The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[eerok]

The UKs MoD assessment is that Russia is sustaining devastating losses:
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1531143716840284161

Those are quite the numbers:

As at 30 May Russian senior officer losses:

- 1 Admiral, 23 Generals, 1 Lt Colonel and 150 FSB officers arrested/suspended;
- 13 Generals KIA;
- 29 Colonels KIA (+1);
- 51 Lt Colonels KIA; &
- 8 Navy Captains KIA

I think at this point the Russians are blowing their last load, and when this current assault is over, they'll be pretty much done. It seems that Putin's plan is to gain ground then claim it as Russian, but I think no one is going to recognize that as a legitimate claim. There should be no impediment to Ukraine taking it all back, even if gradually.

I'd love to see Crimea, Donbas, and Transnitra cleansed of the Russian occupiers, which I think is not impossible in the long term. I think Russia has rendered itself somewhat toothless in the course of the current fiasco.

Perhaps wishful thinking.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The fundamental problem Russia has in Ukraine is that there is no "win", at least none that anyone fighting in Ukraine can achieve. No matter what they do, the "win" happens when Putin says it does, and the hero will be whoever he selects.
Soldiers in the field have literally no higher ambition than to survive, which means all effort goes into ass-covering and looking out for no.1.

 

[jimbob]

Those are quite the numbers:



I think at this point the Russians are blowing their last load, and when this current assault is over, they'll be pretty much done. It seems that Putin's plan is to gain ground then claim it as Russian, but I think no one is going to recognize that as a legitimate claim. There should be no impediment to Ukraine taking it all back, even if gradually.

I'd love to see Crimea, Donbas, and Transnitra cleansed of the Russian occupiers, which I think is not impossible in the long term. I think Russia has rendered itself somewhat toothless in the course of the current fiasco.

Perhaps wishful thinking.

https://twitter.com/tobiaschneider/status/1531204031426793474?s=21&t=OhTXS_7rh-BfJypiX_y-lQ

Interesting thread on this.

TLDR. Now the war is ongoing, how much effort will Western countries' defence ministries put into providing publicly available information that might actually help those in the Russian regime by bypassing their own intelligence sources if those don't want to report bad news?

 

[The Don]

The fundamental problem Russia has in Ukraine is that there is no "win", at least none that anyone fighting in Ukraine can achieve. No matter what they do, the "win" happens when Putin says it does, and the hero will be whoever he selects.
Soldiers in the field have literally no higher ambition than to survive, which means all effort goes into ass-covering and looking out for no.1.

I'm guessing that's why they're reportedly making extraordinary efforts to capture Severodonetsk, to be able to have claimed to have "de-Nazified" the whole of the Lukansk oblast - a victory of sorts.

I'm sure they would like to have added Donesk, or indeed the whole of the south of Ukraine, but Luhansk may be enough for now.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Maybe just accepting that if Russia wins, it wins?

[IMGw=640]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=885&pictureid=13121[/IMGW]

 

[BobTheCoward]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=885&pictureid=13121[/qimg]

I'm not Ukraine's advisor. We were not discussing what Ukraine should do

 

[Ian Osborne]

I'm not Ukraine's advisor. We were not discussing what Ukraine should do

No, but you're happy to throw Ukraine to the dogs.

 

[FatherLukeduke]

Maybe just accepting that if Russia wins, it wins?

And what does "winning" look like for Russia? Ukraine finished as a nation state? As that's their ultimate aim. And what does this "accepting Russia's win" (if such a thing ever occurs) do to help Ukraine right now, which was the question.

This isn't some medieval battle when only one side will be left standing on the battlefield and the other side will all be dead or have run away.
It's a very complicated modern conflict between nation states fighting for multiple objectives, with millions of citizens they can replenish their armies with.

Unless one state is left incapable of governing it's land and can no longer form an army, then there is not going to be any clear cut win.

 

[dasmiller]

Perun has a great new video about the hows and whys of corruption in the Russian military.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4

Finally finished watching it. Thanks for the link.

 

[BobTheCoward]

No, but you're happy to throw Ukraine to the dogs.

Yes, I am. Though I haven't thrown anyone anywhere. I'm merely watching as they get attacked.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm saying every movement has its bad apples, and nobody is perfect.

Who would you say were the 'good apples' of Islamic State?

It's not like America doesn't have its own share of problematic types. Why would Turkey want to be in a mutual defense alliance with nations that provide aid and comfort to enemies of the Turkish state?

The same could be said of every European country that has been targeted by ISIS.

 

[The Don]

And what does "winning" look like for Russia? Ukraine finished as a nation state? As that's their ultimate aim. And what does this "accepting Russia's win" (if such a thing ever occurs) do to help Ukraine right now, which was the question.

This isn't some medieval battle when only one side will be left standing on the battlefield and the other side will all be dead or have run away.
It's a very complicated modern conflict between nation states fighting for multiple objectives, with millions of citizens they can replenish their armies with.

Unless one state is left incapable of governing it's land and can no longer form an army, then there is not going to be any clear cut win.

You're right that there's little or no chance/risk that everyone will be killed or will have run away (though I suppose that there is a slim chance that all Russian forces could be withdrawn to where they were prior to the invasion - or possibly even further). Any resolution would have to be achieved at the negotiating table.

My concern is that Russia have repeatedly demonstrated that they are perfectly willing to tear up any previous treaty if they feel that it's in their interest to do so which will make for a very tricky calculation for Ukraine. IMO it means that Ukraine trading land for security isn't a viable option. OTOH ATM Russia wouldn't accept any terms which would leave Ukraine as a functioning state.

