Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

It’s been argued - with some justification, I think - that Putin’s best hope at this point is a negotiated settlement. But, by changing his victory conditions, he’s badly damaged his bargaining position. Any ‘victory’ he’s able to propagandize out of this mess is going to be a victory on Ukraine’s terms, not Russia’s.

Boru

Russia has to negotiate, and it will be from a weaker position whether or not they keep fighting because of their terrific losses and paltry gains.

The alternative, of course, is recourse to WMDs; or even if the Russians can manage one final push, they'll confront a Ukrainian insurgency that Russia neither wants nor can afford.

---

Also, having read through the entire thread, I find it interesting that the Putin apologist hasn't really said a word about the military reverses the vaunted RF forces have suffered, nor the horrific crimes committed by them. It appears that, like the Russian leadership, he overrated their might, and underestimated the fight in the Ukrainians. It truly is a Potemkin Army, able to inflict atrocities upon civilians, but unable to competently fight. It's stunning how the RF Army's institutional memory has so signally failed.

---

To put human faces to this tragedy:

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Excellent post. When we get caught up in things like troop deployments and hardware, it’s all too easy to forget the human cost.

Boru

[zebo-the-fat]

It’s been argued - with some justification, I think - that Putin’s best hope at this point is a negotiated settlement. But, by changing his victory conditions, he’s badly damaged his bargaining position. Any ‘victory’ he’s able to propagandize out of this mess is going to be a victory on Ukraine’s terms, not Russia’s.

Boru

Russia has to negotiate, and it will be from a weaker position whether or not they keep fighting because of their terrific losses and paltry gains.

The alternative, of course, is recourse to WMDs; or even if the Russians can manage one final push, they'll confront a Ukrainian insurgency that Russia neither wants nor can afford.

---

Also, having read through the entire thread, I find it interesting that the Putin apologist hasn't really said a word about the military reverses the vaunted RF forces have suffered, nor the horrific crimes committed by them. It appears that, like the Russian leadership, he overrated their might, and underestimated the fight in the Ukrainians. It truly is a Potemkin Army, able to inflict atrocities upon civilians, but unable to competently fight. It's stunning how the RF Army's institutional memory has so signally failed.

---

To put human faces to this tragedy:

And what did any of these people do to deserve this?  

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Russia has to negotiate, and it will be from a weaker position whether or not they keep fighting because of their terrific losses and paltry gains.

The alternative, of course, is recourse to WMDs; or even if the Russians can manage one final push, they'll confront a Ukrainian insurgency that Russia neither wants nor can afford.

---

Also, having read through the entire thread, I find it interesting that the Putin apologist hasn't really said a word about the military reverses the vaunted RF forces have suffered, nor the horrific crimes committed by them. It appears that, like the Russian leadership, he overrated their might, and underestimated the fight in the Ukrainians. It truly is a Potemkin Army, able to inflict atrocities upon civilians, but unable to competently fight. It's stunning how the RF Army's institutional memory has so signally failed.

---

To put human faces to this tragedy:

And what did any of these people do to deserve this?  

They had the nerve to stand on ground that Putin wants.

Boru

[Deesse23]

And what did any of these people do to deserve this?  

They had the nerve to stand on ground that Putin wants.

Boru

According to some: ...on ground that Russia needs.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Russia has to negotiate, and it will be from a weaker position whether or not they keep fighting because of their terrific losses and paltry gains.

The alternative, of course, is recourse to WMDs; or even if the Russians can manage one final push, they'll confront a Ukrainian insurgency that Russia neither wants nor can afford.

Putin has said, via one of his mouthpieces, that they would only use nuclear weapons to counter an existential threat to Russia. 

He’s either missing or ignoring the fact that the use of even a single nuke in Europe would itself spell the end of Russia. He’s already been warned that even an accidental incursion in any NATO country would trigger Article 5. Russia can’t even take Ukraine - how long would it stand against NATO?

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Putin has said, via one of his mouthpieces, that they would only use nuclear weapons to counter an existential threat to Russia. 

He’s either missing or ignoring the fact that the use of even a single nuke in Europe would itself spell the end of Russia. He’s already been warned that even an accidental incursion in any NATO country would trigger Article 5. Russia can’t even take Ukraine - how long would it stand against NATO?

