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

[ZiprHead]

U.S. Air Force veteran freed in Russia prisoner swap, Ukraine says

Suedi Murekezi, a U.S. Air Force veteran whose family says he was captured by pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine earlier this year, has been freed in a prisoner swap, a senior Ukrainian official announced Wednesday.
Murekezi, who has lived in Ukraine since 2018, was taken by pro-Russian forces in the southern city of Kherson in early June, according to his brother Sele Murekezi, who added that he had been falsely accused of taking part in pro-Ukrainian protests.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I do not see anyone looking through rose colored glases.

Months back they could have made the mistake of overextending themselves when Ukraine began making gains and taking back land. They have been disciplined and have not gotten carried away wit themselves.

Paraphrasing General Giap in the VN war leader of the North Vietnam military said they have been fighting foreseers for a century and are prepared to fight another century. The north was motivated and willing to sacrifice supplied by Russia.

The Ukrainians aiad from the frst day they were not going to give up. Not just leadership. citizens. Civilians armed themseves and took training.

I'd say the same reason Israel survived and prevailed in three wars of anihilation that on paper shou have crushed Israel.

Some in Russia are predicting open war with NATO. I remember when that was a credible part of Poostain's refrain. We now know that such a conflict would be a wipeout against Russia. They would be annihilated. Even Poostain knows this. So the tactic now is to threaten nuclear. That one is still getting some mileage but it shouldn't be. It's as empty a threat as earlier threats about war with NATO. Empty threats are what is keeping Poostain in this war.

Another "threat" we hear is that if Russian Hitler is gone someone more dangerous will take over. I wonder when we are going to realize that all this hand wringing over the next threat is bullshit. We just still haven't woken up out of our cold war induced slumber and Russian Hitler knows this and is using it to great advantage. He's KGB to the core so what else should we expect?

 

[Copernicus]

Another "threat" we hear is that if Russian Hitler is gone someone more dangerous will take over. I wonder when we are going to realize that all this hand wringing over the next threat is bullshit. We just still haven't woken up out of our cold war induced slumber and Russian Hitler knows this and is using it to great advantage. He's KGB to the core so what else should we expect?

OTOH, if it isn't bullshit, you probably won't survive long enough to admit that you were wrong. When it comes to global nuclear holocaust, I much prefer handwringing to bravado. Saying "he isn't that crazy" is what they said about Putin before he launched his disastrous invasion of Ukraine. His invasion threat was not empty. We cannot assume that the nuclear threats are empty, because they are far more consequential for the rest of the world than his invasion of Ukraine. If Putin begins to feel that his own life is in jeopardy and he has literally nothing to lose, then he could decide to take out all his enemies with him. And the Russian government is full of flunkies who seem to think that threatening nuclear war is their only option. Let's hope that someone with the power to trigger a nuclear exchange doesn't go rogue and follow through on the hype. They are all bravely egging themselves on. Who has the guts to push the button?

 

[Patooka]

We now know that such a conflict would be a wipeout against Russia. They would be annihilated. Even Poostain knows this. So the tactic now is to threaten nuclear.

I'm on the fence as to whether Russia's nuclear arsenal is even remotely capable. There is a non-zero chance that most of the stuff used to maintain to nukes has gone to Stanislav Petrov Hookers and Vodka Fund (thanks bilby for the reference ). It's also worth pointing out all the aid that has been given to Ukraine is pretty old second hand hand me downs. Vietnam era M-113s, HIMARS manufactured in 1993, Patriot batteries from the 1980s etc. If Putin drops even one nuke I suspect Ukraine will start receiving equipment that isn't old enough to vote and have kids.

 

[steve_bank]

Biden said Putin is rational, he is jstt making bad decsions.

Hitler did ot use chemical weapons because he knew it result in an eaual response. He saw it in WWI. A rational decision by a genocidal lunatic.

A Putin who thinks nothing of raining destruction on civilians to make them suffer and break heir will is capable of anything including nuclear weapons.

On CNN a report by a Russian soldier who defected. He attetd to rape goung with little punishmnet. Being told to shoot anyone with a phone.

