Ukraine (Mod Note & Threadbanned Users in OP)

odyssey06

Russia's retaliation ... children's playground in Kyiv and the block housing German consulate office in Kyiv.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/germany-claims-its-diplomatic-offices-in-kiev-damaged-after-russian-attacks/ar-AA12N3Ei

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-10-10-22/h_f396a6e685c63369315dfcd3936ef0c2#:~:text=Children's%20playground%20hit%20in%20Kyiv%20attack%2C%20Ukrainian%20official%20says&text=A%20children's%20playground%20was%20among,capital%20Kyiv%20on%20Monday%20morning.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725615#Comment_119725615

Afghanistan was an attempt to turn mountain tribal clans living like it's the 10th century into South Korea. That's not a military objective. That came from woolly-headed people in the State Department and the broader Washington brains trust.

The US military's primary function isn't to teach Pashtun elders who practice polygamy all about women's rights and democracy, it's about force projection. And when it's left to it, it's the best in the world by a large margin and without peer.

They sent the Taliban flying like skittles to Pakistan in 2001, and they could do it all over again tomorrow if they were tasked with it.

The nicities of hearts and minds and consideration for the delicacies of Afghan tribal politics wouldn't be part the equation were they to go up against Russia. The mission would be simply to f*ck sh*t up. And they'd do it too.

bear1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726149#Comment_119726149

I'm really not sure what you're trying to convey here.

The Soviets attacked Afghanistan in 79 and that had nothing to do with turning Afghanistan into South Korea? And were essentially kicked out a decade later. The US helped the Afghans with this and the rest is a long history lesson which is still relevant to this day.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726288#Comment_119726288

American power and the ability to project power has very little to do with the impossible and failed task of turning Afghanistan into a functioning liberal democracy, which was always a fools errand.

If the President let the full power of US Forces loose on Russia in Ukraine, This war would be over in two weeks tops. The only thing stopping it is the threat of nuclear weapons. The US has no peers in the realm of conventional force projection.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725467#Comment_119725467

There's an interesting balance here. The West's stockpiles are actually not as big as all that: Most of the West's militaries have been dramatically underfunded for years. Even the US's strategic reserve isn't what it used to be as missiles reach their shelf lives and the like. Ultimately, the Western nations have to make a choice: Do they set a minimum standard that they need to keep for themselves, and if so, how much? France has given almost a quarter of its Caesar holdings to Ukraine, can the French Army really afford to lose more? The US, for example, has to look West to Taiwan and Korea, and that requires keeping a lot of ammo. A country like Poland can be a little more generous: The primary reason Poland has a strong military is to be able to kill Russians if necessary. If they give the kit to Ukraine, and the Ukrainians kill Russians with it, then it's doing the Polish defense job for them, there's less for them to be worried by directly. The days of "Sherman tank factory go BRRRRR" are long over. The new AMPV vehicle designed to replace the ubiquitous M113 for the US Army has recently hit full rate production speed.... of 12 a month. Increasing capacity to anything more than about 16-18 a month will require a stupid amount of investment, and a notable lead time.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119726364#Comment_119726364

Well, I think it would take another couple of weeks to get another division over. I don't think they'd want to go in less than corps strength, but yes, it's a little frustrating. I feel like a European observer of the American Civil War watching the amateurs defeating the incompetents. I understand perfectly why the US isn't getting involved, but it's also unfortunate to know what we could basically put an end to the fighting in Ukraine in a couple of weeks but letting the war go on is globally the more sensible move in order to avoid that US/Russia confrontation. I've partaken in Corps level exercises at the Division headquarters position, the expected standards of rapidity and lethality are eye-opening. Ukraine is not a NATO force. They've been very impressive, but they're still minor leagues.

johnnyskeleton

I dont think NATO will ever directly involve itself in Ukraine, for the simple reason that neither it nor its individual members have any reason to do so.

From 1991 to 2004, independent Ukraine was its own choice and while recognised as independent post the Soviet Union, it was still considered essentially Russia lite (even if that seems to be offensive now to both Ukraine and Russia). It was very different to the Eastern European and Baltic States, which were very much seen as occupied or puppet states with the majority population as anti Russia

In 2004 they had the Orange revolution and there seemed to be an appetite for greater relations with the West. But it was still seen as corrupt and dependent on Russia.

