Ukraine Conflict - continuing

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Seems like same old. News was characterized it as "concerning" though.  Not sure why, would be a glorious and easy victory for NATO.

What  do you think the NATO military objective would  be in a war  with Russia? 

[Malcador]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

What  do you think the NATO military objective would  be in a war  with Russia? 

As usual, regime change.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

As usual, regime change.

I doubt that would be the definition of victory?

I have no doubt NATO would defeat the Russian military but forcing Putin to somehow step down is unlikely 

[Malcador]

50 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I doubt that would be the definition of victory?

I have no doubt NATO would defeat the Russian military but forcing Putin to somehow step down is unlikely 

Well NATO's idea of victory and what victory is (cough, Libya, Afghanistan) don't have to mesh. But hard to see what else it'd be in a NATO - Russia war.

[Zoraptor]

As always, anyone wondering about Russia's response to anything should ask themselves what their side's response would be in the same situation.

Russia supplying and programming long range missiles and providing intelligence to the Taliban/ Iran/ Iraq/ Syria/ DPRK to target the west? The only difference would be that we'd convince ourselves that our invasion was justified, so any retaliation against us was escalatory and unjustified. Oh wait, that isn't really a difference, is it. And that isn't really even a rhetorical question.

Russia invading NATO? Well, we all know what the plan was when it was the USSR. A nice series of radioactive craters across the Fulda Gap. But surely the Russians wouldn't nuke themselves just to take our NATO troops? Of course they would- though as with the NATO plan they wouldn't just be nuking themselves. Anything else is Magical Thinking. After all, what else are nukes for except to make the cost of an invasion prohibitive. Not really even a rhetorical question again there.

Realistically, the only reason NATO would not be seeking regime change in the current conflict is that the alternatives are worse than Putin or so obviously unpopular/ seen as Quislings as to be impossible to install without the invasion that can't happen because of the nukes.

[ShadySands]

Does that mean Ukraine can also say they are directly at war with Iran and North Korea and whoever else gave them arms and munitions for their invasion?

Russia is a joke but a joke with nukes so...

[Malcador]

11 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Does that mean Ukraine can also say they are directly at war with Iran and North Korea and whoever else gave them arms and munitions for their invasion?

Russia is a joke but a joke with nukes so...

If I recall Ukraine did threaten Iran if they sent missiles.  Although that might have been a Poland-esque threat that the US would do something.

[ShadySands]

Sad thing is that there's probably be some John Bolton types that would totally eat up that my dad can beat up your dad stuff if the other dad is Iran or North Korea. 

[Malcador]

13 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Sad thing is that there's probably be some John Bolton types that would totally eat up that my dad can beat up your dad stuff if the other dad is Iran or North Korea. 

Pretty much, some "discussions" on the war are hilarious in how war crazy some people can be. The US should subjugate Iran, DPRK, shoot down Russian aircraft near allied airspace cause "FAFO".  Basically low brow version of people that seriously refer to "rules based international order" with a straight face.

 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

Does that mean Ukraine can also say they are directly at war with Iran and North Korea and whoever else gave them arms and munitions for their invasion?

Ukraine can certainly say that, though the situations are not equivalent*. Obviously that would also be a double edged sword for the west, since if that's an act of war supplying Abrams/ Leos/ Challies etc is as well. That would be fine for Ukraine though, since their only path to victory is escalatory and getting NATO directly involved.

*Russia will be getting its satellite and AWACS type intelligence from Russia not Iran or DPRK, and it won't be Koreans or Iranians inputting target info or doing the maintenance as, to be blunt, the systems supplied are not very advanced- and mostly evolutions of soviet systems anyway. They're just supplying the systems, and that is long established to not be a direct act of war. Ukraine has neither satellites nor AWACS, they are getting that from NATO sources and per the Germans targeting info for Storm Shadow/SCALP is entered by Brits/ French (hence why won't send Taurus, as they don't want anyone on the ground) and the tech is wholly new to them. Now, you can argue that targeting occupied territories is fine, since that's NATO soldiers hitting Ukrainian territory from Ukrainian territory; but once they start being used on targets in Russia it is NATO targeting Russia by any reasonable definition of the term.

 

[Gorth]

7 hours ago, Malcador said:

If I recall Ukraine did threaten Iran if they sent missiles.  Although that might have been a Poland-esque threat that the US would do something.

You could argue Iran already struck preemptively against Ukrainian transport capacity...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752

 

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Ukraine can certainly say that, though the situations are not equivalent*. Obviously that would also be a double edged sword for the west, since if that's an act of war supplying Abrams/ Leos/ Challies etc is as well. That would be fine for Ukraine though, since their only path to victory is escalatory and getting NATO directly involved.

*Russia will be getting its satellite and AWACS type intelligence from Russia not Iran or DPRK, and it won't be Koreans or Iranians inputting target info or doing the maintenance as, to be blunt, the systems supplied are not very advanced- and mostly evolutions of soviet systems anyway. They're just supplying the systems, and that is long established to not be a direct act of war. Ukraine has neither satellites nor AWACS, they are getting that from NATO sources and per the Germans targeting info for Storm Shadow/SCALP is entered by Brits/ French (hence why won't send Taurus, as they don't want anyone on the ground) and the tech is wholly new to them. Now, you can argue that targeting occupied territories is fine, since that's NATO soldiers hitting Ukrainian territory from Ukrainian territory; but once they start being used on targets in Russia it is NATO targeting Russia by any reasonable definition of the term.

 

Im  not sure  I understand your point. If it was  Ukrainians  operating the missiles then its not act  of  war?

