Russia-Ukraine war has begun
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
If that factory is in Ukraine and above ground, that's kind of dumb - easy target.
Maybe it's built on the western border and surrounded by Patriot batteries.
Wow, showing up at the Kremlin. Putin could have the top Wagner leadership snuffed out there and no one would have blinked an eye.
You'd think, at some point, the Russian military would have enough.
From ISW …
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-12-2023
The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that the Wagner Group has almost completely handed weapons and military equipment over to the MoD. Russian MoD spokesperson Igor Konashenkov announced on July 12 that the Wagner Group transferred more than 2,000 pieces of equipment and weapons to the Russian MoD.[21] Konashenkov stated that the transferred weapons include T-90, T-80, and T-72 tanks, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), anti-aircraft missile systems, howitzers, anti-tank guns, mortar systems, armored tractors, armored personnel carriers, vehicles, and small arms.[22] Konashenkov stated that the Russian MoD transferred all the equipment and armaments to rear areas where Russian repair and recovery units will maintain and prepare the equipment for use.
Tanks in rear areas won’t be defending Ukrainian advances in the near term.
Blocking the expansion of NATO looks like a fail for Russia. Turkey has agreed on terms for admitting Sweden and Finland became a member. St Petersburg must now be defended to the North from the Baltic Republics and Finland.
Ukraine got promises of long-term support and easier admittance terms.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-12-2023
The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) announced that the Wagner Group has almost completely handed weapons and military equipment over to the MoD. Russian MoD spokesperson Igor Konashenkov announced on July 12 that the Wagner Group transferred more than 2,000 pieces of equipment and weapons to the Russian MoD.[21] Konashenkov stated that the transferred weapons include T-90, T-80, and T-72 tanks, multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), anti-aircraft missile systems, howitzers, anti-tank guns, mortar systems, armored tractors, armored personnel carriers, vehicles, and small arms.[22] Konashenkov stated that the Russian MoD transferred all the equipment and armaments to rear areas where Russian repair and recovery units will maintain and prepare the equipment for use.
Tanks in rear areas won’t be defending Ukrainian advances in the near term.
Blocking the expansion of NATO looks like a fail for Russia. Turkey has agreed on terms for admitting Sweden and Finland became a member. St Petersburg must now be defended to the North from the Baltic Republics and Finland.
Ukraine got promises of long-term support and easier admittance terms.
Last edited:
I wouldn't admit Ukraine to NATO. Not a fan of Russia and think they are the bad guys but they do have a point about us running our alliance against them directly up to their borders. I think you could have other security guarantees with the Ukrainians that do not involve "We will get into a nuclear war for you if you are attacked".
I know that is going to sound like Russian appeasement to some, but I don't think it serves our interests to expand NATO any more than we already have. Part of the negotiation to end this is probably going to be making Ukraine a "neutral" country. I haven't seen anything this summer that leads me to believe that either of these sides can accomplish their stated goals to "win" this war, so it is likely to be a negotiated settlement.
Belgium. When Belgium won its independence from The Netherlands, the Euro powers that be wanted to make sure it didn't align with France, and in fact serve as a buffer to France. So Bob's your uncle, Belgium was born. Around 1840 the 5 main Euro powers signed a treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality, if anyone violated the other powers would come to her aid. That was the treaty Britain used to enter WW1.
My favorite quote on Belgium came from Jeremy Clarkson when the British Top Gear people were about to compete against the German car show people in a series of contests, "Belgium, a country specifically created to have a place for Germany and Britain to work out their differences". Of course, in 1840 everyone was really thinking it was a place for France and Britain to work out their differences, but it turned out to be Germany and Britain.
Have the UN guarantee Ukraine's independence along with Russia, the US, and even China, and bingo. No, I don't think China would intervene militarily, but she could exert economic pressure on violations.
The problem is, it wouldn't surprise me if Ukraine wants EU membership. That would open up a lot of trade possibilities. At which point the NATO question changes. An attack on an EU Ukraine would drag the EU in which would bring us in.
