The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[Lennart Hyland]

There are also reports that 1.4m Ukrainians from the occupied territories have been forcibly sent to Russia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...8be4d0fc2fb576dc00be98&pinned_post_type=share

Best case, they'll have a short life as undermenshen in Putin's Russian Empire. Worst case, they'll be sent off to death camps in Russia's East.

That's horrifying! A lot of children have been deported as well...

The sanctions can never be lifted until at least Putin is gone and Russian has made an official apology...

 

[The Don]

The sanctions can never be lifted until at least Putin is gone and Russian has made an official apology...

I agree, but Western leaders may start to come under more pressure as winter approaches and the need for Russian oil and gas grows as the temperature drops and stockpiles diminish.

Faced with the prospect of even higher prices and public unrest at home and a comparatively stable position in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, they may be tempted to start rolling back the sanctions - we'll see.

 

[Oystein]

again how much are you comfortable sitting back and accepting here?


https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/germany-accuses-russia-of-waging-grain-war/2588110



not seen that one

I wasn't telling you my opinion of what ought to be done. I was assessing what it takes for Britain or anyone to actually guard shipping convoys, and that it is highly unlikely it will be done. Sad as it is.

(And no, I am not aware such a video has been made yet)

 

[Craig4]

Or at pretty much any time in the past.

Very worrying news coming out of Luhansk. It seems that the Russian meat grinder is doing its worst and it's merely a matter of time before the whole of Luhansk is under Russian control.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...8c6e8ffc2fb576dc00beca&pinned_post_type=share

My fear is that, if Russia were to stop there (and retain its gains in Southern Ukraine) then in time the EU and US may see that as an acceptable stalemate and start to reduce support for Ukraine and unwind sanctions (or more accurately continue to import energy from Russia).

There are also reports that 1.4m Ukrainians from the occupied territories have been forcibly sent to Russia.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/wor...8be4d0fc2fb576dc00be98&pinned_post_type=share

Best case, they'll have a short life as undermenshen in Putin's Russian Empire. Worst case, they'll be sent off to death camps in Russia's East.

Stalemate may not be a bad thing if we use the time it buys to help build Ukraine maneuver forces with modern armor, mechanized infantry, and air defense.

 

[The Don]

I am wondering: All that wheat, before it goes on a cargo ship in Odesa harbor, got to the harbor via land transportation. (Some by river ship. perhaps). Is it impossible to transport by land to, say, Romania? Does Romania have a harbor that can deal with loads of wheat? (I know there is Transnistria in the way, so the land rout would have to take very significant detours)

Perhaps someone (Wendover Productions...) has already made a video about this.

I'd think that the volume of wheat would be considerable and the available transport infrastructure is subject to Russian attack and it's already very busy shipping military and humanitarian supplies.

Looking at a map of the Ukrainian rail network, there appears to be a line from Odessa North-North-West to Ternopil but it runs very close to Transnistria. The alternative running North-North-East is very close to Russian occupied areas.

That's not to say that it's impossible to ship to Romania, but it may be effectively impossible once the logistical challenges have been considered - not least the difference in gauges. From Wiki:

Due to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, many of the country's Black Sea ports were blocked, prompting a crisis in the export of agricultural products that were normally shipped. Railway freight has become the most viable alternative, but the Ukrainian railway network has not been able to cope with the demand, particularly because the railway gauge differences between Ukraine's Soviet-era 1520 mm gauge railways and the standard-gauge railway (1435 mm) of states west of its borders have created bottlenecks at break-of-gauge transloading stations.

dditional challenges included the need to increase the amount of wagons, appropriate permits to let Ukrainian wagons ride in EU territory, and to increase the capacity of EU ports (such as Gdańsk, Hamburg and Rotterdam) that would have to take over the shipping role of the blocked Black Sea ports.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Ukraine#2022_rail_freight_crisis

 

[The Don]

Stalemate may not be a bad thing if we use the time it buys to help build Ukraine maneuver forces with modern armor, mechanized infantry, and air defense.

I disagree.

During the stalemate millions of Ukrainians are likely to be whisked away to who-knows-where and replaced with Russians; Russian forces are able to dig in whilst at the same time laying waste to anything in range of their artillery and carrying out periodic missile strikes in the rest of Ukraine.

IMO a stalemate will quickly become a fait-accompli due to the difficulty in dislodging the Russian forces.

 

[Andy_Ross]

what do you propose then? get an armchair and plan a charity bake sale for the up coming starving?

i don't think they would attack nato on this

Of course they would. A NATO force trying to break a blockade on a Ukraine port.
Do you think they are going to let it sail right in and run them off the sea?

What do you think will happen when a ship get sunk?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Seems to me like they're talking about a reactive tripwire, not a proactive "no fly zone". Presumably the idea is that Russian air forces would not be molested as long as they stuck to waging war on Ukraine, and left the humanitarian convoy alone.

