Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, dirty dingus said:

What about Russia's deep rooted anti-Ukranian stance?

What about it?

It's nothing to do with us, and, had it been anyone else invading Ukraine (except China or N. Korea), they would have been left to defend themselves.

[dirty dingus]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

What about it?

It's nothing to do with us, and, had it been anyone else invading Ukraine (except China or N. Korea), they would have been left to defend themselves.

 It's nothing to do with us in the same way Russia soldiers being in Mali, Sudan, Central African Republic and Syria as it's nothing to do with them.  If a friendly nation who are wanting assistance or to join your club but is under threat you can decide to assist them if you want. If you have a problem assisting them fire down to Westminster and let them know.

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

  If you have a problem assisting them fire down to Westminster and let them know.

Well that's just a daft argument, unless you plan on traveling to Westminster to register your disapproval of every single thing this clowncar government is up to. 

[dirty dingus]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Well that's just a daft argument, unless you plan on traveling to Westminster to register your disapproval of every single thing this clowncar government is up to. 

I was being facetious. Saying it's nothing to do with us is a daft argument too especially when Ukraine were wanting to join NATO and they border former Eastern Bloc members who are very worried about Russian expansion.

[Todd_is_God]

20 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

It's nothing to do with us in the same way Russia soldiers being in Mali, Sudan, Central African Republic and Syria as it's nothing to do with them.  If a friendly nation who are wanting assistance or to join your club but is under threat you can decide to assist them if you want. If you have a problem assisting them fire down to Westminster and let them know.

Go on then, please show me how often Ukraine was described as a "friendly nation" prior to February 2022.

7 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

they border former Eastern Bloc members who are very worried about Russian expansion.

Anyone bordering Russia, and is "very worried" about Russian expansion, yet has failed to adequately arm itself / secure allies has to shoulder a lot of the blame tbh.

[renton]

1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said:

Why would they stop there, though?

If that's their end game then they'd be far better getting round the table and agreeing a peace deal.

If, theoretically, Ukraine could get into Kherson and the hydro-Dam to the East they would control all the Dneiper crossing points.

They probably also want snake Island neutralised entirely or retaken. 

It would make a future Ukraine state more defensible, since they would control the length of a formidable natural obstacle and would also be able to control the water supply into the Crimea which might give them leverage in any peace negotiations. Removing Snake Island would also remove the threat of being able to enforce a blocade of Odessa. Which If things stopped now would be Ukraine's last significant port.

So, aye - they aren't pushing Russia out of Ukraine. They don't have the critical mass to maneuver, and importantly don't have the air power to enable large scale maneuver, but they have made limited gains towards Kherson which probably is worth it prior to any peace deal.

Edited June 24, 2022 by renton

[dirty dingus]

7 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

Go on then, please show me how often Ukraine was described as a "friendly nation" prior to February 2022.

Anyone bordering Russia, and is "very worried" about Russian expansion, yet has failed to adequately arm itself / secure allies has to shoulder a lot of the blame tbh.

U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONS

The United States established diplomatic relations with Ukraine in 1991, following its independence from the Soviet Union. The United States attaches great importance to the success of Ukraine as a free and democratic state with a flourishing market economy. U.S. policy is centered on supporting Ukraine in the face of continued Russian aggression as it advances reforms to strengthen democratic institutions, fight corruption, and promote conditions for economic growth and competition. The United States does not, and will not ever, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea, and continues to work with our partners to seek a diplomatic solution to the Russia-instigated conflict in eastern Ukraine. The U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership highlights the importance of the bilateral relationship and the continued commitment of the United States to support enhanced engagement between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Ukraine.

U.S. Assistance to Ukraine

U.S. Government assistance to Ukraine aims to support the development of a secure, democratic, prosperous, and free Ukraine, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community.

 

How do they arm themselves against a superpower, they have large armed forces and reserves which has increased year on year since the Donbas war, just nowhere near the weaponry and manpower of Russia

[vikingTON]

33 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

Saying it's nothing to do with us is a daft argument too especially when Ukraine were wanting to join NATO and they border former Eastern Bloc members who are very worried about Russian expansion.

