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

[bilby]

I find it very difficult to believe Russia can pull a fast one any more.

Sure, but do the Russians find it difficult to believe? Being wrong hasn't stopped them from believing in themselves before.

 

[Jayjay]

That's why I think it might be a ruse to make Ukraine redeploy their forces, and then Russia will start the real push.

With what?

With the hundreds of thousands of mobilized troops they've been ramping up since September. And there being trained all the time. Quality may be a problem, but quantity is not.

According to ISW:

Russia’s decisive strategic action in 2023 can manifest itself in multiple possible courses of action (COAs) that are not mutually exclusive. According to US military doctrine, a military can undertake a decisive action at every level of war to produce a definitive result and achieve an objective.[17] Decisive actions can be at the tactical, operational, or strategic level and can be either offensive or defensive.[18]

COA 1: A major Russian offensive, most likely in the Luhansk Oblast area. Russian forces may seek to conduct a major offensive in the Luhansk Oblast area. The full capture of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts remain the Kremlin’s official war goals and are among Russia’s most achievable (though still highly challenging) objectives given Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts are logistically the easiest territories for Russia to capture. Russian forces have been deploying additional forces to Luhansk Oblast and undertaking other significant activities since 2022, which ISW assesses can support an offensive operation in Luhansk Oblast.[19] ISW continues to assess that Russian forces are unlikely to conduct an offensive in southern Ukraine in Kherson or Zaporizhia oblasts.[20] The Dnipro River separates the frontline in Kherson Oblast and is a serious obstacle to maneuver. Russia’s layered field fortifications array in Kherson Oblast and extensive mining in Zaporizhia Oblast indicate Russian forces are prioritizing defensive operations in both provinces.[21]

And even if they did, I'm pretty sure the US would pick up on it and let Ukraine know. I'm trying not to be a fangirl over the US military industrial complex but I find it very difficult to believe Russia can pull a fast one any more.

Not a "fast one" for sure. Troop concentrations can be seen in advance, so it's not like either side can completely surprise the other. But the idea that Russia will do a large offensive push this winter is hardly controversial, and I think it'd be a bigger surprise if it didn't happen.

This is why rumors of something happening in Zaporizhzhia are a bit eye-brow raising. It could be an attempt to misdirect from the actual push in Luhansk. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

 

[Jayjay]

Also, it could be that the actual attack will happen in Zaporizhzhia, and the recent bungled attempts were just probing for weak spots.

Russia and Ukraine ‘massing significant forces’ in Zaporizhzhia, says UK

‘Overall, the conflict is in a state of deadlock. However, there is a realistic possibility of local Russian advances around Bakhmut,’ the Ministry of Defence added

www.yahoo.com

 

[Jarhyn]

No one wins any war these days. The last war with a clear winner, who enjoyed the fruits of their spoils, ended in 1945. Soon, no one will be left alive to remember it. I wish humanity would realize this, and try something different.

It's Russia that needs to learn this. Most of the world is already on board. The US invaded Vietnam and Afghanistan. We didn't achieve our objectives. We pulled out. We didn't nuke the world. What makes Russia unique is that it attacks a country; and then threatens to destroy the world if it doesn't achieve its goals in Ukraine.

Exactly right. In this conflict, it's been Russia from the start that has been threatening with nuclear escalation. The US and NATO have done the opposite and are making sure that they aren't going to use nukes even if it looks like they are losing. They're not being very specific about it (for obvious reasons) but even the threatened response to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon has been implied to be conventional, not nuclear.

Part of this is that Russia is trying to frame their dumbass war as some sort of existential question for Russia, when it's nothing of the kind. There's 0% chance that if Russia were to be driven out of Ukraine, that Ukraine and the West wouldn't stop at the 2013 borders. Or possibly even 2022 February borders, if Russia agreed to withdraw voluntarily. The drunken blowhard former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev had this to say in twitter:



Of course, this is bullshit. One could frame any war to be "crucial for one's destiny" to justify them. Russia is the largest country on Earth, its destiny and existence are in no way predicated on them owning slightly more land in Ukraine or one more military base or port in Crimea. If Russia's existence wasn't under imminent threat a year ago or in 2013, it isn't now either.

