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

[lpetrich]

Second, there was a growing awareness that attacks on civilians were counterproductive. This was the conclusion of studies undertaken immediately after World War II on the impact of the Allied strategic bombing campaigns, and then the later experience of the Vietnam War, in which the efforts to seek out and eliminate the communist Viet Cong led to many civilian casualties.

The third development was the advent in the 1970s of precision-guided munitions.

That made it possible to be very selective about what one attacks, even attacks far inside one's opponent's territory.

With precision-guided weapons, there was an opportunity to revive classic warfare by concentrating on undermining an enemy’s military organization through deep strikes and rapid maneuvers. This was the lesson drawn from the United States’ decisive defeat of Iraqi forces in the first Gulf War.

Nevertheless, although this doctrinal shift has been evident in the planning of recent Western military interventions, classic warfare strategy has often fallen by the wayside once those wars turn into counterinsurgency campaigns, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then a section on "RUSSIAN BRUTISHNESS, UKRAINIAN RESTRAINT"

"For its part, in the decades after the Cold War, Russia never quite abandoned the total-war model." noting Russia's sort of war in Syria and Chechnya.

Now Russia is doing the same in Ukraine. But this time around, it faces an increasingly well-organized and professional army. As the Kremlin has become more frustrated in its campaign to occupy the country, it has resorted to regular attacks on Ukrainian civil society and economy. These have included aiming missiles at Kyiv and other cities, leveling apartment complexes and sometimes whole towns, attacking Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, and laying prolonged sieges, such as against Mariupol in the spring, Severodonetsk in the summer, and Bakhmut more recently. These are operations that involve artillery barrages that reduce cities to rubble and force their populations to flee.

But is Russia's war a total one? Russia has avoided using nuclear weapons or attacking NATO countries.

Nonetheless, in most respects, Russia has followed the total-war approach that it has used in other conflicts since the end of the Cold War.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is following a classic-war approach. In defending their own cities, factories, and energy plants, Ukrainian forces have every reason to avoid unnecessary damage to civilian areas, and they have needed to conserve their scarce ammunition for high-priority Russian military targets. Moreover, Kyiv has also been constrained by the limitations placed on it by its Western suppliers.

Like not receiving anything that would enable Ukraine to strike deep inside Russia.

So far, the results of the Russian approach have confirmed the standard criticisms of total-war strategy. The onslaught against Ukraine’s civil society has made no dent in popular support for the Ukrainian government. Instead, accumulating evidence of egregious Russian behavior has made Ukraine all the more determined to ensure that these territories are liberated and that none is handed over to Russia indefinitely. The humanitarian consequences of Russia’s methods have also strengthened Western support for Ukraine. In addition, Russia’s total-war aims have reinforced the Ukrainian belief that there is no obvious “compromise peace” available. Nor have Russia’s total-war tactics impeded Ukrainian operations.

 

[lpetrich]

In a section on strategy and tactics in "RETURN OF THE TANKS" - "If an army needs to move firepower over treacherous terrain, then what it needs looks very much like a tank."

"The basic problem with wars is that they are easier to start than to end."

Russia has persevered with inefficient and costly strategies, perhaps in the belief that in the end its size and readiness to accept sacrifices will tell. By contrast, Ukraine’s route to victory depends on pushing Russian forces back enough to persuade Moscow that it has embarked on a futile war.

Back to
Russia-Ukraine war: The Battle of Bakhmut has come at immense cost to both sides

A second and related asymmetry is that Ukraine seeks to pursue a just war and Russia does not. The Ukrainian government has rejected operating like the Russian military and has generally adhered to international law and the conventions of warfare followed by Western nations. This ensures a level of legitimacy in Ukraine’s conduct in the war that is politically and strategically essential.

That is, not making the excuse that it's necessary to break eggs to make an omelet.

A final asymmetry is that while both sides are fighting a war of industrial systems, they are using different methods to do so. Russia, without major allies and few sources of overseas support, has transitioned the nation to a wartime economy. Putin, in his partial mobilisation decree, directed a mobilisation of Russian industry to support the war effort. Russian factories are now running double and triple shifts to keep up with war-related production. This has been supplemented with small contributions from Iran and North Korea and drawing equipment from ancient stockpiles.

