History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Flynlow said:

Stampie said:

Flynlow said:

Stampie said:

While I understand the thoughts above, targeting civilian infrastructure on either side is wrong.

Power plants supporting military production, petroleum refining, manufacturing, etc., are valid targets of war (which this is).  
 

If Ukraine was targeting apartment blocks, like the russians are doing, i would be more in agreement with you.  

The substation feeding a military base is.  A power plant that feeds Moscow isn't.

I respect your opinion without agreeing with it.  Any further down this rabbit hole is probably unproductive. 

Its always wild to see a real-time reminder of why we have laws outlining what are and are not war crimes.

Russia-Ukraine war: Images suggest Russia’s new intercontinental ballistic missile suffered major test failure

In reply to Noddaz :

Maybe it was those two kids who torched the helicopter again!

In reply to Noddaz :

It's not the first time....

There was also the Russian N1 (moon rocket) explosion:

This was a HUGE rocket:

A lot of ammo depots seem to be making the news lately:

https://www.businessinsider.com/video-enormous-explosion-at-russian-ammunition-depot-ukraine-war-2024-9

Ukraine needs to make a new drone model and just name it "Debris"...

aircooled said:

There was also the Russian N1 (moon rocket) explosion:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/gklVhRzkVqA?rel=0

 

that's a big berkeleying explosion...  I'm surprised it didn't set off seismic sensors all over.

Russia has removed the crew from its only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and is using it as cannon fodder in the war with Ukraine.

The sailors of the Russian Navy flagship, which is more dead than alive, have formed the mechanized battalion "Frigate" as part of the 1st Guards Tank Army.

This battalion took part in the assaults in the Kharkov region and near Pokrovsk, writes Forbes. The crew of the Admiral Kuznetsov consisted of 1,500 people.

Russia's only aircraft carrier, which is currently docked in Murmansk, will most likely not be restored after the latest fire in December 2022, and Russia is unable to build a new one to replace it. Apparently, the Admiral Kuznetsov will soon be retired and sent for disposal as its crew…

In reply to stroker :

Largest non-nuclear explosion made by man.

I have no idea if this is true, but this war is quickly becoming a race to the bottom.  The Russians have done tremendous damage to the Ukrainian power generation capability and may even target the reactor sub-stations.  Of course, the Russians may realize that Zaporizhia is well within precision missile range of Ukraine and they could likely easily knock out that sub-station.

The Russians of course seem to be on a collision course with a logistics / economic nightmare, though seem to have no end of bodies to throw in front of machine guns.
 

Zelensky is preparing for negotiations, - El Pais.

 

Due to human losses, shelling and forecasts for a difficult winter with almost no light, the morale of the people is weakening. External pressure for negotiations is also increasing, at which Kyiv will be forced to make painful concessions.

In reply to aircooled :

It makes sense, considering that the longer Ukraine waits, the narrower their options get. I think Zelensky must have had a timetable in mind when they launched the incursion toward Kursk, knowing that it couldn't be held indefinitely. The latest, largely failed, round of pleading for more aid and fewer restrictions was probably a last-ditch effort to keep things going (the failure here lands mostly at Zelensky's feet, as the "plan" for victory was basically "give us more stuff and let us use it", according to the reports I've seen. US officials were reportedly unimpressed, suggesting the plan lacked detail and imagination.).

In other, rather significant news, the Israelis managed to take out the leader of Hezbolla, Nasrallah.  This will likely be a general news item, Hezbolla has confirmed it. 

There is a video of the building he was in (underneath I suspect).  I am sure the building was full of civilians and likely many schools(!).  I am not sure Israel should be heavily blamed of course, when you start a war and you hide under your civilians.  The building (looks like a tall apartment complex) did not collapse, but certainly slumped showing it was effectively destroying.

This is the current command structure situation!  Looks like it's all on Abu at this point (who might want to consider a long foreign vacation!)

The lower left of the center building is the explosion:

In reply to 02Pilot :

The big question of course is Russia even interested in reasonable negotiations at this point?  If Ukraine is loosing resolve, why not just plod on and take it all, or demand it all in negotiations?

I suspect, in the least, there will be a "no NATO member" demand.  Is that alone enough? I kind of doubt it.

In reply to aircooled :

Russia pressing for Ukraine to be excluded from NATO is a blessing in disguise for the US and Europe. If a deal can be done where Ukraine is declared neutral in perpetuity, combined with a substantial supply of weapons and lots of economic support, the West ends up with a buffer state capable of self-defense. This is complicated by the fact that there have already been several bilateral defense treaties signed (how many have been ratified, I don't know) between Ukraine and Western powers, but these can be made to go away in the right circumstances.

Frankly, I think Russia would be happy about that deal, though of course they couldn't admit it. Putin will likely demand the world, slow-walk the negotiations to try to grab more territory (of course refusing a cease-fire in place), and attempt to split Ukraine from its allies and Western states from each other in the process. Offering the deal above explicitly and publicly - it does satisfy a number of Putin's prewar demands, making it harder to turn down if it's known - but putting a clock on it ("You have 30 days to accept or we will reevaluate our position...") would create the best chance for a quick settlement. The bigger sticking point will be getting the Ukrainians on board, though if their domestic support is indeed softening, they may be willing to compromise quickly as well.

