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

[barbos]

With what? CNN talked to one analyst that Russia has lost up to a half of their operational tanks so far.

CNN with their paid analysts is a propaganda outfit of State Department which itself is an outfit of neocon cabal.
They are filthy liars.

 

[barbos]

Meanwhile ukrainian nazis posted a video of them using chemical weapons.
White helmets are nowhere to be found.

 

[barbos]

It’s measured by 80% Russian casualty rates.

120% according to Zele the Clown

What does it say when Putin hasn't even defeated that Clown yet. Been a year, and all the Russians have managed to do was kill a bunch of Ukrainians, get a bunch of Russians killed, disrupt public infrastructure, got a flag ship sunk, and litter Ukraine with abandoned vehicles. One year to manage only that. And Zelensky is the clown.

Russia is fighting NATO aggression here. And does that successfully, considering the size of the NATO. Ukrainian army which NATO had a year ago does not exist anymore, it was utterly exterminated with all their equipment and soldiers.
You are the bad guys here, you!

 

[bilby]

Everyone knows that US conducted an act of War

Meh. The US, like every other nation state large enough to field a military, has conducted many acts of war. The US is not special or different.

and NATO is a criminal organization aimed at expansion and destruction by any means possible.

You are badly misinformed. NATOs purpose and structure are public information; It's a mutual defence organisation, whose members collaborate on the integration of armed forces and their weapons and logistics systems, and conduct joint training operations and exercises to maximise their effectiveness if called upon to fight cooperatively against a mutual enemy.

The aim of NATO is to deter attack against any NATO member state, by obliging all member states to treat an attack on another member as an attack on themselves.

Expansion of NATO is by mutual agreement.

The goal of NATO is the deterrence of wars; As a result, it stands in direct opposition to the destruction of anything, other than as a response to an attack.

None of this information is a secret, nor difficult to find.

The possibility that NATO has a hidden agenda, that it has successfully kept secret, is laughable conspiracist nonsense. The sheer size of the organisation would make keeping such a secret impossible - not to mention that any such agenda would be publicly obvious as soon as it began to be implemented.

I would say that I am surprised that someone of your apparent intelligence could be so badly wrong about something so easily tested, but recent history suggests that even smart people are frequently victims of conspiracist absurdity, and seem incapable of seeing it (or at least, unwilling to consider that they might be being misled).

 

[Jayjay]

Expect barbos to start talking about nazis in Poland soon;

I already talked about that. Yes, nazis.
Current polish regime is extra "polish" and has an extra axe to grind when it comes to Russia.

Funny how everyone who's had to live under Russian rule almost categorically have "an axe to grind" with it.

That's not the axe I am talking about. Current regime is controlled by the party head of which is a twin brother of an idiot who died in plane crash along with his millitary entourage in Russia. They claim Russia is responsible for the crash (they are not, idiots on the plane are)

Wouldn't have been the first time Russia denies doing something they did. But let's say that Smolensk disaster was not an assassination. Can you blame the Poles for being a tad bit skeptical of Russia's innocence, after all the other times they have been guilty as fuck and denying everything: MH17, Bucha, Kramatrosk railway station bombing, Olenivka prison false flag, etc. etc.

If Russia was not culpable in the Smolensk plane crash, it would be an outlier.

And yeah, dreams of reviving polish Reich are popular in Poland.
So, start learning polish and convert to catolicism, don't be a Bandera.

Every country has their nazis, Poland isn't any worse than Russia in that regard. In fact it's much better. Putin finances right-wing and nazis groups in Europe, has nazis fighting for Russia in Ukraine, and some of his best friends are nazis.

Putin's real problem with "banderites" isn't that Bandera was a nazi; it's that Bandera fought the soviets, and was killed by the KGB. When Putin was in KGB academy or whatever was the equivalent, he must have read about him, and it surely irks him personally that uppity Ukrainians are now portraying Bandera as a national hero and giving a finger to KGB's legacy (and of course, one of the main reason why Ukrainians do it is because they know it annoys Putin).

