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

[Jayjay]

And a paid shill of Kremlin.

That's your go to answer to everything.

In case of Alexander Christoforou, it's absolutely justified.

Can I prove that he's paid by Moscow? No, but it's very likely. His organization, the Duran, is just one of many disinformation outlets that Russia has all over the world. They take Russiaan propaganda and package it to local and more broadly english-speaking languages.

So you can't prove it. Hersh is paid by Moscow? Mearseheimer? McGregor?

I never said those three were (actually don't know McGregor, so I'm withholding my opinion on him). Some people are capable of having stupid opinions without being paid for it.

But Christoforou clear is a paid shill. He's worked for RT, often visits Moscow, and runs a news organization with undisclosed funding. It's like pornography... difficult to define, but you know what it is when you see it.

All of that while we know for a fact that all that pro-"democracy" opposition media is paid by State Department and affiliated organizations.
That's just a fact, they admit it.

Free press is essential for democracy, so there's nothing wrong with funding it. Especially if "they admit it"... it means the funding is open and transparent.

Even if he was paid by Russia, so fucking what? Do you have anything which disproves his observations?

Well you got the idea that Arestovych had turned pro-Russian from his youtube channel, and that turned out to be bullshit.

It's not so much that he can't be right about some facts. It's the stuff him and his ilk don't tell, and how they interpret the facts. They're worthless as information sources, because you have to fact check everything they say anyway.

 

[Jayjay]

Hungry for a win, it looks like the Russians are switching from Bakhmut to Avdiivka. No matter. The Leopards, Bradleys, Strykers and somewhat longer range missiles (GLSDB) should all be coming into the theater soon. We'll see if Ukraine has enough trained personnel to push back and hold whatever they may gain.

Those glide bombs are a good idea. No powerplant so they're a lot cheaper and no powerplant makes a big problem for heat seekers.

Untested technology often doesn't pan out exactly the way we hope. First, the deployment could take a long time, despite it being supposedly launchable from HIMARS. Second, glide bombs are necessarily slower than ballistic rockets, so even if they don't have a heat signature, regular radar could spot them and SAMs have more time to react to take them out. We'll see what if anything happens.

But with no thermal signature they have to expend one of their fancy radar-guided SAMs to take it out. It's almost certainly a favorable exchange for us.

Maybe. But my point is... until these things are tested on the battlefield, it's all just speculation.

Remember the Switchblade drones from a year ago? Nobody's heard from them for a while, and Ukraine's preferred kamikaze drones now seem to be commercial FPV drones fitted with explosives. A fancy weapon that looks good on paper doesn't necessarily work in the battlefield for myriad reasons.

I suspect it's simply a matter of availability.

If they were effective, there would have been another batch delivered. And a lot more propaganda videos where they are used to take out tanks or infantry.

 

[Jayjay]

Tanks, tanks, tanks.

From ISW

-Russia’s sole tank production factory, UralVagonZavod, reportedly produces 20 tanks a month.
-Russia has reportedly been losing 150 tanks per month.
-The Ukrainian military and its Western backers can confidently expect that loss rates in tank duels between M1s, Leopards, and Challengers, on the one hand, and T-55s, T-62s, or even T-72s, on the other, will be far from one-to-one.

ISW is comparing equipment. There is also whatever trained Russian tank crews that went with those 150 tanks a month. Can Russia even train any more tank crews? Seems they are relying on Belarus for training now. Seems Russia used up all its experienced military right down to the trainers. UralVagonZavod is going to produce maybe 20 T-90s a month and put poorly trained crews into these precious tanks. Worn down to a nub, you are.

First, 150 tanks a month is most certainly an exaggeration.

Second, slow and steady wins the game. Russia might not be able to produce more than 20 tanks a month (though I'm sure they will try to improve so this might change later), but Ukraine is producing zero tanks per month. And is only getting a one-time donation of Leopard 2s and various other modern tanks, maybe a hundred or so total.

Luckily US has realized Europe can't deliver, and is already planning to give Ukraine training on Abrams and maybe deliver them in the fall. But is it too little and too late?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So now the NATO countries have let go of their reluctance to start donating high value high-tec arms to Ukraine. I think it's just a matter of time before they get planes and therefore air superiority. I think NATO is now committed to the Ukraine cause.

Let's take bets. How long time do you think it is until Russia retreats fully out of Ukraine?