Who this war is an existential question to is Ukraine. A country that USA, Europe, and Russia convinced to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Unless they see their destiny as a globally recognized villain?

To be fair, economically, it's existence has been under quiet threat for some time owing to their own behavior and philosophies.

Somewhere between "life sucks for everyone so don't complain when we make life suck for you" and having a single export that the world is doing it's damnedest to make obsolete due to the fact that overuse of oil is literally destroying our planet's habitability, a doom was placed on the relevance of the Russian state.

I think at least a few people in Russia can understand that. They think they think they need to do something to maintain relevance in the post-oil world they see on the horizon. And to be fair, if that's what they want, that's what they have to do.

The problem is that NOBODY has a right to that. That's something they want, but it's like someone else having the basketball at recess so beating them up to take it because you want it. It's NOT ok and should rightly result in being barred from recess entirely for a while.

The police were an existential threat to Pablo Escobar's "destiny", too.

 

[TV and credit cards]

A well laid out list of western companies still doing business in Russia for your consideration.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The west should give Ukraine longer range artillery with the caveat they don't use it on Russian land. If some happens to fall there, "oops".

I think that such mishaps would be bad for both US and Ukraine. If there are restrictions, then they should be applied strictly, because doing otherwise means one or both sides can't be trusted to do what they say.

So far, there are zero instances of Himars being used to hit targets in Russia. And that's good, because it means Ukraine is a trusted ally to US, and also, it signals Russia that US (and by extension, Ukraine) can be trusted to keep the peace even if the peace treaty does not completely cripple Ukrainian defenses or prevent it from working with NATO. Also Russia is less able to use the pretext that its citizens are facing an existential threat from NATO, if NATO weapons are explicitly banned from being used against Russia.

The benefits of this strategic trust far outweigh the temporary tactical gains Ukraine might achieve from hitting bases or ammunition depots inside Russian borders.

When talking about longer range weapons, I think the same logic applies. US should give them on condition that they won't be used to hit Russia. Ukraine will adhere, because if they don't, they risk losing future arms shipments. Ukraine can still hit Russia with their own weapons as they have done already, and the American weapons have plenty of valid targets inside the occupied territory that are currently out of reach of Ukrainian artillery.

Totally agree with your post. Ukraine has been remarkably restrained in not attacking Russia proper. We need to give the weapons that Ukraine needs to defend themselves with the stipulation that they not attack legally recognized Russia.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No one wins any war these days. The last war with a clear winner, who enjoyed the fruits of their spoils, ended in 1945. Soon, no one will be left alive to remember it. I wish humanity would realize this, and try something different.

It's Russia that needs to learn this. Most of the world is already on board. The US invaded Vietnam and Afghanistan. We didn't achieve our objectives. We pulled out. We didn't nuke the world. What makes Russia unique is that it attacks a country; and then threatens to destroy the world if it doesn't achieve its goals in Ukraine.

Exactly right. In this conflict, it's been Russia from the start that has been threatening with nuclear escalation. The US and NATO have done the opposite and are making sure that they aren't going to use nukes even if it looks like they are losing. They're not being very specific about it (for obvious reasons) but even the threatened response to Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon has been implied to be conventional, not nuclear.

Part of this is that Russia is trying to frame their dumbass war as some sort of existential question for Russia, when it's nothing of the kind. There's 0% chance that if Russia were to be driven out of Ukraine, that Ukraine and the West wouldn't stop at the 2013 borders. Or possibly even 2022 February borders, if Russia agreed to withdraw voluntarily. The drunken blowhard former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev had this to say in twitter:



Of course, this is bullshit. One could frame any war to be "crucial for one's destiny" to justify them. Russia is the largest country on Earth, its destiny and existence are in no way predicated on them owning slightly more land in Ukraine or one more military base or port in Crimea. If Russia's existence wasn't under imminent threat a year ago or in 2013, it isn't now either.

Who this war is an existential question to is Ukraine. A country that USA, Europe, and Russia convinced to give up its nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Unless they see their destiny as a globally recognized villain?

