Current Russia Ukraine tensions

[Shaggy Hiker]

I believe that the concern everybody has is what Putin will do if his backs really against the wall. This is a proxy fight. Politics by other means. Partly, this is because an actual conflict is clearly too dangerous for either side to seriously consider it. Putin's figuring he can keep in it until the West tires of the cost. The West figures they can keep in it until Putin tires of the cost.

The problem is...what happens if Putin doesn't tire of the cost? What happens if he's flat out beaten? He's not president by popular vote. He's president through power and intimidation. If he straight up loses in Ukraine, the intimidation might go away...but the power wouldn't, necessarily. That would be dangerous.

[wes4dbt]

I believe that the concern everybody has is what Putin will do if his backs really against the wall. This is a proxy fight. Politics by other means. Partly, this is because an actual conflict is clearly too dangerous for either side to seriously consider it. Putin's figuring he can keep in it until the West tires of the cost. The West figures they can keep in it until Putin tires of the cost.

The problem is...what happens if Putin doesn't tire of the cost? What happens if he's flat out beaten? He's not president by popular vote. He's president through power and intimidation. If he straight up loses in Ukraine, the intimidation might go away...but the power wouldn't, necessarily. That would be dangerous.

That seems like a fair analysis. But it sure seems to put the Ukrainians in a vice. Between the invading Russians and people who are afraid to win the war. It sucks to be Ukraine.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, it 'mostly' sucks to be Ukraine no matter what. A pawn or a patsy. That's not a great choice.

The one positive that I think will come out of this is that Ukraine is forging an identity as an independent country, which is something they haven't really had. One of the reasons Putin thought the invasion would be easy was because he thought, as did lots of people, that a very large percentage of Ukrainians felt more Russian than Ukrainian. He was wrong then and he's even more wrong now. The Ukrainian language is even making a strong comeback as a result of this war. Nothing coalesces a people quite like a shared enemy.

[wes4dbt]

Well it looks like Germany and the US have decided to send Ukraine tanks. If they start soon there should be time to get the Ukrainian fully trained by the spring offensive starts. Now if they take the next step to air support, that will force Russia to change how they are fighting the war. I don't know if that will turn out good or bad but I think it will stop this tactic of slowly waring down the Ukrainians.

[FunkyDexter]

I think it's mainly to do with Germany's history. In fact, I believe not escalating conflicts is actually written into Germany's constitution. I'm not sure on that, though. It's just something I've heard so folks should probably fact check it before using it in a pub quiz.

There are some indications that this was also partly a negotiating card to get the US to commit Abrahams tanks because the Germans didn't want to be the next obvious target if Russia won in Ukraine. That doesn't sound right to me, though, because there is little chance of Russia winning at this point and practically none of them then pushing through the Baltic states, Poland and then on into Germany.

I also think that the idea of the US contributing Abrahams is pretty dumb anyway. It's an awesome tank for short punching attacks a la blitzkrieg tactics (probably the best in the world today) but it's a logistical nightmare (the thing literally runs on rocket fuel for God's sake) making it unsuitable for longer attritional conflicts like we're seeing in Ukraine. If the US were to contribute tanks, the new MPF would be a much better bet. It's diesel and the Ukrainians have already demonstrate an incredible ability to utilise light armour.

I'm also concerned that this is not backed up by a substantial attempt to achieve air superiority. That leaves a very real risk that the Russians could do Ukrainian armoured columns the same thing that the Ukrainians did to the Russian ones. Although a lot of that was attributable to poor Russian infantry tactics. Still feels like a concern though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's Abrams, not Abraham. The Abraham tanks had a disturbing tendency to grow long beards and try to sacrifice their sons.

The argument against sending Abrams, from what I've heard, is the logistics. Maintaining them sounds like it takes an army. That's an interesting choice. I'd have more to say on that, but will leave it there.

I don't think air superiority is all that much of an issue. One thing that war is showing us is that drones are coming to dominate. Anti-aircraft defenses are improving faster than aircraft countermeasures can keep up with, but drones are smaller, shorter range, lower flying, harder to spot, and harder to stop. It seems like something of a tactical, localized, air power situation. I haven't heard Ukraine calling for a lot of jets, of late, though requests for more armor are constant. It may just be due to a realization that a jet is a very expensive piece of kit that is increasingly unsuited to this particular battle. The training for the pilots is expensive, the maintenance is expensive, the plane itself is very expensive, and the fight is very localized. The long range stuff can be done through a combination of drones and HIMARS. Planes might not be worth the cost.

