northern boundary of Russian-occupied territory.

Kherson's Antonivskiy Bridge although it’s still standing is now “completely unusable” after damage from the rocket attacks.

Russia’s 49th Army stationed on the west bank of the Dnipro river “now looks highly vulnerable” and that the city of Kherson is now cut off from the rest of the territory controlled by Moscow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/busi...ost_type=share

I don't think overly optimistic estimations like this are serving Ukraine well. It makes us think the war is going fine for Ukraine, which it clearly isn't. They need more weapons, faster, more training of troops, and not be withheld some weapons like ATACMS. At least the west, and USA in particular, should send a message that weapon transfers will only increase and Russia cannot win in the end. Right now the slow trickle of weaponry makes Russia think that if they keep this up, cold winter (and US midterms) will foil western resolve. Which might actually be true.

The small bridgehead south of Inhulets river has been around since May. That's hardly progress from Ukraine.

The bridge is inoperational, which gives Ukraine an opportunity, but damaging the bridge doesn't entirely cut off the Russian troops because they can be supplied with pontoon bridges and ferries (actually, Russia is using segments of a pontoon bridge as a ferry over the Dnieper). So it only constricts supplies, doesn't stop them. I have my doubts whether Ukraine has the capability to capitalize, before Russia can shift its focus from Donbas to Kherson.

I don't have a crystal ball how it'll go, but I think Kherson will determine whether Russia is going to have a total victory and conquer the entire South and maybe very large swathes east of Dnieper, or if it will have to settle for what it's got.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

UK MOD says that Ukrainian forces have likely established a bridgehead south of the Ingulets River, which forms the northern boundary of Russian-occupied territory.

Kherson's Antonivskiy Bridge although it’s still standing is now “completely unusable” after damage from the rocket attacks.

Russia’s 49th Army stationed on the west bank of the Dnipro river “now looks highly vulnerable” and that the city of Kherson is now cut off from the rest of the territory controlled by Moscow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/busi...ost_type=share

I don't think overly optimistic estimations like this are serving Ukraine well. It makes us think the war is going fine for Ukraine, which it clearly isn't.

Odd, because the fact "the war" is still going on is definitely a great sign for Ukraine. Almost as much as it is a bad sign.

They need more weapons, faster, more training of troops, and not be withheld some weapons like ATACMS. At least the west, and USA in particular, should send a message that weapon transfers will only increase and Russia cannot win in the end. Right now the slow trickle of weaponry makes Russia think that if they keep this up, cold winter (and US midterms) will foil western resolve. Which might actually be true.

To be determined. I think that we've managed to keep to the support this long is a decent sign things are going to continue status quo, especially from the US, because if the US loves anything... it is giving money to weapons contractors.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

UK MOD says that Ukrainian forces have likely established a bridgehead south of the Ingulets River, which forms the northern boundary of Russian-occupied territory.

Kherson's Antonivskiy Bridge although it’s still standing is now “completely unusable” after damage from the rocket attacks.

Russia’s 49th Army stationed on the west bank of the Dnipro river “now looks highly vulnerable” and that the city of Kherson is now cut off from the rest of the territory controlled by Moscow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/busi...ost_type=share

I don't think overly optimistic estimations like this are serving Ukraine well. It makes us think the war is going fine for Ukraine, which it clearly isn't. They need more weapons, faster, more training of troops, and not be withheld some weapons like ATACMS. At least the west, and USA in particular, should send a message that weapon transfers will only increase and Russia cannot win in the end. Right now the slow trickle of weaponry makes Russia think that if they keep this up, cold winter (and US midterms) will foil western resolve. Which might actually be true.

The small bridgehead south of Inhulets river has been around since May. That's hardly progress from Ukraine.

Being able to hold a bridgehead across a river is important--it means the barrier is no longer a substantial barrier.

