History in the Making: Russian Invasion

To say Russia has contributed nothing positive to the world is pretty short sighted.  They have been pretty notable in various scientific areas.  They are the originators of modern psychology, have made many advancements in space and rocketry and a number of other things.  Here is a quick list. Of note, at least two of the significant inventions, helicopters, and TV where invented after the inventors fled the hell that was the Russia communist revolution (to the US).  Also of note is this is certainly a pro Russian site and my be "skewing" the fact slightly...

• Electrically-powered railway wagons
• Videotape recorder
• Radio
• Helicopter
• Solar cell
• Transformers
• Yoghurt
• Television
• Petrol cracking
• Synthetic rubber
• Grain harvester

https://www.rbth.com/articles/2012/03/16/russias_12_top_inventions_that_changed_the_world_15089.html

The report on the Ukrainian strike on the conscript building on RT is interesting.   Especially the comments.  This is the english version of the site of course, but it does get some loyalists, and their comments are pretty telling.  Here is a sample:

(It's also super active, so comments are added constantly)

The gobalist nazi cabal want to take all the countrie on earth. They want to impose their tyrannical Agenda2030/Great Reset all over the planet. This war is about globalism. Not about the little Ukraine.

The best solution. Nuke Washington DC. Satan must die

This kind of attack was fully expected, anticipated and planned for in the SMO, which has gone entirely according to plan so far. President Putin knew how the Ukrainians and the West would respond and like the master tactician and chess player he is, has been waiting for them, always 3 moves ahead. President Putin's genius is the reason why the SMO has been such a stunning success and will continue to be so. Russia is WINNING!!!

Naturally this was the story that took the most attention today but perhaps of bigger long-term import is what actually happened on the battlefield. And that was a significant Russian regrouping near Bakhmut following yesterday's slight withdrawal, which suggests a renewed assault on the beseiged Ukrainians there and one that is likely to be potentially successful. That is the REAL story - of stunning Russian successes on the battlefield. Russia is WINNING!!!!

... yes, keep throwing troops at Bakhmut, that will work... then you will finally have that insignificant town, which is entirely destroyed.  The same guy posted the WINNING comments.  It's kind of hard to tell if he is a troll or not.... so hard to tell with Russian propaganda.

https://www.rt.com/russia/569298-makeevka-strike-ukraine-casualties/

In reply to aircooled :

Your comment touches on what I was going to reply to Opti with- If Russia's not stopped now, Ukraine will just be another nation added to the list including Georgia. You think they're kidding when they say they wanna nuke the USA, or when they openly threaten Poland?

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

And how do you "stop" Russia?

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I agree, I'm afraid that in the long term the most costly thing would be to let Russia succeed at a cost that they deem acceptable. Obviously, Russia is taking a beating, but I'm not confident that anyone with any decision making capability cares about the losses. I think that I recall reading somewhere that Putin was willing to lose 300,000 troops in this fight. 

In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :

The problem is, whats considered "acceptable" just grows with losses. You think Putin will just stop once hes lost 300K soldiers? No the goal post just gets moved.

I agree that no one making decisions cares about losses. That is why its bad for this to drag on and on. Support will wane, and Ukraine will be in a much worse position for it.

Best case scenario, which i think is unlikely, even if they manage to gain back everything under Russian control, does that actually stop Russia from continuously bombarding them and trying to take it again? No. People just keep dying. Russia gets desperate and who knows. 

This is the problem with two countries that will stop at nothing and make no concessions.

Opti said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

And how do you "stop" Russia?

You keep putting down everyone else's ideas, what are yours?

yea, we did a bad job at the middle east, and we spent way too much money with nothing.  But YOU were the one suggesting that we can compare it to that situation, and we are literally nowhere near what we spend there.  

And if you are not seeing the coverage of corruption in Ukraine, well, that's up to you.  It's out there, and you can find it if you want.  And I don't see people suggesting that we just blindly send money to Ukraine.  I'm also not sure why you assume that there won't be oversight with the supplies and money being set over.  

So, to avoid the dreaded corruption and get russia out of Ukraine, what do you propose???  

I still stand on 1) corruption isn't a reason to invade a neighbor (unless you want us to invade Mexico...) and 2) corruption should not be THE reason to help stop that neighbor from invading.

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I agree, I'm afraid that in the long term the most costly thing would be to let Russia succeed at a cost that they deem acceptable. Obviously, Russia is taking a beating, but I'm not confident that anyone with any decision making capability cares about the losses. I think that I recall reading somewhere that Putin was willing to lose 300,000 troops in this fight. 