[wes4dbt]

I think it's mainly to do with Germany's history. In fact, I believe not escalating conflicts is actually written into Germany's constitution. I'm not sure on that, though. It's just something I've heard so folks should probably fact check it before using it in a pub quiz.

There are some indications that this was also partly a negotiating card to get the US to commit Abrahams tanks because the Germans didn't want to be the next obvious target if Russia won in Ukraine. That doesn't sound right to me, though, because there is little chance of Russia winning at this point and practically none of them then pushing through the Baltic states, Poland and then on into Germany.

I also think that the idea of the US contributing Abrahams is pretty dumb anyway. It's an awesome tank for short punching attacks a la blitzkrieg tactics (probably the best in the world today) but it's a logistical nightmare (the thing literally runs on rocket fuel for God's sake) making it unsuitable for longer attritional conflicts like we're seeing in Ukraine. If the US were to contribute tanks, the new MPF would be a much better bet. It's diesel and the Ukrainians have already demonstrate an incredible ability to utilise light armour.

I'm also concerned that this is not backed up by a substantial attempt to achieve air superiority. That leaves a very real risk that the Russians could do Ukrainian armoured columns the same thing that the Ukrainians did to the Russian ones. Although a lot of that was attributable to poor Russian infantry tactics. Still feels like a concern though.

I don't know anything about the Leopard tank but it does make sense to pick just one. The Abrams is an awesome tank but your right logistics may make the Leopard a better choice. The knowledge and infrastructure is a lot closer to Ukraine.

I'm curious, does the Ukraine's have the Patriot missile defense systems operational now in the Ukraine? Very many?

[FunkyDexter]

It's Abrams, not Abraham

I did not know that. I guess I've never seen it written down.

I don't think air superiority is all that much of an issue.

You could be right. I certainly hope you are.

I'm curious, does the Ukraine's have the Patriot missile defense systems operational now in the Ukraine? Very many?

I believe so but I'll admit I've kinda lost track. I know it was being discussed.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I know that they were being trained on them, and that wasn't all that long ago. I guess I'd be a bit surprised if any had been deployed, yet, but only a little surprised. It should be soon, if it hasn't happened already.

[wes4dbt]

Well, they didn't listen to our advise. They're sending Abrams. Wonder if they're planning to have US maintenance teams somewhere close by a neutral border (if there is such a thing) for anything other than basic service.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I heard that the reason for sending Abrams tanks is as cover so that other countries like Poland could send some. That would fit your reasoning, as well, since they might be sent back to the shop for repairs.

[FunkyDexter]

I heard that the reason for sending Abrams tanks is as cover so that other countries like Poland could send some.

That's impression I've got.

[wes4dbt]

I heard that the reason for sending Abrams tanks is as cover so that other countries like Poland could send some. That would fit your reasoning, as well, since they might be sent back to the shop for repairs.

Just to be clear. There sending the American tanks so other smaller NATO countries can send tanks and not be singled out by Russia, and retaliated against.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That still works, though, as those other countries are also closer and connected via a rail network, which is mighty convenient when it comes to repairs.

Part of the design of the Sherman tank in WW II was the limitations of shipping. The tank had to be capable of being maintained in the field because sending it back to...pretty much anywhere, was going to be expensive.

[dilettante]

The headlong rush toward World War III does not seem to be universally held.

What’s behind the Western divide over arming Ukraine?

In general, two schools of thought have emerged on Ukraine. The first is held by the Baltics, Nordics, Poland, and other eastern European states, and it is the belief that Russia needs to be decisively defeated militarily. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the thinking goes, needs to be denied the opportunity to spin a narrative that can keep Russian imperialism alive.

The second school of thought, held by Germany, France, southern European states, and to an extent Washington, seeks to avoid escalation in the belief that a Putin cornered and in decline could lead to uncontrollable developments. Moreover, the second school views Russia as unavoidably Europe’s neighbor, a country that must be dealt with in one way or another.

But as chaos and globalism recedes those who got rich off it want more:

After decades of disarmament, Europe has a period of only about ten years in which the United States will bridge the gap in restocking depleted stockpiles, Michta explained. Europe has to make larger investments, and soon, to convince the United States to continue funding European security.

So perhaps there isn't any endgame here at all if the warmongers have their way. Nothing less than resumption of an expensive Cold War after ramping hostilities seems to meet their standard of "stability."

[dilettante]

I suppose if you are young enough "quagmire" only brings to mind a cartoon character.

[FunkyDexter]

Giggedy

The second school of thought, held by Germany, France, southern European states, and to an extent Washington,

I feel like that's diminishing rapidly though. As Putin continues to double down despite massive military defeats it's increasingly obvious that this strategy doesn't have an end state. Putin will always be able to throw another wave of poorly provisioned young men into the grinder. And Ukraine is never going to quit while it's winning localised conflicts and its territory is occupied. It's increasingly obvious that this only ends with a Ukrainian collapse, which is unacceptable to the West, or Russia being driven out of Ukraine.

I'm going to make a horribly depressing prediction. I think Ukraine will drive Russia out (probably in 2023 but could roll on into 2024) but that won't end the conflict as Russia will simply continue to bombard civil centres from the border. Russia has absolutely no motive to end this. Meaning the only actual end involves invading Russian territory and that is a truly scary prospect.

But then, we've been condemning Ukraine to fight this conflict with one hand behind it's back from the very beginning. I'm no hawk and I view conflict as a last resort but when you're invaded, what choice do you have. And if you're going to fight a war, you fight to damn well win. Fighting to draw is a recipe for a longer and bloodier conflict. If we'd had NATO boots on the ground from the very beginning I doubt this would have started. And if we'd established a no fly zone in February things would be in a lot better shape now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Isn't the loss of a foreign adventure what brought down the Tsar?

[FunkyDexter]

Yes, but in that case the Germans had moved onto Russian territory and were busy capturing more and more of it. It left the Bolsheviks with little choice but to cut a deal. In this case I think it is possible that military losses in the field will bring Putin down but the likely looking replacements are even more hawkish than he is.

I really hope I'm wrong though.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Health may bring Putin down. That may be the only way the war ends, too, since Russia seems willing to throw men into the meat grinder.

[wes4dbt]

Health may bring Putin down. That may be the only way the war ends, too, since Russia seems willing to throw men into the meat grinder.

Russia or just Putin? Not that you can separate them. But I wonder how the general population feels. It's hard to know from this far on the out side.

[Shaggy Hiker]

One reporter talked to some soldiers in a hospital and came away feeling that they were fairly fatalistic about the whole thing. They didn't like it, thought they were being led poorly for bad reasons, but also seemed to feel that it was their duty to serve regardless.

If that's the case, where the soldiers feel, "my lot is bad, but it is my lot," then the war can go on for a very long time.

[wes4dbt]

Yeah, even unpopular wars can last a long time.

[sapator]

My first post on this thread, again:

I don't want to really get into it but some words.
1)Ukraine is governed by neo Nazis, kudos for supporting them.
2)NATO due to sleepy and the puppets is bringing troops and weapons to "defend" Ukraine that is the "victim".
3)US would think twice and thrice to do what it does if it has close borders with Russia but a proxy war is not costing much.
4)We gave the port of Alexandoupolis to US for supply , tanks, troops and copters, we, meaning our sold out politicians. We,meaning a patriotic government, should immediately sweep everyone out as we are endanger our relationships with our Russian friends.
5)We need to leave NATO, like, yesterday.
6)NATO is squeezing Putin, so what do you expect as a response? Roses?
7)As I have no desire to be done on what covid thread done to the chit-chat, that's my 1$ 32 cents and I'm outta here...

I don't think anything changed. If NATO wants to end the war he can do it today by withdrawing and order the puppet for a treaty, but it's fighting for the poor Ukrainians, right, everyone that thinks that is clearly delusional. So is US going to end the war sometime soon? We are bored.

[Shaggy Hiker]

1)Ukraine is governed by neo Nazis, kudos for supporting them.

That's ridiculous. A Jewish neo Nazi. There are some neo Nazis in Ukraine, as there appear to be all over Europe and the US, but 'governed by'? Yeah, that's ridiculous.

2)NATO due to sleepy and the puppets is bringing troops and weapons to "defend" Ukraine that is the "victim".

Weapons, yes, troops...not so much. There are a few volunteers from various countries fighting over there, as there has always been in every war, but NATO is more likely to be discouraging them rather than sending them. They'd be decidedly counterproductive.

Also, there isn't much point in the quotes around defend. It's mighty hard to come up with a different definition of what is going on. The same can be said for the word victim. Ukraine certainly didn't invade Russia.

3)US would think twice and thrice to do what it does if it has close borders with Russia but a proxy war is not costing much.

Yes, very much so. Of course, I believe it was Churchill who put it best that the US was blessed to be bordered on two sides by weak neighbors and on the other sides by fish.

4)We gave the port of Alexandoupolis to US for supply , tanks, troops and copters, we, meaning our sold out politicians. We,meaning a patriotic government, should immediately sweep everyone out as we are endanger our relationships with our Russian friends.

Yep, but it doesn't look likely. Greece has various relationships with various neighbors. Considering the saber rattling from Turkey, I'd guess that any relationship with Russia is a lower priority, at the moment.