It is Russian culture, which is not the western world. While there have been abuses and atrocites by indiviuals in our recent comflcist, if someone was ordered to shoot civilians there would be push back.

A fundamental difference in values and culture.

China to a degree has assimilated into the west. Russia is stck in the east west dichotomy. The west is an enemy. China remrkable buit isself up out the communist disaster and has a quasii free market system. Stnadards of living rose. They modernized.

Russia has not chged much since Stalin. They still can't make a decent car or commercial jet.


Di spite the politics I always thought American and Chinese culture have a lot in common, on of them being industrious.

Russia and the Russian Federation are a completely different world and culture.

You can't expect rational reasonable western responses from a non western culture.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine has picked up the low-hanging fruit. And June is an arbitrary point: it was when Ukraine got the HIMARS and was able to start disrupting Russian logistics. If you look back at February, clearly Russia has only gained ground. The war has had its ebbs and flows, but right now, Russia is the one who's attacking and determining the pace, and Ukraine's on the defense. Since Kherson, Ukraine's made no progress.

By that logic, Napoleon still had the initiative at Waterloo. Most people would disagree.

Ukraine's not getting enough weapons to stem the tide. Russia on the other hand is still ramping up (emphasis mine)

With the exception of barbos' posts, I have seen no indication that what you just said is happening.

The mobilization is still going on. More troops are being sent to the front, with better training. I think Russian MoD itself said that about 140k or so of the 300k have been sent to the front. If true, then the other half is still on their way. And that's still short of the million or so that they are prepared to mobilize.

If Russia is still slowly mobilizing, that's hardly the seizing the initiative that you are saying is occurring.

Same with military production. That's clearly been ramped up since the summer, with laws in place to threaten military contractors and workers with prison time if they fail to fulfill orders. I realize this is a case of "beatings will continue until morale improves", but there's no reason to think Russia hasn't been gearing up for a long for months now.

There's plenty of reason to think that. If such equipment was readily available for Russia it would have been deployed long before now. Nobody buys ammunition from North Korea if they are flush with gear. It's insane to think that fuel, replacement tubes for artillery and cold weather will magically appear for the Russian military in a couple of weeks. Their logistics are so fucked they make Ukraine's supply issues (which are very real before you reply, I'm not diminishing them) seem benign in comparison.

Scrounging ammunition from North Korea or Belarus just meant that their storage was running low. That does not mean Russia hasn't been increasing its own production. It just takes time.

I understand the dangers of seeing things with rose tinted glasses, but I'm completely baffled why you are so negative towards Ukraine's abilities and so unconditionally optimistic about Russia's chances. You were pessimistic before Ukraine liberated Kherson. The success at Kharkiv was luck apparently. And there is literally no indication three divisions of T-90s are suddenly going to materialize to reinforce the invaders.

On Kherson, I was just skeptical. Note that at the time even Ukraine was saying that the withdrawal was a ruse. But it was actually the appearance of it being a ruse that was the ruse. When Russia started pulling its flags from buildings then it seemed like it was really happening.

As for Kharkiv, in that post I'm not saying it was luck. It was definitely very good strategy and execution from Ukraine. But the reason why it was happen is that Russia had put all its eggs in one basket, Kherson, and didn't have enough troops stationed in Kharkiv. Ukraine exploited that weakness. But now? Mobilization means Russia has enough troops to man the entire frontline. Withdrawal from Kherson means those troops can also be used elsewhere (and unlike mobiks, they're more experienced and capable).

The most reliable way to predict the future is look at past similar occurrences and extrapolate from there.

What I'm saying is that there are qualitative factors to Ukraine's previous successes and we can't simply extrapolate that they can repeat it elsewhere. At least not with simply doing what they're doing now.

Everything that has happened since January suggests Russia shot their load when most of their VDV units got wiped out at Kyiv. That's not saying this war will end by Christmas but as I said I am completely mystified why you are so insistent on thinking Ukraine will suddenly collapse in effectiveness and Russia will suddenly be the big scary bad everyone thought they were back in 2021. Nothing reported suggests either is likely to come to pass soon.

Russia has made some big blunders for sure. But we can't rely on them fucking things up perpetually. And what I'm seeing on the ground now is the return of the slow creep that they had in the May. Ukraine's ceding ground near Bakhmut, Russia seems to be in the outskirts of the city already and is trying to encircle it from the south and north. Ukraine's not advancing in North Luhansk either.

 

[Copernicus]

On Kherson, I was just skeptical. Note that at the time even Ukraine was saying that the withdrawal was a ruse. But it was actually the appearance of it being a ruse that was the ruse. When Russia started pulling its flags from buildings then it seemed like it was really happening.

As for Kharkiv, in that post I'm not saying it was luck. It was definitely very good strategy and execution from Ukraine. But the reason why it was happen is that Russia had put all its eggs in one basket, Kherson, and didn't have enough troops stationed in Kharkiv. Ukraine exploited that weakness. But now? Mobilization means Russia has enough troops to man the entire frontline. Withdrawal from Kherson means those troops can also be used elsewhere (and unlike mobiks, they're more experienced and capable).

But having enough troops isn't the only problem that Russia has. It also has to feed, provision, and maintain supplies to all of them. Just putting bodies on the front lines to freeze and starve to death probably won't help a lot. They might as well just put up scarecrows dressed as Russian soldiers. Logistics has been a huge problem for them, not just manpower. If manpower were the answer, they wouldn't have had to start drafting warm bodies to replace the cold dead ones.

 

[bilby]

The end of the Cold War uncovered an interesting fact about the Soviet nuclear arsenal - back at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was widely assumed in the US that the two superpowers were of similar capability, and that MAD really was mutually assured.

But it turns out that it wasn't until the late 1970s that the USSR could have credibly destroyed the USA/NATO; Sure, they could have done a lot of damage, but they simply didn't have the delivery systems or capabilities to bomb America back to the stone age - while America certainly had the ability to do that to the USSR.

The question now is whether the Russians have maintained their strategic nuclear arsenal to a level whereby they would come out of a war no worse off than the Americans (even if that means everyone on both sides is dead).

My suspicion is that at any level of nuclear exchange between Russia and NATO, Russia would come off worse - even if they did a lot of damage, they'd get back more than they could dish out.

That doesn't make the threat of nuclear war less serious; But it does make it far more likely that such a threat from Russia is a big bluff.

A nuclear exchange would be horrific, but it's also one of the few things that would be almost certain to result in Putin's own life being on the line.

 

[steve_bank]

The good news for Snowden is Putin gave him Russian citizenship.

Th bad news is the next day he got drafted.

 

[Jayjay]

On Kherson, I was just skeptical. Note that at the time even Ukraine was saying that the withdrawal was a ruse. But it was actually the appearance of it being a ruse that was the ruse. When Russia started pulling its flags from buildings then it seemed like it was really happening.

As for Kharkiv, in that post I'm not saying it was luck. It was definitely very good strategy and execution from Ukraine. But the reason why it was happen is that Russia had put all its eggs in one basket, Kherson, and didn't have enough troops stationed in Kharkiv. Ukraine exploited that weakness. But now? Mobilization means Russia has enough troops to man the entire frontline. Withdrawal from Kherson means those troops can also be used elsewhere (and unlike mobiks, they're more experienced and capable).

But having enough troops isn't the only problem that Russia has. It also has to feed, provision, and maintain supplies to all of them. Just putting bodies on the front lines to freeze and starve to death probably won't help a lot. They might as well just put up scarecrows dressed as Russian soldiers. Logistics has been a huge problem for them, not just manpower.

How hard is it to produce socks and thermal underwear? A country the size of Russia should not have problems with production capacity: it's about poor organization and fumbling because the mobilization is just starting. As it goes on, they will get better at it, though based on recent reports conscripts and mobilized reservists are still freezing their asses off.

If manpower were the answer, they wouldn't have had to start drafting warm bodies to replace the cold dead ones.

I don't understand this logic. Ukraine had more manpower before the mobilization. That's one of the reasons why Russia failed to hold Kharkiv oblast: lack of manpower. The mobilization evens out the numbers, might even give the advantage to Russia (though I think Ukraine still can claim more motivated troops).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We now know that such a conflict would be a wipeout against Russia. They would be annihilated. Even Poostain knows this. So the tactic now is to threaten nuclear.

