Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[h4rm0ny]

Somewhat ironically because we'd been supplying them with tanks and aircraft, etc.

From the Taliban to ISIL and Al-Nusra, I wonder if we will EVER learn that the enemy of my enemy is... just my enemy's enemy.

Been a number of instances of infrastructure sabotage and interdiction as well over the last few weeks - but a lot of contention whether it is the work of "fifth column" or manufactured to look like it (and I have no idea which - neither preferring one option over the other but I consider both feasible).

I personally see little gain for Russia in pushing for open war with the Ukraine with Russia's current economic and political situation. Unless one believes they really do want to try and seize the Eastern parts of Ukraine. They might like to, but I don't think they'd go for it. They've gained strategic coastal access with the Crimea and the Crimea was a semi-autonomous region both historically part of Russia and whose people were heavily wanting to be part of Russia. Invading actual Ukraine would be a notably different matter. But of course that doesn't rule out that it could be fifth columnists previously supplied or supported by Russia. You seldom if ever have complete control over the local "allies" as the USA has found time after time. But as you say, equally there are innumerable examples of exactly this sort of false flag as well and the president does have elections coming up.

EDIT: Found part of Poroshenko's martial law statement translated. He's apparently claimed Russia is preparing a land invasion.

 

[h4rm0ny]

This is NOT a nice situation even because NATO is starting to get a wee bit nervous (or at least, that's what the media say)...

Trump has tweeted things to the effect of "this is very sad, but it's for Europeans to sort out". Which is very interesting for a statement by a US president.

 

[ubersonic]

When he urged the Allies to re-arm the captured German soldiers on the Western Front and attack the Red Army to drive the Russians out of Central Europe?

That would have been an extremely bad idea as US and British Empire forces were sorely depleted and Russian forces were at an all-time peak.

Pretty sure the USSR would have pulled back if pushed, after seeing what happened to Japan.

 

[Rroff]

From the Taliban to ISIL and Al-Nusra, I wonder if we will EVER learn that the enemy of my enemy is... just my enemy's enemy.

Or as the radio guy in The Division likes to constantly remind players "The enemy of my enemy might very well turn the gun on me once my enemy is dead".

 

[Rroff]

ut of course that doesn't rule out that it could be fifth columnists previously supplied or supported by Russia.

Russia has invested but often has only limited control over this in many countries - even in the US - strategy wise it is a sound move and probably to some degree or another employed by most countries so as to have strategic assets in place in eventual scenarios. It would be naive to think otherwise hah.

Invading actual Ukraine would be a notably different matter.

Academically quite an interesting one - economically Russia can't really afford wars in a mostly peace time context - beyond limited action with concentrated forces in places like Syria. Conversely if they went "all in" in a total war scenario they'd be a massive force to deal with.

One thing that is potentially interesting (thought wise) though is what if Russia put together a force of "local volunteers" and meat grinder conscription like forces, provided them with 1960s-70s era tanks and artillery, etc. (which they've been pulling out of mothballed stock lately - mostly I think to supply Syria) and sent them into Ukraine? a nasty one for Western forces to deal with as Russia then has the tactical upper hand escalation wise while committing a force that is distinct from the main Russia forces (despite that being only superficial in nature). Ukraine's armed forces are still a long way from a modern fighting force and struggling in many areas due to sabotage and attrition in the early days of the current conflict so would have a hard time dealing with something like that in sufficient numbers.

 

[ubersonic]

Or as the radio guy in The Division likes to constantly remind players "The enemy of my enemy might very well turn the gun on me once my enemy is dead".

It is kinda lol watching 80's action movies like Rambo III and James Bond: The Living Daylights where the hero fights alongside Taliban/Al-Qaeda fighters against the Russians. The Bond movie especially so as he even liberates a parody of Osama Bin Laden from Soviet prison to help him xD

One thing that is potentially interesting (though wise) though is what if Russia put together a force of "local volunteers" and meat grinder conscription like forces, provided them with 1960s-70s era tanks and artillery, etc. (which they've been pulling out of mothballed stock lately - mostly I think to supply Syria) and sent them into Ukraine?

I thought that's what they had been doing lol.

 

[Rroff]

I thought that's what they had been doing lol.