From 2004 to 2014 it stayed largely in that scenario - torn between Russia and the West. But the West, i.e. USA and EU primarily, had little interest in Ukraine (despite the propaganda of a US backed coup etc, Ukraine was not really on the radar for the US then).

Then Russia invaded in 2014 and things changed. First Crimea then Donbas. It all happened so quickly and so sneakily that the West couldnt react. By the time the dust settled, the policy of the West was to seek peace in the form of the Minsk agreements, to provide humanitarian aid to Ukraine, to impose partial sanctions on Russia to mark their transgression, but not to cut them off completely, and to provide some limited training and military assistance. The former measures were more EU, the latter measure more US.

The world was happy to keep to an uneasy peace from 2014 to 2022. Russia got to keep Ukraine within their orbit and the West was happy that the number of people dying was fairly low. But what changed during this period is that Ukrainians became sick of being in a frozen conflict. Some of them wanted to ceede territory to Russia (including Zelensky) and move on, but there was a groundswell of opposition to any territorial concessions.

Eventally in 2022 Putin made a serious misstep and the West's response was to provide a limited amount of military assistance. Mostly javelins and stinger missiles, to give them a fighting chance for a few days. Nothing was given that could be sold on the black market to terrorists or used by the Russians to reverse engineeer. It was literally the minimum amount of military support that they could provide and, had it not been for stout and largely unexpected Ukrainian resistance, Russia would have taken over Ukraine, albeit with heavier casualties than expected, and installed their puppet government. Sanctions would be imposed on Russia, but the gas would flow as normal by summer.

While this would not be the West's first choice in outcomes, they were comfortable with it. As Ukraine showed remarkable tenacity and public support meant that more and more could be done for Ukraine. People were surprisingly comfortable with sanctions, and NATO was more than happy to provide old soviet gear (to be replaced in time with NATO standard equipment) and some discrete systems which could be used almost to test them out in battlefield conditions. These proved remarkably successful and Ratheon, Lockheed Martin etc must have orders out the door now.

All this leads us to the present moment where Russia has gone fully crazy and has all but declared war and moved to a wartime economy. Yet even still, their chances of defeating Ukraine are not certain.

If one were to take morality and public opinion out of the equation, from a cynical NATO point of view things have gone spectaculaly well. They have provided only a limited amount of support, and it was support that suited NATO to give away. For this small price, Russia has disgraced itself. But Ukraine is not NATOs war, and never was.

So if in Feb 22 NATO was willing to let Russia conquer Ukraine, why wouldnt they do do now? What has changed since then? Public opinion is still about the same level of pro Ukraine, but may dapen as winter hits Europe. As is pointed out above it is no longer the case that NATO can give and replace old Soviet equipment, outdated and out of production weapons and untested systems that can be deployed to see how they work in the field. Despite the publicity around Ukraine applying for NATO and EU membership, neither organisation really wants them.

If a nuclear weapon is used on troops in a modern war of aggression, it will set a dangerous precedent and that genie cant be put back in the bottle. It will achieve limited tactical goals. If they use one on civilians it will be a humanitarian disaster, but still wont change the situation of the war other than Russia will be trying to conquer irradiated and depopulated lands. Any nuclear use would draw condemnation from the world, the West in particular but also India and maybe China. But yet nothing in that would cause a desire for Western involvement.

So yeah, whatever Russia do, so long as they dont attack NATO directly, it wont draw a NATO military response. NATO can simply sit on the sidelines and watch Russia get worse and worse.

odyssey06

As an aside... it reminds me of a historical point... what if the Czechs had fought back against the German invasion rather than accepting Munich... what would Britain and France have done.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735382#Comment_119735382

The Czech defences were all in the Sudetenland peopled by German speakers claimed by Hitler.

They would need to have opposed to the seizure/secession of these lands by Germany. Once they were ceded, they had no defence. Germany had already taken Austria, and moved west of the Rhine (which was forbidden to them).