I'm on the fence as to whether Russia's nuclear arsenal is even remotely capable. There is a non-zero chance that most of the stuff used to maintain to nukes has gone to Stanislav Petrov Hookers and Vodka Fund (thanks bilby for the reference ). It's also worth pointing out all the aid that has been given to Ukraine is pretty old second hand hand me downs. Vietnam era M-113s, HIMARS manufactured in 1993, Patriot batteries from the 1980s etc. If Putin drops even one nuke I suspect Ukraine will start receiving equipment that isn't old enough to vote and have kids.

I would say that it's a near certainty that most of the maintenance funds have been diverted. The only question is just how bad shape his nuclear arsenal is in.

As for the age of stuff sent to Ukraine--you normally shoot the oldest reliable stuff first.

 

[Tigers!]

We now know that such a conflict would be a wipeout against Russia. They would be annihilated. Even Poostain knows this. So the tactic now is to threaten nuclear.

I'm on the fence as to whether Russia's nuclear arsenal is even remotely capable. There is a non-zero chance that most of the stuff used to maintain to nukes has gone to Stanislav Petrov Hookers and Vodka Fund (thanks bilby for the reference ). It's also worth pointing out all the aid that has been given to Ukraine is pretty old second hand hand me downs. Vietnam era M-113s, HIMARS manufactured in 1993, Patriot batteries from the 1980s etc. If Putin drops even one nuke I suspect Ukraine will start receiving equipment that isn't old enough to vote and have kids.

I would say that it's a near certainty that most of the maintenance funds have been diverted. The only question is just how bad shape his nuclear arsenal is in.

As for the age of stuff sent to Ukraine--you normally shoot the oldest reliable stuff first.

That's why the HMS Conqueror used Mk 8 torpedoes (design was 55 years old) , rather than the more modern Tigerfish to sink the ARA Belgrano during the Falklands War (1982).
The Mk 8s had plenty of testing i.e WW2.

 

[Jayjay]

The good news for Snowden is Putin gave him Russian citizenship.

Th bad news is the next day he got drafted.

He's probably more valuable as a propaganda tool.

Biden should've pardoned Snowden just to avoid him becoming a Russian citizen and deny Russia the propaganda victory. But then again, if's not like Putin would let him just leave... he'd probably be jailed on some trumped up charge and used as a hostage like Griner.

Which would probably be what NSA spooks also want: Snowden behind bars. Win-win?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does everyone remember when Bill Clinton and his campaign said, "It's the economy, stupid!" I'm beginning to think there is something similar happening in Ukraine, but it isn't overtly economic. How else does one explain Ruski behavior that has been anything but predictable, never settling on a goal? It used to be protecting Russians in Donbas, stupid. Then it became defeating the Nazis in Ukraine, stupid. Then it became weakening NATO, stupid. Then it became the existential threat to Russia, stupid. And I'm sure I have missed a few along the way like maybe, It's the threat of Nuclear war, stupid. So what now? If I had to venture a guess it would be, "It's the naval base in Sevastopol, stupid!"

The only logical conclusion that I can make of Ruski behavior over the past several months is that they are hell bent on keeping control of Crimea and maintaining their presence at their naval base at Sevastopol. At this point, nothing else matters for Poostain. I think Russian Hitler's efforts in the Donbas have become nothing but a feint toward this ultimate goal, a way to distract us from their primary, present intentions. And I think Ukraine realizes this. I think they would even negotiate and give up a lot of occupied territory, maybe even all, if they could keep Sevastopol.

 

[Copernicus]

The good news for Snowden is Putin gave him Russian citizenship.

Th bad news is the next day he got drafted.

AFAICT, he did not get drafted, unless you've seen something I haven't. I doubt that he would be drafted, given his value as a propaganda tool. Putin's government is using the draft as a summary punishment for war protesters--to terrorize and intimidate those who might join in anti-Putin demonstrations. I don't think he wants to punish Snowden, which would send the wrong message to all of those Snowden fans in the West. They've even got statues and busts of the guy. If Snowden were to turn on Putin and he Russian government, he would then probably be eligible for a demotion to cannon fodder.