The bridge is inoperational, which gives Ukraine an opportunity, but damaging the bridge doesn't entirely cut off the Russian troops because they can be supplied with pontoon bridges and ferries (actually, Russia is using segments of a pontoon bridge as a ferry over the Dnieper). So it only constricts supplies, doesn't stop them. I have my doubts whether Ukraine has the capability to capitalize, before Russia can shift its focus from Donbas to Kherson.

I don't have a crystal ball how it'll go, but I think Kherson will determine whether Russia is going to have a total victory and conquer the entire South and maybe very large swathes east of Dnieper, or if it will have to settle for what it's got.

Remember that Ukraine now has high precision long range artillery--that makes pontoon bridges and the like very risky.

 

[Jayjay]

UK MOD says that Ukrainian forces have likely established a bridgehead south of the Ingulets River, which forms the northern boundary of Russian-occupied territory.

Kherson's Antonivskiy Bridge although it’s still standing is now “completely unusable” after damage from the rocket attacks.

Russia’s 49th Army stationed on the west bank of the Dnipro river “now looks highly vulnerable” and that the city of Kherson is now cut off from the rest of the territory controlled by Moscow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/busi...ost_type=share

I don't think overly optimistic estimations like this are serving Ukraine well. It makes us think the war is going fine for Ukraine, which it clearly isn't. They need more weapons, faster, more training of troops, and not be withheld some weapons like ATACMS. At least the west, and USA in particular, should send a message that weapon transfers will only increase and Russia cannot win in the end. Right now the slow trickle of weaponry makes Russia think that if they keep this up, cold winter (and US midterms) will foil western resolve. Which might actually be true.

The small bridgehead south of Inhulets river has been around since May. That's hardly progress from Ukraine.

Being able to hold a bridgehead across a river is important--it means the barrier is no longer a substantial barrier.

Sure, it could be worse. But the point is that there hasn't been much progress in last two months around that bridgehead (if it exists... it seems that some reports said it was destroyed, then it popped back again, so at least it sounds like it has been contested).

Ukraine doesn't have capability to conduct offensive maneuvers. Constricting Russian supply lines may help, but it remains to be seen if it's enough.

My reason for being doubtful is hardly scientific: I just browse twitter, and see much more videos of Russians hitting Ukrainian forces in Kherson than the opposite. This could be due to Russia just having more effective propaganda, and Ukraine having better opsec. But the opposite is true of Donbas, there is more evidence of Ukraine conducting successful strikes against Russian positions there.

The bridge is inoperational, which gives Ukraine an opportunity, but damaging the bridge doesn't entirely cut off the Russian troops because they can be supplied with pontoon bridges and ferries (actually, Russia is using segments of a pontoon bridge as a ferry over the Dnieper). So it only constricts supplies, doesn't stop them. I have my doubts whether Ukraine has the capability to capitalize, before Russia can shift its focus from Donbas to Kherson.

I don't have a crystal ball how it'll go, but I think Kherson will determine whether Russia is going to have a total victory and conquer the entire South and maybe very large swathes east of Dnieper, or if it will have to settle for what it's got.

Remember that Ukraine now has high precision long range artillery--that makes pontoon bridges and the like very risky.

These bridges are at the outer limits of artillery range (I'd say about 30 or 40 km from the frontline), and can be reached only with HIMARS or Tochka's. And lack of UAVs to correct artillery makes it even harder.

 

[Copernicus]

My reason for being doubtful is hardly scientific: I just browse twitter, and see much more videos of Russians hitting Ukrainian forces in Kherson than the opposite. This could be due to Russia just having more effective propaganda, and Ukraine having better opsec. But the opposite is true of Donbas, there is more evidence of Ukraine conducting successful strikes against Russian positions there.

