Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Barrister]

Some speculation it's a Ukrainian op: but do they really have the ability or inclination to do so?  I would think their forces are kind of busy right now...

[PDH]

Tim quotes a guy who claimed that fresh conscripts were being machine gunned down as they assault Ukrainian trenches. That's what grumbler and I challenged, not the fact that there is mobilisation, or that those mobilised may eventually end up on the front (I am 100% certain they will).

First of all, look the source.  Hyperbolic Tim is perhaps to be taken with a grain of salt.

Secondly, the more sober thoughts (like my post above) was that the conscripts are being shipped directly to the front, rather than saying the are at the front already being mowed down in combat.  The closest I can find to direct time is the video of the guy saying he was told by his commander that they would be at the Kherson region by the 29th.

There are videos of what looks to be a drunken soldier walking across no mans land carrying a Russian flag...but that could be the "professional" troops.

[HVC]

Some speculation it's a Ukrainian op: but do they really have the ability or inclination to do so?  I would think their forces are kind of busy right now...

It would be dumb for them to do so. Piss off Europe on the verge of a Russian build up. this in and of itself points back to Russia.

[Legbiter]

Russians appear to be surrounded and cut off in Lyman. Should have withdrawn since the Kharkiv offensive but didn't, heavily reinforced it instead and now they're caught in a Kesselschlacht...

[OttoVonBismarck]

That said, American military in Germany is mainly here for American strategic interests, not to protect Germany - unlike during the Cold War. If that strategic interest changes, America should withdraw. No big deal, we will still like you. 

And I never said otherwise. What I have said is our strategic interests have changed--there is a reason we no longer have 500,000 soldiers in Western Europe, and that we have drawn down those numbers even more in the past decade. What I am saying is that it is probably in our strategic interest to abandon Europe, but for emotional attachment to Eastern Europe and the Baltics, I would regret seeing that done--but the clear strategic interest of the United States is to largely no longer involve itself militarily in most European affairs and shift almost all of our resources to the Pacific theater.

Frankly I think the long Iraq and Afghan Wars delayed this realization because Europe was convenient in those wars primarily for logistical purposes, lots of our logistics trips are simplified with European stopovers for fighting those wars. However, that is no longer the case, and I am skeptical that you will ever see large scale American deployments to the Middle East again in our lifetimes, the mood of the American public is massively against that. For bombing campaigns like we did in Libya and Syria, we simply don't need all the assets in Europe that we have now.

[Barrister]

Tim quotes a guy who claimed that fresh conscripts were being machine gunned down as they assault Ukrainian trenches. That's what grumbler and I challenged, not the fact that there is mobilisation, or that those mobilised may eventually end up on the front (I am 100% certain they will).

First of all, look the source.  Hyperbolic Tim is perhaps to be taken with a grain of salt.

Secondly, the more sober thoughts (like my post above) was that the conscripts are being shipped directly to the front, rather than saying the are at the front already being mowed down in combat.  The closest I can find to direct time is the video of the guy saying he was told by his commander that they would be at the Kherson region by the 29th.

There are videos of what looks to be a drunken soldier walking across no mans land carrying a Russian flag...but that could be the "professional" troops.

I saw a couple of Twitter posts that Ukraine has already taken mobilized soldiers as POWs, and multiple that they are being sent to the front with no training.  But I still want more confirmation.

[Barrister]

Russians appear to be surrounded and cut off in Lyman. Should have withdrawn since the Kharkiv offensive but didn't, heavily reinforced it instead and now they're caught in a Kesselschlacht...

Putin's strategic genius at work.  He's apparently refusing to allow any further withdrawals, preferring to see his soldiers slaughtered instead.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I doubt the conscripts are fighting in the front lines in large number. Russia does use a system where in a given three battalion brigade, one battalion will always be on "garrison duty", instead of an American system like Basic Training (which is used by most Western militaries), where you are in a special training unit before being sent to a line unit, Russia tends to assign conscripts to those battalions and the conscripts "train in place" with their assigned battalion.

In practice this insulates a conscript from active service until they are fully trained, since they are in a battalion on garrison duty. I would not be shocked to some degree if the conscripts are moving into these units, but I'm also hearing that the traditional practice of 2 battalions being assigned to service and 1 garrison has fallen into a bit of chaos and disorder with the war, so it isn't totally outside the realm of possibility some conscripts have been put in "garrison battalions" for training, which is the norm, but that those battalions are actually actively fighting.

Given all the chaos and mismanagement of the Russian military some level of that is not surprising, I would be surprised if any significant number of conscripts have actually been moved into battalions or into fighting, though. If it has happened I suspect it was not intentional and involves very few people.

[Valmy]

Russians appear to be surrounded and cut off in Lyman. Should have withdrawn since the Kharkiv offensive but didn't, heavily reinforced it instead and now they're caught in a Kesselschlacht...