On a limited basis so that the rebel areas can't be over-run and to provide more of a buffer for Crimea - there are suspicions of a build up of such forces but nothing substantiated with supposedly 100s of mothballed tanks sent that direction recently but facts are unclear with some seemingly just moved back and forth by the Russians possibly for appearances/trolling and others being stored up in strategic locations where they can potentially be shipped to Syria.

But it is an interesting angle as it would present a very different picture compared to Russia sending its main forces en-masse.

 

[dowie]

It is kinda lol watching 80's action movies like Rambo III and James Bond: The Living Daylights where the hero fights alongside Taliban/Al-Qaeda fighters against the Russians. The Bond movie especially so as he even liberates a parody of Osama Bin Laden from Soviet prison to help him xD

He was more of a general Mujahedin war lord character - we actually made good use of them during the invasion of Afghanistan thanks in part to the assistance provided during the soviet occupation - see the Northern Alliance.

 

[GGizmo]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/46344...-into-ukrainian-tug-off-the-crimean-peninsula

Footage appearing to show a Russian ship crashing into Ukrainian tug has been posted on social media by the Ukrainian Interior Minister. Arsen Avakov claims it was filmed from a Russian ship.

My question is, how did the Ukrainian Interior Minister get that footage from the Russian ship?

 

[foster grant]

Maybe one side will shoot down a plane and blame the other side

 

[dowie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/46344...-into-ukrainian-tug-off-the-crimean-peninsula

My question is, how did the Ukrainian Interior Minister get that footage from the Russian ship?

presumably it was posted online

edit - LOL, very clam and professional orders by the Russian Navy there

 

[Minusorange]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/46344...-into-ukrainian-tug-off-the-crimean-peninsula



My question is, how did the Ukrainian Interior Minister get that footage from the Russian ship?

I can understand the Beeb censoring the Russians saying Blyat with a bleeeeeeeep but why do they need to censor "rush B" ?

 

[h4rm0ny]

Russia has invested but often has only limited control over this in many countries - even in the US - strategy wise it is a sound move and probably to some degree or another employed by most countries so as to have strategic assets in place in eventual scenarios. It would be naive to think otherwise hah.

Just to be clear, my "could" referred to "they might have done this" rather than "they might exist". I don't *think* that Russia benefits from this. People in power in the Ukraine stand to. Therefore I lean towards it being deliberate provocation by Ukraine. However, locally supplied allies are not rational actors. At least not rational in a wider context. So it could be groups previously supported by Russia doing this. I agree, we don't know.

Academically quite an interesting one - economically Russia can't really afford wars in a mostly peace time context - beyond limited action with concentrated forces in places like Syria. Conversely if they went "all in" in a total war scenario they'd be a massive force to deal with.

One thing that is potentially interesting (thought wise) though is what if Russia put together a force of "local volunteers" and meat grinder conscription like forces, provided them with 1960s-70s era tanks and artillery, etc. (which they've been pulling out of mothballed stock lately - mostly I think to supply Syria) and sent them into Ukraine? a nasty one for Western forces to deal with as Russia then has the tactical upper hand escalation wise while committing a force that is distinct from the main Russia forces (despite that being only superficial in nature). Ukraine's armed forces are still a long way from a modern fighting force and struggling in many areas due to sabotage and attrition in the early days of the current conflict so would have a hard time dealing with something like that in sufficient numbers.

I've an interest in warfare (or Practical Politics as I like to call it), but only limited knowledge. I could see such a force formenting chaos, causing massive unrest and damage. But could such a force actually seize and hold the territory long enough for that claim to become established? Whilst you see it Russia having the tactical upper hand escalation wise, doesn't it give the West free reign to send in their own forces because they're not attacking the "actual" Russian army? It could lead to an actually worse situation from the Russian point of view as NATO forces established bases in Eastern Ukrainian provinces. You know - "keeping the peace". Thoughts?

 

[Rroff]

I've an interest in warfare (or Practical Politics as I like to call it), but only limited knowledge. I could see such a force formenting chaos, causing massive unrest and damage. But could such a force actually seize and hold the territory long enough for that claim to become established? Whilst you see it Russia having the tactical upper hand escalation wise, doesn't it give the West free reign to send in their own forces because they're not attacking the "actual" Russian army? It could lead to an actually worse situation from the Russian point of view as NATO forces established bases in Eastern Ukrainian provinces. You know - "keeping the peace". Thoughts?