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Tanks, tanks, tanks.

From ISW

-Russia’s sole tank production factory, UralVagonZavod, reportedly produces 20 tanks a month.
-Russia has reportedly been losing 150 tanks per month.
-The Ukrainian military and its Western backers can confidently expect that loss rates in tank duels between M1s, Leopards, and Challengers, on the one hand, and T-55s, T-62s, or even T-72s, on the other, will be far from one-to-one.

ISW is comparing equipment. There is also whatever trained Russian tank crews that went with those 150 tanks a month. Can Russia even train any more tank crews? Seems they are relying on Belarus for training now. Seems Russia used up all its experienced military right down to the trainers. UralVagonZavod is going to produce maybe 20 T-90s a month and put poorly trained crews into these precious tanks. Worn down to a nub, you are.

First, 150 tanks a month is most certainly an exaggeration.

Second, slow and steady wins the game. Russia might not be able to produce more than 20 tanks a month (though I'm sure they will try to improve so this might change later), but Ukraine is producing zero tanks per month. And is only getting a one-time donation of Leopard 2s and various other modern tanks, maybe a hundred or so total.

Luckily US has realized Europe can't deliver, and is already planning to give Ukraine training on Abrams and maybe deliver them in the fall. But is it too little and too late?

The loss of 150 tanks per month corresponds with what Oryx lists. And a cursory look at some of the dates on the photos indicates Russia has run out of their newer tanks and are increasingly relying on older equipment. I mention this because your posts often seem to have a bent of a war in which you assume a one for one attrition rate. Quality of equipment counts. Training of personnel counts. Morale counts. Terrain counts. Ingenuity counts, oh ye the creator of the Molotov cocktail. Ukraine may have/had less personnel and equipment but when you are destroying your enemy's tanks at 4:1, your odds of success improve.

Are the NATO tanks a one time donation? Are there no more to come? I've not heard anything definitive. NATO countries produce armament just like Russia does and nothing expands production like a signed contract for a large order. At least it expands production where the materials and expertise necessary are readily available. In a country lacking in talent and reliant on other nations for the components necessary to build weapons of war, not so much.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

A few years ago, Russia budgeted 54 billion rubles to build a factory to produce Armata 14 tanks. A few buildings were built but there was never any equipment in them. Most of that money was embezzled. The Armata 14 engine is garbage. A failed design from a WW2 German design. The Armata 14 was designed around a version of that engine and tried and true Russian tank engines are too big to fit the Armata. Years ago, a new engine design for the Armata was mandated. Nothing so far to show for anything here. Again, incompetence and corruption. Meanwhile, Ukraine is negotiating with Germany to manufactor license built Leopards in Ukraine.

 

[Elixir]

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

On the same basis, I’ll go with the day after Putler’s lieutenants knock his ass off.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

On the same basis, I’ll go with the day after Putler’s lieutenants knock his ass off.

Studying history I don't think that will happen. In economies based around control of a single or rare resource an ousted government tend to relocate en masse to plan a return.

It's only when political power comes from controlling people, (ie being popular by enough people) that they get killed from within.

Whoever controls Russian oil and gas will buy loyalty

 

[Elixir]

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

On the same basis, I’ll go with the day after Putler’s lieutenants knock his ass off.

Studying history I don't think that will happen.

You're not s'posed to study history - we're going off our feels!

In economies based around control of a single or rare resource an ousted government tend to relocate en masse to plan a return.

In an autocracy, the demise of the autocrat means a major re-set of priorities, even if the basis of the economy hasn't changed.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Lighting up the night sky with streaks of contrails in Melitopol

There was no public information about the weapons Ukraine could have used for the strike. The city is at the far edge of the range of Ukraine's HIMARS rockets but well within the range of newer weapons it is said to be deploying, including air-launched JDAM bombs and ground-launched GLSDB munitions promised by the United States. Russia said it shot down a GLSDB on Tuesday, the first time it has reported doing so.

 

[Jayjay]

So now the NATO countries have let go of their reluctance to start donating high value high-tec arms to Ukraine. I think it's just a matter of time before they get planes and therefore air superiority. I think NATO is now committed to the Ukraine cause.

Let's take bets. How long time do you think it is until Russia retreats fully out of Ukraine?

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

Never.

Only quick path to victory I see for Ukraine is if Russia somehow collapses from within. And the chances of that are really small.