Ukraine, however, has been about to construct a coalition of nations to provide military, intelligence and economic support to sustain their war effort. This has proved to be a more durable model than Putin expected before the war. It has been one of several surprises that Ukraine and its Western partners have delivered to the Russians in the past year.

Including talking about joining the European Union and NATO.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Has Putin’s assault on Ukraine’s power grid failed?

If there was ever a group of resilient and committed people deserving of our help it is Ukraine. Those fuckers are putting up with Russian Hitler's shit and being an example for the world. We fucked up when we let ourselves be badgered by Russian threats and didn't get Ukraine into NATO. Had we gotten Ukraine into NATO none of this shit would ever have occurred. Putin played us like a rented mule and some of us are still afraid of his hollow, bullying threats.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Has Putin’s assault on Ukraine’s power grid failed?

If there was ever a group of resilient and committed people deserving of our help it is Ukraine. Those fuckers are putting up with Russian Hitler's shit and being an example for the world. We fucked up when we let ourselves be badgered by Russian threats and didn't get Ukraine into NATO. Had we gotten Ukraine into NATO none of this shit would ever have occurred. Putin played us like a rented mule and some of us are still afraid of his hollow, bullying threats.

Yeah. Knowing we would undoubtedly take a measured defensive approach, Putin could, can, and will exploit that as much as possible. While this did prolong the suffering and destruction, in the end we will beat him like a fiddle.

 

[Rhea]

Putin played us like a rented mule

in the end we will beat him like a fiddle.

Well played. Er, beaten. Oh, just stick a fork in it, that was well done.

 

[Jayjay]

Ukraine weathered the missile strikes last year, and avoided a complete collapse of its power grid. But the threat is far from over, as the most recent strike shows. While Ukraine has become better at air defense, Russia is adapting also:

Russia tests Ukraine's defenses with a rarely-used missile | CNN

Russia's overnight missile attack on Thursday showered Ukraine with an array of missiles, in one of Moscow's biggest aerial assaults for months.

edition.cnn.com

The use of so many different weapons systems in one night has increasingly become Russia’s preferred method of striking through the skies.

“Over the last six months or so there’s been a trend towards larger gaps between missile raids, but more missiles used at once when they do, to make it harder for defenses to intercept them all,” Bronk said.

That shift has come as Ukraine’s air defenses have become better equipped and more advanced, and as a way of maximizing the impact of each wave of strikes.

“Moscow looks to have been adapting its missile attacks to further complicate the challenge for defenders, with a mix of subsonic cruise missiles, the much higher speed Kinzhal aero-ballistic missiles, and possibly also decoys and other counter-measures,” Douglas Barrie, senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), said.

I think Putin will try to continue this intimidation tactic. It won't work to crush the Ukrainian spirit, but it still may crush their electric grid at some point, or at least keep it in constant state of under-performance and forcing Ukrainians to live with outages.

The only positive side is that the more Putin attacks Ukraine's civilian population, the less missiles it has against military targets, which in the end helps Ukraine defend itself and maybe even go on offensive at some point. But Russia is in this for the long haul, while western support will wane. Especially European countries are being far too stingy. Glad that US is looking into providing Abrams tanks, because the few Leopards that EU will spare will not be enough for a serious counter-attack.

To win this war, Ukraine and the west need to do everything right, consistently for years and years. Russia just has to hunker down and wait.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Has Putin’s assault on Ukraine’s power grid failed?

If there was ever a group of resilient and committed people deserving of our help it is Ukraine. Those fuckers are putting up with Russian Hitler's shit and being an example for the world. We fucked up when we let ourselves be badgered by Russian threats and didn't get Ukraine into NATO. Had we gotten Ukraine into NATO none of this shit would ever have occurred. Putin played us like a rented mule and some of us are still afraid of his hollow, bullying threats.