 

[SLD]

With what? CNN talked to one analyst that Russia has lost up to a half of their operational tanks so far.

CNN with their paid analysts is a propaganda outfit of State Department which itself is an outfit of neocon cabal.
They are filthy liars.

Pop goes the weasel!

 

[SLD]

It’s measured by 80% Russian casualty rates.

120% according to Zele the Clown

What does it say when Putin hasn't even defeated that Clown yet. Been a year, and all the Russians have managed to do was kill a bunch of Ukrainians, get a bunch of Russians killed, disrupt public infrastructure, got a flag ship sunk, and litter Ukraine with abandoned vehicles. One year to manage only that. And Zelensky is the clown.

Russia is fighting NATO aggression here. And does that successfully, considering the size of the NATO. Ukrainian army which NATO had a year ago does not exist anymore, it was utterly exterminated with all their equipment and soldiers.
You are the bad guys here, you!

Maybe, but the winners write the history, and you are losing.

 

[Jayjay]

And what's up with Hersh claiming Biden the President planning to blow up NordStream BEFORE Putin's "invasion" into Ukraine.

Hersh is a demented old coot, who is either a pathological liar, or being fooled by his anonymous "sources". Not sure why anyone would take him seriously.

What's nice about his blog post that allegedly blows the lid on this conspiracy is that it has many details that can be falsified. And they have been:

Blowing Holes in Seymour Hersh's Pipe Dream

On the surface Seymour Hersh's story looks passable, but as you dig deeper it has more holes than the Nord Stream pipeline.

oalexanderdk.substack.com

For example, Hersh says Stoltenberg "had cooperated with the American intelligence community since the Vietnam War" even though he was born in 1959 and was 16 years old when the war ended. Or that the alleged P-8 surveillance plane used isn't in active service yet. Or a number of other details that don't make sense.

The biggest gaping hole in Hersh's tale is that it implies Norway blew up the pipes. That's dumb even by Kremlin propaganda standards. They have zero reason to betray Germany, and even less reason to aggravate Russia because they have their own pipelines in the Baltic Sea that could be targeted.

I think that Hersh is being fed a yarn made up Moscow, and even they can't keep their stories straight because initially Kremlin blamed the UK for the attack. This is very similar to what Russia always does to hide culpability: throw every possible conspiracy theory to the wall and see what sticks, even if they're completely contradictory.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What does it say when Putin hasn't even defeated that Clown yet. Been a year, and all the Russians have managed to do was kill a bunch of Ukrainians, get a bunch of Russians killed, disrupt public infrastructure, got a flag ship sunk, and litter Ukraine with abandoned vehicles. One year to manage only that. And Zelensky is the clown.

Russia is fighting NATO aggression here. And does that successfully, considering the size of the NATO. Ukrainian army which NATO had a year ago does not exist anymore, it was utterly exterminated with all their equipment and soldiers.
You are the bad guys here, you!

"Exterminated"... but we are the bad guys. Got it.

 

[Jayjay]

Putin apologists are delusional. The mighty Russian military has had their ass handed to them even though the West has held back giving them the armaments that would virtually decimate the Russian forces. The only thing keeping this from a rout of the Russian military is the fear of nuclear retaliation by Russia.

While fear of nuclear war may have something to do with it, it's just plain caution and stinginess. Those who make the weapons are probably worried that they'll be captured by Russia, or their secrets otherwise are compromised. And those who just own the weapons or only produce dumb munitions that have nothing to hide are going to be cognizant of the price.

 

[Jayjay]

Reports are now coming in. Russia is beginning its long awaited full scale attacks on Ukraine. Claims are Russia has 1800 tanks assembled for this effort. Plus 300,000 conscripts. Russia has to beat the spring Rasputinita, mud season. Evil is afoot.

