Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[crazy canuck]

I don't fear chaos in Russia, I am hoping for it.  But seeing how apparently the only significant ideological power group is the bloodthirsty far-right, anything short of chaos will likely fail to end the war.

How do you know that to be true though?

I mean, if you only looked at social media and twitter, you would conclude that the USA is composed of nothing by right wing bigot MAGA asses and social justice warrior identity politics crazies. The reality is that those extremes are not at all representative of most Americans.

How do we know what the existent ideology groups or ideas that exist in Russia? The reality is that we don't, at least I don't, and I don't know anyone who does. The current in power group doesn't allow any actual assessment to happen.

All you are really saying is that the you are hoping, with no evidence, that something which is inconsistent with Russian history will occur.  Possible, but not likely.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW Belarus' full army is around 60,000 active duty with a budget of under $1bn. They spend around the same on their military as Estonia does (but have around 9x more troops.)

[The Brain]

I have very little belief Belarus entering will work out in Russia's favor in any meaningful way. One of the key lessons Putin ought be learning from this conflict is raw numbers don't matter if troop morale, discipline, and strategic cohesion is abysmal. A bunch of unruly Belarusian conscripts who might become a bigger threat to Russia's situation than a benefit, makes little sense at all.

Yes. It looks like another sacrifice to Russian hawk opinion, like the mobilization.

[Malthus]

This is like Germany firing V2s at Britain. No real military purpose, just terrorism.

At least Germany had the 'excuse' their cities were being obliterated, too.

Germany actually started terror bombing in WW2, e.g. Rotterdam. The Nazis did not need an excuse. If somehow Germany had the resources to bomb Britain during the war, it would have done so regardless.

They did, the so-called "blitz".

Problem for Germany was that their bombers were not well suited to mass terror bombing, but they certainly tried.

[Maladict]

This is like Germany firing V2s at Britain. No real military purpose, just terrorism.

At least Germany had the 'excuse' their cities were being obliterated, too.

Germany actually started terror bombing in WW2, e.g. Rotterdam. The Nazis did not need an excuse. If somehow Germany had the resources to bomb Britain during the war, it would have done so regardless.

No one needs an excuse for Rotterdam 

[Sheilbh]

They did, the so-called "blitz".

Problem for Germany was that their bombers were not well suited to mass terror bombing, but they certainly tried.

I can't remember where but I remember reading somewhere that it was the second blitz in 44-45 with rockets that really enraged people (I think it comes up in some Waugh and Greene too).

The first blitz was connected to a potential invasion of Britain. By the time Germany launched rockets it was clearly losing which just made it so futile - the point was just to kill. Also I think there was more fear of the rockets because, unlike bombers, there wasn't really much you could do to stop them plus they famously cut out just before they hit so you'd hear them coming and then silence. But people really resented the pointlessness of deaths from rocket attacks in 44-45.

I think there is a similarity especially in that fact that it's an expression of military futility. Firing rockets is - at this point and subject to an invasion through Belarus again - all Russia has.

Edit: And I imagine there'll be similar in Kyiv right now - defiance and resilience during the siege, rage now.

[Malthus]

They did, the so-called "blitz".

Problem for Germany was that their bombers were not well suited to mass terror bombing, but they certainly tried.

I can't remember where but I remember reading somewhere that it was the second blitz in 44-45 with rockets that really enraged people (I think it comes up in some Waugh and Greene too).

The first blitz was connected to a potential invasion of Britain. By the time Germany launched rockets it was clearly losing which just made it so futile - the point was just to kill. Also I think there was more fear of the rockets because, unlike bombers, there wasn't really much you could do to stop them plus they famously cut out just before they hit so you'd hear them coming and then silence. But people really resented the pointlessness of deaths from rocket attacks in 44-45.

I think there is a similarity especially in that fact that it's an expression of military futility. Firing rockets is - at this point and subject to an invasion through Belarus again - all Russia has.

Edit: And I imagine there'll be similar in Kyiv right now - defiance and resilience during the siege, rage now.

What I get out of it is that Putin wants to move the narrative - away from Russia is losing the war (with the bridge attack being merely the latest embarrassing Ukrainian success) to Russia is brutally attacking civilians.

Evidently, in Russian minds, that is better. Let them hate, so long as they fear.

Putin must know this will not help the war effort. He probably cares more that it makes Russians feel potent and not like losers, to have the headlines be all about Russia actively murdering civilians, rather than about Russian troops being beaten on the battlefield out of town after town.

Thing is, he's using very expensive missiles to kill comparatively small numbers of civilians - just like Hitler's V program, as you note. It's an expensive, empty gesture, useful to him only as a temporary distraction from the parade of bad news.

I wonder if anything will come of the alleged preparations to invade (again) from Belarus. I can't imagine that would be a good idea, either.

[Josquius]

I'm guessing Belarus won't invade but Russia has seen the need to keep the threat of them invading live to try and boost the amount of troops Ukraine has sitting on that border.

I do wonder just how disloyal the Belarusian military is if they did invade. Could they switch sides and overtrheow the regime?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

eerie, but I think the city is testing the air-raid sirens.

[Tonitrus]

Lukahsenko has also gotta be thinking that if Putin goes down, he is at great risk as well. Though losing one's liege lord never helps, his fear is probably exaggerated a bit.

[Legbiter]

Seems belarus entering the war is taken as a given by more and more people now.
Saw the first headlines today in some of the newspapers
And operator starsky guesstimates that it'll start in about a week.

Lukashenko has played his hand well so far. Always agreeing with Putin, indeed always taking Russian propaganda rhetoric up up to ridiculous heights which embarrass Putin...

He's always played the well-intentioned bumpkin. Of course he's making mistakes, but don't judge him too harshly, he doesn't know any better. So finally agree to join the war with Putin now that he's thoroughly losing but alas, at the last minute we discover that Belarus doesn't have any artillery shells or something. No worries, we'll have some in....4 months for sure, then we'll show the Ukrainians...  

We'll know by next week.

[Savonarola]

Surely replacing rail is a pretty quick operation. The Russians I believe have an entire section of the army for railway stuff. I wonder if their quality is less than expected too.
The concern/hope would be more the bridge structure itself is fucked. Which sadly doesn't seem to be as much as we hoped.

If you take a look at the picture you'll see that rail is in sections; that is there's a piece of track, and then a set of bolts which join it to the next section of track.  In almost all of North America (and I assume Europe as well) the rail is continuous weld; it looks like one continuous piece of steel.  That allows for a much faster and smoother ride, but it's much more difficult to repair (and it's more subject to buckle and cracking due to the stress of temperature change.)  In this case they can just unbolt the track and replace the damaged sections.  I assume that's much quicker than replacing damaged sections, rewelding and waiting for the welds to harden.

[Sheilbh]

I wonder if anything will come of the alleged preparations to invade (again) from Belarus. I can't imagine that would be a good idea, either.

It strikes me as really unlikely - not least because I think Lukashenko has handled this pretty conservatively so far. It would be bold to jump in for an already unstable regime on the clearly losing side of a war.

[Threviel]

Let's all remember that the worst case is not a worse government in Russia, the worst case would be a long civil war in a gifantic country with thousands and thousands of nukes.

Someone could sell the Iranians a few hundred for example....

[Razgovory]

If Putin is overthrown there's a good chance the next guy will come to power promising to win the war.