To be fair, economically, it's existence has been under quiet threat for some time owing to their own behavior and philosophies.

Somewhere between "life sucks for everyone so don't complain when we make life suck for you" and having a single export that the world is doing it's damnedest to make obsolete due to the fact that overuse of oil is literally destroying our planet's habitability, a doom was placed on the relevance of the Russian state.

I think at least a few people in Russia can understand that. They think they think they need to do something to maintain relevance in the post-oil world they see on the horizon. And to be fair, if that's what they want, that's what they have to do.

The problem is that NOBODY has a right to that. That's something they want, but it's like someone else having the basketball at recess so beating them up to take it because you want it. It's NOT ok and should rightly result in being barred from recess entirely for a while.

The police were an existential threat to Pablo Escobar's "destiny", too.

Really good post. Although it is Russia's fault that they are "losing relevance". They had the majority of the European gas/oil market; then squandered it when they attacked Ukraine. The world is moving away from oil/gas towards high tech and the information economy. But what young aspiring tech person wants to work in Russia and be sledghammered for not fighting in Ukraine? Agree with Jay that Russia is winning the war right now. But the long term prospects for Russia are terrible. And it's their own fault. NATO doesn't need to invade Russia proper; Russia is destroying itself.

 

[Copernicus]

That's why I think it might be a ruse to make Ukraine redeploy their forces, and then Russia will start the real push.

With what?

With the hundreds of thousands of mobilized troops they've been ramping up since September. And there being trained all the time. Quality may be a problem, but quantity is not.

According to ISW:

Russia’s decisive strategic action in 2023 can manifest itself in multiple possible courses of action (COAs) that are not mutually exclusive. According to US military doctrine, a military can undertake a decisive action at every level of war to produce a definitive result and achieve an objective.[17] Decisive actions can be at the tactical, operational, or strategic level and can be either offensive or defensive.[18]

COA 1: A major Russian offensive, most likely in the Luhansk Oblast area. Russian forces may seek to conduct a major offensive in the Luhansk Oblast area. The full capture of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts remain the Kremlin’s official war goals and are among Russia’s most achievable (though still highly challenging) objectives given Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts are logistically the easiest territories for Russia to capture. Russian forces have been deploying additional forces to Luhansk Oblast and undertaking other significant activities since 2022, which ISW assesses can support an offensive operation in Luhansk Oblast.[19] ISW continues to assess that Russian forces are unlikely to conduct an offensive in southern Ukraine in Kherson or Zaporizhia oblasts.[20] The Dnipro River separates the frontline in Kherson Oblast and is a serious obstacle to maneuver. Russia’s layered field fortifications array in Kherson Oblast and extensive mining in Zaporizhia Oblast indicate Russian forces are prioritizing defensive operations in both provinces.[21]

And even if they did, I'm pretty sure the US would pick up on it and let Ukraine know. I'm trying not to be a fangirl over the US military industrial complex but I find it very difficult to believe Russia can pull a fast one any more.

Not a "fast one" for sure. Troop concentrations can be seen in advance, so it's not like either side can completely surprise the other. But the idea that Russia will do a large offensive push this winter is hardly controversial, and I think it'd be a bigger surprise if it didn't happen.

This is why rumors of something happening in Zaporizhzhia are a bit eye-brow raising. It could be an attempt to misdirect from the actual push in Luhansk. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Not at all far-fetched. Russian troops conducting joint exercises with Belarusian troops is also another obvious ploy to draw Ukrainian defensive forces away from a potential operation in Luhansk. Imperial Russia has Ukraine surrounded on three sides (counting even the small Russian troop infestation in Transnistria), so they are in a position to attack from a number of different directions. Whether they have the means and competence to pull it off is another matter, but Putin clearly intends to add as much of Ukraine to the Russian empire as possible. If and when Lukashenko disappears, Putin or his successor may move to incorporate their territory, as well, although Belarus is doing fine as an independent vassal state right now.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Yes, do think faster.