That's the real problem. It is very hard for us to know what is going on just by browsing videos, tweets, and posts. The Western main news services are a somewhat more reliable source of information, since they have a professional need to get the facts right regardless of which side is winning. Right now, those sources are more optimistic about Ukraine's position than they have been in the past, but they actually predicted that Russia would be running out of steam about now and trying to regroup. OTOH, the new weapons from the West (like our HIMARS) have been growing steadily in volume and can now project at greater range than was formally possible. So Ukraine has been weakening Russia's supply lines with them. If you go back a month or two, then, of course, Russia will seem to be in a much more dominant position. But Ukraine is expected to experience more military victories in the near future.

I do think that you are right about time being more on Russia's side. It is quite possible that one or both houses of Congress will seek to reduce US support for Ukraine, if they come under Republican control. Worse yet, the need for fuel in Europe to get through the winter will play a much stronger role in EU politics, and Putin is really banking on the idea that his energy blackmail will finally weaken political and military support for Ukraine.

 

[Harry Bosch]

UK MOD says that Ukrainian forces have likely established a bridgehead south of the Ingulets River, which forms the northern boundary of Russian-occupied territory.

Kherson's Antonivskiy Bridge although it’s still standing is now “completely unusable” after damage from the rocket attacks.

Russia’s 49th Army stationed on the west bank of the Dnipro river “now looks highly vulnerable” and that the city of Kherson is now cut off from the rest of the territory controlled by Moscow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/busi...ost_type=share

I don't think overly optimistic estimations like this are serving Ukraine well. It makes us think the war is going fine for Ukraine, which it clearly isn't. They need more weapons, faster, more training of troops, and not be withheld some weapons like ATACMS. At least the west, and USA in particular, should send a message that weapon transfers will only increase and Russia cannot win in the end. Right now the slow trickle of weaponry makes Russia think that if they keep this up, cold winter (and US midterms) will foil western resolve. Which might actually be true.

The small bridgehead south of Inhulets river has been around since May. That's hardly progress from Ukraine.

The bridge is inoperational, which gives Ukraine an opportunity, but damaging the bridge doesn't entirely cut off the Russian troops because they can be supplied with pontoon bridges and ferries (actually, Russia is using segments of a pontoon bridge as a ferry over the Dnieper). So it only constricts supplies, doesn't stop them. I have my doubts whether Ukraine has the capability to capitalize, before Russia can shift its focus from Donbas to Kherson.

I don't have a crystal ball how it'll go, but I think Kherson will determine whether Russia is going to have a total victory and conquer the entire South and maybe very large swathes east of Dnieper, or if it will have to settle for what it's got.

I probably am too optimistic about this war. But I feel the momentum shifting towards Ukraine. And I don't think that time is Russia's side. The time is on Russia's side is repeated because Putler is willing to allow his citizens to suffer more than the western politicians would. But the Ukrainians really have no choice. But the sanctions are creating problems for Russia. And the shut off of gas will hurt Russia more long term than Europe:

'Complete standstill:' Sanctions leave Russia facing 'economic oblivion'

 

[Jayjay]

Russia is planning to have a fake referendum to annex to territories in Russia on September 11th. After that, it will argue that attacks on occupied territories are attacks against Russia. The purpose of the circus is to make a domestic justification for using nukes or mobilization. Even if no other country recognizes the annexation, it will raise the bar considerably. And even if there wasn't a referendum, the purges and forced Russification of the occupied territories are effective. Already Ukrainian currency is forbidden, schools are forced to teach children only in Russian and according to Russian curriculum, and police forces are replaced by people brought from Russia.

So Ukraine has about 6 weeks to start making some gains. Even if the momentum may be shifting slowly, that's a difficult task.

