Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[China]

 

 

 

 

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[Wildbunny]

25 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

They are doing everything short of direct military action

And you think that's gonna stop Putin?

[China]

Frustrated Putin may order escalation of violence in Ukraine, U.S. officials say

 

U.S. intelligence agencies have determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin is growing increasingly frustrated by his military struggles in Ukraine and may see his only option as doubling down on violence, current and former U.S. officials briefed on the matter told NBC News.

 

As the Russian economy teeters under unprecedented global sanctions and his purportedly superior military force appears bogged down, Putin has lashed out in anger at underlings, even as he remains largely isolated from the Kremlin in part because of concerns about Covid, the sources said.

 

“This is somebody that’s clearly been caught off guard by the size of the Ukrainian resistance,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC. “He has isolated himself. He’s not been in the Kremlin very much. ... You’ve got less and less inputs, and these inputs are from sycophants."

 

He added: "I do worry that he’s been backed into a corner. I do worry that there is no obvious exit ramp.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[FootballZombie]

1 minute ago, Wildbunny said:

And you think that's gonna stop Putin?

 

Possibly

The sanctions are having devastating effects, The economy is depth-charging, the soldiers are running out of food and supply lines are poor. Russia's currency is devaluing in real time making life difficult at home due to inflation. If Russia collapses from within, we will see a in-country revolt and its over. There are multiple ways this could end beyond the battlefield.

I'm not confident enough to bet on these various outcomes, but it could happen.

 

 

I do think every other country in the region joining NATO would stop Russian expansion beyond Ukraine and we are making progress on that front.

[The Sisko]

 

Regarding the generally crap Russian equipment, I, like a lot of people have had my eyes opened about their hardware. I assumed that their upgrades brought their Soviet era equipment up to more or less modern standards and that they had a decent amount of the really high tech stuff like the T-14. However, the vast majority of their stuff is retrofitted Soviet-era trash with a tiny amount of the high tech stuff to pretend they're better than they are. So for example, they only have about 20 T-14s and about a thousand T-90's which are just retrofitted T-72s. Given the amount of western and home grown weapon systems the Ukrainians have, combined with the poorly trained/motivated/supplied/led Russian troops,it's surprising the Russians have been able to make as much progress as they have.

 

Of course I had to find out why the Russian equipment is so bad. It turns out, it's a combination of corruption, lack of manufacturing capacity, and misplaced priorities, i.e. selling more of the advanced equipment they can manufacture than they should if they really wanted to improve their capabilities. I suspect this is why the European NATO members haven't bothered to spend very much on their armed forces. They knew Russia was mostly a paper tiger. Yes, they've got nukes, damn scary fuel-air bombs, and a pretty decent non-nuclear missile program that can be used against less prepared countries, but the Russians just aren't much of a threat to a modern military. They mostly have numbers, but that doesn't mean a whole lot when it can be countered by the enemy simply having enough ammo to blow it all to hell before it can do anything. So in short, they can probably overwhelm a country with a fair to decent military like Ukraine. But even for a country at that level, the only way it's likely to happen is using the same tactic of bombing and shelling cities into rubble that they used against the Chechens and Syrians. However, since these people are white and Christian, Putin and Co. will end up catching war crimes charges this time around.

 

22 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Russia invading Ukraine portends WW3 and nuclear Armageddon.

 

The Syrian civil war is Middle East dust up #257.  Everybody has better things to worry about.

 

To compare the two is disingenuous and ridiculous.

 

7 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

So EU/NATO/UN are great to be strong with feebles, but are too cowards to help a legitimate (emphasis added) country that is being invaded by some madman.

It's comments like these that illustrate what I said above about the differences in perception about this conflict vs. others we've seen. Yes, Syria and Iraq are legitimate countries and the fact that Syria's was a civil war or that the M.E. is highly unstable have nothing to do with it. The core issue of war crimes applies no matter where it happens or what type of conflict it is. It's just that the world and especially Europe and the US get a bit more bent out of shape about it when they see the victims as actually human, i.e. white. Nukes or not, I suspect if Putin starts with the pounding cities to rubble routine, the EU/US will do something more than sanctions. I'm not sure what that might be, but whatever it is, it'll be way more than they've ever been willing to do for countries where the people don't look like them.

[FootballZombie]

For people wanting to see covert action, this is potentially diabolically sneaky. Feed intel and no one can call you on it.

 

 

 

US in contact with Zelensky through secure satellite phone given to him by the US

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-01-22/h_5a65303ee7ffa3cb8765d5aafd8c2202

 

"The US remains in regular contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky through a secure satellite phone that the US gave the Ukrainian government last month before the invasion occurred, according to a US official familiar with the matter."

[TradeTheBeal!]

10 minutes ago, The Sisko said:

 

Regarding the generally crap Russian equipment, I, like a lot of people have had my eyes opened about their hardware. I assumed that their upgrades brought their Soviet era equipment up to more or less modern standards and that they had a decent amount of the really high tech stuff like the T-14. However, the vast majority of their stuff is retrofitted Soviet-era trash with a tiny amount of the high tech stuff to pretend they're better than they are. So for example, they only have about 20 T-14s and about a thousand T-90's which are just retrofitted T-72s. Given the amount of western and home grown weapon systems the Ukrainians have, combined with the poorly trained/motivated/supplied/led Russian troops,it's surprising the Russians have been able to make as much progress as they have.

 

Of course I had to find out why the Russian equipment is so bad. It turns out, it's a combination of corruption, lack of manufacturing capacity, and misplaced priorities, i.e. selling more of the advanced equipment they can manufacture than they should if they really wanted to improve their capabilities. I suspect this is why the European NATO members haven't bothered to spend very much on their armed forces. They knew Russia was mostly a paper tiger. Yes, they've got nukes, damn scary fuel-air bombs, and a pretty decent non-nuclear missile program that can be used against less prepared countries, but the Russians just aren't much of a threat to a modern military. They mostly have numbers, but that doesn't mean a whole lot when it can be countered by the enemy simply having enough ammo to blow it all to hell before it can do anything. So in short, they can probably overwhelm a country with a fair to decent military like Ukraine. But even for a country at that level, the only way it's likely to happen is using the same tactic of bombing and shelling cities into rubble that they used against the Chechens and Syrians. However, since these people are white and Christian, Putin and Co. will end up catching war crimes charges this time around.

 

 

It's comments like these that illustrate what I said above about the differences in perception about this conflict vs. others we've seen. Yes, Syria and Iraq are legitimate countries and the fact that Syria's was a civil war or that the M.E. is highly unstable have nothing to do with it. The core issue of war crimes applies no matter where it happens or what type of conflict it is. It's just that the world and especially Europe and the US get a bit more bent out of shape about it when they see the victims as actually human, i.e. white. Nukes or not, I suspect if Putin starts with the pounding cities to rubble routine, the EU/US will do something more than sanctions. I'm not sure what that might be, but whatever it is, it'll be way more than they've ever been willing to do for countries where the people don't look like them.

Didn’t the US just wrap up a nearly 20 year war in Afghanistan protecting people who “don’t look like” us from religious madmen?  

[Wildbunny]

41 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

I do think every other country in the region joining NATO would stop Russian expansion beyond Ukraine and we are making progress on that front.

To be perfectly honest, Russia could invade a NATO country that I wouldn't expect the US to go to war asap.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FootballZombie]

2 minutes ago, Wildbunny said:

To be perfectly honest, Russia could invade a NATO country that I wouldn't expect the US to go to war asap.

The NATO military pact has only been invoked once and it lead to war.

There is not much evidence to say we, or any other member wouldn't.

 

At least as fast as reasonable possible. Properly prepping for war and the steps involved for authorization can take months.

[visionary]

 

 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

We can argue from our perspective and our national security whether getting more involved makes sense, but to go on tv and to essentially say the Ukrainians have this and don't need help is ignoring reality and the Ukrainians.

 

Their President has publicly admitted to calling European countries and asking if they can immediately be admitted into NATO.  You do that because you want active NATO involvement.

 

We also now have the tweet in this thread from their foreign minister saying:

 

Foreign Minister warns

@NATO

. Dmytro Kuleba says “it’s better to help now than find themselves eye-to-eye with Putin later…. No need to fear that Nato will find itself at war with Russia because of Ukraine. If Russia wins – you are next.”

 

 To simply say the Ukrainians don't need more help is ignoring what the Ukrainian leadership is telling you (us).

 

Again maybe the argument that we shouldn't get involved hinges more on our interests and our national security interests.  But to argue that it isn't needed because the Ukrainians don't want or need it is extremely disingenuous and requires that you know more about their military and their situation than the Ukrainians.

 

 

I believe you over-simplified and left out specific context in your assessment. She was responding to a general who is really a politician saying something about we could/should send ground troops or indirect on the ground operations now. She said we do not need to fight for them in terms of those indirect on the ground campaign or CIA type operations to support them right now. It could cause an unnecessary escalation. That does not mean we should not help them at all, nor did she say that. Again, she said not now, meaning she was not closing the door on ground support, just that now was not the right time.  

 

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Didn’t the US just wrap up a nearly 20 year war in Afghanistan protecting people who “don’t look like” us from religious madmen?  

Valid point, but also a counter argument. 
 

(The following is admittedly a vague summary of the vague impressions of somebody who considers himself more informed than the average American. But who knows that this only raises his knowledge from "abysmal" to "poor".)
 

The US (W) tried really really hard not to go there at all, despite it being Ossama's literal headquarters. He was forced into going there against his wishes, by domestic public opinion. He immediately pulled out almost all US troops and handed the place over to other countries. And since then, no one before Trump was willing to have "lost a war" on their legacy, and have reluctantly supplied just enough effort to stay there.   

[spjunkies]

 

 

[spjunkies]

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

 

I believe you over-simplified and left out specific context in your assessment. She was responding to a general who is really a politician saying something about we could/should send ground troops or indirect on the ground operations now. She said we do not need to fight for them in terms of those indirect on the ground campaign or CIA type operations to support them right now. It could cause an unnecessary escalation. That does not mean we should not help them at all, nor did she say that. Again, she said not now, meaning she was not closing the door on ground support, just that now was not the right time.  

 

 

They are essentially saying now is the right time.

 

That's what joining NATO would give you.  We can do what we are doing now without them joining NATO (as we are and have been doing).

 

And they know that.  The specific call to be allowed into NATO and for NATO to do something is a call for NATO to use its military forces, including ground troops, to help them.  Nobody asks to be let into NATO so that NATO won't contribute ground forces to their defense.

 

Now, you can disagree and that's fine.  But don't base your disagreement on the state of the Ukrainian military.  Unless you are also going to argue that you know more about the Ukrainian military than the Ukrainians.

Edited March 1, 2022 by PeterMP

[NoCalMike]

If anyone is interested in watching coverage of the war (among other things) outside the American cable news narrative, Al Jazeera-english has a live feed on youtube.  It's pretty refreshing to just be able to sit down and watch coverage of what's going on without the talking heads screaming at each other using the same 4-5 things over and over.  

[ClaytoAli]

NATO has intervened in conflicts across the continent of Africa (ehem…for the sake of European assets). 
 

Why not put peacekeepers on the ground to protect and help civilians escape?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

Russia has probably told the west they will considering doing that an act of war and NATO isn’t super interested in calling their bluff.

 

I think we will need to see happens when/if Russia takes Kiev or kills Zelensky…

Edited March 1, 2022 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Long n Left]

2 hours ago, Wildbunny said:

And you think that's gonna stop Putin?

Sorry Wildbunny, but what you are proposing is the start of WWIII, and nobody wants that.

[tshile]

11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Russia has probably told the west they will considering doing that an act of war 

Yeah they’ve said a lot. Yesterday they said weapons sent to Ukraine that kill Russians or destroy Russian equipment will be seen as an act of war by the country that sent them. 
 

It’s a messy situation. I think many of us are downplaying the complexity of trying to assist Ukraine without pushing Russia more aggressive actions (including, but not limited to, nuclear war)

 

I think it’s fair to say all of us have been pretty wrong about this, at least in some way, along the way. 
 

we should probably accept it’s a very complex problem and we are likely missing a significant amount of information required to make informed decisions. 
 

i realize it’s easy to just chide the international community - but maybe consider they’re doing the best they can, with way more information than we have, and a huge responsibility none of us have 

[skinsfan4128]

What's absolutely frightening is the fact that the "war" isn't going exactly how putin thought it would.  I can say that with his obvious irrationally behavior, he may feel launching nukes at his perceived enemies could be a real option in his mind. Dude is not exactly stable.

Let's hope this ain't something he would actually consider, but it's something that is definitely a real threat we should prepare for.

 

HTTR. 

[dunfer]

47 minutes ago, ClaytoAli said:

NATO has intervened in conflicts across the continent of Africa (ehem…for the sake of European assets). 
 

Why not put peacekeepers on the ground to protect and help civilians escape?

Because those countries dont have nukes. If Russia didnt have enough nukes to kill the world wed be dropping in, guns a blazin right now. If you put nato personnel on the ground and they get killed its probably ratcheting up to ww3. WW3 kills everything. The earth becomes another lifleless rock in space

It sucks that we are back to this democracy vs communism bull**** front and center. Seemed like everyone could get along in capatilism

[The Sisko]

2 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Didn’t the US just wrap up a nearly 20 year war in Afghanistan protecting people who “don’t look like” us from religious madmen?  

As Larry alluded to, last time I checked, I thought we went there due to 9/11, not to defend anyone. To the extent that happened, it was about preventing Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorism again, not because we were trying to protect the populace from the Taliban.

 

4 minutes ago, skinsfan4128 said:

What's absolutely frightening is the fact that the "war" isn't going exactly how putin thought it would.  I can say that with his obvious irrationally behavior, he may feel launching nukes at his perceived enemies could be a real option in his mind. Dude is not exactly stable.

Let's hope this ain't something he would actually consider, but it's something that is definitely a real threat we should prepare for.

 

HTTR. 

I've been a bit worried about this escalating into mushroom clouds. Putin has watched his vaunted military get outed as a joke with the real prospect that he could end up in a quagmire. With major global embarrassment, the unexpected level of sanctions and isolation, and his looking pretty erratic, it wouldn't take much to push him over the edge.