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

[steve_bank]

It is building up to the showdown NATO was created for.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea.

NATO is not likely to invade Russia. I think at some point NATO has to get involved directly. Breking a wheat naval blockade.

A report I heard is Europe is prepared for a winter without Russian energy. A minister from Finland says they reduced demand by around 7% just with simple measures like lowering thermostats.

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah but in your scenario the proverbial cork would be gone, and Ukraine would have liberated the city.

No, in my scenario, it happens AS Ukraine TRIES to liberate the city, at the climax of the military action to take it, as Ukraine goes as all-in on the assault as they will be.

That's when Russia will be planning on using a nuke.

I don't think there will be an "all-out attack". If Russia doubles down, it'll be block-by-block urban warfare (like in Severodonetsk for example), and that makes it hard to use nukes anyway because there would be many Russian troops still in the city.

If Russia withdraws, which it will likely try to do orderly when the writing is on the wall, then it doesn't take a massive concentration of Ukrainian infrantry to be in the city at the same time.

 

[lpetrich]

Following the progress of the war. Ukraine is moving in on Svatove in the NE and Kherson in the S, but it's slow going.

Ukraine Situation Report: Gaining Ground In Kherson

After an appeal for help by the Russian-installed head of the Kherson Oblast, Moscow says it will evacuate residents there, a sign that Ukraine is gaining ground in its southern counteroffensive.

Russia to evacuate Kherson residents as Ukraine advances - Washington Times

In the Kherson region, while fleeing from the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Russians abandoned entire arsenals of their weapons (photo)

Among the discovered – more than half a thousand artillery shells and ammunition for the Grad and Uragan MLRS, as well as more than a hundred anti-tank guided missiles and anti-tank mines.

 

[Jayjay]

It is building up to the showdown NATO was created for.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine and Crimea.

NATO is not likely to invade Russia. I think at some point NATO has to get involved directly. Breking a wheat naval blockade.

A report I heard is Europe is prepared for a winter without Russian energy. A minister from Finland says they reduced demand by around 7% just with simple measures like lowering thermostats.

Finland isn't going to have any problems.

The real troubles are going to happen in Germany and Italy that are heavily dependent on natural gas for heating and energy. Italy just elected a right-wing populist (some would say neo-fascist) government and was one of the main importers of Russian gas. And of course, the main question mark is what republican party is going to do after the midterms if they win the congress and Trump starts campaigning.

I think Putin is counting on a political victory. If NATO and the US stop supporting Ukraine, Russia can win the war conventionally. And there isn't going to be any showdown with NATO, just another frozen conflict.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah but in your scenario the proverbial cork would be gone, and Ukraine would have liberated the city.

No, in my scenario, it happens AS Ukraine TRIES to liberate the city, at the climax of the military action to take it, as Ukraine goes as all-in on the assault as they will be.

That's when Russia will be planning on using a nuke.

I don't think there will be an "all-out attack". If Russia doubles down, it'll be block-by-block urban warfare (like in Severodonetsk for example), and that makes it hard to use nukes anyway because there would be many Russian troops still in the city.

If Russia withdraws, which it will likely try to do orderly when the writing is on the wall, then it doesn't take a massive concentration of Ukrainian infrantry to be in the city at the same time.

That's the thing. Putin WANTS the protestors to be killed in the "defense" of Kherson. They won't withdraw at all, wonlr be given an opportunity to.

Putin plans on murdering ("martyring") its own citizens who protested his war.

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah but in your scenario the proverbial cork would be gone, and Ukraine would have liberated the city.

No, in my scenario, it happens AS Ukraine TRIES to liberate the city, at the climax of the military action to take it, as Ukraine goes as all-in on the assault as they will be.

That's when Russia will be planning on using a nuke.

I don't think there will be an "all-out attack". If Russia doubles down, it'll be block-by-block urban warfare (like in Severodonetsk for example), and that makes it hard to use nukes anyway because there would be many Russian troops still in the city.

If Russia withdraws, which it will likely try to do orderly when the writing is on the wall, then it doesn't take a massive concentration of Ukrainian infrantry to be in the city at the same time.

That's the thing. Putin WANTS the protestors to be killed in the "defense" of Kherson. They won't withdraw at all, wonlr be given an opportunity to.

What "protestors"? If there are a few anti-war folks who were mobilized to make an example out of them, it's not like they're in one battalion or unit. They're dispersed on all fronts.

