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

[Jayjay]

Has Russia's carpet bombing of Ukraine been halted?

So this is to be the month of Russia's undoing. The month where Russia runs so low on hardware, they just can't fight the conventional fight much longer. I read they are putting together more and more poor impoverished "volunteers" with promises of good pay. But do they have anything to put in their hands to fight with?
Also the linked story has some heartening anecdotes of partisan fighting going on deep in the Russian occupied areas. So, if this collapses, it may just collapse in a big hurry. Maybe not Afghan Army fast, but fast.
That is if Putin is willing to take a conventional loss and go home. Any bets on if he plays dirtier?

The imminent collapse of Russian forces has been predicted since March. Hasn't happened yet.

I think the only real metric of progress is the front line, and which way it's moving. And right now Russia is still inching forward in the east (although with some setbacks elsewhere). I think Putin is not going to escalate unless Ukraine can actually start gaining ground. Russia hasn't declared war and started mobilization yet because it thinks it can win the war without it; which tells that Russia, at least in its own opinion, doesn't think it's losing.

 

[Copernicus]

The imminent collapse of Russian forces has been predicted since March. Hasn't happened yet.

I don't think I've come across any of those predictions yet. The ones I've seen are just that Russia is exhausting its weaponry and human cannon fodder. So they've been predicting a pause in the fighting while Russia goes looking for fresh supplies and cannon fodder. Iran is being very helpful now, and there is a recruitment drive in rural areas, where the population is more conservative and gullible. Chechnya and Georgia were successes for him. Ukraine is worse than Afghanistan was for his predecessors.

I think the only real metric of progress is the front line, and which way it's moving. And right now Russia is still inching forward in the east (although with some setbacks elsewhere). I think Putin is not going to escalate unless Ukraine can actually start gaining ground. Russia hasn't declared war and started mobilization yet because it thinks it can win the war without it; which tells that Russia, at least in its own opinion, doesn't think it's losing.

Not necessarily. It could just tell us that Putin doesn't want to risk the public reaction to a full scale mobilization yet. He is desperate, but not that desperate. He still seems to have no exit strategy. He took a big gamble in February, but nothing went according to plan.

 

[Patooka]

The imminent collapse of Russian forces has been predicted since March. Hasn't happened yet.

The same was said about Ukraine at the start. But I suspect that's more indicative of how people watch news. Generally speaking, people want to be informed right now and they what the situation they are being informed about resolved right now. And it is that sort of impatience that is motivation such assertions like Russia is on the verge of collapse.

I think the only real metric of progress is the front line, and which way it's moving. And right now Russia is still inching forward in the east (although with some setbacks elsewhere). I think Putin is not going to escalate unless Ukraine can actually start gaining ground. Russia hasn't declared war and started mobilization yet because it thinks it can win the war without it; which tells that Russia, at least in its own opinion, doesn't think it's losing.

I think it's better to say that the thing that will determine the outcome of this conflict hasn't happened yet. And whilst I don't claim to understand Putin's mentality, it wouldn't surprise me if Putin is reluctant to declare war on Ukraine. He was wrong about the state of readiness of the Russian military, the Ukrainian military and how much the Fifth Service compromised Ukrainian politicians prior to the invasion. Openly declaring war would lead to more unanticipated consequences and historically speaking, fascist dictators are allergic to uncertainty.

 

[Jayjay]

I think it's better to say that the thing that will determine the outcome of this conflict hasn't happened yet. And whilst I don't claim to understand Putin's mentality, it wouldn't surprise me if Putin is reluctant to declare war on Ukraine. He was wrong about the state of readiness of the Russian military, the Ukrainian military and how much the Fifth Service compromised Ukrainian politicians prior to the invasion. Openly declaring war would lead to more unanticipated consequences and historically speaking, fascist dictators are allergic to uncertainty.

Everyone knows that there is already a war. A formal declaration would change anything in terms in international relations, but it would enable some legal avenues for Russian state: namely, to mobilize reservists, send conscripts to fight, and impose martial law. Instead of taking this route, Putin seems to have opted for "covert mobilization" by relaxing requirements for people to join the army, signing separate laws that restrict anti-war protesters and force people to work in weapons manufacturing industries, setting up mandatory volunteer troop quotas for different regions, and very aggressively recruiting new conscripts to sign up as contract soldiers. By taking the country to war bit by bit reduces the risk of people going against it... each step is so small by itself that people don't bother protesting.

Personally I think Putin is delaying the inevitable by not calling for full mobilization.

 

[Elixir]

Guessing we will find out who is most adept at arming and re-arming troops in the Ukraine region. Will it be NATO/Ukraine or will it be Pootey?
Russia’s main advantage is IMO that all the stuff getting wrecked isn’t theirs.

 

[ZiprHead]

Has Russia's carpet bombing of Ukraine been halted?

So this is to be the month of Russia's undoing. The month where Russia runs so low on hardware, they just can't fight the conventional fight much longer. I read they are putting together more and more poor impoverished "volunteers" with promises of good pay. But do they have anything to put in their hands to fight with?
Also the linked story has some heartening anecdotes of partisan fighting going on deep in the Russian occupied areas. So, if this collapses, it may just collapse in a big hurry. Maybe not Afghan Army fast, but fast.
That is if Putin is willing to take a conventional loss and go home. Any bets on if he plays dirtier?

Yup, lots of reports of those "new recruits" not being paid.

 

[Patooka]

Everyone knows that there is already a war. A formal declaration would change anything in terms in international relations, but it would enable some legal avenues for Russian state: namely, to mobilize reservists, send conscripts to fight, and impose martial law. Instead of taking this route, Putin seems to have opted for "covert mobilization" by relaxing requirements for people to join the army, signing separate laws that restrict anti-war protesters and force people to work in weapons manufacturing industries, setting up mandatory volunteer troop quotas for different regions, and very aggressively recruiting new conscripts to sign up as contract soldiers.

And if the rest of Russia's military is as hollowed out as this "Special Military Operation", its standing amongst the rest of the world as a near peer superpower will forever be gone. I don't see Putin making that move unless he is completely certain the outcome is what he wants. Considering Uncle Vlad is putting so many intel guys into Lefortevo Prison, I don't know where he is going to get that certainty.

By taking the country to war bit by bit reduces the risk of people going against it... each step is so small by itself that people don't bother protesting.

I get the "slow boil" strategy, but I seriously doubt the is a single person alive who is still on the fence in regards to this conflict. I mean barbos is actively endorsing genocide towards Ukraine and nobody on the West is buying into Putin's bullshit. But Putin declaring war might light a fire under Europe's feet with regards to support.

 

[bilby]

Has Russia's carpet bombing of Ukraine been halted?

So this is to be the month of Russia's undoing. The month where Russia runs so low on hardware, they just can't fight the conventional fight much longer. I read they are putting together more and more poor impoverished "volunteers" with promises of good pay. But do they have anything to put in their hands to fight with?
Also the linked story has some heartening anecdotes of partisan fighting going on deep in the Russian occupied areas. So, if this collapses, it may just collapse in a big hurry. Maybe not Afghan Army fast, but fast.
That is if Putin is willing to take a conventional loss and go home. Any bets on if he plays dirtier?

Yup, lots of reports of those "new recruits" not being paid.

Historically, training lots of people to fight, providing them with weapons and ammunition, and then not paying them, has been a very good way to get yourself deposed and executed by an angry mob of revolutionaries.

Putin should certainly be aware of this, but it's a common trait amongst authoritarian dictators to believe that the people love you and would never turn against you. Of course, occasionally it's even true.

I rather doubt that it's true of Putin's Russia though.

 

[Jayjay]

Everyone knows that there is already a war. A formal declaration would change anything in terms in international relations, but it would enable some legal avenues for Russian state: namely, to mobilize reservists, send conscripts to fight, and impose martial law. Instead of taking this route, Putin seems to have opted for "covert mobilization" by relaxing requirements for people to join the army, signing separate laws that restrict anti-war protesters and force people to work in weapons manufacturing industries, setting up mandatory volunteer troop quotas for different regions, and very aggressively recruiting new conscripts to sign up as contract soldiers.

And if the rest of Russia's military is as hollowed out as this "Special Military Operation", its standing amongst the rest of the world as a near peer superpower will forever be gone. I don't see Putin making that move unless he is completely certain the outcome is what he wants. Considering Uncle Vlad is putting so many intel guys into Lefortevo Prison, I don't know where he is going to get that certainty.

There is no "rest of Russia's military" on standby that would somehow restore Russia's standing as a super power. Mobilization would fix Russia's manpower deficit, but it wouldn't erase the failures we've seen so far. There is just no way that Russia could fuck up worse than it already has. The real risk is internal: as long as the cannon fodder comes from poor countryside, it's all good, but he doesn't want the "real Russians" in Moscow or St. Petersburg to start doubting his leadership by sending their children to war.

By taking the country to war bit by bit reduces the risk of people going against it... each step is so small by itself that people don't bother protesting.

I get the "slow boil" strategy, but I seriously doubt the is a single person alive who is still on the fence in regards to this conflict. I mean barbos is actively endorsing genocide towards Ukraine and nobody on the West is buying into Putin's bullshit. But Putin declaring war might light a fire under Europe's feet with regards to support.

I think Europe already thinks it's a war. Russia's "special military operation" rhetoric is a joke.

 

[ZiprHead]

russian terrorists declare that they plan to detonate bombs on the nuclear reactors. This is the largest nuclear power plant in Europe and among the 10 largest in the world

(Translation)
"There will be either Russian land - or a scorched desert - Major General Vasiliev, commander of the ZAES garrison,
Head of the Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection Troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The commander of the garrison of the liberated Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, Major General Valery Vasiliev. he spoke to the soldiers. We give a fragment of an appeal to the garrison. As a response to the panic produced by Western-funded international organizations such as the IAEA.
You all understand that there is a war going on for the right of existence of the Russian people. For our right to live in peace and harmony with everyone. But if the collective West denies us this right, if American weapons. mercenaries and instructors will be used to seize territories that we have already been able to liberate • we are ready for a variety of scenarios.
This station was built by Russian people for all Slavic brothers, now the Nazis have decided to decommunize our common past. Russian Russian free land• or a scorched desert will be here, and you, the soldiers of the great Russian army, must be ready to carry out an important order.
As you know, we have mined all the important facilities of the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. And we do not hide this from the enemy, we warned them. The enemy knows that the station will be either Russian or a draw. We are ready for the consequences of this step.
And you, the liberating warriors, must understand that we have no other way. And if there is the toughest order, we must fulfill it with honor!""

You can translate the tweet on Twitter.

 

[TomC]

"Troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The commander of the garrison of the liberated Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, Major General Valery Vasiliev. he spoke to the soldiers. We give a fragment of an appeal to the garrison. As a response to the panic produced by Western-funded international organizations such as the IAEA.
You all understand that there is a war going on "

And there are still people who believe that nuclear power is safe.

Tom

 

[Rhea]

Holy shit.

He is declaring that Russia is willing to kill everyone in the area. They mined the plant?

Where are all those conservative voices that decry “hiding among civilians”???

 

[bilby]

"Troops of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. The commander of the garrison of the liberated Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, Major General Valery Vasiliev. he spoke to the soldiers. We give a fragment of an appeal to the garrison. As a response to the panic produced by Western-funded international organizations such as the IAEA.
You all understand that there is a war going on "

And there are still people who believe that nuclear power is safe.

Tom

It is. If they succeed in blowing the plant to smithereens (a difficult task, because nuclear plants are built of thick reinforced concrete, like a bomb shelter is), the death toll could be in the dozens, maybe even hundreds, if they prevent any medical or engineering intervention to protect the local population.

That's utterly trivial in the context of the war currently in progress. Russian war crimes far worse than this have already occurred.

The threat is pure terrorism - that is, it depends entirely on fear for its effectiveness, because it's not actually possible for it to do anywhere near the amount of damage that people imagine it could.

It's a power plant, not an atom bomb.

The big threat here is economic. It's an expensive and valuable bit of Ukraine's national infrastructure, and threatening to destroy it is a crime in itself.

 

[Jayjay]

Crimea needs water from the reservoir that's right next to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. I don't think Russia will blow it up, because that would poison their own water supply. But they will continue to use it as a shield for troops, ammunition, and artillery.

Unless Putin thinks he can't convince Ukraine to give them the water anyway, or keep Crimea at all, in which case all bets are off.

 

[Copernicus]

What happens at that plant is under the control of local forces occupying it. If someone is crazy enough to set off bombs in the plant, the consequences for Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and other nations could be dire, just as they were for Chernobyl. A nuclear meltdown would be a possibility, and the fallout could be carried over a large area, as it was in 1986. Zaporizhzhia is the largest nuclear power facility in Europe. I can believe the Ukrainian claim that Russia is deliberately using the plant to shield storage of weapons from targeting by Ukraine.

See: The True Cost of the Chernobyl Disaster Has Been Greater Than It Seems

 

[bilby]

A nuclear meltdown would be a possibility,

Only if the reactors are currently running, or have only recently been shut down. I suspect that they were shut down months ago, before the Russians arrived, but it's possible that they're still running l guess, if the Russians have been able to get anyone to operate them.

and the fallout could be carried over a large area, as it was in 1986

And, as in 1986, could cause enormous angst and fear, but zero detectable injuries or deaths.

 

[Jayjay]

A nuclear meltdown would be a possibility,

Only if the reactors are currently running, or have only recently been shut down. I suspect that they were shut down months ago, before the Russians arrived, but it's possible that they're still running l guess, if the Russians have been able to get anyone to operate them.

The plant is still running. It was captured in a pretty early phase of the war. My understanding is that at least some of the original staff is still working at the plant, but I suspect Russia has brought its own people in also.

 

[Copernicus]

A nuclear meltdown would be a possibility,

Only if the reactors are currently running, or have only recently been shut down. I suspect that they were shut down months ago, before the Russians arrived, but it's possible that they're still running l guess, if the Russians have been able to get anyone to operate them.

As with Chernobyl, the Russian occupiers kept Ukrainian personnel onsite to operate the plant and presumably keep it safe.

and the fallout could be carried over a large area, as it was in 1986

And, as in 1986, could cause enormous angst and fear, but zero detectable injuries or deaths.

I thought that you might try to minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, so I posted the following link from time.com:

The True Cost of the Chernobyl Disaster Has Been Greater Than It Seems​

You cut that from your reply to my post, and I'm guessing that you didn't bother to read it, claiming here that there were "zero detectable injuries or deaths". In fact, the Times article states:

In terms of direct deaths attributable to the accident, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster turned out to be anything but a highly destructive force. Whereas the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed close to 200,000 immediate victims — more than 100,000 killed and the rest injured — the Chernobyl explosion caused 2 immediate deaths and 29 deaths from acute radiation sickness in the course of the next three months. Altogether, 237 people were airlifted from Chernobyl to Moscow and treated in the special clinic there. Out of these, 134 showed symptoms of acute radiation syndrome. It has been claimed that a total of 50 people died of acute radiation syndrome, and that 4,000 may die in the future of radiation-related causes. But the ultimate Chernobyl mortality toll, though difficult to estimate, may yet turn out to be significantly higher. Current estimates place it between the 4,000 deaths estimated by United Nations agencies in 2005 and the 90,000 suggested by Greenpeace International.

So the detectable deaths and injuries at the time were not zero, and the actual count is not really known. There is much more in the article about the extent of the disaster, and you may well disagree with a lot of it. However, I do think it's ridiculous to claim that there were no detectable deaths and injuries from that very widespread and well-publicized disaster. There are even reports of radiation sickness in Russian soldiers that had recently occupied Chernobyl and dug trenches in contaminated soil.

 

[bilby]

A nuclear meltdown would be a possibility,

Only if the reactors are currently running, or have only recently been shut down. I suspect that they were shut down months ago, before the Russians arrived, but it's possible that they're still running l guess, if the Russians have been able to get anyone to operate them.

As with Chernobyl, the Russian occupiers kept Ukrainian personnel onsite to operate the plant and presumably keep it safe.

and the fallout could be carried over a large area, as it was in 1986

And, as in 1986, could cause enormous angst and fear, but zero detectable injuries or deaths.

I thought that you might try to minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, so I posted the following link from time.com:

The True Cost of the Chernobyl Disaster Has Been Greater Than It Seems​

You cut that from your reply to my post, and I'm guessing that you didn't bother to read it, claiming here that there were "zero detectable injuries or deaths". In fact, the Times article states:

In terms of direct deaths attributable to the accident, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster turned out to be anything but a highly destructive force. Whereas the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki claimed close to 200,000 immediate victims — more than 100,000 killed and the rest injured — the Chernobyl explosion caused 2 immediate deaths and 29 deaths from acute radiation sickness in the course of the next three months. Altogether, 237 people were airlifted from Chernobyl to Moscow and treated in the special clinic there. Out of these, 134 showed symptoms of acute radiation syndrome. It has been claimed that a total of 50 people died of acute radiation syndrome, and that 4,000 may die in the future of radiation-related causes. But the ultimate Chernobyl mortality toll, though difficult to estimate, may yet turn out to be significantly higher. Current estimates place it between the 4,000 deaths estimated by United Nations agencies in 2005 and the 90,000 suggested by Greenpeace International.

So the detectable deaths and injuries at the time were not zero, and the actual count is not really known. There is much more in the article about the extent of the disaster, and you may well disagree with a lot of it. However, I do think it's ridiculous to claim that there were no detectable deaths and injuries from that very widespread and well-publicized disaster. There are even reports of radiation sickness in Russian soldiers that had recently occupied Chernobyl and dug trenches in contaminated soil.

I wasn't suggesting that the total deaths at Chernobyl were zero; Just that the "fallout over a wide area" caused zero detectable deaths - all if the detectable deaths were highly localised, most of them amongst people who were at the power plant itself, either as staff or as part of the firefighting effort.

The fallout was detected across most of Europe, but caused no health effects outside Ukraine and Belarus.

Estimates of thousands of deaths are absurd, and tens of thousands simply impossible. If Greenpeace were anywhere close to being right, it would be starkly obvious in the medical records across Europe.

Anything can be terrifying if you accept completely fictitious casualty estimates.

 

[Copernicus]

I wasn't suggesting that the total deaths at Chernobyl were zero; Just that the "fallout over a wide area" caused zero detectable deaths - all if the detectable deaths were highly localised, most of them amongst people who were at the power plant itself, either as staff or as part of the firefighting effort.

The fallout was detected across most of Europe, but caused no health effects outside Ukraine and Belarus.

Estimates of thousands of deaths are absurd, and tens of thousands simply impossible. If Greenpeace were anywhere close to being right, it would be starkly obvious in the medical records across Europe.

Anything can be terrifying if you accept completely fictitious casualty estimates.

But nobody has claimed that radiation sickness usually causes immediate deaths, nor are many people really taking the Greenpeace estimate of 90,000 deaths seriously. Nor should anyone take seriously your claim that it caused no health effects outside of Ukraine and Belarus. The nature of those health effects makes it nearly impossible to prove direct links to fallout from the disaster, and defenders of nuclear power have always relied on the lack of provable effects as proof of lack. However, the map of detectable cesium-137 deposits, which had a 30 year half-life, in Europe looked like this by May 10, 1986:

So, as the Time article pointed out, the true cost of the Chernobyl disaster is worse than it looked. Ultimately, close to 7 million people received some form of compensation as a result of the disaster, including the 19,000 families just in Ukraine that "were receiving government assistance owing to the loss of a breadwinner whose death was deemed to be related to the Chernobyl accident". It is fair to say that most of the detectable damage was localized to just Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia, but it is far from certain that catastrophic damage from one or more of the six Zaporizhzhiya reactors will be as limited Chernobyl was. Chernobyl was never deliberately bombed. All of the deaths and illnesses were from just getting a meltdown under control.