In reply to 02Pilot :

So, Russia gets to keep all of the land they stole.

Ukraine doesn't get into NATO and it's protection.

Russia promises not to invade Ukraine again.

Russia negotiates a complete suspension of all of the economic sanctions and a return to business as usual with Europe buying all of their oil and gas from Russia again.

Edit: We also sell Russia all of the computer chips they want because it's good for business.

After a few year when Russia has restored their armies, they get to try again and grab the rest of Ukraine.

We will just sit there and let them because that is exactly what half of this country already wants and it's what we are really good at.

What a great deal for Ukraine.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I understand the temptation to see things that way, but there are additional factors that need to be considered.

First, a fully restored Ukraine is not a US or Western strategic interest; a free and independent Ukraine, capable of defending itself and sustaining its economy without continual support, very much is. If they are able to achieve that with ~80% of their territory, short-term support, and a carefully written treaty, that's a win.

Conversely, a revanchist Ukraine inside NATO is a nightmare scenario. Knowing that NATO will be inclined to support them militarily (technically obligated under Article 5, but in this scenario, there's room to fudge), the Ukrainian government could create incidents designed to provoke Russia into an attack that would then have a high potential for escalation.

Russian motives for "grab(bing) the rest of Ukraine" increase with the closeness of its Western alignment. A neutral Ukraine with enough of a military to make such a venture costly would minimize Russian incentives for further such adventures, while a Western-aligned Ukraine - especially a weak one - would be a tempting target.

Regardless, I don't think you're going to see a return to levels of European dependence on Russia fossil fuels any time soon. Even if the sanctions are lifted as part of a deal (I don't expect it will happen all at once, and sanctions on individuals will likely remain to some extent), Russia will still be limited by the loss of pipeline infrastructure and European reluctance to expose themselves to such risks again. If anything, it's probably a short-term win for US LNG exports, and maybe a medium-term win for European nuclear power.

russia is, and always has been, an empire nation; that means they they ebb and grow by taking over other peoples land. The only problem with any kind of treaty that involves russia is that to russia, treaties of any kind are meaningless when they think they are in a position to attack. That is why we are where we are today with Ukraine  Remember, a lot of russia's war-time government has been declared war criminals,  most likely cause they are psychopaths. Treaties don't fix that E36 M3.

If there is a silver lining to any resolution  that does not involve russia going back to where they were in 2013, it would be that russia as a population is dying of its own accord. Amidst a significant demographic decline, russia would be dealing with all the fun details of occupying a chunk of real estate where they are not 100% welcome. See Northern Ireland and the "Troubles" for a glimpse of that future.  Or think Afghanistan, only the enemy looks like you and speaks the same language as you and might be your cousin.

Because of the above, If I were Ukraine, I would dedicate whatever effort it took to make the putin bridge go away forever. before any peace talks of any kind got started.  Nothing good will ever cross that bridge.

In reply to NOHOME :

All treaties are meaningless when they are no longer deemed useful, unless they have some sort of meaningful enforcement mechanism. The US has been party to any number of treaties that it has subsequently abrogated or simply walked away from: SEATO, the 1868 Laramie Treaty, etc. Were Jimmy Carter and U.S. Grant "psychopaths" for doing so?

Russia is a state with interests, just like any other, but possessing nuclear weapons in abundance, which complicates matters considerably. They are dealing with a number of challenging circumstances, some of which you mention. Do you think that backing them into a corner will make them less dangerous?

In reply to 02Pilot :

Nobody is backing russia into a corner. That would be my point. russia is in the position they are because they want to be there.  russias "corner" is always defined as whatever territory they are in the midst of taking over while crying victim. russia is free to return to where they were in 2013 and continue on their path of demographic implosion. 

Remind me of when Carter indiscriminately ordered women and children to be bombed, kidnaped and frozen cause he wanted  admiration from his oligarchs? Or when he was declared a war criminal? Cause I missed that bit. Never heard of the other dude.

In reply to NOHOME :

Nobody in the West thinks they are backing Russia into a corner, but that does not account for the possibility that Russia has a different perception upon which it will base its actions. Presuming that other governments share the same understanding of any particular action or intention is dangerous, and frighteningly commonplace.

As far as Russian history, I'm struggling to think of other instances when they claimed to be the victim. And given that quiet demographic implosion is not likely to be a fruitful long-term path, why would anyone expect them to willingly return to it? Virtually any other option, even a dangerous one, would seem preferable.

Finally, your prior post seemed to be linking the devaluing of treaties with psychopathic leadership. I merely pointed out that the causal linkage between the two is tenuous at best.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Not having Ukraine in NATO does avoid the trigger problem as 02 noted.  It certainly creates the threat of war with NATO if invaded, but also creates the requirement to go to war if Ukraine is invaded.

It's probably pretty unlikely western countries would be selling strategic materials to Russia in the near future (e.g. I believe France was selling them their tank optics).  They of course will start sourcing from China and maybe India.

