History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to Error404 :

I think the fact that Poland is saying, "no, you do it," speaks to the trickiness of the situation. Countries are playing games. People often die when countries do that, so it is not a game at the people level, but countries have the rules that they have agreed upon in treaties. If we are trying to keep the situation from escalating too big (or even just too fast), not resorting to a free-for-all helps that. Obviously, there are no good choices here, which makes it all the rougher.

On a separate note, I was reading that the stalled convoy is well within the range of Russian SAM capabilities without the launchers even needing to leave Russian soil. That depends on the missile loaded, of course, but the options are 25 mile range and 75 mile range for the active radar options, if I understand correctly. Kyiv is about 50 miles from the border, and the convoy is not yet at Kyiv? How vulnerable to ground attack aircraft is the convoy while it is still this close to Russian equipment?

A map update and some points (zoomed in on Kyiv):

The two areas are interest are that Russia continues to push up from the south, not terribly quickly though.  More importantly, they appear to be pushing south around the west of Kyiv, probably in an attempt to completely cut it off / surround it.  There is also more showing up to the east of Kyiv, but I would be highly suspect of their supply line.

Other points:

- Russia's logistic issues are well known to the Ukrainians apparently.  They have been telling their fighters to target fuel trucks. It is apparently bad enough the Russia has been attempting to disguise the fuel trucks by putting canvas tops on them.  The Ukrainians of course quickly warn of these disguises.

- Ukraine has opened the flood gates on a dam north of Kyiv.  This does not flood the roads, but does mean vehicles must stay on the roads.  Do not expect any rapid advances from there.

- The Russians still appear to be messing around in the western suburbs of Kyiv.  It doesn't look like they are doing that great, and seem to be taking some good losses.  

- Rumors of Russia recruiting Syrian fighters.  Maybe a sign of desperation?

- Remember that general that was killed, and how the Russian transmissions are in the open because they destroyed all the cell towers?  Well.....

... one of those open communications was (as reported by the Ukrainians, so maybe) to the FSB telling them the general was killed.  The response was "Fuuuuuu....".

The general killed is said to be the oldest son.... of the Chief of Staff of ALL of the Russian armed forces!  This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valery_Gerasimov

If this is true, this could be big in a number of ways.

matthewmcl said:

In reply to Error404 :

.... How vulnerable to ground attack aircraft is the convoy while it is still this close to Russian equipment?

Not so much to ground attack aircraft (su-25, A10), but clearly vulnerable to drones, which the Ukrainians have a number of and are getting more.  As noted previously, there have been a number of the drone attacks shown on that area that are targeting SAM tanks. I does make you wonder, but I am not sure there is enough of a Ukrainian air force to do anything right now.

In reply to aircooled :

Valid point. I was just wondering if they would be able to do much about it even if they did have the planes.

Yeah, I would say probably not.  They would need to suppress any SAM systems first and there is some concern that something like an F35 might be needed to get to an S400 system, which is apparently even capable of taking out cruise missiles.  But who knows, some Russian stuff ain't quite as advertised.

AP Link

Russian strike reportedly inflicts "colossal" damage to childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. 

Good thing we didn't push Russia to escalate, they might have bombed.... More children? idk, if we had any high ground here I think we've surrendered it. 

In reply to Error404 :

That link gets updated with the AP's latest reports.  I just looked and saw this one:

LONDON — British American Tobacco said it has suspended all planned capital investment in Russia but continues to operate there, even as many other Western brands announce they’re halting all business in the country because of the Ukraine invasion.

The company, one of the so-called Big Four tobacco producers, said Wednesday that it has a “duty of care” to all its 2,500 employees in Russia. BAT said it’s focusing on its locally produced tobacco products in Russia, where it has substantial manufacturing and has been operating since 1991.

It seems to me that if they did suspend operations, in about 24 hours there would be a whole lot of pissed off Russians with nicotine fixes storming the Kremlin.  Problem solved.

In reply to stuart in mn :

I thought it was interesting that McDonalds is suspending operations in Russia but will continue to pay their employees there. 

"In an email to employees and franchisees on Tuesday, McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinski said the fast-food chain will pause all operations in Russia. He said the company will continue paying salaries to 62,000 people it employs there.

"Our values mean we cannot ignore the needless human suffering unfolding in Ukraine," Kempczinski said. "At this juncture, it's impossible to predict when we might be able to reopen our restaurants in Russia.""

Error404 said:

AP Link

Russian strike reportedly inflicts "colossal" damage to childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. 

Good thing we didn't push Russia to escalate, they might have bombed.... More children? idk, if we had any high ground here I think we've surrendered it. 

As I read this you're saying that the reason Russia destroyed a hospital is because we instigated it? Is that what you're trying to say? I really hope not. The mental gymnastics to absolve these people and blame the us/eu is mind boggling to me. 

bobzilla said:

Error404 said:

AP Link

Russian strike reportedly inflicts "colossal" damage to childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. 