The slow path to victory would be to keep fighting and wear Russia out. But that would take years. At minimum, Ukraine and its partners would have to last beyond US presidential elections and not falter. It would be possible if Biden wins (not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening) or if Republicans nominate someone who's pro-Ukraine (slightly more likely, but the odds still aren't great).

I think western support will wane and the war will turn into a frozen conflict before Ukraine can turn the tables.

(EDIT: fixed "midterms" -> "presidential elections")

 

[Copernicus]

So now the NATO countries have let go of their reluctance to start donating high value high-tec arms to Ukraine. I think it's just a matter of time before they get planes and therefore air superiority. I think NATO is now committed to the Ukraine cause.

Let's take bets. How long time do you think it is until Russia retreats fully out of Ukraine?

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

Never.

Only quick path to victory I see for Ukraine is if Russia somehow collapses from within. And the chances of that are really small.

The slow path to victory would be to keep fighting and wear Russia out. But that would take years. At minimum, Ukraine and its partners would have to last beyond US presidential elections and not falter. It would be possible if Biden wins (not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening) or if Republicans nominate someone who's pro-Ukraine (slightly more likely, but the odds still aren't great).

I think western support will wane and the war will turn into a frozen conflict before Ukraine can turn the tables.

(EDIT: fixed "midterms" -> "presidential elections")

I think that you underestimate and misunderstand the US commitment to Ukraine, perhaps because you haven't thought much about how US politicians could walk away from that war after all of the buildup. Russia is not the only country with a supersize ego when it comes to military prowess, and the US has already committed roughly $46 billion to support Ukraine's defense, and it looks likely to end up with a $77 billion commitment. There is a visible threat from the far right to try to walk away, and there is somewhat less vocal support from more extreme leftists, but they aren't getting much public traction on this issue. Speaker McCarthy, who is a rightwing MAGA promoter, tried to talk about reducing aid to Ukraine, but he had to walk that back quickly within days of making his remarks. Don't forget that support for the war is now ensconced in the US economy, which means that defense industry corporations are going to lobby hard against any effort to cut off their source of income. Antiwar movements have never been successful in winning US elections, even when they have been popular issues in domestic politics.

And what makes you think that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of Biden being reelected? His age will eventually eliminate him, but he is still easily the most electable candidate to win in 2024. Trump's waning chances were proven in the 2020 midterms, and DeSantis does not seem to be getting a lot of traction among moderate voters. If Biden is the candidate, he will likely win, even with his poor showing in job approval surveys.

 

[Elixir]

what makes you think that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of Biden being reelected?

I think Biden is a shoo-in unless Jack Smith takes Cheato off the ticket. Republican voters are waaaay too addled to nominate - let alone vote for - anyone but their Hair Furor.

 

[SLD]

So now the NATO countries have let go of their reluctance to start donating high value high-tec arms to Ukraine. I think it's just a matter of time before they get planes and therefore air superiority. I think NATO is now committed to the Ukraine cause.

Let's take bets. How long time do you think it is until Russia retreats fully out of Ukraine?

I base my guess on nothing but my feels, I'll go with June. What's your bet?

Never.

Only quick path to victory I see for Ukraine is if Russia somehow collapses from within. And the chances of that are really small.

The slow path to victory would be to keep fighting and wear Russia out. But that would take years. At minimum, Ukraine and its partners would have to last beyond US presidential elections and not falter. It would be possible if Biden wins (not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening) or if Republicans nominate someone who's pro-Ukraine (slightly more likely, but the odds still aren't great).

I think western support will wane and the war will turn into a frozen conflict before Ukraine can turn the tables.

(EDIT: fixed "midterms" -> "presidential elections")

Sheesh, Jay. Stop this bullshit. First, Biden has a very good chance of winning. The mid term elections showed that the country is sick of Trump and his stupid politics. Biden does need to remain healthy. The economy can’t utterly collapse, but there’s no sign of either becoming a major issue As of now. This means Ukraine will be a big issue in the election and Americans do support Ukraine, even huge amounts of conservatives.

Second, Ukraine is holding its own against Russia pretty damn well. The addition of offensive equipment, especially much better tanks, and the serious losses that the Russia has suffered in both men and equipment, mean that the next big phase in the war could come soon. This Spring will see a massive offensive by Ukraine, and they have a lot of advantages going into it. A success could break Russia seriously.