Last time it got too far, it lead to a revolution.  People got tired of just dying for no apparent reason in WWI, and took it into their own hands.  Could happen again.  It just takes enough soldiers and military leaders to end it.

Opti said:

In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :

The problem is, whats considered "acceptable" just grows with losses. You think Putin will just stop once hes lost 300K soldiers? No the goal post just gets moved.

I agree that no one making decisions cares about losses. That is why its bad for this to drag on and on. Support will wane, and Ukraine will be in a much worse position for it.

Best case scenario, which i think is unlikely, even if they manage to gain back everything under Russian control, does that actually stop Russia from continuously bombarding them and trying to take it again? No. People just keep dying. Russia gets desperate and who knows. 

This is the problem with two countries that will stop at nothing and make no concessions.

 

 

Even if Ukraine just gives up, we already know that won't end the dying.  So how different is if if it happens via drones and shelling vs. just slaughtering the people who live there?

Actually, seeing Ukraine being able to deal with the cruise missiles and drones, there are far, far fewer losses than when russia eliminated villages that they took control over.  So based on what has played out over the last 10 months- russia shelling and sending drones over is a far, far, far better solution than letting them do what they want in Ukraine.

In reply to Opti :

The only way they are likely to get back everything in Russian control is a complete collapse of the Russian military.  The only likely way that happens is if there is a breakdown in the government's control of the military or their citizens.  So it's not a matter of what Putin decides is acceptable, someone else will decide for him.  At some point, he may need the entirety of the military in his own country in order to fight off coup attempts and popular uprisings.  Projecting power would be difficult then.  He could also just die, naturally, or fall out a window while sipping polonium tea.

So, the question is does Ukraine hold out long enough for that to happen?   Since Ukraine had been improving their lot without invading other countries, I'm inclined to support them, even if they are not a perfect ally.  Comparing them to Afghanistan is also somewhat disingenuous, seeing as they were a functional country with a central government when they were invaded in 2014 and again in 2022.  Afghanistan was a tribal mess in the midst of an ongoing civil war.  Unless everyone just washes their hands of it, Ukraine will be a functional country again when the war is over, after some rebuilding.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/defiant-ukrainians-cheer-new-year-drones-blasted-skies-2023-01-01/

Russia is admitting 63 were killed.  Reports are out from other sources that there were ~600 quartered in that building.  Anyone have any guesses as to the actual number taken out?

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I'd say 2-400 injured/dead would be a solid guess.

I was reading an opinion piece earlier this morning that was talking about Russian tactics historically and that it's historically accurate that they don't withdraw until 300-500k casualties. If they get to that point here that their last remaining trump card is their nuke arsenal and they might have the pride hurt enough to use them. I can't say I completely disagree with that. 

In reply to bobzilla :

casualties or deaths?  I'm betting it's really close to that in casualty numbers, but quite a way from deaths.  Although, the deaths and defections has stepped up with the conscripts.

Opti said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

And how do you "stop" Russia?

On top of what we're doing already- ATACAMs. Ukraine has no shortage of willing fighters or skills, it's biggest problem is lack of heavy armor and serious airpower. The latter will hopefully, eventually be solved with F-16s, but ATACAMs will allow them even MORE deep-strike capacity against an aggressor with terrible anti-air. American concern that ATACAMs fire into Russia proper was going to increase military volunteering from within Russia appears to have been wrong, since Putin now is literally dragging young men off the streets to fight.

As of yesterday, UK and the EU have fully sanctioned Russian petroleum exports. You can also see the fury in Russian commenters, because now this is the warmest winter in European history which has undone all of Russia's economic hopes that cold temps would force the EU to compromise.

Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

I agree, I'm afraid that in the long term the most costly thing would be to let Russia succeed at a cost that they deem acceptable. Obviously, Russia is taking a beating, but I'm not confident that anyone with any decision making capability cares about the losses. I think that I recall reading somewhere that Putin was willing to lose 300,000 troops in this fight. 

Last I saw per Ukraine, Russia has killed 100,000 of it's own in the invasion versus ~30,000 Ukrainian service members. Casualty rates I don't remember offhand. Russia is also loosing it's millennial generation to the point where it's suffering a brain drain, on top of a still-worsening generational collapse- basically, Russia has lost and will continue to, and every day they're turning conscripts into corpses in Bakhmut make it's future bleaker.

In reply to eastsideTim :

A power struggle in Russia, because of Putins death, a military coup, or collapse of the Russias Military is a loss for everyone. Russia has 2500 nukes, you want stability in a nuclear power, not warring factions trying to take control of the country and nukes. A smooth transfer of power is what you need, and its rare you get that in the mentioned scenarios.