Good thing we didn't push Russia to escalate, they might have bombed.... More children? idk, if we had any high ground here I think we've surrendered it. 

As I read this you're saying that the reason Russia destroyed a hospital is because we instigated it? Is that what you're trying to say? I really hope not. The mental gymnastics to absolve these people and blame the us/eu is mind boggling to me. 

I think that was sarcasm. He was saying that the strategy of not poking the bear wasn't working. I think...

tuna55 said:

bobzilla said:

Error404 said:

AP Link

Russian strike reportedly inflicts "colossal" damage to childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. 

Good thing we didn't push Russia to escalate, they might have bombed.... More children? idk, if we had any high ground here I think we've surrendered it. 

As I read this you're saying that the reason Russia destroyed a hospital is because we instigated it? Is that what you're trying to say? I really hope not. The mental gymnastics to absolve these people and blame the us/eu is mind boggling to me. 

I think that was sarcasm. He was saying that the strategy of not poking the bear wasn't working. I think...

Correct. It appears that I should refrain from sarcasm for the sake of clear communication. 

I was not in any way saying that this is anything other than Russian aggression, I don't think the children or pregnant women were instigating this. I do think that our continued hand wringing over not wanting to provoke Russia further is far too close to trying to placate Hitler in the mid-30s. We need to stop trying to play both sides of this and either commit or get off the pot. In my opinion.

In reply to Error404 :

Ok. That makes more sense. But there are plenty of people out there that DO believe this is all our fault. 
 

If I'm being questionably sarcastic I like to end with [/sarcasm] so it's obvious. 

I was watching an interview in which the expert cited really atrocious behavior on the part off the Russians in Syria.  I knew Syria was (and is) a real mess but if what he claimed (targeting hospitals and medical relief facilities) actually happened, I'm wondering why it's not being trumpeted from the rooftops...  

stroker said:

I was watching an interview in which the expert cited really atrocious behavior on the part off the Russians in Syria.  I knew Syria was (and is) a real mess but if what he claimed (targeting hospitals and medical relief facilities) actually happened, I'm wondering why it's not being trumpeted from the rooftops...  

 

I remember seeing reports of Russia using gas in Syria. Bombing hospitals and residential buildings. The usual. Why isn't it being trumpeted from the rooftops? Maybe it was propaganda. Maybe the news cycle moved on. Maybe people just ignored it. Maybe Putin flexed his nukes, the UN issued a condemnation, and the world decided not to prod the bear, assuming it will get it fill for conquest with Syria. Maybe it was just a precursor to what we're seeing now where there is a vocal portion of America that is apparently pro-Putin.

In sum, I don't know why it isn't trumpeted from the rooftops but it was at the time and Russia went unchallenged. I would guess that it was a combination of the above factors, adding in Russian gas/oil and the profits therein as well as NATO people not really caring much about Syria. 

This isn't Hitler and the Sudetenland because Hitler didn't have nukes.     I think the only thing that will stop Putin is death.  Natural or otherwise.

Error404 said:

stroker said:

I was watching an interview in which the expert cited really atrocious behavior on the part off the Russians in Syria.  I knew Syria was (and is) a real mess but if what he claimed (targeting hospitals and medical relief facilities) actually happened, I'm wondering why it's not being trumpeted from the rooftops...  

 

I remember seeing reports of Russia using gas in Syria. Bombing hospitals and residential buildings. The usual. Why isn't it being trumpeted from the rooftops? Maybe it was propaganda. Maybe the news cycle moved on. Maybe people just ignored it. Maybe Putin flexed his nukes, the UN issued a condemnation, and the world decided not to prod the bear, assuming it will get it fill for conquest with Syria. Maybe it was just a precursor to what we're seeing now where there is a vocal portion of America that is apparently pro-Putin.

In sum, I don't know why it isn't trumpeted from the rooftops but it was at the time and Russia went unchallenged. I would guess that it was a combination of the above factors, adding in Russian gas/oil and the profits therein as well as NATO people not really caring much about Syria. 

It was trumpeted from the rooftops when it happened. It didn't stick because Syria's situation was not the same and was seen more as an actual combatent than an innocent party AND the US/NATO was bombing them as well (just not the hospitals and apartments).

In reply to jharry3 :

But hitler did have 2 of the deadliest battleships on the planet and a sub fleet that was rivaled by none. They were afraid he could and would halt shipping world wide. They were the nukes before nukes. 
 

mans just like Russia's scary military they were overrated 

bobzilla said:

In reply to Error404 :

Ok. That makes more sense. But there are plenty of people out there that DO believe this is all our fault. 
 