With what? CNN talked to one analyst that Russia has lost up to a half of their operational tanks so far. Are they going to waste the rest of them? They may have 4,000 more in storage, but good fucking luck getting them going after years of neglect, and no maintenance. All in all they’ve lost probably up to 2,000 tanks and over 9,000 total vehicles or other equipment.

They can make more. Probably enough to keep up with the current level of attrition for simple things like T-90 tanks, BMPs and artillery pieces.

Russia may have lost up to half of its operational tank fleet in Ukraine, monitoring group says | CNN

Russia has potentially lost up to half of all its operational tank fleet since the start of the Ukraine war, according to information collected by a monitoring group, as its military struggles to meet the goals of Vladimir Putin's invasion.

www.cnn.com

We do need to be shipping Ukraine a Burt load of ammo and antitank weapons asap to blunt this offensive. Then when they get their modern tanks they can launch a strong counter-offensive and retake Luhansk.

The number of tanks being donated to Ukraine is still fairly low. They might enable local counter-attacks and "active defense" where Russian forces are pushed back and their gains eliminated. But Russia has been building trenches and fortifications deeper within the frontlines for a long time, and I doubt Ukraine can break them.

Ukraine has a chronic shortage of artillery shells of all sizes so improving on that is an absolute must.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Reports are now coming in. Russia is beginning its long awaited full scale attacks on Ukraine. Claims are Russia has 1800 tanks assembled for this effort. Plus 300,000 conscripts. Russia has to beat the spring Rasputinita, mud season. Evil is afoot.

With what? CNN talked to one analyst that Russia has lost up to a half of their operational tanks so far. Are they going to waste the rest of them? They may have 4,000 more in storage, but good fucking luck getting them going after years of neglect, and no maintenance. All in all they’ve lost probably up to 2,000 tanks and over 9,000 total vehicles or other equipment.

They can make more. Probably enough to keep up with the current level of attrition for simple things like T-90 tanks, BMPs and artillery pieces.

Can they? Last summer reports were both of Russia’s tank plants were shut down due to sanctions. Do you know them to be running again?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Who knows. But Americans had been warning Germany for years to not trust Russian gas. Germany falsely believed that economic ties and trade with Russia would tame the Russian desire to expand and plunder. Sad. If Ukranians have the gumption to fight for democracy with their lives; the least the rest of the world should do is cut off Russia financially from the world as much as possible.

Everyone knows that US conducted an act of War and NATO is a criminal organization aimed at expansion and destruction by any means possible.

NUTS. According to the United Nations:

Article 2 (4) of the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all Members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.

Russia has invaded Ukraine. A sovereign country. This is an illegal act. Your side is threatening to do the same against Moldova, Poland, and the Baltics. I'm sure that there are other countries in your sights until the imperialists are stopped.

Which country has Nato invaded stealing its sovereignty and political independence?

 

[Jayjay]

Meanwhile ukrainian nazis posted a video of them using chemical weapons.
White helmets are nowhere to be found.

At least Ukraine isn't using it on civilians (EDITED TO ADD: if the story is true at all. Ukraine's denied it and in the video you refer to they could be regular explosives for all I know). And even then, it sounds to me like hydrocyanic acid that they allegedly used is not that dangerous (or effective) in battle conditions, because it disperses into air quickly.

Russia has also used chemical weapons in this war, and I didn't hear you complain about that.

 

[Jayjay]

Reports are now coming in. Russia is beginning its long awaited full scale attacks on Ukraine. Claims are Russia has 1800 tanks assembled for this effort. Plus 300,000 conscripts. Russia has to beat the spring Rasputinita, mud season. Evil is afoot.

With what? CNN talked to one analyst that Russia has lost up to a half of their operational tanks so far. Are they going to waste the rest of them? They may have 4,000 more in storage, but good fucking luck getting them going after years of neglect, and no maintenance. All in all they’ve lost probably up to 2,000 tanks and over 9,000 total vehicles or other equipment.

They can make more. Probably enough to keep up with the current level of attrition for simple things like T-90 tanks, BMPs and artillery pieces.