At least, that's what I'd be talking about, if I were using those words in that context. I'm not sure why you're so convinced that the Lithuanian minister must be talking about proactively shooting down any Russian plane they see, and that he must be so stupid that he doesn't understand that's what he's talking about.

Me? If he says he's not talking about a no-fly zone, then I a priori assume I'm meant to interpret his words as meaning something other than a no-fly zone.

And certainly it's possible to implement a humanitarian convoy through a war zone that doesn't automatically mean a proactive attack on any plane it sees.

Do you think they will let a NATO fleet escort a convoy of ships in to a Ukraine port?

Of course not, they would shoot at it, or just blockade it, then what? does the convoy turn round and go home or do the NATO ships force the issue?

 

[Andy_Ross]

delete

 

[theprestige]

That's horrifying! A lot of children have been deported as well...

The sanctions can never be lifted until at least Putin is gone and Russian has made an official apology...

Honestly I'd settle for the return of the transported Ukrainians. No need to stand firm on principle, when there's something concrete like human lives to bargain for. Give me back those human lives, and you can even keep Crimea, is my view.

 

[The Don]

Honestly I'd settle for the return of the transported Ukrainians. No need to stand firm on principle, when there's something concrete like human lives to bargain for. Give me back those human lives, and you can even keep Crimea, is my view.

It created a dangerous precedent for the next time Russia wants a slice of another country. Grab some land, seize a bunch of people, use them as bargaining chips, get the land, rinse and repeat.

 

[theprestige]

It created a dangerous precedent for the next time Russia wants a slice of another country. Grab some land, seize a bunch of people, use them as bargaining chips, get the land, rinse and repeat.

Jesus ******* Christ. No. You're weaving a bizarre fantasy. A bizarre, perverse fantasy.

First:

Just four months ago, the conventional wisdom was that Crimea was a done deal. There was no serious talk of Ukraine ever getting it back. 2014 happened, and that was pretty much that. That was that, and 1.4 million Ukrainians were still alive and well in Ukraine.

I think that a return to the status quo of February of this year - Russia has Crimea, and 1.4 million Ukrainians are back in Ukraine - would be a good thing. A far better thing than the status right now. Don't you agree? What does it profit you to gain Crimea, if you lose 1.4 million innocent souls?

Second:

There isn't going to be a next time. Russia no longer has the army for it. Its neighbors are forewarned, and increasingly forearmed. NATO* is finally doing what it should have done in 2014, to forestall this kind of behavior.

Third:

And honestly, where were your precious principles in 2014? Where were you, crying out for war, and bloody constraint, when Obama and others repudiated the Budapest memorandum? Where were you then, saying we needed to deny Putin an easy win to prevent exactly the kind of escalation by degrees he perpetrated this year?

2014 was the time to save Crimea. You wrote it off then. You've lived with that choice for seven years. But now that another 1.4 million lives are in question, suddenly Crimea is special to you, and for you 1.4 million lives is a small price to pay to get it back.

But seriously: With what army do you imagine Russia is going to carve itself its next slice of territory? What unsuspecting and unprepared victim will it choose for this act of aggression? What unresolved and flat-footed western governments will stand idly by with their mouths full of platitudes while it happens?

 

[Tero]

Mitch and pals have been supporting the money spent on Ukraine. But we will have the actual Nov election and the noisier part of the GOP is going to start demanding less money spent. Maybe with baby formula excuses thrown in. But that runs the risk of accusing "Democrats" rather than Biden alone, a more effective target.

Mr Watling says continuing Western economic, as well as military, support could prove crucial. Will the public's interest in the war wane the longer it goes on - just as it did after 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and Russian-backed separatists first seized parts of the Donbas?

Western governments now also have to worry about their own domestic challenges, including rising inflation, gas and oil prices and a cost of living crisis - caused in part by the war.

When winter approaches it will be harder for armies to fight. It may also prove more difficult for the world to weather an economic storm.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61524175

 

[The Don]

Jesus ******* Christ. No. You're weaving a bizarre fantasy. A bizarre, perverse fantasy.

First:

Just four months ago, the conventional wisdom was that Crimea was a done deal. There was no serious talk of Ukraine ever getting it back. 2014 happened, and that was pretty much that. That was that, and 1.4 million Ukrainians were still alive and well in Ukraine.

I think that a return to the status quo of February of this year - Russia has Crimea, and 1.4 million Ukrainians are back in Ukraine - would be a good thing. A far better thing than the status right now. Don't you agree? What does it profit you to gain Crimea, if you lose 1.4 million innocent souls?

Second:

There isn't going to be a next time. Russia no longer has the army for it. Its neighbors are forewarned, and increasingly forearmed. NATO* is finally doing what it should have done in 2014, to forestall this kind of behavior.

Third:

And honestly, where were your precious principles in 2014? Where were you, crying out for war, and bloody constraint, when Obama and others repudiated the Budapest memorandum? Where were you then, saying we needed to deny Putin an easy win to prevent exactly the kind of escalation by degrees he perpetrated this year?