Boru

Given his obvious like of bullshit pretexts, I'm not sure he's not bruiting about the tales of American chemical-weapons labs in order to "justify" Russia deploying them. I consider that more dangerous than nukes, insofar as I'm sure he knows that any nuclear use will invite retaliation in kind, while a chemical attack may be seen as more ambiguous.

The reason I think it'll be more dangerous is because at that point public opinion in the democracies will go batshit and it will be hard for our politicians to resist such a groundswell of opinion ... thus dragging us into te war anyway, and greatly increasing the likelihood of a nuclear exchange.

There's no way that Russia can take on NATO. NATO will seize air supremacy and then it becomes a shooting gallery for attack aircraft. And then we're sent back to the conundrum of how Putin gets out of an embarrassing defeat. That's my take on it, at least.

[GUBU]

There are a number of things about this invasion that baffle me, mainly doctrinal. Why didn't they seize control of the air the first day? They have the air force to do it. Why are they sending armor into urban areas without an infantry screen to safeguard the tanks? What has happened to their Army's institutional knowledge such that they're ignoring logistical issues?

By all accounts they didn't have the airforce to do the job. They have no planes specialised for SEAD or DEAD which are essential to controlling the skies early on. And far more importantly, they don't train their pilots in the necessary tactics to carry out SEAD or DEAD, and generally not enough (Russian pilots typically get 60 flight hours per year as opposed to 200 for Western pilots, who also get specialised training in the roles they're deployed for). This can be seen in what type of missions being flown in Ukraine, they're almost all two plane missions, and not full wing missions or similar which are what's actually needed to take out the oppositional air force and ground air defence capabilities.

A number of people who comment generally on military aviation generally have said that it looks like Russian pilots were trained in demonstration tricks to hawk their goodies to foreign buyers, and not trained as combat effective pilots.

Furthermore, the Russian arms manufacturers are incapable of mass building modern planes, and quite a few of what they do build are for foreign buyers, so what we're finding (as with their ground units) once the first few modern planes get hit, what Russia has left is old stuff from the USSR days.

PS Welcome back Thumpalumpacus, the site's much better with you around.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are a number of things about this invasion that baffle me, mainly doctrinal. Why didn't they seize control of the air the first day? They have the air force to do it. Why are they sending armor into urban areas without an infantry screen to safeguard the tanks? What has happened to their Army's institutional knowledge such that they're ignoring logistical issues?

By all accounts they didn't have the airforce to do the job.  They have no planes specialised for SEAD or DEAD which are essential to controlling the skies early on.  And far more importantly, they don't train their pilots in the necessary tactics to carry out SEAD or DEAD, and generally not enough (Russian pilots typically get 60 flight hours per year as opposed to 200 for Western pilots, who also get specialised training in the roles they're deployed for).  This can be seen in what type of missions being flown in Ukraine, they're almost all two plane missions, and not full wing missions or similar which are what's actually needed to take out the oppositional air force and ground air defence capabilities.

A number of people who comment generally on military aviation generally have said that it looks like Russian pilots were trained in demonstration tricks to hawk their goodies to foreign buyers, and not trained as combat effective pilots.

Furthermore, the Russian arms manufacturers are incapable of mass building modern planes, and quite a few of what they do build are for foreign buyers, so what we're finding (as with their ground units) once the first few modern planes get hit, what Russia has left is old stuff from the USSR days.

PS Welcome back Thumpalumpacus, the site's much better with you around.

You're too kind, thanks.

I get your point about SEAD, though I think that would be very difficult anyway given that most Ukrainian AD is in the form of MANPADs. For this reason, I was thinking more along the lines of attacking Ukrainian airfields harboring combat planes or repair facilities with stand-off missiles in the opening minutes of the war.

They may well be husbanding their more advanced aircraft in order to address any potential NATO intervention, too.

[pocaracas]

yet tying themselves to the west got their GDP per capita on purchase power parity basis from slightly higher than Russia’s in 1990 to about half of Russia’s just before the war.

[citation needed]

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/compare-countries/



I threw in Hungary as the nearest EU country....nearest in culture.
Still... no reason for invasion.

By all measures, Ukraine economic performance had been calamitous, even if we were to ignore the natural resources and soviet bequeathed infrastructure.

And why was it like that?