Can they? Last summer reports were both of Russia’s tank plants were shut down due to sanctions. Do you know them to be running again?

Russia is preparing new delivery of T-90M tanks, workers are wanted

UralVagonZavod is ready with the delivery of a new batch of T-90M Proryv tanks. At the same time, the company announced that it was looking for workers.

bulgarianmilitary.com

I'm not convinced the plants were ever shut down. Clearly, by summer it was obvious that Russia would need to ramp up its production of all kinds of weapons. Putin wouldn't let sanctions stop that, though component shortage may have been an issue.

Russia can still manufacture steel and other basic parts easily. The problem is with electronics and sensors that Russia can't manufacture on its own, and which need to be either replaced with alternative parts from China, or smuggled in via third countries. So I think that while Russia can build tanks, they might be missing some key capabilities like night vision or most advanced cameras.

High tech is Ukraine's and west's advantage, and it should be pressed aggressively. Night attacks, better accuracy, and mobility to avoid counter-battery ire are keys. Ukraine can't win with numbers, they need to be more efficient.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

 

[Copernicus]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

 

[Jayjay]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

I would also expect there to be lots of quality issues when they have to switch suppliers of many components at once.

And I sure hope that they're under pressure from top brass to meet production quotas and skip the QA so that the problems show up in the field instead.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

Totally agree. The Russian invasion has really highlighted how reliant our supply chain is on peace. I think that we need to deleverage our supply chain, bring it back to American (called reshoring) or at least only have our supply chain in friendly countries. We should not be trading with any country that is at war or threatening war with a sovereign country. This includes China IMO.

 

[bilby]

Some years back, Russia outsourced some of their tank parts production. Modern Russian tank transmissions were produced in Italy. Advanced electronics were made in France. Due to sanctions on Russia, these sources are no longer available to the Russian military.

This is the problem with modern manufacturing. For example, Boeing orders lots of components from countries all over the world. When I worked at Boeing, we did lots of business with Russian engineering companies. Boeing had to do that, because other countries that purchase things demand that there be some kind of economic reciprocity in order to make up for the economic loss of buying foreign products. Boeing sold its airliners to Russian companies, so it needed to establish those relationships. I even once visited the headquarters of Boeing Russia back in the 1990s. They were an excellent source of engineering expertise for us, but that mostly dried up after Putin came to power. Russia became an unreliable business partner. That is happening to a similar extent with China these days.

Russian tank manufacturers likely purchased assembly kits for components in their tanks, and those components had to be machined and tested according to Russian specifications. Those assemblies would now need to be manufactured in Russia or the contracts transferred to some other country, such as China, North Korea, India, Iran, or other country that can be part of a newly formed secure supply chain. So this war is becoming a huge economic windfall for those countries, but it isn't clear to me that they can provide supplies that Russia needs quickly enough to be of use in its invasion plans. It often takes years for new supply chains to be formed. The West is certainly feeling some economic pinches from the loss of Russian supply chains (as barbos gleefully points out from time to time), but they are in a far better position than Russia to absorb the loss.

Totally agree. The Russian invasion has really highlighted how reliant our supply chain is on peace. I think that we need to deleverage our supply chain, bring it back to American (called reshoring) or at least only have our supply chain in friendly countries. We should not be trading with any country that is at war or threatening war with a sovereign country. This includes China IMO.

Yeah, the problem with this is that it assumes that friendship between nations is a thing, and that that thing is the cause of, and not the consequence of, peace.

It further assumes that trade isn't a major cause of either peace or friendship between nations.

All of those assumptions are highly dubious.

The consequences of "We won't trade with you because you might become a future enemy" could be pretty dire, if it turns out that "We won't be your friends because you won't trade with us" is also a thing.

And as Charles de Gaulle observed, countries don't have friends, only interests.

It's in the interests of any country to avoid war with major trading partners. Not so much though with countries with whom little or no trading takes place. You can fight them with impunity, unless their armies turn out to be stronger than yours.