2014 was the time to save Crimea. You wrote it off then. You've lived with that choice for seven years. But now that another 1.4 million lives are in question, suddenly Crimea is special to you, and for you 1.4 million lives is a small price to pay to get it back.

But seriously: With what army do you imagine Russia is going to carve itself its next slice of territory? What unsuspecting and unprepared victim will it choose for this act of aggression? What unresolved and flat-footed western governments will stand idly by with their mouths full of platitudes while it happens?

Why do you think I am obsessed by Crimea ?

The "Status Quo" I was referring to was Russian occupation of Southern Ukraine (not just Crimea but the corridor from Crimea to Donbas) all of Luhansk and the bits of Donesk they currently have.

I was suggesting that Russia would use the 1.4 million Ukrainians to secure that territory in addition to Crimea and then there would be pressure on the West to removed or at least relax sanctions - because that's the sort of thing we seem to do.

 

[eerok]

The difference between 2014 and now is that now Ukraine is able to fight back after the intervening years of preparation. This is their call and their right to decide what's worth what. If they're willing to fight for their territory, then no one else has the right to question that IMO.

If in February Ukrainians had simply looked at their shoes and capitulated, none of this would be happening. The West would've grumbled, but Ukraine would've become a Russian vassal state.

So when discussing compromises and stalemates, all this is worth considering. The Ukrainians know that to cede territory to Russia is suicide, and that includes Crimea and the Donbas. because whether they die fighting or by compromises that merely delay the inevitable, they're still dead.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No. How long do you think a few warships are going to last in the Black Sea?
Before it is safe to run convoys of cargo ships the Russian navy and air force would have to be taken out if you don't want to see a lot of ships sunk.

What you are proposing is a full scale air and naval war with Russia.

Depends on if they let the ships go by for humanitarian reasons. Nothing forces the Russians to attack

 

[eerok]

Depends on if they let the ships go by for humanitarian reasons. Nothing forces the Russians to attack

Nothing forced Russia to attack Ukraine in the first place, but now that they have, they're not going to make it easier for the West by sitting back and letting them ship grain out through their blockades. That's not a rational thought.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nothing forced Russia to attack Ukraine in the first place, but now that they have, they're not going to make it easier for the West by sitting back and letting them ship grain out through their blockades. That's not a rational thought.

Depends on how much they are willing to expand the war. They could have just as easily not respected the blockade of Cuba in the cuban missile crisis and kicked off WWIII.

I don't think it is a given which way Putin would jump.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I disagree strongly with this argument.

At the time that Austria and the Sudetenland were conceded, Nazi Germany was at the beginning of a substantial military buildup. Their army was not yet ready to engage in open warfare. Those early concessions gave Hitler some easy wins early on, helped to validate his imperialist vision in the eyes of his generals, and bought time for him to substantially advance his rearmament program before properly going to war.

Conversely, Russia's militarization is in a downward spiral. There is no short-term economic surge to fund a rapid expansion and modernization. There is no morale boost from easy wins early on. There is no validation of Putin's imperialist vision, in the Ukrainian quagmire. He's not buying time to expand and modernize his army. He's just grinding down the rotten nub of the badly decayed Soviet war machine.

I think that, pragmatically, ceding territory to gain a cease fire only buys time for Russia's neighbors to complete their military modernization and expansion programs. Ten years, or even five, of peace will only widen the numerical, technological, and competency gap in Ukraine's favor. Making concessions to Hitler was a bad idea, because the German economy could actually take advantage the time gained. Buying time in this conflict confers no similar advantage on Russia. Quite the opposite!

To add to what Captain_Swoop wrote, this is true in the long term, but in the medium term there is a serious complication, and that is the huge amount of equipment and ammunition the Russians have in storage. They have thousands of tanks, APCs, and artillery pieces. It is true that some of it is probably in bad shape and will require extensive reconditioning, but the fact is that given a couple of years, the Russians could likely rebuild an army comparable to what they had at the start of the Ukraine war (albeit with generally older equipment), or even larger, should Putin or his successor elect to drop the maskirovka of a "special military operation" and officially declare war on Ukraine, or whatever his next target is.

 

[The Don]

Depends on how much they are willing to expand the war. They could have just as easily not respected the blockade of Cuba in the cuban missile crisis and kicked off WWIII.

I don't think it is a given which way Putin would jump.

So far, Western leaders have only had to gamble with Ukrainian lives, or at least with the lives of people living in Ukraine or those willing to go to Ukraine. Providing naval support for a Ukrainian convoy would be putting sailors in harm's way and an attack on, much less the sinking of, a Western escort ship would require an immediate response.

It's a similar conundrum that NATO faced when considering whether to attempt to implement a no-fly zone though, as Captain Swoop pointed out upthread, a no fly zone may be required in order to keep the convoy and their escorts safe.