 

[Michel H]

I don't think Michel H is trolling, I get the impression he is some kind of pacificist, which of course he is entitled to be.

No, he's not a pacifist, he is all for violence and war as long as it favours Russia, why else would he be encouraging their aggression?

I am not encouraging Russian aggression in Ukraine (and aggression there really is).

I believe that Russia was, around 2014, unfairly persecuted by Ukraine and its (much more powerful) Western allies, in the form of heavy sanctions, economic blockades and so on:

Ukraine imposes economic blockade on a blacked-out Crimea

(https://www.ft.com/content/d5487eaa-9203-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af).

Russia then misreacted by invading (much later, when it felt powerful enough, and sufficiently supported by China).

There is a difference between trying to understand Russian psychology on the one hand, and supporting whatever Russia does on the other.

I believe the presence of Russian troops where they are not welcomed by the local population (near Kharkiv for example) is not legitimate.

I also believe that this war is a consequence of sanction policy by the West, much more than possible NATO expansion. The West has developed a habit of imposing economic sanctions to Russia, China (think about Huawei for example) and many other countries, which generate anger, more military spending in targeted countries, and (in the case of Ukraine) finally military action.

The solution to this crisis is therefore (in my view):
(1) Crimea belongs to Russsia (accepted by all).
(2) The two Donbass republics are independent (accepted by all).
(3) Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine, Ukraine remains independent and chooses its alliances the way it likes.
(4) No more sanctions and censorship (this also applies to the West).

It would be most unfortunate that 100,000 people have to die before these simple ideas are finally understood, implemented and accepted as correct.

 

[The Don]

The solution to this crisis is therefore (in my view):
(1) Crimea belongs to Russsia (accepted by all).
(2) The two Donbass republics are independent (accepted by all).
(3) Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine, Ukraine remains independent and chooses its alliances the way it likes.
(4) No more sanctions and censorship (this also applies to the West).

I agree with all of those - apart from numbers (1), (2) and (4).

To allow those would be to simply gift Russia all of their pre-invasion aims, allow them both time and money to re-arm and then have to repeat this all over again in 10 or 15 years time when Russia decides that it needs control over the whole of Ukraine's coast and control over Crimea's water and energy supplies.

 

[Michel H]

I agree with all of those - apart from numbers (1), (2) and (4).

To allow those would be to simply gift Russia all of their pre-invasion aims, allow them both time and money to re-arm and then have to repeat this all over again in 10 or 15 years time when Russia decides that it needs control over the whole of Ukraine's coast and control over Crimea's water and energy supplies.

So it looks like you disagree with 75% of what I said.

But you did not explain how you would quickly stop this war, in practical terms.

I believe that the Russians would become much less hostile and potentially dangerous if they were not constantly attacked and persecuted by means of sanctions (when there is no "hot" war).

The naive ideas:

Russia = bad
Ukraine and the West = good

won't stop this war quickly.

In order to stop this war quickly, it is imperative that the West reflects about their mistakes and strives to correct them.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Begging the question of whether stopping the war quickly is or should be the most important goal.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that Russia would not HAVE any sanctions had it not illegally invaded and annexed Crimea following a North-Korean style 'referendum' and had it not committed this vile act of aggression.

 

[The Don]

So it looks like you disagree with 75% of what I said.

Yeah, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

But you did not explain how you would quickly stop this war, in practical terms.

Arm the Ukrainians to the teeth to allow them to crush the Russian army, take the fight to Russia, cripple the Russian economy so that they cannot prosecute this war, and won't be in a position to start the next one.

I believe that the Russians would become much less hostile and potentially dangerous if they were not constantly attacked and persecuted by means of sanctions (when there is no "hot" war).

Have you not been paying attention to Russian actions in Crimea, Georgia, Syria, Chechnya and a host of other places ?

To portray Russia as a persecuted innocent is flat out wrong. Sanctions were applied in response to Russian aggression, not the other way around.

 

[eerok]

But you did not explain how you would quickly stop this war, in practical terms.

Actually you did not explain how Russia's capitulation and withdrawal from Ukraine wouldn't be the quickest way to stop this war. I mean, considering they had no legal or moral right to invade in the first place.

I believe that the Russians would become much less hostile and potentially dangerous if they were not constantly attacked and persecuted by means of sanctions (when there is no "hot" war).

Your belief defies fact and reason. The sanctions are only beginning to match the level of their aggression. They are criminals on the world stage, and they deserve to be held accountable.

 

[Michel H]

It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that Russia would not HAVE any sanctions had it not illegally invaded and annexed Crimea following a North-Korean style 'referendum' and had it not committed this vile act of aggression.

I quote again:

According to the Gallup's survey performed on April 21–27, 82.8% of Crimean people consider the referendum results reflecting most Crimeans' views,[146] and 73.9% of Crimeans say Crimea's becoming part of Russia will make life better for themselves and their families, while 5.5% disagree.[146]

According to survey carried out by Pew Research Center in April 2014, the majority of Crimean residents say the referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).[147]

According to a poll of the Crimeans by the Ukrainian branch of Germany's biggest market research organization, GfK, on January 16–22, 2015: "Eighty-two percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only 4 percent spoke out against it. ... Fifty-one percent reported their well-being had improved in the past year."

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#Post-referendum_polls)
This doesn't seem North-Korean at all to me.

As far as I know, Ukraine and the West have shown very little interest for true democracy in Crimea and in the Donbass.