Finally, even a stalemate is a win for Ukraine. Russia must conquer, or Putin looks incompetent and risks a threat to his leadership and life. And they’ve proven that they can’t conquer. They’re incompetent. Their military machine is rife with corruption and inefficiency. They’re not motivated. They risk outright mutiny soon, and many Units are bucking the fight. If Putin cannot secure a quick victory, he’s toast.

Waiting til the 24 election is not in the cards for him. And it won’t help him anyways.

 

[Elixir]

Waiting til the 24 election is not in the cards for him. And it won’t help him anyways.

Pretty sure he thinks it will. Xi probably promised to help him get Trump back in office to complete the assignment of destroying America … and NATO along with it.

 

[Jayjay]

And what makes you think that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of Biden being reelected? His age will eventually eliminate him, but he is still easily the most electable candidate to win in 2024. Trump's waning chances were proven in the 2020 midterms, and DeSantis does not seem to be getting a lot of traction among moderate voters. If Biden is the candidate, he will likely win, even with his poor showing in job approval surveys.

You might be right; I have a blind spot because I don't think I can never quite fathom the Americans' fetish for electing senile octogenarians.

Anyway, Trump is almost as old as Biden. And arguably more demented. So I wouldn't count him out yet.

 

[Copernicus]

And what makes you think that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of Biden being reelected? His age will eventually eliminate him, but he is still easily the most electable candidate to win in 2024. Trump's waning chances were proven in the 2020 midterms, and DeSantis does not seem to be getting a lot of traction among moderate voters. If Biden is the candidate, he will likely win, even with his poor showing in job approval surveys.

You might be right; I have a blind spot because I don't think I can never quite fathom the Americans' fetish for electing senile octogenarians.

Anyway, Trump is almost as old as Biden. And arguably more demented. So I wouldn't count him out yet.

Right now, it looks like Trump will win the GOP nomination again, because Republicans have no one else who can surpass him in the GOP voting base. The same is true for Biden for Democrats. However, Biden is the incumbent, and he is far more popular than Trump. The odds that the electoral fluke of 2020 will be repeated again are very small, especially given all of Trump's legal baggage now. Republicans underperformed in the 2022 midterms because of Trump, and that led quite a few Republican politicians to grumble about him weighing them down. However, there doesn't seem to be anything they can do about it. Most Republican voters still love the guy. Most of the general voting public does not.

Note that even Donald Trump is leary about saying anything against Ukraine publicly. DeSantis and McCarthy tried that, and they both quickly walked their comments back.

 

[SLD]

Waiting til the 24 election is not in the cards for him. And it won’t help him anyways.

Pretty sure he thinks it will. Xi probably promised to help him get Trump back in office to complete the assignment of destroying America … and NATO along with it.

Putin can think any damn thing he pleases. He’s full of shit.

 

[Jarhyn]

Waiting til the 24 election is not in the cards for him. And it won’t help him anyways.

Pretty sure he thinks it will. Xi probably promised to help him get Trump back in office to complete the assignment of destroying America … and NATO along with it.

Putin can think any damn thing he pleases. He’s full of shit.

No he isn't. Diaper Don dun felched it all out and then "took it to the bank" and "made a deposit."

 

[Jayjay]

Waiting til the 24 election is not in the cards for him. And it won’t help him anyways.

Pretty sure he thinks it will. Xi probably promised to help him get Trump back in office to complete the assignment of destroying America … and NATO along with it.

Speaking of Xi, it didn't take long for him to show Putin who's boss...

Xi snubbed Putin after their summit, calling a meeting of Central Asian countries as part of an audacious power play

China's leader, Xi Jinping, appears to be using the leverage he has gained over Russia in the wake of the Ukraine war.

www.businessinsider.com

Xi invited the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to the first China-Central Asia summit on Wednesday, the AFP news agency reported. It remains unclear whether Turkmenistan has been invited.

The states are all former members of the Soviet Union, and Moscow has long regarded them as being in its sphere of influence after the Russian Empire conquered them in the 19th century.

The move came as Xi was visiting Putin in Moscow as part of a three-day-summit that concluded Wednesday, in which the nations pledged to deepen and extend their cooperation — and Xi signaled that Russia would have continued Chinese backing in its invasion of Ukraine.

Analysts say that China has secured significant leverage over Russia in return for its diplomatic and economic support, and that in calling the meeting of Central Asian nations it is seeking to exploit that advantage.