Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Sergeant Wilson]

I see Elton John has turned up with a crate of Sprite.

 

[Gordon EF]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Which Ukrainians? They're not a fucking hivemind all singing from the same hymn sheet: no less than any other country's population and leaders are united behind a single policy.

Obviously. Saying it's up to Ukranians to decide is a simple thing to say for what is obviously a very complex issue. But they're hardly going to be swayed by folk on Twitter or P&B acting like saying "Ah but if you just surrendered, people would stop dying" is some great solution when it flies in the face of how almost every populaiton has reacted when they've been invaded by a foreign force, ever.

Quote

Ukraine's current strategy is useful to politicians like Zelenskiy who wants indefinite Western aid (and needs bodies, quite bluntly, to keep pressing that emergency case every single day), as well as liberals in the West who think that their Twitter hot takes are this century's equivalent of the International Brigades.

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't significant discontent at the current strategy within Ukraine's military, because it makes absolutely no strategic sense to continue fighting a one-sided artillery duel and suffering extremely high rates of attrition. There's an objectively correct answer to that question from a military standpoint and it is at odds with the needs of the khaki president.

I'm not diagreeing with any of that. Pressure from the military is clearly going to be part of what shapes what happens over time. But how they should fight is a different question to whether they should fight. If the military do refuse to keep doing what they're being asked to do then the decision is made for Zelensky.

[DiegoDiego]

"Ah but if you just surrendered, people would stop dying" is some great solution when it flies in the face of how almost every populaiton has reacted when they've been invaded by a foreign force, ever.

France being the exception that proves the rule?

[steve55]

 

 

[welshbairn]

5 minutes ago, steve55 said:

 

 

Hammer and Sickle?

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Lol, how do they keep managing to do this ?

[ICTChris]

Seems that the situation in Severodonestsk is static but Russian troops just destroyed one of the last bridges over the river near there, this could precipitate a pullback by Ukrainian troops still in the city. Seems like they are still in the industrial area of the city. The US DoD briefing yesterday said they expect the Ukrainians to lose the rest of Luhansk in the next week.

 

[ICTChris]

Article about the emergence of Prestwick Airport as a hub for arms shipments to both NATO in Europe and for arms heading to Ukraine.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/glasgow-prestwick-airbase-package-holidays-and-nato-jets/
 

Interesting that contracts with pretty much all US military agencies were established post 2013 nationalisation of the airport. I assumed these had always been in place as I’d read about the airport being used for military flights for a number of years.

[Guest Flash]

Latest analysis by Michael Kofman in the War on the Rocks podcast.

War on the Rocks

[Billy Jean King]

Article about the emergence of Prestwick Airport as a hub for arms shipments to both NATO in Europe and for arms heading to Ukraine.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/glasgow-prestwick-airbase-package-holidays-and-nato-jets/
 
Interesting that contracts with pretty much all US military agencies were established post 2013 nationalisation of the airport. I assumed these had always been in place as I’d read about the airport being used for military flights for a number of years.

An excellent site for military movements at Prestwick

https://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=77

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Hopefully The Sturg is getting plenty of those sweet, sweet Yankee dollars for all those arms shipments and rendition flights.

[steve55]

On 12/06/2022 at 19:19, ICTChris said:

Article about the emergence of Prestwick Airport as a hub for arms shipments to both NATO in Europe and for arms heading to Ukraine.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/glasgow-prestwick-airbase-package-holidays-and-nato-jets/
 

Interesting that contracts with pretty much all US military agencies were established post 2013 nationalisation of the airport. I assumed these had always been in place as I’d read about the airport being used for military flights for a number of years.

And we are paying for this BTW, unless you think Ukraine is going to pay for this.

[steve55]

 

[renton]

On 11/06/2022 at 08:04, virginton said:

It's not a question of 'surrendering the country' - it's a strategic question about trading space for time, rather than trading essential soldiers and morale as artillery fodder in order to stay in the news cycle and foster Zelenskiy's persona.

A lesson that if Kiev's leaders weren't busy engaging in a hysterical bonfire of their shared history, they could have already absorbed from the memory of Marshal Kutusov during Napoleon's invasion. 