I struggle to find reason, some US strategy to this seemingly slow-walk of armament to Ukraine. We started out great. Is it to push European countries into taking a more active role? Ensure Russia's economy is good and crushed? Or is it the more likely, there is no reason. I'm not missing a thing. It simply is because behemoth government.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes, do think faster.




I struggle to find reason, some US strategy to this seemingly slow-walk of armament to Ukraine. We started out great. Is it to push European countries into taking a more active role? Ensure Russia's economy is good and crushed? Or is it the more likely, there is no reason. I'm not missing a thing. It simply is because behemoth government.

The US is still top provider of arms, and will be. I think part of the reason is that it's reactive for new and more advanced weaponry. WHen it becomes obvious that Ukraine needs X, and NATO or United States decides to deliver X, it still takes 3-6 months to get X out of storage, possibly fix or modify X, train Ukraine to use X, and organize logistics for future maintenance of X.

I think the west could be more proactive. Get the cogs moving before the decision is made. For example, Abrams tanks and F-16s: start figuring out now what it will take to make them useful for Ukraine. Move the units to Poland or Germany to be ready. Prep training grounds. Heck, maybe even start the training just in case. When and if the political decision is later made, then they can be delivered overnight. If the war goes so well that this stuff isn't needed, or if it goes so poorly that the stuff wouldn't help anyway, there's also the option to not go ahead. It would give NATO and Ukraine more options down the road to be prepared for multiple contingencies, and it would send Russia the message that they can't win.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, do think faster.

Yes, we must. Morally and pragmatically - both.

The US is still top provider of arms, and will be. I think part of the reason is that it's reactive for new and more advanced weaponry. WHen it becomes obvious that Ukraine needs X, and NATO or United States decides to deliver X, it still takes 3-6 months to get X out of storage, possibly fix or modify X, train Ukraine to use X, and organize logistics for future maintenance of X.

I think the west could be more proactive. Get the cogs moving before the decision is made. For example, Abrams tanks and F-16s: start figuring out now what it will take to make them useful for Ukraine. Move the units to Poland or Germany to be ready. Prep training grounds. Heck, maybe even start the training just in case. When and if the political decision is later made, then they can be delivered overnight. If the war goes so well that this stuff isn't needed, or if it goes so poorly that the stuff wouldn't help anyway, there's also the option to not go ahead. It would give NATO and Ukraine more options down the road to be prepared for multiple contingencies, and it would send Russia the message that they can't win.

I agree completely. In addition there is the potentially useful outcome that Russians see the readiness and it translates to a faster understanding of futility and reduces morale.

 

[Patooka]

I struggle to find reason, some US strategy to this seemingly slow-walk of armament to Ukraine. We started out great.

Is that what's happening though? I don't think foreign policy has tapered off, I think the reporting of it has become stale. Just because it's not on the news doesn't mean it isn't happening. And I seriously doubt Raytheon, Northrop etc would give up on this veritable cash cow.

The war in Ukraine continues to rage on, but there's already one clear winner

Ukraine continues to need American weapons to hold out against Russia, and now a global military spending boom is set to further benefit the US arms industry. There are accusations of "profiteering", but is there any alternative?

www.abc.net.au

Mainstream media being fixated on George Santos doesn't mean this is going away.

 

[Copernicus]

The US is still top provider of arms, and will be. I think part of the reason is that it's reactive for new and more advanced weaponry. WHen it becomes obvious that Ukraine needs X, and NATO or United States decides to deliver X, it still takes 3-6 months to get X out of storage, possibly fix or modify X, train Ukraine to use X, and organize logistics for future maintenance of X.

I think the west could be more proactive. Get the cogs moving before the decision is made. For example, Abrams tanks and F-16s: start figuring out now what it will take to make them useful for Ukraine. Move the units to Poland or Germany to be ready. Prep training grounds. Heck, maybe even start the training just in case. When and if the political decision is later made, then they can be delivered overnight. If the war goes so well that this stuff isn't needed, or if it goes so poorly that the stuff wouldn't help anyway, there's also the option to not go ahead. It would give NATO and Ukraine more options down the road to be prepared for multiple contingencies, and it would send Russia the message that they can't win.