Putin plans on murdering ("martyring") its own citizens who protested his war.

And that's the inane conspiracy theory part. Just sending them to the war is enough and likely to martyr them anyway. He doesn't need a nuclear weapon to do so.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yeah but in your scenario the proverbial cork would be gone, and Ukraine would have liberated the city.

No, in my scenario, it happens AS Ukraine TRIES to liberate the city, at the climax of the military action to take it, as Ukraine goes as all-in on the assault as they will be.

That's when Russia will be planning on using a nuke.

I don't think there will be an "all-out attack". If Russia doubles down, it'll be block-by-block urban warfare (like in Severodonetsk for example), and that makes it hard to use nukes anyway because there would be many Russian troops still in the city.

If Russia withdraws, which it will likely try to do orderly when the writing is on the wall, then it doesn't take a massive concentration of Ukrainian infrantry to be in the city at the same time.

That's the thing. Putin WANTS the protestors to be killed in the "defense" of Kherson. They won't withdraw at all, wonlr be given an opportunity to.

What "protestors"? If there are a few anti-war folks who were mobilized to make an example out of them, it's not like they're in one battalion or unit. They're dispersed on all fronts.

Yours is a statement made with zero justification or evidence.

It's entirely possible to earmark soldiers in a conscription drive (especially from border conscriptions) for various duties.

Putin plans on murdering ("martyring") its own citizens who protested his war.

And that's the inane conspiracy theory part. Just sending them to the war is enough and likely to martyr them anyway. He doesn't need a nuclear weapon to do so.

He's assassinating billionaires for protesting, and you think he won't do the same to normal citizens. That's cute but stupid.

 

[Jayjay]

Yeah but in your scenario the proverbial cork would be gone, and Ukraine would have liberated the city.

No, in my scenario, it happens AS Ukraine TRIES to liberate the city, at the climax of the military action to take it, as Ukraine goes as all-in on the assault as they will be.

That's when Russia will be planning on using a nuke.

I don't think there will be an "all-out attack". If Russia doubles down, it'll be block-by-block urban warfare (like in Severodonetsk for example), and that makes it hard to use nukes anyway because there would be many Russian troops still in the city.

If Russia withdraws, which it will likely try to do orderly when the writing is on the wall, then it doesn't take a massive concentration of Ukrainian infrantry to be in the city at the same time.

That's the thing. Putin WANTS the protestors to be killed in the "defense" of Kherson. They won't withdraw at all, wonlr be given an opportunity to.

What "protestors"? If there are a few anti-war folks who were mobilized to make an example out of them, it's not like they're in one battalion or unit. They're dispersed on all fronts.

Yours is a statement made with zero justification or evidence.

It's entirely possible to earmark soldiers in a conscription drive (especially from border conscriptions) for various duties.

But is that actually being done? I doubt there is any evidence to suggest so. At least I haven't heard about it. And the numbers would be very small. The idea of handing out mobilization papers to protestors isn't to send them all to the front, it's to scare them and other into not protesting. If we assume a couple of thousand arrests have been made (which I think would be a high ball estimate), half of them men, and counting out those who are ineligible to serve for one reason or another, that leaves at most a few hundred dissidents.

Furthermore, if you are mobilizing anti-war protestors, you wouldn't want them to concentrate in one unit and give them weapons. They'd be a liability because you know they opposed the war, and would be likely to conspire together to surrender or refuse to serve.

Putin plans on murdering ("martyring") its own citizens who protested his war.

And that's the inane conspiracy theory part. Just sending them to the war is enough and likely to martyr them anyway. He doesn't need a nuclear weapon to do so.

He's assassinating billionaires for protesting, and you think he won't do the same to normal citizens. That's cute but stupid.

How many billionaires were assassinated with nuclear weapons? Zero. It's an unnecessarily convoluted way to get rid of people.

(Unless you count polonium as a "nuclear weapon".)

 

[Copernicus]

It is impossible to predict what Putin will do, but it does seem unlikely that he will resort the use of a tactical nuclear weapon. His goal is to wear down support for Ukraine in the West, and it is far from clear that tactical nukes would help him do anything other than further unite the world against him. Turning large areas of Ukraine into a wasteland might get cheers from the rabid warmongers in his base of support, but it won't help with his current need to defend his gains and resupply his battered military. Russia is already having a great deal of difficulty finding the components needed to manufacture weapons that it has already lost.