100% agree. Yes, Putin played us like a mule. Although no longer, Putler is transparent today as glass. He's lost his chess-master mystro mystique. A case can be made that the Nato was mean to Russia in expanding east. According to Barbos, this led to the invasion. But I agree with you, it's bullshit. Russia is bandito terrorist state that has lost its ability to grow via tech. It's falling behind. They are a gas station with all it's smarter younger people fleeing. The only way it can grow is to conquer and bully. And if we don't continue to stand by the Ukrainians, Europe will be at war with Russian for a generation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Ukraine update: Russians are 'massively' ratting each other out over claims of supporting Ukraine

Selling your friends out to the state, whether it earns a slightly nicer apartment or just that warm feeling of delivering some comeuppance, is a long tradition in Russia. Only now it seems that the invasion of Ukraine has supercharged the game, resulting in “massive” numbers of charges for casual comments “dropped in bars, supermarkets, saunas, beauty salons, at the post office and even on the porch of their dacha.”

One man was jailed and received a 45,000 rubles fine after he reportedly shouted “Glory to Ukraine, then!” after getting into an argument during a New Year’s celebration at a sushi restaurant. Two young women at another restaurant found themselves under scrutiny when they began to discuss the war over dinner. Another guest at the restaurant summoned the military police and the two women were arrested. Just for good measure, they also arrested one of the women’s husbands, even though he hadn’t been at the restaurant.

One man was arrested in church when others thought he said “Glory to Ukraine” rather than following along with a prayer that said “Glory to the soldiers who have died in Ukraine.” Another man got a jail sentence when he drunkenly railed against Putin and Chechen mercenary leader Ramzan Kadyrov while waiting in line at a Pyaterochka (the Russian equivalent of 7-11). Another man was arrested when his neighbors called to complain that he was playing a song that included the phrase “glorious Ukraine.” That it was an old song that long predated the war didn’t stop him from racking up a 30,000 ruble fine.

A man was fined because his neighbors claimed he “raised his hands like a fascist” while discussing Ukraine with his father. A woman arrested because it appeared she had put tape over a picture of Putin on her luggage and another passenger on her flight went to the airport police to report this “crime.”

All over Russia, it’s open season on anyone. All it takes is a quick suggestion that they said something against Putin, the war, or the Russian military. Or a claim that they were caught saying anything favorable about Ukraine. No evidence required. Rat Season has only been boosted by new legislation that has upped penalties and added even more restrictions about what it’s permissible to say.

Russians are ratting Russians out in such numbers that even attorneys are fed up over dealing with the cases. Those who have long harbored a grudge are using this as an opportunity to get back at the guy they didn’t think was respectful enough in the local bar, or the neighbor who played his music too loud.

 

[TV and credit cards]

When so much information is at your fingertips right down to single thoughts presented in the vacuum of twitter, journalists can structure whole articles simply by compiling these comments. But do various comments from various sources represent a position within government?
Politico's Jonathan Lemire empties his folder of various negative comments about Ukraine and calls it a story. Not a first for this wonderful news outlet.
Biden says the U.S. and Ukraine are united. Cracks are starting to show.

Why does Zelenskyy persist in Bakhmut? My opinion is Russia, struggling to take even this town of little significance is a psychological blow to the Kremlin. ISW makes mention of infighting within Putin's inner circle. Further it is my understanding Russia is suffering a seven to one loss ratio of personnel in Bakhmut and these are not just the cannon fodder of sub-Russians from the east. These are also Prigozhin's trained forces. So should we give more weight to the opinion of Bakhmut being a waste of resources or does Zelenskyy and his advisors have a better understanding of how Bakhmut is affecting the Kremlin? I'm going to give the Ukrainian the benefit of the doubt here.

The article draws out again US concern for the war escalating beyond Ukraine's borders. How? Barring Putin using nukes. How? As near as I can tell, Russian forces have little left to throw at Ukraine. They've tapped the easy sources of Iran and North Korea. Their last saving grace is China. Good luck with that. How does China helping Russia militarily benefit China?