The thinking being, presumably that Putin could push Ukraine out of what's left of Luhansk and Donesk and declare his 'special operation ' aims fulfilled. He would then ask for a ceasefire which Ukraine probably suspects it's Western partners would pressure it to concede to. The outcome of which would likely leave Russia in control of everything it currently occupies. Russia would then proceed to integrate those regions from luhansk to Kherson into Russia proper, as well as regenerating it's forces and then sometime in the late Summer/Autumn finding another Causus Belli to dismember what's left of Ukraine.

On the other side of the hill Ukraine is training a new, fairly large army as quickly as it can, and is trying to integrate Western artillery systems and get their hands on more systems that would allow it to entertain operational level counter attacks to liberate more of it's territories.

If viewed through that prism, yes it's about trading people for time, rather than space for people. Ukraine needs to hold Russia up in Luhansk long enough to build a force capable of larger counter attacks.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 hours ago, steve55 said:

 

It's nice, but I preferred the traditional one.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, renton said:

The thinking being, presumably that Putin could push Ukraine out of what's left of Luhansk and Donesk and declare his 'special operation ' aims fulfilled. He would then ask for a ceasefire which Ukraine probably suspects it's Western partners would pressure it to concede to. The outcome of which would likely leave Russia in control of everything it currently occupies. Russia would then proceed to integrate those regions from luhansk to Kherson into Russia proper, as well as regenerating it's forces and then sometime in the late Summer/Autumn finding another Causus Belli to dismember what's left of Ukraine.

On the other side of the hill Ukraine is training a new, fairly large army as quickly as it can, and is trying to integrate Western artillery systems and get their hands on more systems that would allow it to entertain operational level counter attacks to liberate more of it's territories.

If viewed through that prism, yes it's about trading people for time, rather than space for people. Ukraine needs to hold Russia up in Luhansk long enough to build a force capable of larger counter attacks.

On the one hand you claim that if only Russia takes a shithole in Luhansk that it will then go on to 'dismember' Ukraine within months; yet on the other hand, if only Ukraine holds on then the shiny new model army will be rolling all the way to Donetsk and beyond. These are two completely contradictory assertions. 

It is fantasy island nonsense to peddle the claim that Ukraine will be 'liberating' territory any time soon. That's just Zelenskiy and Western liberals' justification for maintaining a forever war and losing a completely indefensible salient does not change that equation either way. 

 

[renton]

Just now, virginton said:

On the one hand you claim that if only Russia takes a shithole in Luhansk that it will then go on to 'dismember' Ukraine within months; yet on the other hand, if only Ukraine holds on then the shiny new model army will be rolling all the way to Donetsk and beyond. These are two completely contradictory assertions. 

It is fantasy island nonsense to peddle the claim that Ukraine will be 'liberating' territory any time soon. That's just Zelenskiy and Western liberals' justification for maintaining a forever war and losing a completely indefensible salient does not change that equation either way. 

 

It's not a contradictory assertion since the major difference between those two scenarios is based on a ceasefire and leeching of Western support. If Russia can get enough of the East to satisfy domestic consumption and create a narrative around breakway regions so it can ask for a ceasefire, Western nations will likely push Ukraine tacitly to accept, and with it Western arms flow will likely drain away. That gives an advantage back to Russia in terms of re-generating it's combat power over the coming months. Even if it never resumes an offensive, it'll still control a land bridge covering the whole Black Sea coastline, and Ukraine won't be seen to break that ceasefire by going on the offensive. Therefore, Ukraine's only hope of getting territory back is to prolong the war now.

The Ukranians so far have accepted a disadvantage in the East so that it can push The Russians away from Kharkiv, and to win some positional battles near Kherson. Securing both cities seems to be it's short term priorities. In order for it to make a more concerted effort in the South, it needs to get hold of, and assimilate more NATO 155mm standard artillery (it's near enough out of it's 152mm Soviet calibre shells) and importantly to get Western MLRS systems (which are vastly superior, and far more destructive than the Russian equivalents used by both sides so far) into the theatre in numnbers sufficient to make a difference. It could probably then, at least in Kherson, attempt a push back towards that city. That'll still only work if the Russians are busy elsewhere.