 

[ZiprHead]

Institute for the Study of War

Russian forces appear able to sustain only two significant offensive operations in Ukraine at this time, one attempting to seize Siversk and the other advancing on Bakhmut. These operations have focused on advances in the Siversk, Donetsk Oblast,

www.understandingwar.org

Ukrainians in occupied territories are refusing to collaborate with Russian occupation officials en masse, forcing the Kremlin to import Russian citizens to fulfill basic tasks. Russian officials continue to struggle to procure enough labor to reopen businesses, clear rubble, or establish occupation bureaucracies in occupied Ukrainian territory. The Ukrainian Resistance Center reported on July 26 that the three branches of the Russian Promsvyazbank failed to open as expected in Kherson Oblast because insufficient numbers of Ukrainian civilians agreed to work there—Promsvyazbank and other financial institutions are key to the Kremlin’s plans to replace the hryvnia with the ruble in occupied Ukrainian territories. . . . The Ukrainian Resistance Center also reported that Russian authorities have insufficient medical personnel in Luhansk Oblast because locals refuse to cooperate, forcing the Kremlin to import Russian doctors from Novosibirsk and Volgograd on a rotational basis.

Russian occupation officials are likely leveraging food aid and other humanitarian assistance to force occupied populations to cooperate with and work for Russian occupiers. The Mariupol City Council announced on July 27 that Russian forces stopped providing humanitarian assistance to Mariupol residents to force residents to demine and clear rubble on behalf of the occupation administration in exchange for food, as ISW forecasted in June. [notes omitted]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jayjay]

If you're going to commit war crimes, don't wear a distinctive hat.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Yea, the Russian soldiers are Basterds. There is a reason why all of Europe has united against Russia, they don't want these fuckers in their country. There is also a growing movement to ban Russian citizens from vacationing in Europe (Finland started it). Russian citizens shouldn't be able go on vacation while they countrymen are torturing and killing people in Ukraine. The Ukrainians get not vacation.

Finland debating stop to tourist visas for Russian citizens

Other neighbouring Schengen zone countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have already restricted visas

www.theguardian.com

 

[Copernicus]

...
Yea, the Russian soldiers are Basterds. There is a reason why all of Europe has united against Russia, they don't want these fuckers in their country. There is also a growing movement to ban Russian citizens from vacationing in Europe (Finland started it). Russian citizens shouldn't be able go on vacation while they countrymen are torturing and killing people in Ukraine. The Ukrainians get not vacation.

Finland debating stop to tourist visas for Russian citizens

Other neighbouring Schengen zone countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have already restricted visas

www.theguardian.com

I'm not happy with vilifying Russians in general for what is happening in Ukraine. The Russian military allows more unrestrained brutality against populations that it invades and occupies, but it is a mistake to think that ordinary Russians ought to be able to restrain their government. I believe that military organizations in most countries would engage in similar atrocities, if they got involved in a war run by ultranationalist fanatics. (Of course, Nazi Germany comes to mind thanks to Godwin.) Pretty much nobody but Putin and his jingoistic cronies wanted this war with Ukraine. It took most Russians by surprise, just as it did most of those outside of Russia.

That said, it does seem bizarre that ordinary Russian citizens should be allowed to vacation outside of Russia while the aggression continues. Given the restrictions on currency exchanges, I'm not sure that many Russians can leave the country anyway, except if they plan to simply defect to the West and use a tourist visa as an excuse to get away. Russian spies can certainly use those tourist visas to infiltrate the West, and they can get their hands on Western currencies for their missions. That would seem to be a more serious threat to the Western allies of Ukraine than just vacationing Russians.

 

[Harry Bosch]

...
Yea, the Russian soldiers are Basterds. There is a reason why all of Europe has united against Russia, they don't want these fuckers in their country. There is also a growing movement to ban Russian citizens from vacationing in Europe (Finland started it). Russian citizens shouldn't be able go on vacation while they countrymen are torturing and killing people in Ukraine. The Ukrainians get not vacation.

Finland debating stop to tourist visas for Russian citizens

Other neighbouring Schengen zone countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have already restricted visas

www.theguardian.com

I'm not happy with vilifying Russians in general for what is happening in Ukraine. The Russian military allows more unrestrained brutality against populations that it invades and occupies, but it is a mistake to think that ordinary Russians ought to be able to restrain their government. I believe that military organizations in most countries would engage in similar atrocities, if they got involved in a war run by ultranationalist fanatics. (Of course, Nazi Germany comes to mind thanks to Godwin.) Pretty much nobody but Putin and his jingoistic cronies wanted this war with Ukraine. It took most Russians by surprise, just as it did most of those outside of Russia.

That said, it does seem bizarre that ordinary Russian citizens should be allowed to vacation outside of Russia while the aggression continues. Given the restrictions on currency exchanges, I'm not sure that many Russians can leave the country anyway, except if they plan to simply defect to the West and use a tourist visa as an excuse to get away. Russian spies can certainly use those tourist visas to infiltrate the West, and they can get their hands on Western currencies for their missions. That would seem to be a more serious threat to the Western allies of Ukraine than just vacationing Russians.

I like your post. I agree. I don't want to blame the Russian civilians. However, it's wrong that they are allowed to live these great lives of luxury and travel while their sons are committing such terror in another country. But you express this better than how I say it.

 

[Jayjay]

That said, it does seem bizarre that ordinary Russian citizens should be allowed to vacation outside of Russia while the aggression continues. Given the restrictions on currency exchanges, I'm not sure that many Russians can leave the country anyway, except if they plan to simply defect to the West and use a tourist visa as an excuse to get away. Russian spies can certainly use those tourist visas to infiltrate the West, and they can get their hands on Western currencies for their missions. That would seem to be a more serious threat to the Western allies of Ukraine than just vacationing Russians.

Also, the "tourists" can easily get access to sanctioned technology that could be used for military purposes. Commercial consumer drones for example are being used by both sides, either as-is or slightly modified. This is probably not a huge problem, but a problem nevertheless.

One suggestion I've heard is that tourist visas would be allowed, but during the process the applicants would have to answer questions like "Do you support Russia's war on Ukraine?" or be shown material from Russia's atrocities in Bucha for example. And there's no reason to stop after the war. When traveling from Europe to America, I still have to check a box to affirm I'm not a WW2-era war criminal. Same logic could apply here.

 

[Copernicus]

...
One suggestion I've heard is that tourist visas would be allowed, but during the process the applicants would have to answer questions like "Do you support Russia's war on Ukraine?" or be shown material from Russia's atrocities in Bucha for example. And there's no reason to stop after the war. When traveling from Europe to America, I still have to check a box to affirm I'm not a WW2-era war criminal. Same logic could apply here.

Apparently, some officials cannot imagine a WW2-era war criminal lying about such a thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When traveling from Europe to America, I still have to check a box to affirm I'm not a WW2-era war criminal. Same logic could apply here.

That question exists to make it easy to deport Nazis when identified. It's not expected anyone is going to admit to being a Nazi war criminal, but lying on the paperwork is an open and shut case, no issue of having to prove whether their conduct was bad enough to warrant deportation.

 

[Copernicus]

When traveling from Europe to America, I still have to check a box to affirm I'm not a WW2-era war criminal. Same logic could apply here.

That question exists to make it easy to deport Nazis when identified. It's not expected anyone is going to admit to being a Nazi war criminal, but lying on the paperwork is an open and shut case, no issue of having to prove whether their conduct was bad enough to warrant deportation.

Maybe that was the original idea decades ago, when there were more Nazi war criminals trying to sneak into the US undetected. The reality is that anyone suspected of being a war criminal is entitled to full due process. The government has to prove that they actually committed the crime.

Asking Russians whether they supported the invasion of Ukraine and showing them pictures of atrocities strikes me as even sillier--just an obvious attempt to harass people.

 

[bilby]

When traveling from Europe to America, I still have to check a box to affirm I'm not a WW2-era war criminal. Same logic could apply here.

Yeah, I remember having to make that declaration, and seriously considered ticking "yes", just to see what happened (I was born twenty five years after the dates listed in the question), but then I remembered that border guards don't have the slightest sense of humour.