Neither point actually makes it the job of the UK or any Western power to police a post-Soviet power struggle, in the same way that we did not intervene in 1953, 1956, 1968 or the early 1980s during the Warsaw Pact's regular disturbances. 

Only a rational and realistic understanding of power - rather than liberal claptrap - can avoid the catastrophe of global nuclear war. We are sleepwalking into disaster by viewing international affairs as a morality play - because when China starts plays its own, much stronger hand for territorial readjustment, the West will face the prospect of either an enormous loss of face or lolloping into an apocalypse. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

5 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

U.S.-UKRAINE RELATIONS

The United States established diplomatic relations with Ukraine in 1991, following its independence from the Soviet Union. The United States attaches great importance to the success of Ukraine as a free and democratic state with a flourishing market economy. U.S. policy is centered on supporting Ukraine in the face of continued Russian aggression as it advances reforms to strengthen democratic institutions, fight corruption, and promote conditions for economic growth and competition. The United States does not, and will not ever, recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea, and continues to work with our partners to seek a diplomatic solution to the Russia-instigated conflict in eastern Ukraine. The U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership highlights the importance of the bilateral relationship and the continued commitment of the United States to support enhanced engagement between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Ukraine.

U.S. Assistance to Ukraine

U.S. Government assistance to Ukraine aims to support the development of a secure, democratic, prosperous, and free Ukraine, fully integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community.

 

How do they arm themselves against a superpower, they have large armed forces and reserves which has increased year on year since the Donbas war, just nowhere near the weaponry and manpower of Russia

Cuba and Mexico don't have equivalent weaponry or manpower to their neighbour to the north. And when Castro actually did something to balance that power relationship, the US Chiefs of Staff shrieked for the beginning of all-out nuclear war to prevent that. They still operate as sovereign states today though - as does Georgia who were on the end of a previous round of aggression from Putin's regime. 

The stakes are in fact much lower then than the 'Munich appeasement!!!111!! Next stop WW3!' mob would have us believe. 

[dirty dingus]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Neither point actually makes it the job of the UK or any Western power to police a post-Soviet power struggle, in the same way that we did not intervene in 1953, 1956, 1968 or the early 1980s during the Warsaw Pact's regular disturbances. 

Only a rational and realistic understanding of power - rather than liberal claptrap - can avoid the catastrophe of global nuclear war. We are sleepwalking into disaster by viewing international affairs as a morality play - because when China starts plays its own, much stronger hand, the West will face the prospect of either an enormous loss of face or lolloping into an apocalypse. 

From what I've seen in Asia, China expansion comes in the form of investment. Throwing up casinos huge hotels and massive factories in Cambodia. Developing high speed rail links in Lao and Thailand etc..  

[vikingTON]

43 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

From what I've seen in Asia, China expansion comes in the form of investment. Throwing up casinos huge hotels and massive factories in Cambodia. Developing high speed rail links in Lao and Thailand etc..  

China has never renounced its claim that Taiwan is an integral part of its territory (being the construct of the failed Nationalist side in the civil war) and the US has tacitly accepted that for 50 years. That was the poison pill that Nixon swallowed to get one over the Soviet Union. Now the US is trying to carefully disavow this to prevent China's rising power from challenging it. 

When China inevitably moves to assert that right in reality, the crisis will make this post-Soviet squabble look like a teddy bear's picnic. 

Edited June 24, 2022 by vikingTON

[welshbairn]

I have sympathy for China's stated policy of non interference in sovereign nations' ethical behaviour or internal politics when they make investment decisions, but it's a bit weird to see their Western backers justifying their Tibet invasion on the basis of liberal values.

[dirty dingus]

16 minutes ago, virginton said:

China has never renounced its claim that Taiwan is an integral part of its territory (being the construct of the failed Nationalist side in the civil war) and the US has tacitly accepted that for 50 years. That was the poison pill that Nixon swallowed to get one over the Soviet Union. Now the US is trying to carefully disavow this to prevent China's rising power from challenging it. 