5)We need to leave NATO, like, yesterday.

That would be a turkey of a move.

6)NATO is squeezing Putin, so what do you expect as a response? Roses?

The problem is that nobody knows. Certainly not roses. A bit of economic tit-for-tat is all that has happened, thus far. Even a country as large as Russia needs allies. Right now, it has opportunists and China. Putin has good reason not to get too close to China, and opportunists tend to be opportunists.

At this point, Putin simply lacks any good alternatives. They are all bad, so which one does he see as the best of the bad lot? I don't think anybody knows.

I don't think anything changed. If NATO wants to end the war he can do it today by withdrawing and order the puppet for a treaty, but it's fighting for the poor Ukrainians, right, everyone that thinks that is clearly delusional. So is US going to end the war sometime soon? We are bored.

If NATO withdrew support, then Ukraine would fight on for a time. They've shown themselves to be remarkably ingenious with their use of weapons. Ultimately, though, they'd end up collapsing as their economy was crushed and they ran out of supplies. However, there is no good reason for NATO to withdraw support, even by your own analysis. It is, after all, a proxy war on the cheap.

A peace under a truce would also be a significant gain, as the war is clearly making Ukraine a more cohesive nation, where before it had split loyalties. It may be a less corrupt nation, as well, which would be a real benefit.

There are only two ways that the situation turns out bad for NATO. The first is if Putin decides to end the world. The second would be if they let Ukraine collapse. Any other outcome is a win, great or small.

[sapator]

That is super long I'm so bored to answer clearly because your philosophy is quite different but since Shaggy rulez, here is a sort version.
1)Some neo Nazis?All over Europe? Ok, correct, what can I say. Go to the football field video I showed or don't. Did I say that claw is Nazi?Well might be, caught in bad companies. Israel does not feel warm for him btw .I got a video from an ex mossad bushing him but I did not post it and now I don't wanna go search again. If anyone find it , feel free. Or google Israel hate Zelensky.
2)Weapons and troops all over and throwing Ukraine soldiers to the dogs but I wouldn't bother showing resources as all is Russian propaganda.
3)True
4)So so so so....SO untrue. European support like The fall of Byzantine empire (what you think they where Ottomans that started it?),The loss of Ionia, dragged to war with Russia in Crimea, the occupation of Cyprus. Yeah, thanks for that. I'll take Russia any day. Except our politicians are sold out dogs.
5)Why?Hey, we are not afraid of Turkey, let them come! Leave and never look back. Individually we can have mutual agreements with other countries like France but joining NATO chariot was one of the biggest mistakes we ever made. Or I'll edit that, continue joining NATO. Really what is the purpose of NATO now? Fight the communists? Slaughter Serbia , Irak,Iran, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine? Is NATO the sheriff for the big bad guys?
6)Then anyone that is not on NATO is opportunist, because they hate our guts.
If NATO withdrew? They shouldn't have given hope in Ukraine at the first time. The clown will fall when has served his purpose. Eventually Ukraine means nothing, the game is on a whole different level and Ukraine just stuck in the middle.

I'll keep any reply short next time, if any.

P.S. remember: Jumpin jack flash, Its a gas! gas! gas! and boom boom boom sha shake the room

[Shaggy Hiker]

Who and what Israel hates is kind of irrelevant, and becoming more so all the time. They speak for Israel.

[sapator]

Interesting read (admittedly I haven't read it all as I'm at the office)

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/...he-nord-stream

Seymour Hersh is a pulitzer award journalist, letting it known before we start the "crazy" war, of course US denied it.

[TysonLPrice]

Interesting read (admittedly I haven't read it all as I'm at the office)

How America Took Out The Nord Stream Pipeline

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/...he-nord-stream

Seymour Hersh is a pulitzer award journalist, letting it known before we start the "crazy" war, of course US denied it.

He also wrote reports disputing the Obama administration's version of the 2011 killing of al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in a U.S. special forces operation, and another accusing Syrian rebels of staging an August 2013 sarin nerve agent attack on a Damascus suburb that killed hundreds of civilians.

Counter post:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/whi...se-2023-02-08/

[sapator]

I already said US denied it and I don't have an opinion in the matter (well...) so no point of counter posting.

[TysonLPrice]

I already said US denied it and I don't have an opinion in the matter (well...) so no point of counter posting.

I disagree about counter posting...you admitted you didn't read it all and yet posted it. And you said "of course US denied it" implying it is U.S misinformation/lying. I pointed out your source is accused of writing misleading or false reports. If you are going to just post things you haven't even read and accuse the goverment of probably lying about denying it I think a counter post is very much in order.

[sapator]

I said I read some because I'm at the office but I got the general idea.
I said of course because US would not openly admit that they bombed the pipeline so think whatever you want that I imply.
And you denied something you haven't read, so you denied something you don't know what it is but you denied it anyhow.
Anyhow I'll leave you chasing your tail now.

[TysonLPrice]

I said I read some because I'm at the office but I got the general idea.
I said of course because US would not openly admit that they bombed the pipeline so think whatever you want that I imply.
And you denied something you haven't read, so you denied something you don't know what it is but you denied it anyhow.
Anyhow I'll leave you chasing your tail now.

Your the one that won't admit to shabby posting when it is pointed out...and...I did read through it, unlike you.

[FunkyDexter]

I don't have an opinion in the matter

You clearly do.

Weapons and troops all over and throwing Ukraine soldiers to the dogs

I agree... but then I've been saying since last February that we should have put boots on the ground and jets in the air so I guess I come to a very different conclusion to you. I don't think we did enough to support Ukraine from the get go and we're still not. If the national autonomy of a Democracy who has previously sent it's men to fight on our behalf being invaded by a Totalitarian Autocracy doesn't constitute a Casus Belli then I don't think the principles we espouse really mean much.

I don't know why everyone keeps harping on about Ukraine not being a member of NATO. Kuwait wasn't a member of NATO and it wasn't NATO that went in to Iraq in response in 1990. It was a "US led coalition". I fail to see why the same principle does not apply here.

[sapator]

I clearly don't. I have suspicions.
Again what is NATO the sheriff of the world? The good against evil? And the result would be? To send troops to the ground so they provoke Russia to fire nukes? Well if you think so but the ball will be more possible to catch UK that is near than US that is proxy fighting. So as the saying goes, you better think what you wish for, it might actually come true.

P.S. Kuwait was a member of pertolato.

P.S. 2 My internet provider is doing the jungle so I think I'll retire for now.

[Shaggy Hiker]

P.S. 2 My internet provider is doing the jungle so I think I'll retire for now.

I have no idea what that means, but I like it. I like 'pertolato' better, though I believe you meant 'petrolato'. That's a good, wry, way of putting it.

Frankly, the idea that the US bombed NordStream makes as much sense as anything else. I don't think it happened, because the risk would have been FAR too high, but we're basically blaming Russia, and that doesn't make sense to me, either. I think both China and Ukraine are more likely, as both would clearly have something to gain and relatively little to lose.

As to NATO being the sheriff of the world...well, yeah, it can seem that way. So long as there was a cold war, the world was divided into two halves when seen through that lens. NATO was one side, Russia was the other. It's certainly more complicated these days, but not totally different. Regardless of what you think about NATO, it should be clear to everybody that winning the war in Ukraine is certainly a whole lot more aligned with NATO's interests than either losing it, or staying out and letting Russia take over Ukraine. Of course, winning it cheaply is always better than winning it at a high cost, but the war in Ukraine encapsulates the very reason that NATO exists, pretty much regardless of what reason you think they have to exist.

[sapator]

Agreed.
NATO exist so it can create wars in order to justify it's existence.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Agreed.
NATO exist so it can create wars in order to justify it's existence.

I don't quite agree with that. I don't think they want to create wars, but war games. Actual wars are not great. War games are great. I totally understand planning for the next war. I get the pleasure people can derive from it. The planning, imagining, exploring, and so on. And with the existential importance of it looming over it all, it would certainly fill a need found in pretty nearly all humans. War itself is messy and unpredictable. Planning is much more agreeable.

[Niya]

Actual war has more money than war games. Isn't the talk now about the billions the US is sending to Ukraine? That kind of wealth transfer doesn't happen for war games. I bet all the "mysterious figures" behind the scenes are just loving being able to dip their hands into that massive pot while it moves from the US to Europe.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Many of those billions are going to the US. If we give them weapons that were built in the US, then where is the money really going?

To be sure, I do think we are giving them a few billion in economic aid, but most of that money is in the form of arms. Arms manufacturing in the US is an interesting thing. To gain support for new kit, manufacturing is spread across as many states as is physically possible, such that there are a large number of members of Congress that will be able to show increased money for their states if they support the procurement. This is a game, and it certainly hurts the US, but it's very effective.

One of the things that this war is showing is that the US can beat anybody...so long as they can do it quickly. We have the best weapons systems in the world, we just can't replace them all that fast, and the stockpile is not large enough to fight any protracted war. What isn't clear is whether or not we could drop back to something faster to build, which is certainly hindered by all weapons manufacturing being spread across the entire country.

Politically useful, but not really practical.