Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Josquius]

Is Putin really going to nuke us all over Ukraine? I don't think so but then I am the idiot who thought he was too smart to invade Ukraine.

Over the support we give Ukraine? No.

Over a military counter-attack aimed to pushed back Russians from Ukrainian territory by European nations? No.

Over a military counter-attack aimed at a regime change in Moscow where NATO troops are sitting 24km from the Russian capital?  Absolutely.  It's what Stalin would have done in 1941, had he had nukes. It's what Putin will do.

I'm not so sure 2 is a no.
If Russia is being beat, which they will be, will he really wait till troops cross the border?

[Threviel]

Russia is only using a small part of their army and air force. It's a total war for Ukraine, it's not yet a total war for Russia. The Russians are fighting with one hand behind their back so far, if it came down to stopping a serious counter-offensive they would start fighting according to their artillery-centric doctrine and stop dead any Ukrainian attack.

[Sheilbh]

Looks like Belarussian forces are actually properly joining the attack now - and we all thought Russian morale was bad

Using troops from a country where the army's loyalty to the regime is a little bit patchy at best, in a war that doesn't seem to have much public support, against a people who speak your language (or as I've seen Russians put it - use the same swear words as us) seems a bold decision.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's coming.

Russia is on record warning Europe against arming the Ukrainian military and saying support will be met with harsh consequences. They're also saying this is the end of Europe as a pacifistic project to unite Europe (they're right about that too, thanks to Putin).

I think there's a solid chance that if Russia does not succeed in conquering Ukraine, pacifying the population, and keeping the West from supporting Ukrainian resistance that they will escalate with Europe and the US. And I don't think they'll succeed, and I don't think Europe - nor the US - is going to abandon Ukraine at this point.

I'm a little less pessimistic.

I saw an international relations professor basically set out what are NATO/NATO allies options that Russia will struggle to deter v ones that would "recklessly risk war with Russia" and I think the lists make sense. I think it is worth communicating to allies if we have a similar sense - and to Russia that we acknowledge there are red lines of support that would risk a wider conflict (for example I'm struck by how much more vague about weapons supplies the US, UK and France are - in part that may be because of volume but I think part of it is also a bit more nuclear risk):
[NATO Options That Russia Will Struggle to Deter:
Conventional weapons shipments, even if fighter aircraft
Foreign volunteers fighting in Ukraine, even if many thousands
Economic sanctions, even if massive
Closing own airspace and the Turkish Straits
Cyberattacks
Troop deployments to NATO members in Eastern Europe[/quote]
Though I think a line needsd to be drawn between standard-ish cyberattacks and ones that attack critical infrastructure or Russia's military's ability to operate as a fighting force which are far more serious.

NATO Options That Would Recklessly Risk War with Russia:
NATO forces openly attacking Russian forces
Enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine
Ukrainian aircraft or ground forces openly operating from NATO bases
Deploying organised combat units to Ukraine amid the war
Formalising an alliance with Ukraine amid the war

I think Otto's point is right that we're not even doing a figleaf of deniability at the minute as we would in the Cold War and I think we probably should. I get there's domestic political demands for action, but I think we could benefit from separating very vocal political and economic support from more discreet/vague/deniable military support. This is, sadly, another proxy war (and maybe the first one in 30 years?) - and we know from the Cold War that proxy wars can get pretty hot without risking escalation but I think for that to work we need to use a little bit of Cold War greyness.

And the point isn't that those directly lead to nukes, but that wars are unpredictable, they tend not to go as planned and it is very easy to see an escalatory spiral of things getting out of control.

In civilian life, letting all your vehicles go via one route, creating a huge traffic jam, does not seem wise and certainly no logistical masterclass.

No idea if it makes sense for the military though to provide air defence or so.

But even then, when closing in on your target, you have to spread the frontline, right? They will need rather good traffic management to get everybody in place once reaching Kyiv outskirts.

People online are pointing out that it seems mad given how much Ukrainians - at least from their online propaganda - seem to love their drones and anti-tank ambushes. Just having a long thing line of them seems like a very attractive target - unless that's the point?

[Syt]

Looks like Belarussian forces are actually properly joining the attack now - and we all thought Russian morale was bad

Using troops from a country where the army's loyalty to the regime is a little bit patchy at best, in a war that doesn't seem to have much public support, against a people who speak your language (or as I've seen Russians put it - use the same swear words as us) seems a bold decision.

Read on German sites that Belarus is denying that they participate (BBC, about 2 hours ago).

Belarus will not join invasion - Lukashenko
The leader of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, has told state media that his forces will not join Russian troops in the invasion of Ukraine.

Lukashenko, who is a close ally of Vladimir Putin, said that the "Belarusian army isn't taking part in military action, and never did".

"We can prove this to anyone. More than that, the Russian leadership never raised this issue with us - our involvement in the armed conflict. And we don't intend to take part in this special operation in Ukraine in the future. There is no need for this."

