History in the Making: Russian Invasion

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to aircooled :

 the dialog and plot lines are being vetted/simplified to cater to non US culture.  

Are you suggesting that "foreigners" are less capable than Americans at understanding complicated plots?

More likely, it's because Americans (and non-Americans) seem to have shorter attention spans these days thanks to nonstop personal media, and need basic plots and explosions to hold their interest. 

No, just that some dialogue does not translate well from the English language in general, and American culture in particular.  Scriptwriting for expected blockbuster movies gets simplified/generalized to make translation easier.

So.... at bit of a "sitzkreig" going on now, as we wait for the next move by the Russians.  They appear to be keeping up their regular shelling and rocketing, but only minor attacks from what I can see.

- New Russian general Aleksandr Dvornikov who is effectively responsible for the Syrian refuges situation a few years ago by bombing the crap out of them until they left (Suni's I believe).

- There are large troop / equipment movements into the Donbas region.  These are obviously the less than effective troops that tried to attack Kyiv.

- Russia is apparently recalling personnel perviously enlisted in the last 10 years.  They are also enlisting within the LNR an DNR.  This is unlikely to improve the combat quality of the troops involved and doesn't speak well to the state of the Russian army.

-  US made (made a few miles from me actually) Switchblade "suicide" drones are heading to Ukraine.  They appear to be capable of taking out armored vehicles, so more sources of death for the Russian vehicle crews.

- Sounds like the Ukrainians will be getting some anti-shipping missiles.  That should make it a bit more exciting for the Russian navy.

So, the question is:  What will they do now? How effective, especially based on previous performance, and what more could they possibly bring?  I really don't see anything new being presented.  Normally I would expect a heavy artillery barrage followed by a massive armored thrust, but of course they have been shelling for a while and I am not sure the armored assault is what it used to be.  I am honestly wondering if they will switch to some bizarre infantry heavy wave attack (ala WWII).  Conscripts first of course.

Based on the general, I could see a general tactic of leveling cities, driving everyone out.  Once they capture the rubble, move in the new Russian residents, problem solved.

Returning to the original concept of "how can any of this be a surprise", they will almost certainly be almost now surprise to any of this. The US will certainly be able to tell the Ukrainians exactly where all the troops and tanks are and the Ukrainians can prepare appropriately.  The Ukrainians can now of course re-deploy a lot of the, now battle hardened, troops they had defending Kyiv (of which there appeared to be a lot of foreign fighters), and of course have a crap load of anti-tank equipment and more robust air defense.

Changes in terrain from the forested northern areas to the open, flat terrain of the east will require new tactics. Ambushes of armoured columns that were confined to the roads worked well previously, but the Ukrainians will need to adapt. Fortunately, they have been very innovative, in stark contrast to the Russians.

I expect the new commander to utilize some of of the same strategy of focusing on civilians as when he was the commander in Syria. Remember barrel bombs and chlorine gas attacks? He may use different tactics, as helicopters hovering over the towns and cities will get shot down quickly, but it's going to get even uglier, I fear.

So shifting back to Donbas, will it become harder for the west to  continue to resupply the Ukrainian soldiers? With May 9 coming, will there be use of WMD on or just prior to Victory Day? How does the fact that Zelensky has stated he is "no longer interested in their (NATO) diplomacy" affect the relationship with the western powers that are NATO members and Ukraines allies?

I think the visit by Boris (brilliant) and the result of the meeting with Austria (nice) were good moves which are going to strengthen Ukraine. Since Russia is "pausing" to regroup, we have tons of time ("we" as the rest of the world) to respond like this, and now we can move stuff over land from NATO countries pretty easily.

Any idea from Le Pen about how she would have handled this differently? That might matter. As much as I am not a Macron fan generally, there's something to be said for a steady hand on the tiller, especially as he's also the president of the EU. I assume that title would transfer to her if she won.

We need to reassess our inaction regarding fighters for Poland. Selling our planes back to Poland only helps us, from a historical economic position (especially with the unanimous passing of lend-lease), and also cannot hurt Ukraine from a wartime perspective to have some Polish firepower.

Just saw something about China moving some equipment (anti-aircraft missiles?) to Serbia.  China claims they are "regular military supplies"...which doesn't make me feel any better about it.  

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

So shifting back to Donbas, will it become harder for the west to  continue to resupply the Ukrainian soldiers? With May 9 coming, will there be use of WMD on or just prior to Victory Day? How does the fact that Zelensky has stated he is "no longer interested in their (NATO) diplomacy" affect the relationship with the western powers that are NATO members and Ukraines allies?

If NATO cannot put boots on the ground because it becomes a NATO vs Russia war, who do we turn to that will fight for Ukraine?  Finland?  They would love to get some territory back and right some past wrongs.  I think it is unlikely for that to happen.   Sweden?  I really don't think Sweden would get involved unless things drastically changed, I.E. the war moved out of Ukraine.  Saudi peninsula and Iran.   I will be polite and just say "nope" for all of them.  No need to bring up issues in that region.  India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Neutral, neutral and no.  (Hey Afghanistan, could you please box up all that equipment we left behind and ship it to Ukraine?  That would be great.)