I believe that they have already been doing exactly what you recommend here, but it isn't as easy to just send the weapons at the snap of a finger. First of all, the funding has just been approved by Congress recently, but politics always gets in the way. Right now, we cannot even be sure that Congress will honor the debt on funds that it has already spent on other things, and a big sticking point with some of our weapons systems is that they cost a lot of money to operate and maintain (e.g. the Abrams tank). That is money that Ukraine has to get from somewhere. Even planning all of this costs a lot of money, but you can't necessarily assemble training courses for people who might be struggling just to understand the English that all of the materials are written in. Then there is the cost of scheduling and shipping the hardware from here to there. The US has to worry about letting advanced weapons systems fall into Russian hands, too, as they inevitably will under battlefield conditions. And, of course, there is always the real possibility that some weaponry will be turned against Russian civilian targets, escalating the war in an unpredictable direction.

The controversy surrounding the German Leopard 2 tanks has to do with the fact that they already exist in large quantities and aren't being used by the countries that have them. They are designed for exactly the kind of conditions that exist in Ukraine now--to go against Russian T90m tanks. They are relatively easy and cheap to operate and maintain. It doesn't make sense to supply Ukraine with advanced tanks that they really can't operate, maintain, and repair easily. Scholz knows this, but he is still insisting that the US send its big expensive tanks in first rather than do what makes more sense.

What’s stopping German-made Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine?​

 

[ZiprHead]

US to designate Russia’s Wagner mercenary group as a ‘transnational criminal organization’

The US Treasury Department will designate the Russian mercenary organization Wagner Group as a “transnational criminal organization” and will impose additional sanctions next week against the group and its support network across the world, the White House said on Friday.

“These actions recognize the transcontinental threat that Wagner poses, including through its ongoing pattern of serious criminal activity,” National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby told reporters on Friday, ahead of the Treasury Department announcement.

Along with the new sanctions, the US has released newly declassified photos of Russian railcars traveling from Russia to North Korea and back in November, in what the US believes was the initial delivery of infantry rockets and missiles for use by the mercenary organization Wagner Group in Ukraine.

 

[bilby]

The US has to worry about letting advanced weapons systems fall into Russian hands, too, as they inevitably will under battlefield conditions.

Certainly they do worry about this, but whether they have to is more questionable. The less advanced systems are technologies that Russia already has, and even those are proving difficult for Russia to manufacture and deploy in large enough quantities to make a difference.

More advanced technologies are simply beyond what Russia can manage to field economically - if they were to capture and reverse engineer them, that might well actually benefit Ukraine, because attempts to manufacture and deploy them would divert funding and effort from simpler technologies that would give a larger and more immediate benefit.

Hitler's V weapons looked spectacular, and were undoubtedly cutting edge technologies that outstripped anything their opponents could field. But the money, effort, and expertise wasted on those systems likely accelerated the German defeat - if they had spent the money on better winter uniforms, more fuel supplies, or better trucks to support the Eastern Front, rather than on whizz-bang secret weapons that were of zero tactical or strategic value, they might even have won the war.

Without the massive American technological and financial base that produces these advanced systems, they might well do more harm than good to anyone who tries to deploy them.

It's an integrated system - knowing how to make an Abrams tank with all its various secret features and capabilities is one thing, but having the resources and skills to build a fleet of them (including a supply chain producing high quality components on-time and on-specification), and the structures in place to test them, support them, train their crews, and effectively integrate them with other advanced weapons systems (including systems being operated by different armed service branches) on the battlefield, isn't as easy. Ukraine would presumably be able to lean on the US to help out with that stuff. Russia would need to do it all themselves (unless you think North Korea or Iran are advanced enough to assist).

This would be particularly difficult for a cobbled together conscript military whose doctrines and equipment are forty years out of date, backed by a kleptocratic industrial system that struggles to produce decent quality and quantity of even their relatively simple weapons systems and the fuel and ammunition they require.

The US military is a machine, and all its components are to some extent dependent upon all the others to make it an effective machine. You can put a supercharger from a Lamborghini on a Lada 2105, but it will still be a piece of shit.