The article makes mention of the Nord pipeline incident. Do you think the US really cares about solving this whodunit? I don't. Why is this even in the article? And on and on. Multiple negative comments leveled against Ukraine by whatever politician or bureaucrat over the last six months thrown together in a hodge-podge of an article.

And that's your leading story from Politico on this Sunday morning.

 

[Jayjay]

When so much information is at your fingertips right down to single thoughts presented in the vacuum of twitter, journalists can structure whole articles simply by compiling these comments. But do various comments from various sources represent a position within government?
Politico's Jonathan Lemire empties his folder of various negative comments about Ukraine and calls it a story. Not a first for this wonderful news outlet.
Biden says the U.S. and Ukraine are united. Cracks are starting to show.

Why does Zelenskyy persist in Bakhmut? My opinion is Russia, struggling to take even this town of little significance is a psychological blow to the Kremlin. ISW makes mention of infighting within Putin's inner circle. Further it is my understanding Russia is suffering a seven to one loss ratio of personnel in Bakhmut and these are not just the cannon fodder of sub-Russians from the east. These are also Prigozhin's trained forces. So should we give more weight to the opinion of Bakhmut being a waste of resources or does Zelenskyy and his advisors have a better understanding of how Bakhmut is affecting the Kremlin? I'm going to give the Ukrainian the benefit of the doubt here.

It's their people that're dying so their decision. But there was allegations that Zelenskyi and his top general Zaluzhnyi had a difference of opinion as to what to do with Bakhmut. There aren't obvious solutions, and Ukrainian leadership is not perfect. They might be taking a huge gamble trying to hold on to Bakhmut.

7-to-1 ratio in the past isn't predictive what the casualties are if Russia continues to push forward. Right now the only supply routes to Bakhmut are dirt roads. Ukraine has tried counter-offensives in the Russian flanks, but not been successful. To me it looks like Ukraine is trying to hold on to Bakhmut until they can get the western tanks in the battlefield with the hope that they can have better luck, but the worst case scenario is that they will hurry that offensive too soon, and the tanks will be wasted due to insufficient numbers or backup.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the gamble will succeed. But to me it would seem to make more sense to ditch Bakhmut and get into more defensible positions elsewhere to maintain that 7-to-1 (or 5-to-1 more plausibly) kill ratio.

Besides, even 7-to-1 ratio isn't that great, considering that Russia has a population 3.5 times Ukraine, and can afford much more aggressive mobilization if it wants to.

The article draws out again US concern for the war escalating beyond Ukraine's borders. How? Barring Putin using nukes. How?

Serbia vs Kosovo. Georgia. Moldova.

As near as I can tell, Russian forces have little left to throw at Ukraine. They've tapped the easy sources of Iran and North Korea. Their last saving grace is China. Good luck with that. How does China helping Russia militarily benefit China?

It keeps Americans busy and lets China buy discount energy from Russia, as well as sell their goods there. The war has almost no negatives to China, so it makes sense that China would be willing to sell Russia weapons to keep it going. Only downside for that is possible sanctions from the west, but it's doubtful it'll ever come to that.

On the other hand, China probably doesn't want Russia to have a complete victory either. A frozen conflict that keeps the west at loggerheads with Russia, and Russia dependent on China would be ideal for Xi.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[TV and credit cards]

It looks like two, maybe three of them have their finger inside the trigger guard so, yeah, I could buy the "no ammunition" claim.

 

[Copernicus]

Belarusian partisan guerillas have apparently also been active in fighting not just to overthrow Lukashenko, but also to degrade the Russian military activities inside Belarus. They would obviously ally themselves with Ukraine and get support from the Ukrainian government, but Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who was reported to have defeated Lukashenko in the last popular election, is now in exile in Lithuania. She appears to be actively involved in the guerilla movement.

Anti-Russia guerrillas in Belarus take on ‘two-headed enemy’​

 

[TV and credit cards]

When so much information is at your fingertips right down to single thoughts presented in the vacuum of twitter, journalists can structure whole articles simply by compiling these comments. But do various comments from various sources represent a position within government?
Politico's Jonathan Lemire empties his folder of various negative comments about Ukraine and calls it a story. Not a first for this wonderful news outlet.
Biden says the U.S. and Ukraine are united. Cracks are starting to show.