That kinda leaves Australia which may be sending aid but not people, Central America and South America.

I am leaving lots of countries out of this list, I just don't think I need to name them all.

I think this is going to be NATO's "Special Operation*" and what comes from that, I don't know...

*Just being a smart ass because of Russia's name for it.

I want to address a few statements in recent posts that could lead to misconceptions or misunderstandings.

- Ukraine has no allies. Allies are treaty-bound to perform tasks and take decisions in accordance with the treaty. Ukraine has supporters, but the nature of that support is purely voluntary. As for Zelensky's dismissal of NATO diplomacy, I think that's more about realizing he can get a better deal if he keeps fighting, rather than trying to end hostilities as soon as possible, as the West would prefer.

- Any NATO country could individually choose to put troops into Ukraine. Because NATO is a defensive alliance, other parties to the treaty would be under no obligation to support them in deployment outside of NATO boundaries. This is why attacks on, say American troops in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan did not trigger Article 5. The issue, of course, is that Russia could choose to respond against the country itself, at which point Article 5 would trigger. This is why NATO has been reluctant to have any ground presence in-country. No external state, NATO or not, is going to send troops there except as part of a settlement to monitor the peace (or a general war, at which point we're having a different discussion).

- The presidency of the EU is a rotating chair, switching every six months, and thus is not held by any particular person. It is also not good for much beyond steering the agenda and feeling self-important (especially for smaller countries). It would have no material bearing on EU policy regarding Ukraine if Le Pen took over from Macron, except inasmuch as France could change its position and roadblock EU policy, but Orban's Hungary already has that job.

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

Changes in terrain from the forested northern areas to the open, flat terrain of the east will require new tactics. Ambushes of armoured columns that were confined to the roads worked well previously, but the Ukrainians will need to adapt. Fortunately, they have been very innovative, in stark contrast to the Russians.....

I do wonder how much this will help the Russians.  In general tanks are much better in the open, heck, the largest (?) tank battle in history happened just north of this region (in Russia) near Kursk.  But, of note, a Javelin has a range of over a mile (NLAW and Panzerfaust 3 a bit shorter) and open field allows you to spot a tank a long way off and using a shot and scoot tactic (which is always a good idea) makes counter fire very difficult.  The biggest issue with open fields will be air power which won't be a problem for the Russians of course, and I would not expect any Ukrainian vehicles in the open.  It also could be quite a shooting booth for Ukrainian anti-air if the Russians try for close air support.

I think the big determiner here, as it has been, will be the will and determination on either side.  At this point the Ukrainians likely have more experianced troops (and possibly more troops in general), and certainly way more motivated.  I think the biggest disadvantage the Ukrainians have is limited counter-attack ability.  With Russian air superiority and large amounts of armor that will be difficult (and likely the reason why Zelenksy really wants tanks and fighters).

What does this mean for ending all this?  I am not sure it's looking good for any type of "win" for Putin, so....  it could grind on for a while...

02Pilot said:

I want to address a few statements in recent posts that could lead to misconceptions or misunderstandings.

 

- The presidency of the EU is a rotating chair, switching every six months, and thus is not held by any particular person. It is also not good for much beyond steering the agenda and feeling self-important (especially for smaller countries). It would have no material bearing on EU policy regarding Ukraine if Le Pen took over from Macron, except inasmuch as France could change its position and roadblock EU policy, but Orban's Hungary already has that job.

Six months is short! I guess the question becomes, would Le Pen be an obstacle to EU friendliness to Ukraine? I would love it to be obvious that the war would be over before France figures out who they elected though.

In reply to tuna55 :

I doubt Le Pen would be a major impediment. France hasn't been a major supplier of weapons to Ukraine (I can't find much on the subject), which is consistent with Macron's approach focusing initially on Putin rather than Zelensky. Le Pen has been a vocal supporter of Putin in the past, but she is also a pretty malleable politician whose views tend to shift with popular sentiment; a strong pro-Russian stance now would be political suicide. Given her campaign thus far, I suspect she will focus more on domestic concerns, primarily the economy, energy independence, and immigration. She might make noises about NATO and the EU being too involved, but since most of the aid going to Ukraine is at the national level, there's not much she could do about it. In the longer term, EU accession requires unanimous ratification, so any country could present an obstacle to Ukraine joining, but that's a long way off yet.

For the record, here's the list of upcoming EU presidency holders.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Thanks! That's helpful. Personally, sim to US politics, I don't like either French candidate very much at all. Since I'm not French, I doubt they care what I think. I do think Macron has done well through this crisis as the President of France and as the Preside of the EU, so I want that to continue.