Iran and NK are supplying missiles to Russia which are being used  to attack Ukraine sovereign territory but these  missiles  are  operated by Russians and Ukraine has  not said "we now at   war  with Iran and NK" 

So that  logic would apply to  Ukraine,  NATO could supply long range missiles to Ukraine but if they operate them then  its just part  of the  normal war  between  Russia and Ukraine? 

Another inconsistency exposed  with Russian propaganda that Vatniks have  peddled since the war  started is "Russia is  actually at war with NATO "   but Putin  is only  now   suggesting NATO would be at  war with Russia if it gives  permission. Of  course no serious analyst would  ever suggest this war  is anything but a war  between  Russia and Ukraine with various  countries  supplying military aid to both sides 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-nato-ukraine-war-us-long-range-missiles/

" Russian President Vladimir Putin warned Thursday that a decision by the U.S. or its NATO allies to allow Ukraine to use Western-supplied long-range missiles to hit targets deep inside Russia would be viewed as NATO's direct participation in the war, which he said would significantly change "the very nature of the conflict."

 

 

 

[kanisatha]

Hey, I myself am quite okay with Putin starting a war with us or NATO, as I've said previously. Not because I want a war by any stretch, but because I am someone who believes that sometimes war is sadly necessary to stand/push back against a greater evil.

I was merely surprised this story had not come up for discussion here. But I've enjoyed reading through all of your responses so far.

[Zoraptor]

12 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Im  not sure  I understand your point. If it was  Ukrainians  operating the missiles then its not act  of  war?

They aren't being operated wholly by Ukraine. Which is fine*, if you can argue that they're only being operated in de jure Ukraine but becomes an act of war if they are used in what everybody accepts as being Russia proper. Pretty simple really.

*for a certain definition of fine, eg you cannot take your specialists being targeted as an act of war either- and that has definitely happened multiple times. And in the more general sense, if the situation was reversed NATO would at minimum complain as vociferously as Russia about them supplying weapons to their enemies; and would definitively go the Article 5 route if Russian operated missiles hit their territory, even if it were Iranians or whoever primarily operating them.

[BruceVC]

A really strange Russian army recruitment advert,  strange for a  country that discriminates against LGBT  to recognize  it as  a reality within Russia 

 

 

[BruceVC]

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/09/14/frontline-report-russian-forces-finally-sacrifice-pokrovsk-offensive-to-defend-kursk/

If true this is another and clear  reason why the  Kursk offensive was implemented and it made  sense 

Its now taking Russians off the frontline 

 

[Malcador]

Still reading reports of gains in the south though, slow as they are.

[Zoraptor]

Compared to pre Avdiivka the Russians are still gaining at twice the daily rate- and still taking 10k+ towns. Just not around Pokrovsk any more.

Which is more because of Ukraine shifting forces (back) there than Russia moving theirs. It's also been Russian tactics to allow Ukraine to stabilise an area by transferring troops and instead attack the areas the troops have come from. Hence the new gains around Vuhledar, which lost a long term defender brigade to Pokrovsk. Same thing happened in Avdiivka too before it fell.

As might be expected from Euromaidanpress Bruce's article is hopelessly optimistic. Even pro UA sources like liveuamap have Russian forces close to cutting off the Ukrainians near Korenovo, now. Ukraine lost a lot of their gains in Kursk due to rotating out their good formations for conscripts/ territorial brigades and it requires a fairly large dollop of positive thinking to think the conscripts are there to win where the elite troops failed. The supposed number of Russian soldiers along the border has actually dropped (!) by their estimates and their evidence for large scale transfers consists of 'elements' of two brigades. Even at full strength that's nowhere near 30k- and it's unlikely that the 1st Sloviansk Brigade is there in any meaningful way, at all, as it's a specifically- and OG- DPR formation.

[Lexx]

Some huge munitions depot explosion. Looks crazy. https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1836262331522650442/video/2

[Malcador]

Maybe their new jet drone?

[BruceVC]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-provide-ukraine-with-loan-worth-up-35-bln-euros-von-der-leyen-2024-09-20/ 

The  EU will be providing Ukraine with $40 billion, this money will be used in the war and with other expenses

" We will spend the money, these 35 billion, primarily on energy, on defence, as well as on bomb shelters for children in schools, nurseries and universities - this is a big deficit for us," Zelenskiy said in front of the Ukrainian and EU flags.

"And on weapons, primarily those produced domestically, drones, missiles. Today, our long-range drones strike the enemy and they are cheaper than those (made by) our partners."

 

Whats also interesting about this money is some  of it  will be the interest earned  from  the Russian frozen assets, so you use the Russian money to  help Ukraine.  And that makes sense  on every level.  You dont utilize the Russian sanctioned assets  because then its gone, just its  earned  interest.  Its a  creative way of funding Ukraine

"  She said on Thursday that the sum of 160 million euros from the proceeds of frozen Russian assets would be allocated to meet Ukraine's urgent humanitarian needs for this winter."

[Mamoulian War]

On 9/18/2024 at 12:38 PM, Lexx said:

Some huge munitions depot explosion. Looks crazy. https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1836262331522650442/video/2

A story behind it.

On 9/18/2024 at 1:38 PM, Malcador said:

Maybe their new jet drone?

not really, just corruption during the procurement of the materials used to build the site. “Unexpectedly”

[Lexx]

Man, I'm really starting to love corruption.

[Malcador]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/zelenskyy-russia-chinese-satellites-photograph-nuclear-plants-ahead/story?id=113943075

Skeptical of this, but we're back to fears of poisoning Europe with radiation as a concern.   Interested to see what Zelensky's victory plan is, probably will be aspirational stuff.

[Gfted1]

Satellite Images Show Massive Devastation At Russian Ammo Storage Sites Struck By Ukrainian Drones (twz.com)