Why does Zelenskyy persist in Bakhmut? My opinion is Russia, struggling to take even this town of little significance is a psychological blow to the Kremlin. ISW makes mention of infighting within Putin's inner circle. Further it is my understanding Russia is suffering a seven to one loss ratio of personnel in Bakhmut and these are not just the cannon fodder of sub-Russians from the east. These are also Prigozhin's trained forces. So should we give more weight to the opinion of Bakhmut being a waste of resources or does Zelenskyy and his advisors have a better understanding of how Bakhmut is affecting the Kremlin? I'm going to give the Ukrainian the benefit of the doubt here.

It's their people that're dying so their decision. But there was allegations that Zelenskyi and his top general Zaluzhnyi had a difference of opinion as to what to do with Bakhmut. There aren't obvious solutions, and Ukrainian leadership is not perfect. They might be taking a huge gamble trying to hold on to Bakhmut.

7-to-1 ratio in the past isn't predictive what the casualties are if Russia continues to push forward. Right now the only supply routes to Bakhmut are dirt roads. Ukraine has tried counter-offensives in the Russian flanks, but not been successful. To me it looks like Ukraine is trying to hold on to Bakhmut until they can get the western tanks in the battlefield with the hope that they can have better luck, but the worst case scenario is that they will hurry that offensive too soon, and the tanks will be wasted due to insufficient numbers or backup.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and the gamble will succeed. But to me it would seem to make more sense to ditch Bakhmut and get into more defensible positions elsewhere to maintain that 7-to-1 (or 5-to-1 more plausibly) kill ratio.

Besides, even 7-to-1 ratio isn't that great, considering that Russia has a population 3.5 times Ukraine, and can afford much more aggressive mobilization if it wants to.

The article draws out again US concern for the war escalating beyond Ukraine's borders. How? Barring Putin using nukes. How?

Serbia vs Kosovo. Georgia. Moldova.

As near as I can tell, Russian forces have little left to throw at Ukraine. They've tapped the easy sources of Iran and North Korea. Their last saving grace is China. Good luck with that. How does China helping Russia militarily benefit China?

It keeps Americans busy and lets China buy discount energy from Russia, as well as sell their goods there. The war has almost no negatives to China, so it makes sense that China would be willing to sell Russia weapons to keep it going. Only downside for that is possible sanctions from the west, but it's doubtful it'll ever come to that.

On the other hand, China probably doesn't want Russia to have a complete victory either. A frozen conflict that keeps the west at loggerheads with Russia, and Russia dependent on China would be ideal for Xi.

The urban center of Bakhmut might be the best ground for Ukraine to fight on. Urban centers are difficult for trained troops to take never mind the untrained ones Russia is largely throwing at it.

If Russia loses and is expelled from Ukrainian territories it would likely lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation. Russia is feeding this war with the blood of the non-Russian autonomies. Putin likely couldn't hold the federation together after a loss in Ukraine. There could be a great number of breakaway territories along regional and ethnic lines. I can see where this could benefit China increasing its sphere of influence. Not to mention a few of the CSTO countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) though I'm not sure of how warm of relations they may have with China either. I think the telltale signs will be how many visits the US State Dept make to the region.

 

[Jayjay]

The urban center of Bakhmut might be the best ground for Ukraine to fight on. Urban centers are difficult for trained troops to take never mind the untrained ones Russia is largely throwing at it.

The problem is with supply routes being threatened. Right now, the only supply to Bakhmut is through muddy side roads. If Russia closes in even a little bit, they'll have those roads under fire also which makes it harder even if there wasn't a full encirclement. And we know that Russia has about 4-to-1 artillery advantage even in normal circumstances.

The worst situation is if the city is surrounded and will end up like Mariupol, with Russia just pounding the city with artillery and Ukrainians who are left having nothing to strike back with. But more likely it'll be a second Severodonetsk, where Ukraine holds as long as it can, and then has to withdraw in haste without having enough forces to secure the next line of defense.