One more question, not just for PIlot, but you can answer for sure.

I knew NATO was defensive. I also knew a NATO country can act without dragging the alliance along with it kicking and screaming. I do not understand two things:

Can NATO evict a member if that member is acting aggressively with the implicit backing of their defensive alliance if things go badly and they get counterattacked or counter invaded, or just generally for bad behavior?

In the past a coalition force from the UN has acted in a warlike fashion (I'm thinking of resolution 678 but there were others), despite not having an alliance as such, and some abstaining and some dissenting votes. What is preventing UN countries from acting that way now, without invoking a NATO war? Could this be done in such a way that would avoid WWIII?

The second question is easy: what's preventing the UN from acting is Russia's seat on the Security Council.

The first is trickier. There's no explicit mechanism for removing a member state. The most relevant sections are here:

Article 12

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

I'm sure something could be done in an emergency, but it would be messy.

02Pilot said:

The second question is easy: what's preventing the UN from acting is Russia's seat on the Security Council.

The first is trickier. There's no explicit mechanism for removing a member state. The most relevant sections are here:

Article 12

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13

After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation.

I'm sure something could be done in an emergency, but it would be messy.

Hang on, I wasn't mixing my acronyms. If, say, Poland decided to attack Russia directly on Ukrainian soil, or even beyond, could (not would) NATO (not the UN) tell them to cut it out, or else be removed from the defensive alliance?

Regarding the UN coalitian, there were dissenters on resolution 678 as well, why is Russia's obvious dissenting vote of any particular importance?

In reply to tuna55 :

The five permanent Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) have veto power, whereas the rotating members do not. They can vote against, but cannot veto. It appears the votes of dissent regarding Resolution 678 were Cuba and Yemen, with China abstaining. 

Furious_E (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to tuna55 :

The five permanent Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) have veto power, whereas the rotating members do not. They can vote against, but cannot veto. It appears the votes of dissent regarding Resolution 678 were Cuba and Yemen, with China abstaining. 

I see, thanks. So the UN is down to "is Russia really a member since they assumed the role of the Soviet Union" to do anything. Although, as a bit of an instigator, if the UN passed a resolution against Russia and forced Russia to veto it, and did this every single day until the war was over, that would be a lovely statement.

In reply to tuna55 :

Eh, even supposing you could pull some procedural trickery regarding Russia's assumption of the USSR's seat, there is still China's veto power to contend with. 

U.S. has delivered a "significant amount" of the first 100 Switchblade drones to Ukrainian troops and the kamikaze drones are being used in the field: senior U.S. defense official. U.S. is working hard to expedite the supplies of more of the drones that detonate over targets

Furious_E (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to tuna55 :

Eh, even supposing you could pull some procedural trickery regarding Russia's assumption of the USSR's seat, there is still China's veto power to contend with. 

Would they abstain again?

In reply to tuna55 :

Geopolitical science is about number 1,000,000,000,000 on the things I want to learn but haven't yet but the way I read it as a layman I only see China profiting the longer this goes on. Russia will need cash. China will pay less and less for what they want to keep Russia afloat, yet be lauded as Russias savior. When it all is said and done China will be Gozer, Russia will be Zuul and North Korea will obviuosly be Vinz Clortho.

It's a truly horrible thought actually. 

tuna55 said:

If, say, Poland decided to attack Russia directly on Ukrainian soil, or even beyond, could (not would) NATO (not the UN) tell them to cut it out, or else be removed from the defensive alliance?

The sections I quoted were from the North Atlantic Treaty, not the UN Charter, so they are the relevant language. There's no explicit mechanism for removing a member from NATO unless that member chooses to leave.

An alliance like that isn't really like a law of physics or anything, though.  A member of the alliance could refuse to honor their treaty commitments.  I will grant you that would be extremely serious and have some nasty repercussions.  And I doubt it would happen.  But just because a country signed a treaty, there's no way to force their troops to land somewhere.

It's a little bit like how there is so much care being taken to remain "neutral"ish in this.  We can point to all the treaties and conventions in the world and jump up and down and say that we have not directly threatened Russia or technically entered the war.  But Putin could still decide that we did and attack us anyway.

02Pilot said:

tuna55 said:

If, say, Poland decided to attack Russia directly on Ukrainian soil, or even beyond, could (not would) NATO (not the UN) tell them to cut it out, or else be removed from the defensive alliance?

The sections I quoted were from the North Atlantic Treaty, not the UN Charter, so they are the relevant language. There's no explicit mechanism for removing a member from NATO unless that member chooses to leave.

Got it. Thanks.

Putin says peace talks with Ukraine are at dead end, goads the West

Russia will "rhythmically and calmly" continue its operation but the most important strategic conclusion was that the unipolar international order which the United States had built after the Cold War was breaking up, Putin said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-flies-into-russian-far-east-ukraine-talks-with-belarusian-leader-2022-04-12/