For example:

Ukraine says it destroyed a "significant" amount of Russian weapons in strike against Luhansk region​

And those much-criticized sanctions do seem to be having an impact on the battlefield:

Western sanctions have hampered Russia’s ability to resupply its army, a U.S. report says.​

CNN exclusive: Top US official says Russia is burning through its high tech weapons in Ukraine:​

CNN exclusive: Top US official says Russia is burning through its high tech weapons in Ukraine​

From CNN's Kevin Liptak and Allie Malloy

Russia is desperately searching for ways around Western sanctions in order to resupply its military, a top US official said in an exclusive CNN interview on Friday. Meanwhile, Russia’s stockpiles of advanced weapons are rapidly dwindling in Ukraine and it can’t secure the parts to replace them.

Here’s what Wally Adeyemo, the deputy secretary of the US Treasury, told CNN’s Kevin Liptak:

• Russia’s equipment shortfalls are forcing Moscow’s battlefield decisions: “They have to make critical choices about what they can do on the battlefield because they don’t have the tanks they need, they don’t have the equipment they need to make helicopters, they don’t have the semiconductors they need to launch precision missiles into Ukraine.”
• Western sanctions have exacerbated problems for Russia’s troubled military: “Russia is running out of troops, they’re running out of ammunition. They’re running out of tanks and other materials.” The West’s sanctions and export controls “make it harder for them to reinforce their troops and to get the things they need,” he added.
• Moscow is using proxy companies and Russian elites to try to evade sanctions, but China isn’t much help: “China can’t provide Russia with what China doesn’t have. And China doesn’t produce the most advanced semiconductors. Those are produced by our allies and partners. So Russia is searching for these things. The reason they’re using their intelligence services and front companies to try and get them is because the countries they would naturally turn to don’t have them.”
  

More background: CNN reported earlier Friday that Western sanctions have sharply curtailed Russia’s ability to replenish the munitions it is using in Ukraine, according to a new analysis from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The details of the analysis were shared in a presentation with senior finance officials from nearly 30 nations Friday, who gathered at the Treasury Department for an update from Adeyemo, among other US officials.

 

[Jarhyn]

And the numbers would be very small

There was a 4 day lineup of cars at the border where they were conscripting every person they cared to.

It's an unnecessarily convoluted way to get rid of people.

It's an extremely effective way to make sure a bunch of people die. I have no doubt that the Germans in WW2, if they had discovered the bomb, would have first tested it on as many Jews as they could fit under the mushroom cloud.

Putin is growing more and more desperate, and the only card left in his deck is the bomb.

I would have, had he left the people of Kherson in their homes, expected him to not.

But against "a valid military target" he will show no such restraint.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ukraine Has a Plan to Win the War

All that is to say, the Russian field armies in and around the port of Kherson on Ukraine’s temporarily-occupied Black Sea coast are in trouble. They were struggling with resupply before the Ukrainians blew up the Kerch Bridge, twisting its twin rail lines and dropping one of its two road lanes. Now the struggle will get worse.

The Russian forces in Kherson are in for a hard time unless Poostain has an ace up his sleeve. His bridge is out of action until the middle of next year. I see that overtures to Belarus are in the news and it appears he is attempting to get Belarus into the fight. That will fail as Belarus has a very weak military and it would mean political turmoil for the current regime.

So for now all eyes are on Kherson it seems. Ukraine has the ability to target supply lines down their coast and I would think it was their plan all along knowing they would make Putin's sacred bridge unavailable.

 

[bilby]

it is far from clear that tactical nukes would help him do anything other than further unite the world against him. Turning large areas of Ukraine into a wasteland

... would require strategic nuclear weapons.

Tactical nukes are small. They can turn a single town or the centre of a city into a wasteland, but not "large areas"; A 5kt warhead has a 'severe damage' radius of about 4km. They don't do much that cannot already be done by a sustained artillery barrage; Their advantage over such a barrage is that you don't need to haul thousands of shells and dozens of guns, nor bring up and support crews for all those batteries.

And radiation effects are also fairly brief - all the really dangerous stuff is gone in less than a week.

Their primary point of difference from a large conventional artillery barrage is the effect on public opinion. The use of nuclear weapons has a massive downside from a propaganda perspective, while being incapable of any military results that Russia couldn't achieve by the use of their conventional arsenal.

 

[Jarhyn]

it is far from clear that tactical nukes would help him do anything other than further unite the world against him. Turning large areas of Ukraine into a wasteland

... would require strategic nuclear weapons.