The problem here for NATO/Western forces, which potentially holds them back from free reign, is the spectre of Russia being (theoretically) able to see how the West responds and then reply to that - giving them the upper hand in the next step of an escalation even if they don't actually intend to escalate it is a huge consideration for anyone planning a response to the Russian move.

A couple of years back I think such a force could undoubtedly cause a lot of trouble for Ukraine and potentially overrun it - these days I'm not so sure - on paper an invasion force really needs to be around 4-5x the weight of a defending force in a scenario like this due to the problems of not only making progress but also securing taken territory and holding supply lines but that doesn't take into account loads of factors like the competence and ability of commanders on either side and so on.

I think that consideration that a failed initiative along these kind of lines could give NATO justification to entrench themselves even close to Russian territory and also reason to strengthen military forces around the Baltics, etc. probably has a huge disincentive factor for Russia as well.

 

[h4rm0ny]

The problem here for NATO/Western forces, which potentially holds them back from free reign, is the spectre of Russia being (theoretically) able to see how the West responds and then reply to that - giving them the upper hand in the next step of an escalation even if they don't actually intend to escalate it is a huge consideration for anyone planning a response to the Russian move.

A couple of years back I think such a force could undoubtedly cause a lot of trouble for Ukraine and potentially overrun it - these days I'm not so sure - on paper an invasion force really needs to be around 4-5x the weight of a defending force in a scenario like this due to the problems of not only making progress but also securing taken territory and holding supply lines but that doesn't take into account loads of factors like the competence and ability of commanders on either side and so on.

I think that consideration that a failed initiative along these kind of lines could give NATO justification to entrench themselves even close to Russian territory and also reason to strengthen military forces around the Baltics, etc. probably has a huge disincentive factor for Russia as well.

Interesting.

 

[Rroff]

Interesting.

I don't like this line of thinking much though - a couple more steps and you come to the consequences of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and the use of tactical nuclear/radiological devices

 

[StriderX]

I don't like this line of thinking much though - a couple more steps and you come to the consequences of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces and the use of tactical nuclear/radiological devices

I think it's guaranteed now, everything Russia has pointed itself towards has implied first-strike front-line nuclear assault, if you annihilate the opposing forces military you can keep the rest of country more or less.

Though i imagine the Israel-Iran-Saudi trio would get their before Russia does, because the West really don't care about the middle-east enough to ward it off.

 

[Rroff]

I think it's guaranteed now, everything Russia has pointed itself towards has implied first-strike front-line nuclear assault, if you annihilate the opposing forces military you can keep the rest of country more or less.

I don't think either side would escalate to strategic use over the battlefield use of tactical devices in this context (external territory) but whoever did would have the rest of the world aligned against them but with the spectre of MAD it would probably result in a stalemate and a frozen conflict - which might be exactly what one side or the other wanted :s Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces concern me.

Though i imagine the Israel-Iran-Saudi trio would get their before Russia does, because the West really don't care about the middle-east enough to ward it off.

I think though a pretty hair trigger situation with the geography involved and how close battlefield use would be to a strategic scenario in this context the lid would just about be kept on it. (Although there are some complete crazies in this part of the world so I dunno - especially how fast regimes can change, etc. and a much higher chance of ending up in rogue hands than in countries like the US or even Russia).

 

[h4rm0ny]

I think it's guaranteed now, everything Russia has pointed itself towards has implied first-strike front-line nuclear assault, if you annihilate the opposing forces military you can keep the rest of country more or less.

This is almost the exact opposite of the reality. It is the USA that has been aggressively pursuing nuclear primacy (the capability to make a first strike so devastating there can be no effective response.) Yes, I've linked this before, yes it remains an excellent article.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy

I don't expect you to actually read it before you reply, of course!

 

[StriderX]

This is almost the exact opposite of the reality. It is the USA that has been aggressively pursuing nuclear primacy (the capability to make a first strike so devastating there can be no effective response.) Yes, I've linked this before, yes it remains an excellent article.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2006-03-01/rise-us-nuclear-primacy

I don't expect you to actually read it before you reply, of course!

Yeah but the US is our besties, if any exchange needed to occur i'd rather not let Russia come out of it in any state.