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

[lpetrich]

I sometimes see arguments like this:
Mark Kalafatas on Twitter: "@AOC In 1990 when Gorbachev returned occupied East Germany for the purpose of that nation's reunification he was promised that #NATO would not expand "one inch" to the east. That was 16 new NATO states and 1500 miles ago. #AbolishNATO (pix link)" / Twitter
But that was never made into some official policy.


I'm seeing unconfirmed claims that Ukraine has reached Highway P66, a north-south hwy that goes a little west of Svatove.

Not much near Kherson area, however.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I suppose all those "promises" made decades ago were made with the best of intentions and within the constraints, understandings and perceptions accompanied by the times. The Cold War had solidified a lot of thinking and expectations. None of that matters anymore. It's good to see sovereign peoples taking control of their countries and not be under the thumbs of imperial states west or east. It is too bad Putin's dreams of glory include wishes to run the world as a terrorist and a gangster, but that is too bad for him, not for anyone else, and it must be opposed.

The Ukrainians are still fighting that Cold War's embers and we must continue to help them.

 

[TV and credit cards]

 

[TV and credit cards]

I just read about an intercepted Russian communication stating they have three lines of defense. Didn't say where. The first line is the inmates that were released to fight. The second and third lines are to shoot anyone trying to leave the first and second lines. Brilliant strategy.

Other reports from the Svatove area state Russian commanders are placing mobilized personnel in the second and third lines because they believe they will not fight.

Both are likely true. It all supports the extremely low morale that pervades Russian forces.

Like human tampons, these poor slobs were immediately sent plug gaping holes in the lines while Russia attempts to train and equip others.
Think what’s left of them will get rotated out of there if and when trained personnel come in? Not bloody likely.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine war: Russia halts grain deal after 'massive' Black Sea Fleet attack

The UN says it is vital not to imperil the deal, as Ukraine accuses Russia of "using a false pretext".

www.bbc.com

Can't say that I'm surprised; there was nothing that Russia got out of the deal (at least on the surface). The attack in Sevastopol is just a pretext to try to shift the blame to Ukraine. This might also mean more military presence in the black sea by Russia.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ukraine has been fighting very smart. Putin's gang has been fighting very predictably. Ukraine must be planning something unexpected.

Or they simply don't have another opportunity at the moment. They hammered the Russian troops for a long time, when the forces they were facing were sufficiently hollowed out they attacked and seized a bunch of territory. Now they're back to hollowing out the opposition.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Harry Bosch]

Ukraine war: Russia halts grain deal after 'massive' Black Sea Fleet attack

The UN says it is vital not to imperil the deal, as Ukraine accuses Russia of "using a false pretext".

www.bbc.com

Can't say that I'm surprised; there was nothing that Russia got out of the deal (at least on the surface). The attack in Sevastopol is just a pretext to try to shift the blame to Ukraine. This might also mean more military presence in the black sea by Russia.

As short as it lasted, it was a miracle (good for Turkey) that the agreement was ever made with Russia for the grain shipments. But this is why Ukraine is so desperately trying to kick Russia out of its land and the Black Sea. Russia can't be trusted long term. Somehow the world needs to find a way to kick Russia out of the Black Sea.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine has been fighting very smart. Putin's gang has been fighting very predictably. Ukraine must be planning something unexpected.

Or they simply don't have another opportunity at the moment. They hammered the Russian troops for a long time, when the forces they were facing were sufficiently hollowed out they attacked and seized a bunch of territory. Now they're back to hollowing out the opposition.

Except that it won't be as easy, due to mobilization. Russia had a huge manpower deficit, which allowed Ukraine to take advantage in a weakly-defended part of the frontline. Now Russia likely has enough people to man the entire remaining front. And any "hollowing out" applies just as much to Ukrainian forces. Kherson is a prime example: it's now becoming clear that Russia was not going to evacuate, but instead dug in deeper. And it seems like both sides are getting huge casualties.

