Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Tamas]

I cannot see why an attack on a convoy in NATO territory would make the least bit of sense at this stage. There is plenty of Ukrainian hinterland left to use Russian interdiction capabilities.

Capabilities which seem very limited even without wanting to cut hrough NATO air defenses.

[Jacob]

Looks like Internet sleuths identified them: https://www.svoboda.org/a/ukrainskih-bab-nasiluy-voyna-desantnika-bykovskogo/31801593.html.  It helps to put real human* faces on this conversation, and remove doubts that this was a fake conversation.  The good news is that the dude is currently recovering from wounds in the hospital, so maybe he didn't have time to make use of his permission.

According to the link they even called the two who had the conversation.

[Zanza]

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html?m=1

That link above shows that UK, US, Poland and the Czechs are really ramping up support now and start delivering armored vehicles, tanks, artillery, even helicopters etc.
Germany also just approved more than a billion Euro more support for Ukraine.

Russia will eventually run out of usable gear whereas Ukraine will get more and more.

[Jacob]

Yeah he has got to be desperately trying to find a way to preserve power and get the hell out of Ukraine. It seems to me the only way he can do that is by finding any reason other than losing to the Ukrainians

Agreed on the first part - his main priority is going to be to find a way to preserve power.

I don't think that - for Putin and for Russia - that losing to NATO is preferable to losing to Ukraine. If he loses to NATO the defeat is going to be orders of magnitude more obvious and more difficult to spin, compared to if he loses to Ukraine. A loss to Ukraine, I think, is still going to be easier (not easy, but easier) to position as a cunning 5-dimensional chess move that somehow advances the glory of Mother Russia and teaches the West "a lesson", than a loss to NATO.

The logic of a loss to NATO being easier to accept seems based on the idea that it'll be less humiliating because NATO so clearly outclasses Russia, so of course Russia will lose. I think Russia's pride and Putin's pride requires Russia to be a peer competitor to NATO. Losing will undermine that.

I think utterly levelling Ukraine, inflicting massive civilian casualties and misery, calling that "denazification and demilitarization", declaring victory, and then going home is going to much more palatable - and easier to spin - than getting their teeth kicked in by NATO.

There's also the part where attacking NATO makes it harder for useful idiots and internal contradictions in the West to undermine the current levels of unity. If Putin can hang on long enough in Ukraine for various elections to swing his way, his path to victory - or at least an easier to spin defeat - becomes easier.

Just speculation on my part, obviously.

[Jacob]

I cannot see why an attack on a convoy in NATO territory would make the least bit of sense at this stage. There is plenty of Ukrainian hinterland left to use Russian interdiction capabilities.

Capabilities which seem very limited even without wanting to cut through NATO air defenses.

It makes sense if drawing NATO into the conflict is advantageous for Russia. I don't think this is the case in their eyes.

It also makes sense if it making such an attack exacerbates divisions within the West and NATO, pulling allies further apart and lessening support for Ukraine. If NATO did not respond to such an attack, or responded weakly, that may apply. However, I don't think that's that likely right now - and I don't think that's Russia's read either.

IMO it's just trying to wring every remaining bit of utility out of the bullying bluster and "we have nukes, you know" that's Russia's primary diplomatic tool.

F. ex. I've seen it argued that the reason no-one's given Russia fixed-wing aircraft is a desire to not cross certain red lines. Whether that's true - and independently of whether that's the correct thing to do - I tend to see Russian threats as an attempt to bolster those red lines.

[DGuller]

Another problem with attacking NATO is it seems that NATO has much better ability to counter-attack.  Right now it seems questionable that Ukraine would have the stomach to move on Donbas even if things continue working out superbly for them (a big if), because attacking is much different from ambushing.

[Jacob]

Another problem with attacking NATO is it seems that NATO has much better ability to counter-attack.  Right now it seems questionable that Ukraine would have the stomach to move on Donbas even if things continue working out superbly for them (a big if), because attacking is much different from ambushing.

Oh yeah? What are you basing that (the Ukrainian reluctance to counter attack) on? Not that I'm disagreeing, just curious.

[DGuller]

Oh yeah? What are you basing that (the Ukrainian reluctance to counter attack) on? Not that I'm disagreeing, just curious.

Nothing at all, just general thinking.  You can defend effectively by ambushing with Javelins, but can you attack effectively with Javelins?  I think for that you need large organized military formations with lots of different support.  They've been able to take back the captured land in places, but I think that's different from taking an area that spent 8 years fortifying itself.

[Zanza]

If they have the capabilities, they could also counter attack in the South and try to retake Kherson.

[Jacob]

Twitter user Jomini of the West has a recent thread on a possible Ukrainian strategy on pushing Russia out: https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1514761229738389504

JotW is followed by respectable folks, seems to me, and what I've read of their posts so far seems quite reasonable.

Worth a read IMO, if you're interested.

[Jacob]

Timeline of Moskva sinking, according to Lithuanian Minister of Defense:

01:05 - SOS message sent (presumably when the Ukrainian Neptune missiles hit)
01:14 - Moskva "laying on its side"
~01:45 - power was lost
02:00 - 54 crew evacuated by Turkish (civilian?) ship
03:00 - Moskva sinks.

[Josquius]

Twitter user Jomini of the West has a recent thread on a possible Ukrainian strategy on pushing Russia out: https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1514761229738389504

JotW is followed by respectable folks, seems to me, and what I've read of their posts so far seems quite reasonable.

Worth a read IMO, if you're interested.

Sounds optimistic.

And raises a complex question of what happens when Ukranian troops cross the 2014 Crimea border.
Will this "invasion of Russia" be a nuclear trigger?

[viper37]

From twitter:

We should be skeptical about reports that the Ukrainian military badly damaged Russia's flagship cruiser. It's possible Moskva simply fell out of a window and then sunk to the bottom of the Black Sea.

[viper37]

AFD gotta AFD.

WTF?  How can a crypto-Nazi party be against beating up Russians?

Just reinforces my view that the modern far right doesn't believe in anything at all except being against whatever you're for.

The far left and the far right are united in their love for Russia.

[grumbler]

Sounds optimistic.

And raises a complex question of what happens when Ukranian troops cross the 2014 Crimea border.
Will this "invasion of Russia" be a nuclear trigger?

He concedes that he's being optimistic and mostly just engaged in a mental exercise showing what could happen.

I don't believe that Putin will trade his own rule for the Crimea.  Use of nuclear weapons would be to enter his regime's endgame, one he cannot win (just do as much damage as possible before the end).  First use of nuclear weapons isn't something even the Russian people would take calmly, while the world would go berserk in their desire to punish Russia by every means available (short of their own use of nukes).