Not necessarily on the last part. Article 5 doesn't necessarily have to be followed if the country in question starts an offensive campaign I thought. The Europeans could still intervene in Ukraine and as long as the Russians were smart enough to keep the conflict contained to Ukraine, I don't think we would have to be directly involved. We could still provide support and weapons but we aren't obligated to get involved if France rushes to the aid of a third country and takes losses in that third country.
Having that ambiguity isn't the best possible outcome for Ukraine but it does keep that issue from blowing up into a nuclear war while also serving as a bit of a deterrent for the Russians. They can't beat Ukraine at the moment, I don't think they could beat the Euros either.
I think the main concern I would have based on Russian performance in Ukraine is that 1)They are not a conventional threat anymore so 2)That means any response from NATO essentially becomes an existential threat which is more likely to lead to a nuclear exchange. They do have a bit of a point in how much NATO has expanded. Yes, every country is free to pick and choose who they want to do business with but I don't think we would be really cool with China picking up Mexico as an ally and then putting military assets there. The Russians aren't the good guys but I get it from their perspective. In some respects I think you kind of don't take their feelings into play, however, wr have to do our own risk analysis too. I don't know if this is worth the risk. Not if there is a middle path.
This is where I have heard some countries complaining about us being hypocritical. Yes, we want Ukraine to be a part of NATO "if they want", but we sure as heck don't want Cuba to have a Chinese listening station. We should acknowledge sometimes self-determination goes against us. I think that would make us seem more trustworthy.
Just for fun, here's an old chestnut, literally as that was its code name. China gave us a base in the 70s to spy on Russia:
Yeah, Cuba has been a thorn for 60 years.
I also think it is fair to ask just how many countries we are willing to entangle ourselves with. All of these alliances and mutual defense pacts blew a Serbian/Austro-Hungarian local conflict into a World War. Outside of "contain Russia" I don't see the point in letting Ukraine in NATO. And that "contain Russia" looks like way less of a lift than it did just 2 years ago.
Security guarantees (like the Belgian one you mentioned), economic investment, and bilateral military exchanges (think Taiwan) is how we should handle Ukraine.
I can see both sides. Russian wouldn't have this problem if they hadn't invaded a sovereign nation on their border.
On the other hand, we freak out about Chinese being 90 miles away in Cuba - a country that, as far as I know, has not presented a threat to the US.
I think you're right - the best path for Ukraine is to arm itself to the teeth, but declare neutrality between NATO and Russia. It's too bad they don't have the terrain of Switzerland, which is a big reason they're able to remain neutral.
Interesting about Belgium. I admit I didn't know that bit of history. I knew Belgium was kind of a conglomeration, but not the reason for its creation.
Let's be honest here - "Russia" doesn't feel threatened by Ukraine or even NATO. This is a Putin land grab, on the scale of Hitler annexing the Sudetenland. Both justifications are to protect ethnic Russians/Germans.
Russians know that NATO is no offensive threat to them. If they were a threat, they'd have struck when the Soviet Union fell. And they have the great equalizer - nukes.
This war is nothing but pure aggression and trying to 'understand' Russia only weakens resistance to them.
I think that is too big of an assumption. The Ukrainian land grab is true. That has been Russian foreign policy since Napolean. They look to put buffers between them and Western Europe and there is an imperialist bent to Putin. That being said, I don't know if we can necessarily assume that they don't see our actions as a threat. We definitely see China expanding influence into the Western Hemisphere as a threat to us (because it is). I don't think it is irrational of them to view us moving slowly closer to their borders as a threat either. I would view it that way.
But you're not invading countries and bombing civilians.
I think that's a big part of the US policy problem. We think everyone thinks like we do. They don't. Tyrant's only respect strength. NATO wasn't - never has been - an offensive organization. It's purely for defense. Russia/Putin know this and they react accordingly, snatching up whatever they can without confronting NATO head on.
I agree with you about NATO, but Russia is paranoid (as is Putin). It is a problem that we think other think as we do, and that is the problem here. Russia is thinking as a paranoid would. Now look at NATO and Ukraine.
That isn't to excuse Russia, Russia was wrong in attacking. Russia attacked and took Crimea and parts of Ukraine before and didn't mention NATO as the reason. I don't recall Russia playing the "NATO is out to get us" card when Georgia was invaded. Or when Chechnya was invaded. But their national character is paranoid.