Fears had been raised on Monday that Lukashenko was preparing to send a military force to join in the attack on Kyiv.

A spokesperson for the US State Department, Ned Price, said on Monday that Russia had "make a mockery" of Belarus' sovereignty by launching its invasion of Ukraine from Belarusian territory.

[Tamas]

Based on news reports Lavrov isn't exactly de-escalating, instead coming up with brand new demands, like that the NATO not to build bases on former Soviet territory, and for the US to remove all nuclear weapons in Europe. Also claims they have to make sure Ukraine has no nuclear weapons.

Now, I think this reeks of desperation to justify this terrible blunder to the home audience but it's not going to help efforts on avoiding global thermonuclear war.

[Syt]

Peskov is the usual font of knowledge.

Western sanctions will never make Russia change its position on Ukraine, the Kremlin said on Tuesday.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that while direct negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv had begun, there were no plans for talks between the two countries' presidents.

Peskov dismissed as fakes allegations of Russian strikes on civilian targets and the use of cluster bombs and vacuum bombs as fakes, Reuters reported.

He declined to give an assessment of the military situation on the ground on the sixth day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which the Kremlin describes as a special operation to demilitarise and "denazify" the country.

Peskov declined to comment on whether the Kremlin considers the capital Kyiv to be under the control of Nazis, referring the question to the Russian military.

And with his hair and mustache he always looks like an insurance salesman in a random small town in Germany (ca. 2003) to me.

[Maladict]

Alternatively, they could repeat their Syrian strategy - encircle city, provide a temporary corridor for anyone who wants to get out, and then bomb the shit out of the city.

That would not go over well domestically, given the Kyiv's place in Russian history.

[Syt]

Alternatively, they could repeat their Syrian strategy - encircle city, provide a temporary corridor for anyone who wants to get out, and then bomb the shit out of the city.

That would not go over well domestically, given the Kyiv's place in Russian history.

Please, Russia says they use only super precise ammunitions and totally make sure no civilian areas are hit - I'm sure they'll be able to avoid all collateral damage.

[Tamas]

Its weird seeing all these videos of abandoned Russian equipment, seemingly undamaged, like these two tanks here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1498615798641967108

I guess these can be Ukrainian as there's no visible sign painted on them, but there's plenty of examples of those, and I don't think it'd worth the effort mid-war for the Ukrainian military to stage such "discoveries" by the civilians. 

[Syt]

Ukrainian Pravda supposedly released a list of 120,000 Russian troops who are part of the invasion:

https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/03/1/7327081/

[The Brain]

Its weird seeing all these videos of abandoned Russian equipment, seemingly undamaged, like these two tanks here: https://twitter.com/i/status/1498615798641967108

I guess these can be Ukrainian as there's no visible sign painted on them, but there's plenty of examples of those, and I don't think it'd worth the effort mid-war for the Ukrainian military to stage such "discoveries" by the civilians. 

It's 5D chess. You wouldn't get it.

[grumbler]

Re. Everyone needing to calm down - General Sir Richard Barrons, ex-head of Joint Forces Command saying we should have no-fly zone: "It does mean war with Russia..." :
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1498437262727647237?s=20&t=AUSmIKvh_V0Y63OUYLWzmg

Wildly too flippant. Not wildly thrilled that the discourse has taken a turn to: "yeah - war with Russia, why not? YOLO" from relatively senior/respected figures

Watched the clip and got an entirely different impression of what he was arguing.  He never says that NATO should have a no-fly zone, he says that governments need to prepare for the case that public opinion will demand a no-fly zone or, indeed, strikes on Russian heavy artillery positions.

[Sheilbh]

Based on news reports Lavrov isn't exactly de-escalating, instead coming up with brand new demands, like that the NATO not to build bases on former Soviet territory, and for the US to remove all nuclear weapons in Europe. Also claims they have to make sure Ukraine has no nuclear weapons.

They've mentioned the nuclear point about Ukraine a few times - it feels very mirroring the West in Iraq, like the genocide claims mirror the West in Kosovo.

Watched the clip and got an entirely different impression of what he was arguing.  He never says that NATO should have a no-fly zone, he says that governments need to prepare for the case that public opinion will demand a no-fly zone or, indeed, strikes on Russian heavy artillery positions.

Fair point - I was just surprised that he didn't say government should prepare for that to push back or that we need to resist public opinion because it's war with Russia or leaders need to ignore public opinion. It was just a strange acquiescence/inevitability which I think is the wrong approach.

[Legbiter]

But even then, when closing in on your target, you have to spread the frontline, right? They will need rather good traffic management to get everybody in place once reaching Kyiv outskirts.

Yeah they'll spend the next couple of days unfucking their logistics and surrounding Kænugarðr. The most successful push is the southern one, that's going to eventually link up the 3 different main axes and severely hamper any coordinated and organized Ukrainian military resistance.

The Russians will win this but then in the aftermath they're stuck in a big proxy war with NATO in Ukraine.