I wasnt comparing Ukraine and Afghanistan or anything to do with their governments Im comparing what was spent, and how much faster we are spending in Ukraine. The question isnt does Ukraine hold out long enough, the question is does public support and aid for Ukraine hold out long enough. The recent successes have been credited to American arms, and public support for aid specifically is already pretty split, mainly because of the large amounts, frequency, and no end in sight. The people wont stomach it for very long. Ukraine needs aid to continue, which means they need public support. Americans as a whole tire quickly of things happening halfway across the world. Not saying its right, but thats how it works.

In reply to alfadriver :

I was trying to find the article butnit may have been a video because I'm not seeing it. Let me see if I can find a video ...

EDIT: here it is. https://youtu.be/sHS8mKa-XQI

bobzilla said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

I'd say 2-400 injured/dead would be a solid guess.

I was reading an opinion piece earlier this morning that was talking about Russian tactics historically and that it's historically accurate that they don't withdraw until 300-500k casualties. If they get to that point here that their last remaining trump card is their nuke arsenal and they might have the pride hurt enough to use them. I can't say I completely disagree with that. 

I agree. The concern is what would the response be to a Russian nuke. I was listening to something a while back about it. America has 3 choices and they are all E36 M3

1. no response - bad for obvious reasons

2. nuclear reprisal - Would the US trade a foreign city like Kyiv, for one of their own? That would be the concern, a reprisal opens up America as an combatant and open to nuclear attack.

3. Invasion - Russias a big place and historically hard to control. Are we willing to actually militarily engage a nuclear power that just showed it willingness to use one.

In reply to Opti :

Stop changing your point of reference.  The middle east battle was one solid thing- separating Afghanistan from Iraq is a massive mistake- both ended up with corrupt systems that neither are peaceful at all.  If you want to separate the one part of it, you are doing it to make your own point that I really don't think is valid at all.

And I think it's a mistake to pre-concede Ukraine's borders before you even get to negotiations.   Especially with Ukraine really developing the upper hand on the battlefield.

We are not even a year into this, and are in the middle of one country pushing the other out- so I really don't see the need to negotiate that what so ever.  All that really does is give vlad a way out, and STILL WIN SOMETHING. 

Losing a geopolitcial battle goes both ways.  Let Ukraine at least finish what it has started to push them out.  This could end badly for putin and co, which can release some of the other countries from under russias influence.  

There are zero legitimate indicators that the taken lands want to be part of russia.  Why give them up when they were all taken by force?  And seeing what atrocities that russia has done in it's occupied territories, what it also does is condemn many people to an early grave.  

Opti said:

bobzilla said:

 

3. Invasion - Russias a big place and historically hard to control. Are we willing to actually militarily engage a nuclear power that just showed it willingness to use one.

Who is bringing that idea up other than you?  Nobody has suggested that Ukraine invade russia- but many have conceded that it may be needed to bomb russian resources to make it harder for them to wage a war of aggression.

As for the nukes- if they were going to ever use them, they would have by now.  There's no benefit to waiting until they hit 500,000 deaths.  By then, they will have nothing left to hold in Ukraine.  Let alone they have made it perfectly clear that murdering Ukrainians is a goal of this operation.

alfadriver said:

In reply to Opti :

Stop changing your point of reference.  The middle east battle was one solid thing- separating Afghanistan from Iraq is a massive mistake- both ended up with corrupt systems that neither are peaceful at all.  If you want to separate the one part of it, you are doing it to make your own point that I really don't think is valid at all.

And I think it's a mistake to pre-concede Ukraine's borders before you even get to negotiations.   Especially with Ukraine really developing the upper hand on the battlefield.

We are not even a year into this, and are in the middle of one country pushing the other out- so I really don't see the need to negotiate that what so ever.  All that really does is give vlad a way out, and STILL WIN SOMETHING. 

Losing a geopolitcial battle goes both ways.  Let Ukraine at least finish what it has started to push them out.  This could end badly for putin and co, which can release some of the other countries from under russias influence.  

There are zero legitimate indicators that the taken lands want to be part of russia.  Why give them up when they were all taken by force?  And seeing what atrocities that russia has done in it's occupied territories, what it also does is condemn many people to an early grave.  

