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

[zorq]

The war was started by Russia, not by Ukraine, Germany, or "American neocons".

But Jayjay, the evil American Neocon, Victoria Nuland, passed out some cookies to the protesters at Euromaidan. Russia had no choice but to invade Ukraine after such a nefarious crime. It's clearly all her fault!

 

[Harry Bosch]

I am no expert, but I'd say culturally Russia is as anti west in general terms as we were anti Russia in the Cold War.

Casualty wise the Soviet alliance bore the brunt of WWII casualties. You can look up a picture of the Dtalngrad memorial, a huge hand coming out of the ground. It is like our Peal Harbor memorial.

I expect NATO and the west is a long standing Russian boogeyman.

If Russia had a free press maybe it wulrd be live Vietnam for us. Daily reporting of casualties with video.

In Russia, the only public opinion that matters (even a little bit) is that of the middle classes in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They're well-protected from any attacks and other consequences of the war, and strikes anywhere else would be pretty much irrelevant.

Are you advocating striking Moscow? Like you did during Chechen War.

No, I'm not. Attacking civilians doesn't work in Ukraine, and it wouldn't work in Russia. And Ukraine is not capable of striking Moscow in any significant capacity anyway.

Yes, Finland and West supported chechen terrorists.

Source? If anything, it's Russia who supported chechen terrorists, one is in charge of Chechnya right now.

Amigo, Barbos will not be providing any sources. Never has. Never will.

 

[Harry Bosch]

So Merkel admitted that West (herself included) are a bunch of filthy liars which should never be trusted.

So says the imperialist!

 

[Jayjay]

Why do I think Russia is winning? Mainly because it has artillery superiority. The Ukrainian-reported daily losses of Russian equipment show that Ukraine isn't able to dent the artillery much:

https://www.minusrus.com/en

For the past week, it's 21 artillery pieces. Average of only three per day, and it's been in that ballpark for past months. This is out of estimated 3700 or so that are in Russian arsenal before the war, not counting ones being produced or repaired currently.

This pace is not good enough. For comparison, Ukraine has been given about 350 western 155mm artillery pieces, of which about one third is reported to be out of action; destroyed or under maintenance. I think Ukraine needs to step up its artillery game with more accurate shells (I hear GPS guided Excalibur shells have done a great job, but of course they cost 100 or 1000 times what regular shells do), UAVs, and ways to destroy Russian jamming devices and such, counter-battery radars, and simply having faster turnaround time from observing the enemy to firing at their position. Russians are still better at this.

 

[Jayjay]

Even Putin can't handle the war sober:

 

[Elixir]

I am tired of providing sources.

When was the last time? You sure tire easily... might want to see a doctor about that.

Every time you simply ignore them.

No, we check them out and find 90+ percent of them are Russian propaganda, straight up.
Sorry you can't find more willing consumers for your bullshit here, barbos, but we have access to a lot more information than you do.

Amigo, Barbos will not be providing any sources. Never has. Never will.

Aw, Harry you're being a little bit hard on the barbos. He used to try to foist off his propaganda sites as "sources" but got busted so many times that he basically gave it up. Besides, after his "there will be no invasion" debacle, nobody believes anything he posts anyhow.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Besides, after his "there will be no invasion" debacle, nobody believes anything he posts anyhow.

Has there been an invasion? I thought what we were seeing was a purely defensive special military operation meant to liberate parts of Russia from Nazis. Wow! I need to get out more.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In Russia, the only public opinion that matters (even a little bit) is that of the middle classes in Moscow and St. Petersburg. They're well-protected from any attacks and other consequences of the war, and strikes anywhere else would be pretty much irrelevant.

Are you advocating striking Moscow? Like you did during Chechen War.
Yes, Finland and West supported chechen terrorists.

The attack on Moscow was by Putin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do I think Russia is winning? Mainly because it has artillery superiority. The Ukrainian-reported daily losses of Russian equipment show that Ukraine isn't able to dent the artillery much:

https://www.minusrus.com/en

For the past week, it's 21 artillery pieces. Average of only three per day, and it's been in that ballpark for past months. This is out of estimated 3700 or so that are in Russian arsenal before the war, not counting ones being produced or repaired currently.

This pace is not good enough. For comparison, Ukraine has been given about 350 western 155mm artillery pieces, of which about one third is reported to be out of action; destroyed or under maintenance. I think Ukraine needs to step up its artillery game with more accurate shells (I hear GPS guided Excalibur shells have done a great job, but of course they cost 100 or 1000 times what regular shells do), UAVs, and ways to destroy Russian jamming devices and such, counter-battery radars, and simply having faster turnaround time from observing the enemy to firing at their position. Russians are still better at this.

But Russia can't maintain it's artillery. The more they shoot their guns the less accurate they become. Having guns that can't put shells on target doesn't do much other than eat logistics.

 

[Jayjay]

Why do I think Russia is winning? Mainly because it has artillery superiority. The Ukrainian-reported daily losses of Russian equipment show that Ukraine isn't able to dent the artillery much:

https://www.minusrus.com/en

For the past week, it's 21 artillery pieces. Average of only three per day, and it's been in that ballpark for past months. This is out of estimated 3700 or so that are in Russian arsenal before the war, not counting ones being produced or repaired currently.

This pace is not good enough. For comparison, Ukraine has been given about 350 western 155mm artillery pieces, of which about one third is reported to be out of action; destroyed or under maintenance. I think Ukraine needs to step up its artillery game with more accurate shells (I hear GPS guided Excalibur shells have done a great job, but of course they cost 100 or 1000 times what regular shells do), UAVs, and ways to destroy Russian jamming devices and such, counter-battery radars, and simply having faster turnaround time from observing the enemy to firing at their position. Russians are still better at this.

But Russia can't maintain it's artillery. The more they shoot their guns the less accurate they become. Having guns that can't put shells on target doesn't do much other than eat logistics.

The attrition is true of any artillery. Including Ukraine's. But Russia has massively more artillery pieces and shells. Ukraine's advantage is that the western weapons are somewhat more accurate and longer range, but not much. Russia is also rumoured to be investing heavily on their own versions of higher accuracy rockets.

 

[steve_bank]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

Not only do I agree with bilby on this, but he and others seem to be missing another argument against Ukraine targeting civilian targets inside Russia. Ukraine's ability to resist and even win battles depends largely on Western support for the effort. Even now, large numbers of people in the West would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine than continue supporting this very expensive never-ending war. If Ukraine suddenly started bombarding civilian targets in Russia, that opposition would grow and likely reduce the amount of weapons and financial support going into the Ukrainian war effort. Under that scenario, Russia would have a better chance of coming out victorious, given its advantage in numbers and weaponry.

This is all assuming the hypothetical misery Russians endure comes from Ukraine. If the misery comes from the sanctions caused by Putin's actions the reaction would be very different. I don't doubt Ukraine is threading a very fine needle with these attacks. But if they keep doing what they are doing whilst missing civilian targets it will force Russia to divert resources from Ukraine back into Russia. From a logistical viewpoint at least.

I'm also typing this in shorts and a t-shirt with a nice warm cup of coffee and the fan going in my room. I'm not entirely sure I am in a position to be critical of Ukrainians at the moment.

Boxers or briefs?

 

[steve_bank]

I thought Russians are not happy without misery.

 

[bilby]

I think support for Putler would drop further if civilians had 10% of the misery that Ukraine currently has.

Why do you think that?

Every war in history demonstrates the exact opposite effect from civilian suffering.

Did 9/11 weaken the Bush presidency? Did it make Americans more likely to capitulate to the demands of Islamic extremists?

Why do people continue to insist that the stuff that stiffens their own resolve, will have the exact opposite effect on their enemies? It has never, ever, worked.

Ever.

Not only do I agree with bilby on this, but he and others seem to be missing another argument against Ukraine targeting civilian targets inside Russia. Ukraine's ability to resist and even win battles depends largely on Western support for the effort. Even now, large numbers of people in the West would rather turn a blind eye to Ukraine than continue supporting this very expensive never-ending war. If Ukraine suddenly started bombarding civilian targets in Russia, that opposition would grow and likely reduce the amount of weapons and financial support going into the Ukrainian war effort. Under that scenario, Russia would have a better chance of coming out victorious, given its advantage in numbers and weaponry.

This is all assuming the hypothetical misery Russians endure comes from Ukraine. If the misery comes from the sanctions caused by Putin's actions the reaction would be very different. I don't doubt Ukraine is threading a very fine needle with these attacks. But if they keep doing what they are doing whilst missing civilian targets it will force Russia to divert resources from Ukraine back into Russia. From a logistical viewpoint at least.

I'm also typing this in shorts and a t-shirt with a nice warm cup of coffee and the fan going in my room. I'm not entirely sure I am in a position to be critical of Ukrainians at the moment.

Boxers or briefs?

"Shorts" aren't underwear, except in North America.

 

[crazyfingers]

"Shorts" aren't underwear, except in North America.

I have short pants for the summer and long pants for the winter. My family keeps telling me to call them shorts but I don't.

 

[steve_bank]

Time to restock the backyard fallout shelter? Putin is a wounded cornered animal.

Does Putin really believe Russia s in a militray existential crisis with the west?

Putin floats possibility that Russia may abandon 'no first use' nuclear doctrine | CNN

Russian President Vladimir Putin, for the second time this week, floated the possibility that Russia may formally change its military doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, days after he warned of the "increasing" threat of nuclear war.

www.cnn.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin, for the second time this week, floated the possibility that Russia may formally change its military doctrine of not being the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, days after he warned of the “increasing” threat of nuclear war.

“They (the US) have it in their strategy, in the documents it is spelled out – a preventive blow. We don’t. We, on the other hand, have formulated a retaliatory strike in our strategy,” Putin said at a news conference in the Kyrgyzstan capital Bishkek.

Even if Russia were to retaliate immediately on seeing the launch of nuclear missiles towards it, Putin said, “this means that the fall of the warheads of enemy missiles on the territory of the Russian Federation is inevitable – they will still fall.”

Putin said that United States’ policy was not to exclude the possibility of “disarming” nuclear strike, while Russia’s doctrine is to use nuclear weapons as the last resort.

“So if we’re talking about this disarming strike, then maybe think about adopting the best practices of our American partners and their ideas for ensuring their security. We’re just thinking about it. No one was shy when they talked about it out loud in previous times and years,” he said.

 

[Jayjay]

Putin warns of increasing the threat of nuclear war, but Russia the only country that is doing the threatening.

 

[Patooka]

"Shorts" aren't underwear, except in North America.

I have short pants for the summer and long pants for the winter. My family keeps telling me to call them shorts but I don't.

An entire hemisphere disagrees with you.

 

[crazyfingers]

An entire hemisphere disagrees with you.

Let them eat shorts

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But Russia can't maintain it's artillery. The more they shoot their guns the less accurate they become. Having guns that can't put shells on target doesn't do much other than eat logistics.

The attrition is true of any artillery. Including Ukraine's. But Russia has massively more artillery pieces and shells. Ukraine's advantage is that the western weapons are somewhat more accurate and longer range, but not much. Russia is also rumoured to be investing heavily on their own versions of higher accuracy rockets.

Ukraine has access to maintenance. Russia does not have a meaningful ability to maintain their artillery. And they do not have a meaningful ability to build high precision weapons of any type at this point--too hard to get the parts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm also typing this in shorts and a t-shirt with a nice warm cup of coffee and the fan going in my room. I'm not entirely sure I am in a position to be critical of Ukrainians at the moment.

Boxers or briefs?

"Shorts" aren't underwear, except in North America.

Maybe in parts of it, but to me "shorts" are two-legged outer garments that end somewhere above the knee. Underwear might be called undershorts, but I would not picture underwear if someone said "shorts".