Russia is as scared of our nukes as we are of theirs. Barring a direct attack on their territory, they're not going to go to nuclear war over Ukraine.
I am not but the U.S. has. I am going to try and go back and think just in my lifetime but off the top of my head Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia/Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria are all countries we put boots on the ground in conflict in my lifetime. That isn't counting countries like Libya, Iran, and Sudan that we attacked through bomb or missile attacks as well. From our perspective all of these were pretty justified at the time (some maybe less so in hindsight) but we believed we were reacting for the good.
We didn't get the world cop moniker by keeping our military at home.
NATO has been a defensive organization from our POV but that doesn't mean it is one from their POV. We both tend to try and operate around each other's red lines. I think the problem is that now we are pushing that alliance into an area they view as a red line for them. There is a big old open invasion route into Russia straight from Ukraine that would be problematic for them if the US decided to regime change in Moscow. And a problem we have is that some members of our defensive pact have been signaling that.
Regime change in Moscow 'definitely' the goal, Joly says, as Canada bans Russian steel, aluminum imports
Canada's politicians 'don't want to recognize ... that the current Russian policy is supported by the ultimate majority of the nation,' Russia's Ambassador countered
That is a threat. We would take that as a threat if China slapped sanctions on us, had a military alliance that ran up through Central America and was looking to add Mexico, and then had members of that alliance saying regime change in Washington was the goal. And oh yeah, the Chinese have been coming off about an 80 year period of being at war somewhere or another across the planet.
Don't get me wrong, we are able to do whatever the heck we want without Russian permission. However, I do believe that part of our assessment should revolve around "Does this make things better for us in any way?" I don't think adding Ukraine to NATO does that. It exacerbates a sore spot with a nuclear armed rival with next to no gain to be had that couldn't be had in other ways.
Yeah, they aren't the good guys. I don't think they are being entirely irrational of what having Finland, Ukraine, the Baltics, and Poland in NATO would mean for them if the West suddenly got the "regime change" flight of fancy.
I wasn't making the argument for Ukraine joining NATO. In fact, I agreed with you they should remain neutral.I am not but the U.S. has. I am going to try and go back and think just in my lifetime but off the top of my head Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia/Balkans, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria are all countries we put boots on the ground in conflict in my lifetime. That isn't counting countries like Libya, Iran, and Sudan that we attacked through bomb or missile attacks as well. From our perspective all of these were pretty justified at the time (some maybe less so in hindsight) but we believed we were reacting for the good.
We didn't get the world cop moniker by keeping our military at home.
NATO has been a defensive organization from our POV but that doesn't mean it is one from their POV. We both tend to try and operate around each other's red lines. I think the problem is that now we are pushing that alliance into an area they view as a red line for them. There is a big old open invasion route into Russia straight from Ukraine that would be problematic for them if the US decided to regime change in Moscow. And a problem we have is that some members of our defensive pact have been signaling that.
Regime change in Moscow 'definitely' the goal, Joly says, as Canada bans Russian steel, aluminum imports
Canada's politicians 'don't want to recognize ... that the current Russian policy is supported by the ultimate majority of the nation,' Russia's Ambassador counteredwww.google.com
That is a threat. We would take that as a threat if China slapped sanctions on us, had a military alliance that ran up through Central America and was looking to add Mexico, and then had members of that alliance saying regime change in Washington was the goal. And oh yeah, the Chinese have been coming off about an 80 year period of being at war somewhere or another across the planet.
Don't get me wrong, we are able to do whatever the heck we want without Russian permission. However, I do believe that part of our assessment should revolve around "Does this make things better for us in any way?" I don't think adding Ukraine to NATO does that. It exacerbates a sore spot with a nuclear armed rival with next to no gain to be had that couldn't be had in other ways.
Having boots on the ground and then leaving - or leaving a small contingent of troops - it nowhere near invading an adjacent country an annexing land. It's a false equivalency. We've shown we're the 'world's policeman' - not the "empire builder".
We do take China on our doorstep (Cuba) as a threat. But we won't invade and annex Jamaica because of it.
I am just playing a bit of devil's advocate and I am generally ok with how we have built our international coalitions, we tend to be in places at the invitation of those countries. I think that is because we are the "good guys". We are looking at the through our lens though, not theirs.
In the case of the Russians we came to Continental Europe in 1944 and have never left. We had bases as far east as Western Germany and now we have them in Poland. We have made a military alliance with their former partners running right up to their border. From the POV of the people whose country we are a guest in, we are a benevolent superpower. They get annoyed with us but we aren't an occupier, we're a guarantor. We are the white hats.
They don't view it that way. It doesn't matter to them whether we think it is a false equivalency or not.
I seriously still like the idea of publishing a roadmap for Russia's admittance into NATO. Make it clear we aren't anti-Russian, they are eligible so long as they meet the same incredibly low bar we let Turkey in with.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
As long as we don't have to go to war with the next country, they decide to invade.
is NATO and the west aware that Prigozhin and Wagner Group are in the portal?
perhaps we're not seeing the possibilities here.
it's not personal. just business.
perhaps we're not seeing the possibilities here.
it's not personal. just business.
… interesting ISW headlines tonight, posted later than usual.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-13-2023
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-13-2023
- Former Commander of the 58th Combined Arms Army (CAA) Major General Ivan Popov claimed in leaked audio that Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu dismissed him for expressing persistent grievances about problems on the western Zaporizhia Oblast frontline to senior commanders.
- Popov likely attempted to appeal to the Kremlin to partially or fully strip Gerasimov of command over operations in Ukraine.
- Gerasimov may have tried to shield Putin from unwanted criticism to uphold Putin’s ignorance by firing Popov before he could appeal directly to the Kremlin.
- Popov’s attempt to directly appeal to Putin for support and his insubordination of Gerasimov’s command is indicative of a pattern of corrosive behavior that has developed within the Russian command and the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.
- I particularly liked “corrosive behavior“
- Russian milbloggers expressed varied reactions to Popov’s dismissal, though none disagreed with Popov’s complaints about problems Russian forces experience on the front.
- Disruptions to the Russian command overseeing Russian defensive operations in southern Ukraine will likely have some immediate but marginal impacts on Russian forces.
- Popov’s dismissal over the issue of Russian casualties and reported complaints about lack of force rotations further supports ISW’s assessment that Russian defenses in Ukraine are likely brittle.
- Brittle … May yet portend a breakout … like around Kharkiv last year.
- The Kremlin reportedly ordered the detention and suspension of several senior military officers following the Wagner Group’s armed rebellion on June 24, supporting ISW’s prior assessment that the Kremlin likely intends to purge the MoD of figures viewed as disloyal.
- Unlikely there will be a loyalty pledge … how many examples will be made in the purge.
LOL Excellent point!
However, I think I read just today that the all-for-one pact doesn't apply if a NATO country attacks another country.
Defense only, and also only on mainland Europe and North America, plus islands north of the Tropic of Cancer. Ironically, if Pearl Harbor happened today, the US could not invoke Article 5.
Both China and the Russian Federation are permanent members of the UN Security Council. One or both would surely veto any resolution to guarantee Ukraine's independence, no matter whether mixed into other issues.
I don't know if the Chinese would....
It would have to be part of a comprehensive agreement that would likely mean that Georgia and Ukraine would never be NATO members and that NATO membership was probably locked in.
I don't even know how to express just how absurd this whole thing is.
www.theguardian.com
Putin says he tried but failed to oust Prigozhin after Wagner mutiny
President tells newspaper he met mercenary chief to negotiate terms for fighters’ continued participation in Ukraine war
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Whoever made The Death of Stalin needs to make the sequel. Use the same actors.I don't even know how to express just how absurd this whole thing is.
Putin says he tried but failed to oust Prigozhin after Wagner mutiny
President tells newspaper he met mercenary chief to negotiate terms for fighters’ continued participation in Ukraine war
Warmongers. Why can’t Ukraine just surrender and stop all this warmongering?
Probably good news for American farmers, the price of wheat will have to go up.
Bad news for China. I suspect Chinese pressure is the only reason Russia has allowed it this long. I would like to blame Russia as evil, but it is pretty SoP to stop trade in a war.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Surprised by the national media hate rhetoric regarding Indiana's CFP status.- Latest: Baller23Boogie
-
-
-