Allowing Russia to obtain and examine such classified weapons systems is really not a big deal in the short to medium term. It could, perhaps, be problematic in the much longer term, if some future enemy (perhaps even a future, less comically incompetent, Russia) attains the ability to emulate the currently state of the art US systems; But by that time one might reasonably expect that those systems would be rendered obsolete by new systems anyway, at least for use against the US/NATO.

 

[Jayjay]

The US has to worry about letting advanced weapons systems fall into Russian hands, too, as they inevitably will under battlefield conditions.

Certainly they do worry about this, but whether they have to is more questionable. The less advanced systems are technologies that Russia already has, and even those are proving difficult for Russia to manufacture and deploy in large enough quantities to make a difference.

More advanced technologies are simply beyond what Russia can manage to field economically - if they were to capture and reverse engineer them, that might well actually benefit Ukraine, because attempts to manufacture and deploy them would divert funding and effort from simpler technologies that would give a larger and more immediate benefit.

I'm not sure if the purpose of reverse engineering would be to be able to copy the weapons exactly, but rather to come up with counter-measures that are designed to target non-obvious weaknesses of the captured technology.

Incidentally, since last year US and NATO have been the beneficiaries of a huge amount of information about captured Russian equipment. Most notably probably intact EW stations and downed cruise missiles that revealed what components they were made of.

 

[Patooka]

Allowing Russia to obtain and examine such classified weapons systems is really not a big deal in the short to medium term.

I don't want to sound too much like Tom Clancy, but I suspect Russia could make some serious bank if they leased salvaged US kit to China or Iran. I seriously doubt it would compromise US capability (as any M1s or M2s salvaged would still be 30+ years old) but it could keep Russia afloat in the short term.

 

[Copernicus]

Allowing Russia to obtain and examine such classified weapons systems is really not a big deal in the short to medium term.

I don't want to sound too much like Tom Clancy, but I suspect Russia could make some serious bank if they leased salvaged US kit to China or Iran. I seriously doubt it would compromise US capability (as any M1s or M2s salvaged would still be 30+ years old) but it could keep Russia afloat in the short term.

That was a thought that occurred to me, as well. It isn't even just about selling the intel to China and Iran. Sharing it would be bad enough. Russia isn't the only country that can manufacture advanced weaponry.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I struggle to find reason, some US strategy to this seemingly slow-walk of armament to Ukraine. We started out great.

Is that what's happening though? I don't think foreign policy has tapered off, I think the reporting of it has become stale. Just because it's not on the news doesn't mean it isn't happening. And I seriously doubt Raytheon, Northrop etc would give up on this veritable cash cow.

The war in Ukraine continues to rage on, but there's already one clear winner

Ukraine continues to need American weapons to hold out against Russia, and now a global military spending boom is set to further benefit the US arms industry. There are accusations of "profiteering", but is there any alternative?

www.abc.net.au

Mainstream media being fixated on George Santos doesn't mean this is going away.

I considered this. That perhaps I'm just anxious to see Ukraine push in the Zaporizhzhia area toward Mariupol. Perhaps they are in preparation for a counteroffensive and patience is required.

And now the very next day, perhaps not.

The West has contributed to Ukraine’s inability to take advantage of having pinned Russian forces in Bakhmut by slow-rolling or withholding weapons systems and supplies essential for large-scale counteroffensive operations.

Hopefully these Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs are actually part of the latest package. I think this will double the strike range. There shouldn't be much lag time before they can start doing God's work.

 

[Jayjay]

I considered this. That perhaps I'm just anxious to see Ukraine push in the Zaporizhzhia area toward Mariupol. Perhaps they are in preparation for a counteroffensive and patience is required.

And now the very next day, perhaps not.

The West has contributed to Ukraine’s inability to take advantage of having pinned Russian forces in Bakhmut by slow-rolling or withholding weapons systems and supplies essential for large-scale counteroffensive operations.

I think the lack of media coverage is because daily reports about Ukraine losing ground are so depressing. Nobody wants to hear bad news.

Hopefully these Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bombs are actually part of the latest package. I think this will double the strike range. There shouldn't be much lag time before they can start doing God's work.

Going door to door handing out pamphlets?