The alternative, for Ukraine is to give up everything currently occupied by Russia, and at best hope they don't come back for the rest by aquienscing to Russian demands for closer cultural and economic ties to Russia. If you were Ukranian, what would you want to happen?

[vikingTON]

14 minutes ago, renton said:

It's not a contradictory assertion since the major difference between those two scenarios is based on a ceasefire and leeching of Western support. If Russia can get enough of the East to satisfy domestic consumption and create a narrative around breakway regions so it can ask for a ceasefire, Western nations will likely push Ukraine tacitly to accept, and with it Western arms flow will likely drain away. That gives an advantage back to Russia in terms of re-generating it's combat power over the coming months. Even if it never resumes an offensive, it'll still control a land bridge covering the whole Black Sea coastline, and Ukraine won't be seen to break that ceasefire by going on the offensive. Therefore, Ukraine's only hope of getting territory back is to prolong the war now.

That's some hefty goalpost shifting from 'giving up means Russia dismembers the rest of the country this autumn!!!111!!!' to, err, 'giving up means Ukraine won't recover its pre-2022 territory.

The latter isn't going to happen regardless, so the sacrifice is absolutely pointless. 

Quote

The alternative, for Ukraine is to give up everything currently occupied by Russia, and at best hope they don't come back for the rest by aquienscing to Russian demands for closer cultural and economic ties to Russia. If you were Ukranian, what would you want to happen?

Well no, their situation is not even remotely based on hoping for mercy from Moscow. Ukraine will continue to be amply armed by the West regardless of whether it clings onto some villages in Luhansk or not. That's not going to change - and a ceasefire on the ground isn't going to change that arming and re-equipment either. 

If Ukraine's leadership plays its cards right, then it can have a much more defensible territory with much more effective means to do so, than it had prior to the conflict beginning. This is why it was complete folly for Putin to invade: control of Luhansk and Donetsk and even a land bridge to Crimea do not compensate for pushing Ukraine irreversibly into the arms of the West and making it a much more powerfully equipped third actor. 

The major stumbling blocks to a rational de-escalation right now include the unhinged not one step back defence principle, as well as  nonsense liberation talk being peddled to fuel Zelenskiy's ego and Western liberals' moral indignation. 

[renton]

Just now, virginton said:

That's some hefty goalpost shifting from 'giving up means Russia dismembers the rest of the country this autumn!!!111!!!' to, err, 'giving up means Ukraine won't recover its pre-2022 territory.

The latter isn't going to happen regardless, so the sacrifice is absolutely pointless. 

Well no, their situation is not even remotely based on hoping for mercy from Moscow. Ukraine will continue to be amply armed by the West regardless of whether it clings onto some villages in Luhansk or not. That's not going to change - and a ceasefire on the ground isn't going to change that arming and re-equipment either. 

If Ukraine's leadership plays its cards right, then it can have a much more defensible territory with much more effective means to do so, than it had prior to the conflict beginning. This is why it was complete folly for Putin to invade: control of Luhansk and Donetsk and even a land bridge to Crimea do not compensate for pushing Ukraine irreversibly into the arms of the West and making it a much more powerfully equipped third actor. 

The major stumbling blocks to a rational de-escalation right now include the unhinged not one step back defence principle, as well as  nonsense liberation talk being peddled to fuel Zelenskiy's ego and Western liberals' moral indignation. 

So you don't think a major stumbling block to de-escalation is Russia's continued invasion? Personally I don't think it's shifting goal posts. Shutting down the war now would at best leave Ukraine without it's pre-2022 territories and vulnerable to further incursions later.

I think even in terms of defending a reduced size nation, securing defensible ground beyond artillery range in Kharkiv and controlling the West bank and crossing points at the Dnipro would probably be necessary - Ukraine still controls the major crossings, except Kherson, which is probably why they've made positional local counter attacks in that area.

I'm not convinced Western arms supplies would continue onwards of a ceasefire. Certainly not on so generous terms, and NATO membership would still be off the table.  EU security guarentees might make some nations skittish of letting Ukraine in, short of a fully fledged peace deal with Russia that goes way beyond simple cessation of immediate hostilities.

[LongTimeLurker]

Also worth bearing in mind that the area where most of the action is right now also happens to be prime real estate in hydrocarbons terms: