Will Russia invade Ukraine and what happens if it escalates with NATO/US getting involved

[Si1]

11 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

You think someone who worked in NATO would understand that the reason Ukraine has to kick Russia out completly is that NATO membership is not possible if a country has a territorial disput, I.e if its occupied. 

So if there's a treaty marking the end of the war it's not disputed then.

11 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Additionaly Ukrainians know that Russia has to be defeated or they will re-Equip and attack again. NATO have made this clear as has Russian propagandists.

Yeah. But Russia can still be defeated and shamed by losing stuff like Crimea and generally looking a shower on the battlefield.

11 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

This war isn't a clean game with toy soldiers playing by rules, this is an existential fight for survival. Ukrainians, Baltics,  the Nordics an Eastern Europe all know this. Parts of the US too.

 They will not give up no matter what, there is no option.

 

I totally disagree. Well it is existential against fascism I agree with that. But of course they can accept the loss of some land on a purely pragmatic basis. Finland did that in the winter war and they're still there.

[Staffsknot]

7 hours ago, Grayphil said:

If you admit, that Russia should never have invaded in the first place, withdraw fully.

Pay reperations and face all charges of war crimes, then many will agree

I ignore Larry as he's simplistic and really really full of whatabouttery.

Have the Russians offered a ceasefire or are they still dropping missiles on Ukraine trying to freeze the civilian population?

Right now the Ukrainians are calculating when they think a ceasefire and talks is in their interests. Not when Larry says - the bit he misses as usual.

A ceasefire now probably leads to another flare up every 2 or 3 years and the Russians fortifying along the Dnipro - increasing the casualty rate should talks break down and putting Kherson in firing line.

Simplistic views are often expressed by people who are blind to detail...

[Staffsknot]

8 hours ago, Grayphil said:

An honest assessment of the situation, I'll be honest, that yes sat here I would love Ukraine to keep pressing and pressing, but it's not me doing the fighting.

In my own (complete military layman view) I believe that logistically Crimea will be a more strategic and winnable goal short-term.

I also believe that Ukraine will not pause until it has Mariupol and a bit more.

Mariupol will be symbolic IMO 

Right now the Ukrainian leadership view the cost vs gain ratio to be in pushing on.

Just simply stopping at the Dnipro gives Russia the means to flare up every 2 or 3 years to destabilise things / prevent rebuilding nearby.

Many of the forces pulled out of Kherson were sent to Donetsk to shore up there. It means across the river has less defensive strength than previous and they are banking on the Ukrainians halting for Winter.

[Staffsknot]

8 hours ago, Si1 said:

Added complication of what happens if Russian regime collapses. Crimea is such a juicy trophy that it's been suggested that a strategic result of Ukr possibly taking Crimea would be bringing PooFace down. Which many Ukrainians might consider a positive in its own right

There's an 'and then what?' To that - there's no guarantee what follows won't be another muppet desperate to look strong.

Crimea has also had many years of fortifying its prev border and military infrastructure for decades of use. Its not a given or an easy ask.

[Staffsknot]

33 minutes ago, Si1 said:

So if there's a treaty marking the end of the war it's not disputed then.

Yeah. But Russia can still be defeated and shamed by losing stuff like Crimea and generally looking a shower on the battlefield.

I totally disagree. Well it is existential against fascism I agree with that. But of course they can accept the loss of some land on a purely pragmatic basis. Finland did that in the winter war and they're still there.

Peter has gone back to the simplistic views again - reason I ignore him basically.

The 'you don't know its total war' ****** he tried to excuse potential war crimes with.

Peter sitting in his armchair talking of how its not toy soldiers, while imagining toy soldiers carrying on. Stupid simplistic guff.

NATO membership is not going to be immediate even if they go all the way to the previous borders and a peace deal accepting any borders set is the end of the matter. Or do you think Kaliningrad precludes membership by Poland? After all it was imposed on Germany and Poland remember.

 

[Si1]

25 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

 

Crimea has also had many years of fortifying its prev border and military infrastructure for decades of use. Its not a given or an easy ask.

And the kerch bridge supply route was part of that strategy surely. Although I'm digressing from the broader point....

[Si1]

42 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

There's an 'and then what?' To that - there's no guarantee what follows won't be another muppet desperate to look strong.

 

During any messy transition from one Russian government to the next doesn't that imply that the Russian forces in Ukraine may be lacking a bit of direction leadership command etc they may be more chaotic than even now

 

I mean a very reasonable possible strategy for Ukraine to adopt alongside other means is to mess with the Russian government

Edited November 22, 2022 by Si1

[Staffsknot]

16 minutes ago, Si1 said:

And the kerch bridge supply route was part of that strategy surely. Although I'm digressing from the broader point....

Part but not entire thing. Its a vast naval port with airbases so essentially the road bridgevwas the cheap supply route but not only one.

 

[Staffsknot]

3 minutes ago, Si1 said:

During any messy transition from one Russian government to the next doesn't that imply that the Russian forces in Ukraine may be lacking a bit of direction leadership command etc they may be more chaotic than even now

The military command would remain most likely and direct things to what they can hold or think can hold.

There'd probably be more pragmatism than now.

[Si1]

8 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Part but not entire thing. Its a vast naval port with airbases so essentially the road bridgevwas the cheap supply route but not only one.

 

But transport cost and efficiency still matters when you have to get huge amounts of supplies over in order to satisfy the military needs as well as the 3 million population that I believe that Crimea has

Edited November 22, 2022 by Si1

[Quiet Guy]

7 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

For the Russians it served two purposes, remove the possibility of them being sued and penalised for failure to deliver contracted gas supplies and to show Europe how vulnerable their pipeline delivered gas supplies are. 

The idea it was done by someone else to stop the Germans backsliding is possible but unlikely as Germany has woken up to the fact that their "cheap" gas supply was weaponised by Russia. I now spend a fair bit of time working in Berlin and have seen absolutely no signs of the Germans wanting to go back to relying on Russia.  

After investing approximately 10 years of construction effort and $20bn, the Russians decide to blow it up and gift the USA exactly the strategic objectives they theatened / demanded as soon as the Nord Stream project started.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/who-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines

I do not find you theory plausible.

[Staffsknot]

17 minutes ago, Si1 said:

But transport cost and efficiency still matters when you have to get huge amounts of supplies over in order to satisfy the military needs as well as the 3 million population that I believe that Crimea has

Ok in simple terms you don't just have to attack Crimea to take Crimea. You have to do a lot of ground work.

First its a peninsula so you can't go in except route 1. Russia can position naval assets anywhere around that peninsula and provide fire support that becomes hard for Ukraine to target ( Moskva was being used too close to shore).

Next you are attacking a cul-de-sac. You need to clear beyond the entrance to the East or risk being let in and then attacked in flank / cut-off. While you are doing that the cul-de-sac can also hit your flamk so you need a force to bottle them up.

Next you need to advance south on a predictable axis within quick turnaround of enemy air support and hope tphat the Russians don't grt their shit together and land an amphibious force in your rear as you go.

Its a minefield of options as you cannot secure pretty much large portions of your rear area without substantial investment by UAF. That then kills off other theatres for a bit.

[Si1]

9 minutes ago, Quiet Guy said:

After investing approximately 10 years of construction effort and $20bn, the Russians decide to blow it up and gift the USA exactly the strategic objectives they theatened / demanded as soon as the Nord Stream project started.

yes, because it was still cheaper than losing the war (which they will do anyway but that's beside the point)

 

you're falling for the sunk cost fallacy

 

 

9 minutes ago, Quiet Guy said:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/who-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines

I do not find you theory plausible.

 

[Goat]

13 minutes ago, Quiet Guy said:

After investing approximately 10 years of construction effort and $20bn, the Russians decide to blow it up and gift the USA exactly the strategic objectives they theatened / demanded as soon as the Nord Stream project started.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/who-blew-up-the-nord-stream-pipelines

I do not find you theory plausible.

It's not the whole pipe, it's a bit of it and could presumably be repaired relatively quickly if they so desired.

Since it wasn't in use anyway, the cost is likely marginal to them.

[Si1]

26 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

Ok in simple terms you don't just have to attack Crimea to take Crimea. You have to do a lot of ground work.

First its a peninsula so you can't go in except route 1. Russia can position naval assets anywhere around that peninsula and provide fire support that becomes hard for Ukraine to target ( Moskva was being used too close to shore).

Next you are attacking a cul-de-sac. You need to clear beyond the entrance to the East or risk being let in and then attacked in flank / cut-off. While you are doing that the cul-de-sac can also hit your flamk so you need a force to bottle them up.

Next you need to advance south on a predictable axis within quick turnaround of enemy air support and hope tphat the Russians don't grt their shit together and land an amphibious force in your rear as you go.

Its a minefield of options as you cannot secure pretty much large portions of your rear area without substantial investment by UAF. That then kills off other theatres for a bit.

what do you make of Zeihan's Crimea-siege thesis (which seems to be bought into by UAF too since they say they'll have Crimea back for Christmas)?

 

 

[Staffsknot]

4 minutes ago, Si1 said:

what do you make of Zeihan's Crimea-siege thesis (which seems to be bought into by UAF too since they say they'll have Crimea back for Christmas)?

 

 

I don't watch or listen to internet commentators am afraid. Sieges though go on much longer than 6 weeks for something the scale of Crimea.

The 'everything done by Christmas' is the optimism of every war.

[Si1]

12 minutes ago, Staffsknot said:

I don't watch or listen to internet commentators am afraid. Sieges though go on much longer than 6 weeks for something the scale of Crimea.

The 'everything done by Christmas' is the optimism of every war.

☺️

[pig]

12 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

Right before this descends into Churchillian-esq speeches of Ukraine can't stop now... its up to them.

Everything has a cost. Its very easy to say ah the Ukrainians can drive the Russians out of every inch, well that has a cost in lives, time and resources.

If taking 80% of the territory left costs you another 10k dead & wounded, how about 85% costing you 15-20k dead or wounded. 100% sets you back 30-40 k and wounded those statements seem a little hollow to the folks at the sharp end & their loved ones.

Myopic cheerleading from the sidelines adds pressure they don't need. Right now Ukraines leaders are doing some cold calculations and they carry the can for them. Its their choice not somebody sat shouting from the sidelines thinking their heating bill gives them a say.

A lot of people are going to die and get torn up before this is all done. If they stop earlier than you want to prevent that don't dare cheapen that sacrifice by declaring they gave in.

 

Casualties have been pretty shocking -  upwards of 100K each not including civilians.

But then the calculation won’t be just about now it will be at least over the next 20-30 years, protecting the viability of Ukraine.

If this is to be the ‘last’ war then what is a militarily sustainable front ? And what needs to be done now to minimise the risk of any future attacks ? 

[Lucky Larry]

2 hours ago, Staffsknot said:

I ignore Larry as he's simplistic and really really full of whatabouttery.

Have the Russians offered a ceasefire or are they still dropping missiles on Ukraine trying to freeze the civilian population?

Right now the Ukrainians are calculating when they think a ceasefire and talks is in their interests. Not when Larry says - the bit he misses as usual.

A ceasefire now probably leads to another flare up every 2 or 3 years and the Russians fortifying along the Dnipro - increasing the casualty rate should talks break down and putting Kherson in firing line.

Simplistic views are often expressed by people who are blind to detail...

For someone who ignores me you've been constantly mentioning me lately , rent free M8

[14stFlyer]

1 hour ago, Quiet Guy said:

After investing approximately 10 years of construction effort and $20bn, the Russians decide to blow it up

Over half of the costs were paid for by western companies including Wintershall, Uniper, Royal Dutch Shell, French ENGIE, OMV. Plus project funding.  This was not dominantly Russian funded.  

[yelims]

9 hours ago, rollover said:

Europe rushes to fill up on Russian diesel before ban begins

European traders are rushing to fill tanks in the region with Russian diesel before an EU ban begins in February, as alternative sources remain limited.

The European Union will ban Russian oil product imports, on which it relies heavily for its diesel, by Feb. 5. That will follow a ban on Russian crude taking effect in December.

Russian diesel loadings destined for the Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Antwerp (ARA) storage region rose to 215,000 bpd from Nov. 1 to Nov. 12, up by 126% from October.

With few immediate cost-effective alternatives, diesel from Russia has made up 44% of Europe's total imports of the road fuel so far in November, compared with 39% in October, Refinitiv data shows.

Although Europe's reliance on the Russian fuel has fallen from more than 50% before Moscow's February invasion of Ukraine, Russia is still the continent's largest diesel supplier.

Yahoo

Don’t worry comrade it’s going to be a long cold winter for you while you hide out from commisars who wander the streets halls outside your flat capturing men to be send to die for dear leader and his bunch of criminals 

how much did you have to spend so far to dodge the draft? Or did you escape like one of the millions of Russian rats who took 10% worth of gdp with them?

[Peter Hun]

3 hours ago, Si1 said:

So if there's a treaty marking the end of the war it's not disputed then.

Yeah. But Russia can still be defeated and shamed by losing stuff like Crimea and generally looking a shower on the battlefield.

I totally disagree. Well it is existential against fascism I agree with that. But of course they can accept the loss of some land on a purely pragmatic basis. Finland did that in the winter war and they're still there.

You know Finland also had to bend a knee to Russia and become a quasi colony.

First, on what basis should Ukraine give up its territory? Nobody voted for it, every region voted for independence from Russia.

It would also legitimise Russia stealing territory.

All this is moot, there is no discussion of this from Ukraine. Its partners will support it, whether that includes some Western European countries will be seen.

Removal of their support will prolong the was and Western European pain

[Staffsknot]

40 minutes ago, pig said:

Casualties have been pretty shocking -  upwards of 100K each not including civilians.

But then the calculation won’t be just about now it will be at least over the next 20-30 years, protecting the viability of Ukraine.

If this is to be the ‘last’ war then what is a militarily sustainable front ? And what needs to be done now to minimise the risk of any future attacks ? 

Yep but there's a reality of now too.

Also a sustainable frontier is more sustainable with live, experienced troops than dead ones. That cuts both ways.

[Glental]

Russia is still technically at war with Japan

[Si1]

33 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

You know Finland also had to bend a knee to Russia and become a quasi colony.

Genuinely, when/how/link?

33 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

First, on what basis should Ukraine give up its territory? Nobody voted for it, every region voted for independence from Russia.

Yeah. But bombs are louder, sadly.

33 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

It would also legitimise Russia stealing territory.

Not if Russia pay a humungous price in other ways.

33 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

All this is moot, there is no discussion of this from Ukraine.

Well there can't be as they have to maintain morale.

33 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Its partners will support it, whether that includes some Western European countries will be seen.

Removal of their support will prolong the was and Western European pain

Support should not be removed. My guess is Ukraine are being far mor flexible in private internal strategic discussions than in their rhetoric.