There was discussion in this thread prior to Russia's invasion about the actions of the rest of the world and Russia's expected reactions, and vice versa.  Whether the US/NATO doing 'x' would result in Russia doing 'y', and if Russia did 'a' would the rest of the world do 'b', that sort of thing.  Now that Russia has attacked the Ukraine, any discussion about these things is sort-of verboten because the news is showing us graphic videos of women and childen being bombed. 

There seemd to be little support in this country for US involvement in what's going on over there in the beginning.  As this continues, and the news keeps inundating us with graphic reports and pictures and videos the support here will grow.  Whether this is being done intentionally, and, if so, on what level, why, and to what end, we won't know.  But the result looks like a direction toward more, not less, involvement of the US/ NATO.  Will this end up like Iraq, Afganistan, or any of the other countless military actions the US has engaged in in the post WWII era?  That's a real concern.  But at this point, what alternatives are really being considered? 

Hopefully the extent of the sanctions being deployed, and the use of social media to penetrate Russia and turn popular opinion there against Putin and his actions will do the job.

bobzilla said:

But hitler did have 2 of the deadliest battleships on the planet and a sub fleet that was rivaled by none. They were afraid he could and would halt shipping world wide. They were the nukes before nukes. 

There were no "nukes before nukes".  Mutually assured destruction is a very different thing from submarine warfare.

Error404 said:

AP Link

Russian strike reportedly inflicts "colossal" damage to childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. 

Good thing we didn't push Russia to escalate, they might have bombed.... More children? idk, if we had any high ground here I think we've surrendered it. 

Put Put needs to convince the world that there is no attrocity that he will not commit in the name of reaching his goal. The thing with the planes and Poland is a definite blink from the West, so figure Put Put will escalate on his lack of humanity in order to crack the West.

In order to achieve his goal of setting Russia on top of the Superpower heap, Putin needs a New World Order. In order to make room for a New World Order, he is going to have to destroy the current World Order.

"May you live in interesting times"

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

It's like a lot of things before other things. You can't comprehend it. At the time, the loss of global shipping was a huge issue

The US is continually finding itself in a position where it's being asked to aid in the transfer of weapons to Ukraine, and it is repeatedly saying "no we can't do that because it'll amount to direct conflict between nuclear powers." 

At this point, Turkey has pretty much gotten as close to anyone in provoking a direction conflict with Russia. 

It would seem to me, that if anyone was going to get their hands dirty, it should be the Turks. 

We're put in a tough spot because at the rate we're going, Russia will either level Ukraine, or Ukraine will put up enough of a fight that Russia launches on a nuke in effort to slow the loses, and we're in direct conflict. 

We'll either test our ability to "stay out of it" in the face of war crimes, or we'll see just how trigger happy Russia is with its nukes. Neither are good. 

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

bobzilla said:

But hitler did have 2 of the deadliest battleships on the planet and a sub fleet that was rivaled by none. They were afraid he could and would halt shipping world wide. They were the nukes before nukes. 

There were no "nukes before nukes".  Mutually assured destruction is a very different thing from submarine warfare.

Plus, Germany didn't have the sub fleet it really needed to lock down shipping traffic the way it wanted to.  In fact, Germany wasn't really ready for war when it started it.  According to one article I read recently, the timetable was accelerated by Hitler's declining health.  Sub fleet, fuel reserves and other logistics were far below the levels his commanders felt were needed to the war to be successful. While it's hard to say the eventual outcome would have changed (since it's likely the Allies would have also been preparing), the war definitely would have been different.

Unfortunately for Ukraine, Putin is pretty much committed to the current course of action. To pull back now would be such an admission of failure it would be the end of his regime.  So I fear the jharry3 is correct. The question is how much his inner-circle fears him in order to organize a resistance.  Right now, it seems he has acheived Stalin-eque levels of fear. 

The other thing that makes this situation different from 1938 is the nature of the world economy and the technology that powers it. Sanctions in the 30s certainly had effects, but nothing like what they have now. Overnight, Russia has been frozen out of the world banking system and orders for most of their products have ceased. Their currency has plummeted in value. In addition to that, while I'm sure they can eventually conquer Ukraine, the military cost is going to be much higher than what they anticipated, and the economic costs are already catastrophic. Given that, I'm fine with the US sitting on the sideline from a military standpoint. However this thing ends up going, I can't see a positive outcome for Russia.

As for Putin trying to provoke the West into a wider war, if he really is doing that, he has lost his senses (entirely possible). Watching Russia's poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly motivated military struggle against Ukraine, I can only imagine how they'd fare against modern Western armies and weapons. IF it stayed conventional, it would be... very one-sided, I rather think.

But that is the biggest "IF" in the history of "IF"s.

I gotta believe some Russian General is muttering, "We blinked in 1962 and we're By-God not gonna blink this time..."