When China inevitably moves to assert that right in reality, the crisis will make this post-Soviet squabble look like a teddy bear's picnic. 

Didn't now anything about Taiwan except everything was made there in the 70s. Interesting how strong a defence force(previously an attack force) they have and the standard of weapons they use. If it was a conventional invasion from China would result in quite a bloodbath. Seems America are trying to put it on Japan to be their back ups. Is this because of the amount of debt US owes China or not wanting to risk a major war?

[renton]

11 hours ago, dirty dingus said:

Didn't now anything about Taiwan except everything was made there in the 70s. Interesting how strong a defence force(previously an attack force) they have and the standard of weapons they use. If it was a conventional invasion from China would result in quite a bloodbath. Seems America are trying to put it on Japan to be their back ups. Is this because of the amount of debt US owes China or not wanting to risk a major war?

Still the centre of semiconductor production. 50% of all semiconductors are fabricated there, 90% of all high end process node semiconductors are fabricated there.

You can see a nervousness in the industry as companies have started building fabs outside of Asia. The latest two being Ohio and S. Germany.  At about 15 billion USD in capital costs to build each facility its not something they take lightly.

[LongTimeLurker]

Won't be long until we start hearing whether HIMARS is helping the Ukrainians more than the much hyped but apparently not particularly game changing Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost kamikaze drones:

 

Other people are skeptical that the above was actually HIMARS because the Ukrainians have been a lot more active with their remaining longer range Tochka missiles recently knowing HIMARS is on the way.

[renton]

6 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Won't be long until we start hearing whether HIMARS is helping the Ukrainians more than the much hyped but apparently not particularly game changing Switchblade and Phoenix Ghost kamikaze drones:

 

Other people are skeptical that the above was actually HIMARS because the Ukrainians have been a lot more active with their remaining longer range Tochka missiles recently knowing HIMARS is on the way.

I think GMLRS could be a game changer for Ukraine, but not in the quantities that have so far been promised.

[Bairnardo]

4 minutes ago, renton said:

I think GMLRS could be a game changer for Ukraine, but not in the quantities that have so far been promised.

Someone posted an article last week about how the low sounding number of these systems can actually wreak a ludicrous amount of carnage as long as they are well supplied. Given military hardware is obviously an interest of yours im sure you already know that, but it was an interesting read all the same. 

[renton]

57 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Someone posted an article last week about how the low sounding number of these systems can actually wreak a ludicrous amount of carnage as long as they are well supplied. Given military hardware is obviously an interest of yours im sure you already know that, but it was an interesting read all the same. 

Yeah, the Western system can fire about 5 times as many salvos over the same period of time as the Russian system and it's CEP (circular error probability) is far, far smaller meaning a much greater chance of hitting what its aiming at, enhancing its lethality far above equivalent Russian systems.

Yet so far there has been 4 x UK M270 and 8 x US HIMARS committed. The tracked M270 has 12 rocket cells, each truck based HIMARS has 6 cells for a grand total of 96 cells and you won't have all of those in action at once.

The US/UK would probably commit about 4 to 6 batteries of MLRS to support a 20,000 man division. There is about 4 to 6 launchers per battery. 

Just in those terms, let alone the fact Ukraine is restricted to the older 80km max range rockets, and you can see that they need more to get the kind of volume of firepower that has allowed Western armies to over power adversaries. Indeed, given the Western doctrine for using Air power to a much higher degree than either side in Ukraine has been capable  of and you start to get a sense of how much munitions a Western force would likely drop in order to support a ground attack.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by renton

[LongTimeLurker]

Biden & Co appear to have been highly reluctant to supply HIMARS because they weren't sure how Putin would respond. Hence all the stuff about kamikaze drones instead, which the Ukrainians appear to do better themselves anyway judging from the recent oil refinery attack near Rostov.

Suspect that means HIMARS needed to be introduced slowly with it being made crystal clear to Vlad that none of the longer range capabilities were involved but once their presence has become the new normal numbers will no doubt be ramped up if the Ukrainians are effective at taking out important targets with the initial batch. We'll know if that's happening over the next few weeks.

[LongTimeLurker]