 

[Copernicus]

On Kherson, I was just skeptical. Note that at the time even Ukraine was saying that the withdrawal was a ruse. But it was actually the appearance of it being a ruse that was the ruse. When Russia started pulling its flags from buildings then it seemed like it was really happening.

As for Kharkiv, in that post I'm not saying it was luck. It was definitely very good strategy and execution from Ukraine. But the reason why it was happen is that Russia had put all its eggs in one basket, Kherson, and didn't have enough troops stationed in Kharkiv. Ukraine exploited that weakness. But now? Mobilization means Russia has enough troops to man the entire frontline. Withdrawal from Kherson means those troops can also be used elsewhere (and unlike mobiks, they're more experienced and capable).

But having enough troops isn't the only problem that Russia has. It also has to feed, provision, and maintain supplies to all of them. Just putting bodies on the front lines to freeze and starve to death probably won't help a lot. They might as well just put up scarecrows dressed as Russian soldiers. Logistics has been a huge problem for them, not just manpower.

How hard is it to produce socks and thermal underwear? A country the size of Russia should not have problems with production capacity: it's about poor organization and fumbling because the mobilization is just starting. As it goes on, they will get better at it, though based on recent reports conscripts and mobilized reservists are still freezing their asses off.

I don't know anything more than you do about how hard it would be for Russian industry to meet that demand. Do you have reason to believe that they've solved their poor organization and fumbling and no longer have the problems they did in the past? Mobiks are still freezing their asses off, by your own admission. It's not even clear that Russia is able to supply the numbers of raw recruits that they claim, although they do appear to be able to transport a lot of warm (albeit cooling) bodies to the front.

If manpower were the answer, they wouldn't have had to start drafting warm bodies to replace the cold dead ones.

I don't understand this logic. Ukraine had more manpower before the mobilization. That's one of the reasons why Russia failed to hold Kharkiv oblast: lack of manpower. The mobilization evens out the numbers, might even give the advantage to Russia (though I think Ukraine still can claim more motivated troops).

No, Ukraine had a smaller military force when the invasion started, but Russia did not commit all of its reserves until they started getting beat up and forced to retreat. They could have committed far more troops to the invasion and planned it better, if they had had competent generals and a supreme leader who listened to their advice. Now they have a lot of raw recruits, but they still have a logistics and leadership problem in addition to the morale problem. They are running out of equipment, and the new recruits, while better trained, are still not prepared or well-supported for what they face. Ukrainians are still getting a lot of morale-boosting support from the West. Their infrastructure is being supplemented with donations from all over Europe, not to mention the massive contribution from the US. Russia has somewhat bleaker prospects for keeping up its war effort.

 

[Jayjay]

The only logical conclusion that I can make of Ruski behavior over the past several months is that they are hell bent on keeping control of Crimea and maintaining their presence at their naval base at Sevastopol. At this point, nothing else matters for Poostain. I think Russian Hitler's efforts in the Donbas have become nothing but a feint toward this ultimate goal, a way to distract us from their primary, present intentions. And I think Ukraine realizes this. I think they would even negotiate and give up a lot of occupied territory, maybe even all, if they could keep Sevastopol.

I think the fact that Putin hasn't offered that means that he is not interested in only keeping Crimea. His original goal was to get the whole country, and I think he still intends to keep at least everything that's now occupied, and possibly more territory from Donetsk.

I don't think Putin has fixed goals when he will stop. His philosophy seems to be "what's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable". He will not make any territorial concessions. Every square inch has to be fought for.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Sebastopol in Crimea is Russia's main naval base in the Black Sea. Russia had a long term lease there from Ukraine. Now, there is no going back to pre-Russian invasion era agreements. That is now Rusia's main priority. Russia now MUST retain control of areas East of Crimea to hold Crimea, and to do that hold the Donbas et al. Russia cannot and will not sign a peace agreement that won't give them that. Ukraine cannot give Russia these because Russia cannot be trusted to not in the future continue this war. To do so would allow Russia to strangle Ukraine.

The future of this conflict lies here. NATO is no longer asleep. Russia cannot take Ukraine by main force. The clock is ticking for the Russian economy. And Russia cannot supply enough high tech material to fight a modern war.

 

[Jayjay]

On Kherson, I was just skeptical. Note that at the time even Ukraine was saying that the withdrawal was a ruse. But it was actually the appearance of it being a ruse that was the ruse. When Russia started pulling its flags from buildings then it seemed like it was really happening.

As for Kharkiv, in that post I'm not saying it was luck. It was definitely very good strategy and execution from Ukraine. But the reason why it was happen is that Russia had put all its eggs in one basket, Kherson, and didn't have enough troops stationed in Kharkiv. Ukraine exploited that weakness. But now? Mobilization means Russia has enough troops to man the entire frontline. Withdrawal from Kherson means those troops can also be used elsewhere (and unlike mobiks, they're more experienced and capable).

But having enough troops isn't the only problem that Russia has. It also has to feed, provision, and maintain supplies to all of them. Just putting bodies on the front lines to freeze and starve to death probably won't help a lot. They might as well just put up scarecrows dressed as Russian soldiers. Logistics has been a huge problem for them, not just manpower.

How hard is it to produce socks and thermal underwear? A country the size of Russia should not have problems with production capacity: it's about poor organization and fumbling because the mobilization is just starting. As it goes on, they will get better at it, though based on recent reports conscripts and mobilized reservists are still freezing their asses off.

I don't know anything more than you do about how hard it would be for Russian industry to meet that demand. Do you have reason to believe that they've solved their poor organization and fumbling and no longer have the problems they did in the past?

1) When you start at the bottom, the only way is up.

2) There are some indications in social media that things are improving for Russia. For example:

If manpower were the answer, they wouldn't have had to start drafting warm bodies to replace the cold dead ones.

I don't understand this logic. Ukraine had more manpower before the mobilization. That's one of the reasons why Russia failed to hold Kharkiv oblast: lack of manpower. The mobilization evens out the numbers, might even give the advantage to Russia (though I think Ukraine still can claim more motivated troops).

No, Ukraine had a smaller military force when the invasion started, but Russia did not commit all of its reserves until they started getting beat up and forced to retreat. They could have committed far more troops to the invasion and planned it better, if they had had competent generals and a supreme leader who listened to their advice.

My point exactly. Ukraine mobilized immediately after the war started. Putin thought he could avoid it, and waited until September. A lot of people, me included, expected Putin to announce mobilization already on the Victory Day on May 9th. Had he done that, Russia would be in a much better position.

Now they have a lot of raw recruits, but they still have a logistics and leadership problem in addition to the morale problem. They are running out of equipment, and the new recruits, while better trained, are still not prepared or well-supported for what they face. Ukrainians are still getting a lot of morale-boosting support from the West. Their infrastructure is being supplemented with donations from all over Europe, not to mention the massive contribution from the US. Russia has somewhat bleaker prospects for keeping up its war effort.

The strikes against infrastructure will indeed just work against Russia. Every cruise missile that hits a power plant or a hospital, or is shot down, could have been used against a military target. While it is a humanitarian disaster, reprisals against Ukraine's energy infrastructure are only hurting Russia's war effort and stiffening Ukraine's and its allies resolve.

But still, in the end the war is resolved in the front lines. If Ukraine can't fix its tactics and crack the Russian artillery advantage, Russia will be able to hold its ground and even make gains indefinitely. And with time, there are other risks looming in the horizon: possible attack from Belarus, Iranian ballistic missiles, GOP cutting off funding, China starting a war in Taiwan, and so on.

 

[steve_bank]

I'd have to check, I thought Ukraine was not going to renew the lease. Hence annexing Crimea and wanting a land route..

When you see Putin as a pre WWII dictator obsessed with an image of personal and military power he makes perfect sense. Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.

The Japanese thought American democracy was too soft and decadent to put op a figt. Hiter thought he had god like powers . He neded up believing his own myth.

No I did not see aytig abot Snowden being drfted. I was wondering how he feels about Russia the police state.