Somehow I don't think that Ukraine can win in a war of attrition; time is on Russia's side. But on the other hand lately I've seen some combat footage allegedly of 155mm Excalibur rounds and M31 rockets destroying artillery pieces. Maybe Ukraine' counter-battery fire is getting more competent, and that could be a positive sign.

 

[SLD]

Here is a State Department report on the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy and their military efforts:

The Impact of Sanctions and Export Controls on the Russian Federation - United States Department of State

Since Russia launched its unjustified and unprovoked all-out war against Ukraine in February 2022, the United States has worked with Allies and partners around the world to impose an unprecedented range of sanctions and export controls on Russia for its brutal aggression.

www.state.gov

perhaps a bit optimistic, but interesting nonetheless. Lack of semiconductors has had a significant impact In a lot of areas. They’ve been forced to rely on North Korea and Iran, not exactly technologically superior nations for hardware. The unanswered question is whether these sanctions will ultimately force Russia to end the war .

 

[SLD]

This also is a more detailed and nuanced look at the Russian economy:

How have sanctions impacted Russia?

In this paper we assess both the immediate economic impact and the likely longer-term impact of sanctions on the Russian economy.

www.bruegel.org

The article recognizes that the Russian bank has stabilized the banking sector despite significant losses, but note the impact on manufacturing.

Most everything is down, but cars and air travel the most significantly impacted. The article also notes that starting in 2023, shipping insurance will also cease and this could seriously impact oil exports. If Ukraine could find a way to attack Russian oil tankers they could cripple oil exports which Putin has used to sustain his war. Further energy sanctions could have a significant detriment to the overall economic conditions, and possibly cause a banking collapse.

The article is optimistic that the sanctions will really start to bite in the coming months. We will see.

 

[Jayjay]

No matter how bad the sanctions are to Russia, the war is orders of magnitude worse for Ukraine.

Sanctions don't have a very good track record of forcing political change. Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and others have been sanctioned forever with no change. But the lack of semiconductors and other supplies may have a small impact on weapons manufacturing which may allow Ukraine to take advantage in the battlefield.

 

[SLD]

No matter how bad the sanctions are to Russia, the war is orders of magnitude worse for Ukraine.

Sanctions don't have a very good track record of forcing political change. Cuba, Iran, Venezuela and others have been sanctioned forever with no change. But the lack of semiconductors and other supplies may have a small impact on weapons manufacturing which may allow Ukraine to take advantage in the battlefield.

Yes, sanctions have minimal political impact on leaders. Putin Isn’t likely to change his mind and withdraw to get the sanctions released. He doesn’t give a shit about the ordinary Russian. He’ll be fine. But they could impact his ability to wage war. If the economy collapses, the war can’t be really fought very well. People might demand changes, and that’s usually when regimes collapse. Or someone might be more tempted to take the cocksucker out. The 1905 revolution was borne out of extreme economic hardship, exacerbated by an unpopular war. That brought the Tsar to the negotiating table. He barely held on to power.

 

[Patooka]

Somehow I don't think that Ukraine can win in a war of attrition; time is on Russia's side.

Are you sure about that? There's stories of Russian troops being supplied with Mosins, surface to air missiles being improvised cruise missiles, the trope of issuing expired MREs, using confiscated civilian vehicles as technicals etc. Ukraine is still receiving relatively modern kit and is taking the proper time to train them. Your argument might make sense if Ukraine is only receiving Shermans, Garands and Lee Enfields but they're not.

Yes a war of attrition is always ill advised. I just don't think Russia has it's thumb on the scales in terms of advantage. Buying ammo from North Korea is not a good look.

 

[laughing dog]

Somehow I don't think that Ukraine can win in a war of attrition; time is on Russia's side. But on the other hand lately I've seen some combat footage allegedly of 155mm Excalibur rounds and M31 rockets destroying artillery pieces. Maybe Ukraine' counter-battery fire is getting more competent, and that could be a positive sign.

Well, Afghanistan wore out Russia in a war of attrition that Russia started. And they had a lot less help from the West.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Somehow I don't think that Ukraine can win in a war of attrition; time is on Russia's side. But on the other hand lately I've seen some combat footage allegedly of 155mm Excalibur rounds and M31 rockets destroying artillery pieces. Maybe Ukraine' counter-battery fire is getting more competent, and that could be a positive sign.

Well, Afghanistan wore out Russia in a war of attrition that Russia started. And they had a lot less help from the West.

The USSR was not Putinstan when Afghanistan was happening. To me that's the main difference between Ukraine and Afghanistan. All power in Russia today is concentrated with Pewstain.

Also, Afghanistan was not a war against western democracy. Afghanistan was imperialistic and a security threat along the USSR border. Ukraine on the other hand is a war against freedom and accountability exactly like what Hitler and fascism undertook. Controlling Ukraine will certainly enrich Pewstain and his thugs but more importantly it protects the gangsters from personal accountability.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd say it is a decision point.

Should NATO run the Russian naval grain blovkade which Putin has reinstated?. It goes to show it is not possible to negotiate with Pitin, written agreements mean nothing.

I say yes. NATO should escort grain ships.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd say it is a decision point.

Should NATO run the Russian naval grain blovkade which Putin has reinstated?. It goes to show it is not possible to negotiate with Pitin, written agreements mean nothing.

I say yes. NATO should escort grain ships.

Could redo the German blockade and send in lots of planes. Don't know if grain works well for that. This Putin bullshit is getting fucking old. He is trying freeze and starve the Ukrainians and now he wants food prices to rise because the West doesn't let him be a Dictator to a little bit larger of a country.

 

[Jayjay]

I'd say it is a decision point.

Should NATO run the Russian naval grain blovkade which Putin has reinstated?. It goes to show it is not possible to negotiate with Pitin, written agreements mean nothing.

I say yes. NATO should escort grain ships.

Yes, they should, but it's doubtful whether Turkey would allow it.

The deal is set to expire on Nov 19th, but Russia has already stopped inspecting the ships. I think Turkey and Ukraine should continue without the inspections until then and get as many ships to the port as possible. It's not their problem if Russia waives its right to check the ships and that should not be an excuse to delay them.

What happens after 19th is a mystery. If the grain ships keep going, there is a risk of Russian attack on one of them, and the civilian crews and companies who own the ships probably won't take the risk. And there's a question of whether Russia would actually attack a civilian vessel openly; most likely it would be disguised as something that gives Russia some level of deniability. For example, a submarine attack, and then saying it was an Ukrainian mine. But I personally don't think it'll come to that because the shipping will stop voluntarily.

There is a window of opportunity for NATO to step up by providing escorts to the ships, but it's up to Turkey.

 

[Jayjay]

Somehow I don't think that Ukraine can win in a war of attrition; time is on Russia's side.

Are you sure about that? There's stories of Russian troops being supplied with Mosins, surface to air missiles being improvised cruise missiles, the trope of issuing expired MREs, using confiscated civilian vehicles as technicals etc. Ukraine is still receiving relatively modern kit and is taking the proper time to train them. Your argument might make sense if Ukraine is only receiving Shermans, Garands and Lee Enfields but they're not.

Yes a war of attrition is always ill advised. I just don't think Russia has it's thumb on the scales in terms of advantage. Buying ammo from North Korea is not a good look.

Anecdotes may sometimes be useful, but you can find anecdotal evidence of Ukrainian troops lacking equipment too. We have to always keep in mind that both sides have a reason to exaggerate the failings of their opponent, and hide their own.

Besides, this is an artillery war. A "mobik" doesn't need a rifle as much as a shovel to dig trenches. The actual fighting will be handled by more experienced troops with better equipment.