If Russia loses and is expelled from Ukrainian territories it would likely lead to the breakup of the Russian Federation.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Speculation about Ukraine being able to expel Russia from its territory seems premature: for the past four months it has only been losing ground.

Russia is feeding this war with the blood of the non-Russian autonomies. Putin likely couldn't hold the federation together after a loss in Ukraine. There could be a great number of breakaway territories along regional and ethnic lines. I can see where this could benefit China increasing its sphere of influence. Not to mention a few of the CSTO countries (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) though I'm not sure of how warm of relations they may have with China either. I think the telltale signs will be how many visits the US State Dept make to the region.

 

[Copernicus]

It seems that the Russian advance in Bakhmut may be stalled on one side of the river that cuts through the city, according to a think tank report. Other interesting claims also appear in this article--for example, that Putin has lost control of the information space in Russia and Russian foreign ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, has admitted that there is infighting in the Kremlin leadership.

Russian advance stalls in Ukraine's Bakhmut, think tank says​

The founder of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, said Sunday on the Telegram messaging app that the situation in Bakhmut was “difficult, very difficult, with the enemy fighting for each meter.”

...


In many of Russia’s eastern regions, however, the death rate as a percentage of the population is “30-40 times higher than in Moscow,” the U.K. ministry said. It added that ethnic minorities often take the biggest hit. In the southern Astrakhan region, for example, about “75% of casualties come from the minority Kazakh and Tartar populations.”

Russia’s mounting casualties are reflected in a loss of government control over the country’s information sphere, the Institute for the Study of War said. The think tank said Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova confirmed “infighting in the Kremlin inner circle” and that the Kremlin has effectively ceded control over the country’s information space, with Putin unable to readily regain control.

The ISW saw Zakharova’s comments, made at a forum on the “practical and technological aspects of information and cognitive warfare in modern realities” in Moscow, as “noteworthy” and in line with the think tank’s long standing assessments about the “deteriorating Kremlin regime and information space control dynamics.”
...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The urban center of Bakhmut might be the best ground for Ukraine to fight on. Urban centers are difficult for trained troops to take never mind the untrained ones Russia is largely throwing at it.

Exactly. I think they're staying put because they have an extremely good meat grinder here.

 

[Jayjay]

The urban center of Bakhmut might be the best ground for Ukraine to fight on. Urban centers are difficult for trained troops to take never mind the untrained ones Russia is largely throwing at it.

Exactly. I think they're staying put because they have an extremely good meat grinder here.

It's a meat grinder for both sides.

 

[Copernicus]

The urban center of Bakhmut might be the best ground for Ukraine to fight on. Urban centers are difficult for trained troops to take never mind the untrained ones Russia is largely throwing at it.

Exactly. I think they're staying put because they have an extremely good meat grinder here.

It's a meat grinder for both sides.

There is also rampant speculation that Russia (either Putin or the military establishment or both) is using Bakhmut as a means of scapegoating Prigozhin for the huge losses that he is sustaining. Prigozhin has emerged as a serious rival to Putin, so this may be one way to reduce or eliminate the threat that he poses. The military brass certainly hate the man. If they are hamstringing Prigozhin by not giving him enough materiel, Ukraine would see that as reason enough to keep defending Bakhmut, since it only works to their advantage that the Russians are divided.

Russia is using one of Ukraine's bloodiest battles to decimate the Wagner Group, after its boss started a feud with military leaders, experts say​

 

[Jayjay]

Russia starts messing with US surveillance drones over Black Sea:

Russian fighter jet forces down US drone over Black Sea after intercept | CNN Politics

A Russian fighter jet forced down a US Air Force drone over the Black Sea on Tuesday after damaging the propeller of the American MQ-9 Reaper drone, according to a US official familiar with the incident.

edition.cnn.com

Wonder what this will lead to? Russia is obviously testing US reaction, and seeing if it can get away with it. And it probably can. Also, since the drone made an emergency landing, did the US recover it yet or is it possible that it will end up in Russian hands?