Neither France nor Britain were ready for war - not even in 1939. Britain was saved by the English Channel, but not France. The Battle of Britain was fought over air superiority - basically the Messerschmitt 109 vs the Spitfire. Britain also had radar. The M109 had better gunnery but the Spit was faster and more agile. But the big difference was the British could build 10 Spits to each M109. The German losses meant, in 1940, they had to abandon their attempt to invade Britain, and moved to the Easter Front.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119734975#Comment_119734975

I believe your take is overly cynical/not entirely accurate in several respects:

The main reason for supplying small arms at the start was the mistaken belief that Russia would overrun Ukraine - the West thought they'd be arming & supporting an insurgency. As in 1980's Afghanistan, insurgents have no need for tanks - but hand held missiles.

Russia's chances of success in the war are, I would say, a lot lower than "not certain" - current rates of loss compared to the Ukrainians in terms of equipment are around 10:1 - and they are refurbishing 60 year old tanks now.

In relation to tactical nukes, NATO - or at least the US - would be forced to respond conventionally - precisely because of the "genie from the bottle". There would likely need to be a "strike 1, strike 2" warning involving destroying Russian forces with conventional weapons.

I don't see Ukraine joining NATO - at least not in the next 20 years - but I do see them joining the EU - if there is QMV in the EU anyway (or otherwise associate membership for a long time with particular checks on institutional corruption etc).

Edit: I also believe it is strongly in the interest of both the US & Europe that the "international rules based order" remains in place and that those who seek to break that fail - which also suggests supporting Ukraine until victory.

swampgas

I don't know how much of a factor it is among NATO countries, but Russia has been engaged in constant cyber and info warfare against them for years. It has been interfering in elections, spreading disinformation, and sheltering cybercriminals who have wreaked havoc in many countries. Consider all the ransomware attacks on hospitals and infrastructure (HSE, NHS, Colonial pipeline, for example) that are attributed to Russia. All of this has been going on for years without any real consequences or blowback. You also have actual physical attacks like the poisonings in the UK. It's something the West has been putting up with for a long time - so maybe supporting Ukraine against Russia is also a way to inflict some badly desired retaliation for those years of interference and provocation.

Russia has been needling Western countries for far too long, it's about time it got a bloody nose for it.

Field east

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735551#Comment_119735551

Am not too sure about The Ukr not joining NATO in the foreseeable future eg within the next twenty years. Whatever arrangement/ understanding there was in the past between The US , NATO, Russia , et al I suggest that ‘all bets are now off’ since Ru has broken every rule in the book including removing all nuclear arms from the Ukr back in 1991 - for obvious reasons. So , based on the above and especially on Putins recent comments re the greatest mistake made On an international scale was the decision to break up the USSR.

and connected to the above and what I have foxhound reviting to watch is a utube presentation by a Finnish ‘diplomat’ who worked out of the Finnish embassy in Ru for 10 yrs and who did a PhD on 1000 years of Russian history. He also was a fluent Russian speaker. Utube lasts circa 54 minutes. Well worth a watch. It gives a great insight into the current ‘Carryon and why it is happening

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732869#Comment_119732869

It seems to me often people talk about the West as one homogeneous entity but then assess each country's strength individually. The thing is, Russia has largely united the West and were they to engage with Russia militarily, they'd likely do it in unity, within or outside NATO. The fallout from Iraq/Afghanistan probably means solo runs by a few isn't going to fly. So if Russia oversteps the line (nuclear/chemical weapons), they probably won't be dealing with an individual western country, but all/most of them.

I saw a thing saying the biggest military equipment contributor to Ukraine has been Russia (viable equipment/ammo captured by Ukraine)! What any western country has contributed to the Ukrainians is also certainly less than what Russia has lost (captured plus what has been destroyed). Even if replacement is a slow process, the west can replace much faster than a Russia under heavy sanctions.

beggars_bush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735521#Comment_119735521

Luftwaffe wasn't equipped for the task either

Goering favoured huge air flotillas of light bombers (which looked impressive) instead of heavy bombers and long range fighter support

Plus they switched from attacking airfields to population centres for some reason

igCorcaigh

OK. Let me ask... Why are NATO and the US so involved in this conflict?

Why, are they so pushing against Russia (in their crime against Ukraine) so dramatically?

How come this terrible invasion of Ukraine has so quickly become a de facto conflict between US/NATO and Russia?

NATO and allies intervened (sometimes illegally, and also abhorrently) in Libya and Iraq. But Russia stood back (don't interrupt your enemy I suppose).

So it's not just about Europe?

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1580317394291068929?s=20&t=z91-_lcyt-ibr-UCbcgYfw

Good loser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119736053#Comment_119736053

could you better identify that you tube please?

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737181#Comment_119737181

Because Russia is openly committing genocide, while telling the world about it and committing lots & lots of crimes against humanity - and openly stating that this is the beginning: they want to take Moldova, Kazakhstan, Baltics & Poland, destroy NATO, control the EU and become the dominant hegemon of Europe and Western Asia.

Russia is also expressly talking about overturning the rules based international order and the concepts of things like "crimes against humanity" etc.

The US didn't bring mobile crematoria along with it to Iraq & Libya. Russia has.

The US left Iraq & Libya - Russia never intended to leave Ukraine again.

No false equivalents please.

beggars_bush

I see that Crimea bridge is still out of action and now ferries are being used to transport freight trucks across the straight. Except there's a queue with at least 900 trucks waiting to get a ferry.

johnnyskeleton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735551#Comment_119735551

The basis for my assessment that the US assistance at the start was to increase their fighting ability for the first few days, rather than arming an insurgency, comes from a number of things:

1. The provision of weapons was very open. It was not a covert operation.
2. The weapons were provided directly to the Ukrainian army, not to insurgents.
3. The type of weapons, in particular javelin and stinger, are primarily used for a defence against a tank and air invasion. Yes, the CIA provided stinger missiles to the Mujahadeen, but that was an unusual situation where they were hiding in the mountains and the Russians were sending helicopters on seek and destroy missions. A Ukrainian insurgency would need small arms, explosives etc far more than stinger missiles.
4. The stated aim of the miiltary aid was to discourage the Russians from attacking i.e. they would face heavy casualties for invading.

As for Russia's chances being lower than not certain, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that they are certain to lose? Because I don't think many people would accept that analysis. Where do your figures for their relative loss of equipment come from? They have lost a large amount of equipment in recent weeks due to the speed of their Kharkiv counteroffensive. But we don't really know the extent of Ukraine's loss of equipment in Kherson. What we do know is that both sides still have significant armed forces. Russia's losses to date have probably exceeded Ukraine's military losses (though Ukraine has lost way more when civilians are included), and this makes sense as Russia were attacking and experienced various problems and had to retreat several times. But Ukraine are now on the offensive and it is likely that they will experience greater casualties during this period. The nature of modern war is that attacking operations requires far more troops and results in far greater casualties than defending. As to the 1960s tanks, they are certainly trying to bring stored tanks into use as best they can. But that does not meant that they are down to just those tanks, and Russia still has considerable firepower.

When you say NATO would be forced to respond, I don't agree. It isn't NATO's fight. There would be international condemnation, potentially from India and China, and that would be a disaster for Russia. But for NATO to respond with direct military intervention, it would lead to open war with Russia. It would be nuclear brinksmanship and there is no desire in any NATO country as far as I'm aware to risk nuclear war for the defense of Ukraine. If you look at US statements on the use by Russia of nuclear weapons, they are relying on the veil of uncertainty i.e. the US is threatening very serious consequences or that if mistakes are made it could end in nuclear Armageddon, but isn't specific in what NATO's response would be. It has been suggested that the US has privately communicated to Russia what their response would be, but I just don't see it.

I had a longer post where I went into why I don't think nuclear weapons will be used anyway, which is essentially that their use is better as a threat than as an actual weapon. In the event that Putin used a limited number of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, it would not be determinative of the war. Ukraine would fight on and Russia would become more isolated. NATO's response would likely include the provision of even more weapons to Ukraine.

In relation to the argument regarding the international rules based order, the US and EU don't intervene in every situation where such is threatened. But where they do, the response is economic and diplomatic sanctions. The idea is that if you are a country that does not adhere to the international order, you will be shunned by that order. Which is what they have done.

Field east

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737348#Comment_119737348

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737348#Comment_119737348

Google “ evaluation of Russia by a Finnish intelligence colonel.” His name is Martti Kari. Lasts just over an hour

Hermy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737857#Comment_119737857

Can you provide a link to the video?

johnnyskeleton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737181#Comment_119737181

NATO and the US arent involved in the conflict.

They are pushing against Russia for the reasons you identify, an illegal war with large numbers of civilian death.

This is not a de facto conflict between Russia and the US. It is pretty obvious now, although it was less certain pre February, that in a de facto conflict between Russia and the US, Russia would lose.

In any event, based on the recent Un vote, it is clear that it is not US or NATO who are against Russia, its the vast majority of the world, and certainly those countries which are democracies.

NATO involvement in the Lybian civil war was limited. NATO was not involved in the invasion of Iraq (that was the "coalition of the willing") although they were involved afterwards. The reasons for those conflicts are well documented and not relevant to Russia. I and most Irish people did not approve of the invasion of Iraq so its not some great point to diffuse Irish support of Ukraine ahainst Russia.

I assume this is the video in question.

https://youtu.be/5F45i0v_u6s

Or without the robotic voice, in Finish with subtitles.

https://youtu.be/kF9KretXqJw

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119737181#Comment_119737181

Libya - unconnected to Russia, in fact Russia didn't vote against the no-fly zone at the UN

Iraq - again unconnected to Russia. Was largely unilateral action by Bush/Neocons/Blair to remove a Middle-Eastern dictator by force (which turned into a disaster)

In contrast Putin is currently invading a European country and threatening many others. Russian helicopters have "onwards to Berlin" written on them, state controlled TV regularly talks about attacking Poland and other countries. Putin is a nuclear armed dictator hellbent on conquest, and it's not just Ukraine, they are just a stepping stone. He's a threat to Europe, meaning he's a threat to NATO, and the US is part of NATO. He also represents an existential threat to our democracy and freedom.

Appeasement was tried when Putin sparked a war in Georgia, when he annexed Crimea, and so on. It doesn't work. Right now, the Ukrainians are the only thing standing between himself and further conquest in Europe, hence the level of international arms and support for them.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119738448#Comment_119738448

Also, and perhaps most critically that makes the whataboutery irrelevant to this entire discussion, Putin considers Ukraine part of "historical Russia" and denies the existence of Ukraine as a sovereign nation. It's one thing to unilaterally effect Regime Change as seen in Iraq, it's another to do so with the belief that Ukraine has no right to exist as it exists now. This is precisely why Moldova, Georgia et al are looking over their shoulders.

It's all right here, via the man himself & the Kremlin website. Be warned: it's very wordy and goes into eye-watering detail as to why Ukraine is just part of Russia and they should know better than fight history. Putin is a stain upon anyone who values self-determination, if they put aside the tedious kneejerk reactions that if it involves the US or NATO, it must be suss.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Field east

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119738342#Comment_119738342

Yes

rgossip30

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119735551#Comment_119735551

Got a link that Russian equipment losses are 10:1 and Ukraine Ministry of defence or some unknown twitter account .

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739651#Comment_119739651

Overall probably closer to 4 to 1, also the Ukrainians are reconstituting a lot of captured Russian vehicles into their own military

Russian losses (each with visual evidence)

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

Ukrainian losses

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119739651#Comment_119739651

It's analyses of the Oryx dataset - various people do the analysis online (overall mix/age of losses/ratios etc)

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119740119#Comment_119740119

That's overall. From the Kharkiv offensive onwards, it's been much higher rates of loss.

pixelburp

The Guardian has an interesting poll out, regarding the public mood with regards sanctions and encroaching hardship potentially caused by them. Interesting in some ways and not surprising in others: specifically, nonEuropean countries are obviously less inclined towards maintaining punitive measures against Russia. A degree of political NIMBYism at play, but it makes sense; I doubt Mexicans give a whit about Ukrainian Sovereignty - no more than if roles were reversed.

The one surprises was the tepid response from Greece regarding sanctions - the zero surprise being Hungary having the most pro-Russiam attitude of the Europeans polled. Would wonder what Greece leant so apathetic towards sanctions; broadly though, any claims the EU will fold when winter bites seem unfounded - for then time being.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/14/westerners-in-no-mood-for-concessions-to-russia-in-ukraine-poll-finds