I havent changed my point of reference. Ive compared amount spent in Afghanistan to Ukraine. It's always been about amount spent, if you dont want me to separate them, then in 10 months we have spent the equivalent of 3 years in the middles east. I used the middle east/afghanistan because its a fresh reference point in peoples minds of  excessive spending on a war

Im not saying to preconced their borders. Im saying that likely they will end up conceding land. I recommend they open negotiation now, so hopefully when negotiating from a position of strength they can avoid it, but I doubt it. Also they are not pushing them out. They are in the middle of taking back land they already lost, thats a big difference to pushing them out (of the country i assume is what you are saying. If not my mistake)

War doesnt always go the way it goes, just because Ukraine is doing well now, doesnt mean they will continue to do so. The war started with Russia pushing further and further in, Ukraine made adjustments and now its going in their direction, all it take is Russia making adjustments and it could easily switch direction. start negotiating now while you have a position of power. War changes quickly.

I dont want them to give them up, but i think they will in the end. If they both continue the at all costs war, it just ends up with more people dying, including non combatants and neighbors, this will wear on public support, hopefully Ukraine isnt in a worse position at that time and forced to give up more land. Warring countries dont care about what the occupied people want, never have. Itd be nice if we lived in a fairy tale and things like war and geopolitics ended with everyone being happy. In the real world all the options tend to be E36 M3.

alfadriver said:

Opti said:

bobzilla said:

 

3. Invasion - Russias a big place and historically hard to control. Are we willing to actually militarily engage a nuclear power that just showed it willingness to use one.

Who is bringing that idea up other than you?  Nobody has suggested that Ukraine invade russia- but many have conceded that it may be needed to bomb russian resources to make it harder for them to wage a war of aggression.

As for the nukes- if they were going to ever use them, they would have by now.  There's no benefit to waiting until they hit 500,000 deaths.  By then, they will have nothing left to hold in Ukraine.  Let alone they have made it perfectly clear that murdering Ukrainians is a goal of this operation.

No one is bringing up the idea of an invasion by Ukraine. I specifically mentioned he USs possible choices after a Russian nuclear strike. I thought that was obvious. Sorry if it wasnt.

Im not as flippant about the potential use of nuclear warheads and the mass devastation they cause. Im not willing to say that just because they havent means they wont, while out the other side of mouth saying how crazy, at all costs, and undeterred by death Putin is.

Opti said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

A power struggle in Russia, because of Putins death, a military coup, or collapse of the Russias Military is a loss for everyone. Russia has 2500 nukes, you want stability in a nuclear power, not warring factions trying to take control of the country and nukes. A smooth transfer of power is what you need, and its rare you get that in the mentioned scenarios.

I wasnt comparing Ukraine and Afghanistan or anything to do with their governments Im comparing what was spent, and how much faster we are spending in Ukraine. The question isnt does Ukraine hold out long enough, the question is does public support and aid for Ukraine hold out long enough. The recent successes have been credited to American arms, and public support for aid specifically is already pretty split, mainly because of the large amounts, frequency, and no end in sight. The people wont stomach it for very long. Ukraine needs aid to continue, which means they need public support. Americans as a whole tire quickly of things happening halfway across the world. Not saying its right, but thats how it works.

Okay, so ignoring the Ukraine/Afghanistan differences, only comparing the money spent, doesn't work because the situations are not comparable.  It's pretty much a textbook case of apples and oranges.  As for World War 3, in some ways, this is already it.  It's been going on for several years now, the west may be finally waking up to that fact.

On to the potential of Putin's successor.  He hasn't been grooming one, probably too paranoid, so the next leadership change in Russia is probably going to be messy, Ukrainian war or not.  Putin has hit the point where he cannot step down voluntarily, even if the war ends today.  The Russian system is too brutal, a good chunk of which is his own damn fault.  So, all those nukes could easily be pawns in a power struggle anyway.

If it takes a trillion dollars to crush Russia, Poopin, and his Nazis once and for all, I'm all for it. Negotiate with a mass murderer? Never.

Newweek.com: Full Lists of the Demands Russia, Ukraine Have Made to End War

Russia's terms for negotiation:

"On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov went into more detail about the conditions Russia considers necessary for peace. Ukraine must surrender or the war will continue, he said."

"Perhaps the main peace condition for Russia is holding control over four regions—Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk—that Putin formally annexed in September. The annexation came even though Russia lacked full control over the territories, and the Russian military has since lost control of some parts of the regions."

Ukraine's terms for negotiation:

"Zelensky said peace would start with Putin withdrawing troops from Ukraine."

"Zelensky has also spoken about security guarantees for Ukraine as a condition for peace, as well as getting the world to unite in preventing Russia from future armed aggression."

"A crime has been committed against Ukraine, and we demand punishment," Zelensky said