Security guarantees "should" give similar protections, though clearly those are easier to not honor.

If Russia does try to go for a repeat in the future, it's highly likely Ukraine would be FAR better prepared and armed.  E.g. fully integrated air defense (not the mish-mash they have now).  Many squadrons of well trained F-16's and likely other support aircraft (maybe even a squadron of F35s, which would be rediculously useful currently!). A fully "NATOized" military, and I suspect some very Maginot Line like defenses on the Russian boarders.  

(The Maginot Line is of course a horrible example, having been built to keep Germany from every invading France again after WWI... the Germans just went around it, through supposedly impassible Arden forest... it wasn't)

Russia can barely manage Ukraine in it's highly unprepared status.  Given a prepared Ukraine and they would have essentially no chance of any reasonable success, thus unlikely to try.

As noted, I suspect Europe is highly unlikely to tie themselves to Russian oil/gas again, at least to the extent they were.  India and China will certainly continue though (and maybe add some more in if it's cheap enough, which also might help keep general oil prices low).

The other question going forward would be how restrictive Western countries would be on Russia in general going forward.  Too restrictive, you risk a WWII like German re-start.  Too loose, you have to trust Russia(!).

It would certainly be an uncomfortable outcome...

I'm nowhere near as educated as 02Pilot, but I certainly hope the situation is better than that.  From my perspective we have:

1) Rapidly depleting stockpiles of equipment and artillery tubes for the russians to use, combined with a rate of usage that isn't sustainable at all in the short term (one year time frame, as applied to artillery tubes).

2) A recent increase in sign-on bonuses for russians to sign up, a HUGE decrease in volunteers, and an increase in foreigners.

3) A population that is starting to feel the effects of the war in territories that putin has tried to shield from such things.

4) A loss of 3-months of ammunition in the last week from extremely large depot explosions

5) A summer spent with the russians at "full chat" concering their efforts at pushing back the lines with only marginal gains (measured in... single digit kilometers?)

6) An incursion into russia by the Ukrainians that's resulted in the loss of more territory this summer than russia has been able to manage this entire war.

From that perspective, it looks to me like Ukrainian defensive line just shouldered the hit of their life and are just managed to get their feet under them.  If I were going to the negotiation table with that in mind, it would be from the perspective of "you should probably give me what I want now before we decide to take it".

As far as the "unimaginative" statement from the officials, I have to complain:

*ahem* < rant >

We are now TWO YEARS into a war of attrition.  During that time Ukraine was "imaginative" with their propaganda, flying drones, wheeled drones, floating drones, thermite drones, aerial intercept of drones, anti-drone warfare, mine deployment, mine detection and removal, an attempted assault on Kyiv, incursions near the Crimean peninsula, incursions into russia, hacking, grain shipping (from Odessa while being attacked), polish blockades (by using trains when first the farmers and then the truckers blocked their busies border), asking "mother may I" and routinely being told "no" and somehow still finding a way anyway....  I mean they are going Bradley v Tank and coming out on top!!!

It is berkeleying trench warfare. It is trench warfare because we (the collective west) have and did not give Ukraine the tools they needed to conquer their own sky.  It is the most mined place on EARTH!!!  What are you expecting at this point???  How much more berkeleying creative does this David need to be before you untie that left hand of his and let him beat the Goliath that has been attacking him?

sorry.  <  rant / >

Needless to say, I see a diplomatic solution now that surrenders territory to russia only as a launching point for the next invasion.  russia's ability to wait the west out has been spoken of many times in this thread, and I don't see the future looking any different.

In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :

hear hear

In reply to Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) :

I can accept a number of the points you've made, and there is certainly a case to be made for Ukraine to hold out and hope for the Russians to run out of tubes/shells/warm bodies. That said, Ukraine's position today is not necessarily Ukraine's position in a couple months from now; external political changes may create significant new challenges for them, and reports of waning domestic support have been floating around for a while. Both sides are essentially trying to stave off internal collapse long enough for the other side to suffer it. Napoleon's maxim of "the moral is to the physical as three is to one" applies here, I think - while Russia may be running out of everything, if they can hold on while Ukraine's leadership endures a loss of support for the war effort, it won't matter as much as some in the West predict.

As to the "unimaginative" comment and your response, I can't comment on the "victory plan" because I haven't seen it, but I suspect what was meant by those criticizing it referred to strategic, not tactical, questions. There's no doubt Ukraine has remarkably imaginative tactically and even operationally, but winning battles doesn't win the war (see: the US in Vietnam). I don't know what US officials were hoping to see, but I suspect a thorough analysis of, say, Russian energy production, requirements, and outflows, along with a comprehensive targeting plan and some sense of a threshold beyond which the Russians would likely suffer certain specific impacts, would have gone a long way. The US has traditionally been very focused on strategic/economic warfare, and Ukraine - both because of the circumstances they currently find themselves in and the more tactical focus of the Soviet army where many of its military leaders came up - may not fully grasp what the US is looking for.

NOHOME said:

 Never heard of the other dude.

Grant? You've never heard of Ulysses S Grant?  Commander of the Union Army against Lee and the Confederates?  Eventual president of the United States?