Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[alfred russel]

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.

My concern is that attacking NATO is laying the groundwork for a mobilization and escalation. From a Russian nationalist perspective, Ukraine is within the sphere of influence of Russia and intervening their is within their rights. Just like Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968. The language even matches that with a special military operation.

NATO engaging in military activity in their sphere of influence is a reason to take this to a much more serious level. Hopefully they are just blustering before coming to the peace table, but if there is any critical thinking going on in nationalist heads in Russia, they will realize that if NATO pushes them around in their sphere of influence they don't have a sphere of influence.

[Malthus]

A question for the navally-minded: why were the Russians using the Moskva in this fight? From what I've read, it was mostly armed with missiles designed to hit other ships, and Ukraine lacks a navy.

[DGuller]

A question for the navally-minded: why were the Russians using the Moskva in this fight? From what I've read, it was mostly armed with missiles designed to hit other ships, and Ukraine lacks a navy.

Was it really?  From what I've read, it was armed with missiles designed to protect the ships from other missiles, so it was serving as an umbrella for all the other ships in the area.

[Jacob]

I thought Moskva was providing anti-air coverage in Southern Ukraine?

[Malthus]

A question for the navally-minded: why were the Russians using the Moskva in this fight? From what I've read, it was mostly armed with missiles designed to hit other ships, and Ukraine lacks a navy.

Was it really?  From what I've read, it was armed with missiles designed to protect the ships from other missiles, so it was serving as an umbrella for all the other ships in the area.

From what I understand, it had anti-aircraft missiles on board, but it's main armament was 16 large anti-ship missiles.

[crazy canuck]

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.

I am not suggesting he wants to get into an actual battle with NATO.  Rather it's pretty clear his play is making the claim NATO supports Nazis.  He has to get out of Ukraine and so saying that he has to save mother Russia against Nazi NATO seems a pretty good excuse.  He doesn't even have to admit defeat. Just a shift in priority.

[grumbler]

A question for the navally-minded: why were the Russians using the Moskva in this fight? From what I've read, it was mostly armed with missiles designed to hit other ships, and Ukraine lacks a navy.

All of the cruisers in this series (dating from the 1950s) were eggs armed with sledgehammers, but the Slava class were less egglike than their predecessors.  They had two separate SAM systems (long range and short-ranged) and a robust self-defense Gatling gun system with 6 mounts.  Decent search radars as well.

Against a serious missile threat they could be overwhelmed (especially as their systems are complex and not very reliable, thus the need to be numerous), but they'd be good area defense ships against the type of threat posed by Ukraine.   Or, so we (and the Russian Navy) thought.  That would protect the other ships around them.

[Sheilbh]

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

I think that might be starting. From what I've seen it looks like the Russians have been broadly pushed back from Mykolaiv. Given that, and that one troop transport and the flagship have been sunk, it seems unlikely that Russia will try to launch an attack on Odessa which may free up resources to push back on Kherson - I've seen some reports of fighting around Kherson.

[jimmy olsen]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1515085823720448002

[jimmy olsen]

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.

The Ukrainians have night vision gear and modern optics. They can attack every night and the Russians won't be able to do much about it.

[Zoupa]

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.

The Ukrainians have night vision gear and modern optics. They can attack every night and the Russians won't be able to do much about it.

I'm no military mind, but from 2014 to today, the line of contact in the Donbass has mostly been artillery exchanges. That's an issue for Ukraine, since Russians don't give a shit about collateral damage and that their artillery is more numerous. If Ukraine could control or contest the skies over the Donbass that'd be a game changer.

[Malthus]

A question for the navally-minded: why were the Russians using the Moskva in this fight? From what I've read, it was mostly armed with missiles designed to hit other ships, and Ukraine lacks a navy.

All of the cruisers in this series (dating from the 1950s) were eggs armed with sledgehammers, but the Slava class were less egglike than their predecessors.  They had two separate SAM systems (long range and short-ranged) and a robust self-defense Gatling gun system with 6 mounts.  Decent search radars as well.

Against a serious missile threat they could be overwhelmed (especially as their systems are complex and not very reliable, thus the need to be numerous), but they'd be good area defense ships against the type of threat posed by Ukraine.   Or, so we (and the Russian Navy) thought.  That would protect the other ships around them.

Thanks, that makes sense.

[Razgovory]

I would never have guess that the Moskau was an egg.

[11B4V]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1515085823720448002

Yes a common recognition feature of Russian tanks.

[DGuller]

  Shouldn't there be a hull attached to that thing?