Tactical nukes are small. They can turn a single town or the centre of a city into a wasteland, but not "large areas"; A 5kt warhead has a 'severe damage' radius of about 4km. They don't do much that cannot already be done by a sustained artillery barrage; Their advantage over such a barrage is that you don't need to haul thousands of shells and dozens of guns, nor bring up and support crews for all those batteries.

And radiation effects are also fairly brief - all the really dangerous stuff is gone in less than a week.

Their primary point of difference from a large conventional artillery barrage is the effect on public opinion. The use of nuclear weapons has a massive downside from a propaganda perspective, while being incapable of any military results that Russia couldn't achieve by the use of their conventional arsenal.

The issue is they don't have much left in terms of that conventional arsenal and bringing it to bear would be a bear.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't see any reports on the net.

On a news show Putin allegedly has said he is willing to negotiate through a third party. He sad he will no longer use rocket attacks.

The fact he is that he is running low and Ukraine has been shooting them down.

Maybe the end is in sight. The reolution to decalre Russia a terrorist state probably had an impact. Along with a price cap on Russian energy.

If you were Ukraine woud you cede Crimea to Russia fro complete withdrawal from the border areas?

And reparations.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Recent reports are that Russia attempted to luanch several long range missiles at Ukraine. Three missiles blew up shortly after launch.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you were Ukraine woud you cede Crimea to Russia fro complete withdrawal from the border areas?

How much of your estate would you be willing to give away to the person who broke into your home and stole valuables along with trashing many of your possessions? Of course he'd promise never to do it again if you give away enough of what is yours even though he has a record downtown a mile long?

 

[Jayjay]

it is far from clear that tactical nukes would help him do anything other than further unite the world against him. Turning large areas of Ukraine into a wasteland

... would require strategic nuclear weapons.

Tactical nukes are small. They can turn a single town or the centre of a city into a wasteland, but not "large areas"; A 5kt warhead has a 'severe damage' radius of about 4km. They don't do much that cannot already be done by a sustained artillery barrage; Their advantage over such a barrage is that you don't need to haul thousands of shells and dozens of guns, nor bring up and support crews for all those batteries.

And radiation effects are also fairly brief - all the really dangerous stuff is gone in less than a week.

Their primary point of difference from a large conventional artillery barrage is the effect on public opinion. The use of nuclear weapons has a massive downside from a propaganda perspective, while being incapable of any military results that Russia couldn't achieve by the use of their conventional arsenal.

I disagree. Having such destructive power would be something that Russia seems incapable of achieving with conventional arsenal. And it's not as if Russia cares about public opinion. The only real problem is that it might get NATO involved which would negate any military benefit, which I why I don't think that Putin will resort to nuclear weapons unless it becomes obvious he cannot win any other way. It's a desperation move, a Hail Mary when everything else has failed.

Which is why the west needs to draw the line there. If Russia uses nukes, and gets away with it, it'll become just another weapon system that every two-bit dictator will obtain and which will be used again and again. At that point it wouldn't be about Ukraine anymore.

 

[Jayjay]

I don't see any reports on the net.

On a news show Putin allegedly has said he is willing to negotiate through a third party. He sad he will no longer use rocket attacks.

The fact he is that he is running low and Ukraine has been shooting them down.

Maybe the end is in sight. The reolution to decalre Russia a terrorist state probably had an impact. Along with a price cap on Russian energy.

If you were Ukraine woud you cede Crimea to Russia fro complete withdrawal from the border areas?

And reparations.

I believe that Russia is seeking negotiations, but it doesn't mean anything resembling a complete withdrawal to February 23 borders. Putin wants a temporary ceasefire with current borders so he can build up his forces and attack again later. And obviously Russia isn't going to agree to any reparations.

But to answer the question, yes if I think ceding Crimea now in exchange for a complete withdrawal would be a fair deal for Ukraine. Not sure if Ukrainians right now would agree with me on that though. But assuming Ukraine can win back the territory in, say, 12 to 18 months with great losses, why would they stop at the Crimean border?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ceding Crimea would only make sense if massive reparations were paid by Russia.

 

[Jayjay]

Ceding Crimea would only make sense if massive reparations were paid by Russia.

... or to shorten the war considerably.

As for reparations, I don't think they work in wars where one side isn't occupied and forced to pay up at gunpoint. In this case, only reparations that I see happening is transfer of some or all of the Russian funds currently frozen by the west to Ukraine. The logic is that Russia might consider that money lost anyway.