Putin's strategic genius at work.  He's apparently refusing to allow any further withdrawals, preferring to see his soldiers slaughtered instead.

No Step Back eh? Maybe he does want to see himself as Stalin. But this is Putin's Winter War not WWII. However, unlike Stalin Putin doesn't have overwhelming force in reserve and Ukraine has more than 3.5 million people unlike Finland in 1939.

[Legbiter]

I saw a couple of Twitter posts that Ukraine has already taken mobilized soldiers as POWs, and multiple that they are being sent to the front with no training.  But I still want more confirmation.

https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1574721960281513990

This is one as well. Conscript in the 1st Tank Regiment explaining they will not be getting any refresher training but instead sent straight to Kherson in 2 days. His concluding remarks are remarkable as well...

[Zanza]

That said, American military in Germany is mainly here for American strategic interests, not to protect Germany - unlike during the Cold War. If that strategic interest changes, America should withdraw. No big deal, we will still like you. 

And I never said otherwise. What I have said is our strategic interests have changed--there is a reason we no longer have 500,000 soldiers in Western Europe, and that we have drawn down those numbers even more in the past decade. What I am saying is that it is probably in our strategic interest to abandon Europe, but for emotional attachment to Eastern Europe and the Baltics, I would regret seeing that done--but the clear strategic interest of the United States is to largely no longer involve itself militarily in most European affairs and shift almost all of our resources to the Pacific theater.

Frankly I think the long Iraq and Afghan Wars delayed this realization because Europe was convenient in those wars primarily for logistical purposes, lots of our logistics trips are simplified with European stopovers for fighting those wars. However, that is no longer the case, and I am skeptical that you will ever see large scale American deployments to the Middle East again in our lifetimes, the mood of the American public is massively against that. For bombing campaigns like we did in Libya and Syria, we simply don't need all the assets in Europe that we have now.

I can't say that I have a clear insight into American strategic thinking, but having the Europe de facto in your sphere of influence for the relatively low price of keeping an American presence in Europe seems beneficial. Even if your strategic focus pivots to the Pacific having Europe broadly on your side supports American strategic interests globally. Certainly more so than a more neutral or even antagonistic Europe. The relation is win-win for Europeans and Americans. We gain security, you gain influence and support for global American hegemony as the sole superpower.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Except there is no clear gain for the United States. The only gain is in the context of a situation like the Cold War, where America saw the Iron Curtain go down across Eastern Europe and saw deliberate designs by the Soviets to expand communism and influence around the globe. Our support for Europe preserved a large economic base and potential military power from falling under that sphere, as it were.

We now largely know that isn't a realistic scenario going forward, and was probably overblown as a fear even at peak Communism.

We benefit from trade with Europe--which we will have either way because trade is mutually beneficial. I am not actually sure how we benefit from sending tens of billions of dollars to European conflicts when Europe's own large economies don't think it is important to do so. What security issue in Europe is actually part of core American interests? Frankly, even Ukraine isn't. It is only in our interests if you make the assumption that protecting Europe is in our interests, which if Europe itself doesn't care, then I think maybe our thinking is flawed.

[Jacob]

It is only in our interests if you make the assumption that protecting Europe is in our interests, which if Europe itself doesn't care, then I think maybe our thinking is flawed.

I agree with you that Europe should carry its weight. That said, whether protecting Europe is or is not in America's interest - as a counterweight to China, as a counterweight to Russia (as an ally to China or other bad actors), as a large allied economy, or whatever else - doesn't change that much whether Europe "cares" or not.

Though I absolutely get that whether Europe does "care" can affect how the US sees its interests.

[Barrister]

We benefit from trade with Europe--which we will have either way because trade is mutually beneficial. I am not actually sure how we benefit from sending tens of billions of dollars to European conflicts when Europe's own large economies don't think it is important to do so. What security issue in Europe is actually part of core American interests? Frankly, even Ukraine isn't. It is only in our interests if you make the assumption that protecting Europe is in our interests, which if Europe itself doesn't care, then I think maybe our thinking is flawed.

Defending Ukraine is in the US's interest because it's part of defending the entire post WWII international order.  Nation states do not invade and conquer other nation states.  Lots of armed interventions, but borders do not change.  That's what Putin is trying to do in Ukraine.

Hell, defending in Ukraine is in the US's interests just for the fact that doing so will deter the Chinese from invading Taiwan, which due to Taiwan's semiconductor industry is vital to the US economy.

[Jacob]

Hell, defending in Ukraine is in the US's interests just for the fact that doing so will deter the Chinese from invading Taiwan, which due to Taiwan's semiconductor industry is vital to the US economy.

Yeah, I think if the US focus is the Pacific and managing China, stopping Russia in Ukraine is one of the most effective thing the US can do at this point.