[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[Weststander]

None of us have the foggiest where Ukrainian forces are deployed or info on the defences/intel of their northern border.

Instead reacting to Putin’s propaganda on a tie up with someone he was already 100% tied up with.

 

[Easy 10]

Ukraine has so far avoided any retaliation attacks on Russia (the annexed areas do not count). They would be absolutely justified if they did, but wisely (I think) have refrained so far. However, if this 'revenge' shelling of civilians by the excrescence known as Putin is because (in Putin's delusions) they are attacking 'Russia' (i.e. the annexed territories) perhaps they should destroy a couple of Russian towns or cities, as Putin is 'retaliating' ayway.
It would make Putin even more unpopular in (the real) Russia.

But at the same time, should Ukraine start lobbing (western supplied) missiles into Russian towns and cities as a tit-for-tat response, they would immediately lose the moral ground they have thus far held in the eyes of the world. I could imagine NATO taking a dim view of this as well. Its one thing for the West to supply weapons to help Ukrainians defend their homeland and drive the invading Russian forces back out from within their borders. But start shelling innocent Russian civilians in their towns - lowering themselves to the level of Putin - would be a dangerous escalation, and would not help them in the propaganda war.

You say Ukrainians shelling Russian towns would make Putin even more unpopular in Russia. I think it could have the reverse effect, and end up giving him a mandate to do something more drastic in response.

 

[Insel affe]

But at the same time, should Ukraine start lobbing (western supplied) missiles into Russian towns and cities as a tit-for-tat response, they would immediately lose the moral ground they have thus far held in the eyes of the world. I could imagine NATO taking a dim view of this as well. Its one thing for the West to supply weapons to help Ukrainians defend their homeland and drive the invading Russian forces back out from within their borders. But start shelling innocent Russian civilians in their towns - lowering themselves to the level of Putin - would be a dangerous escalation, and would not help them in the propaganda war.

You say Ukrainians shelling Russian towns would make Putin even more unpopular in Russia. I think it could have the reverse effect, and end up giving him a mandate to do something more drastic in response.

This, plus I would imagine that a lot of countries and NATO would have stipulated or at least strongly suggested not to use weapons and missiles supplied by them across the and into the Russian border, at least until they have been authorised by them.

 

[bhafc99]

It doesn’t say amassing, instead talking in the future tense after the two dictators had agreed to bring their troops together.

The Telegraph subjectively added “threat looms” and “amid fears” to draw in readers.

It’s also getting too late in the year to be planning significant land operations really, unless you have the equipment, clothing etc for winter warfare. Which I doubt the Russians do, seeing as their army is largely equipped with t-shirts and water pistols.

 

[beorhthelm]

interesting observation made that the Kerch bridge lorry-bomb was travelling from Russia to Crimea.

 

[jakarta]

I highly doubt Russia has enough munitions to do it.

A view shared by UK Intelligence...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63207771

 

[Icy Gull]

The fact that it appears impossible to advise Putin that he is making mistakes without taking a flying lesson from a high window, being poisoned or just disappearing has backed him into a corner of his own deluded making.. His ramping up terrorist targeting of civilians and children means he must be a dead man walking, just a matter of time

 

[Insel affe]

The fact that it appears impossible to advise Putin that he is making mistakes without taking a flying lesson from a high window, being poisoned or just disappearing has backed him into a corner of his own deluded making.. His ramping up terrorist targeting of civilians and children means he must be a dead man walking, just a matter of time

how long have people being saying that now....

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Heard on the news yesterday that the families of some of the new conscriptees are having to fork out for proper clothing and protective gear for their family members due to lack of officially issued gear. That's not going to go down well with those conscriptees whose families can't afford to do so. A long miserable morale-sapping winter lies ahead of them

 

[wellquickwoody]

How much longer will the West allow Russia to carry on indiscriminately murdering civilians in response to the ineptitude of its armed forces, its battlefield failures and battlefield reversals before it decides to respond? And how will the West respond?

There you go chap, white horse and a sheriffs badge for you. Off you go now, good luck.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

With the onset of winter the land war will slow down and both sides will dig in and consolidate, which is why Ukraine has moved to cut the supply lines before winter sets in. It makes for a miserable winter if you are short of supplies. It also means that the Russians would be hard put to start a spring offensive.

If the bomb on the bridge was coming in on a lorry from the ‘Russian’ side, then the second front in the form of resistance in the occupied zones is now starting. It makes sense as the land war will slow down other than strategic missile strikes.

The last couple of days has seen sustained missile attacks by the Russians. I read that a Ukraine spokesman said that some 87 missiles had been fired though many had been shot down which is interesting in itself. Taking out missiles is not easy unless you have the right kit.
I see these attacks as an act of desperation as it is using significant stock piles of ordinance that the Russians don’t have. It could be viewed as trying to break the Ukraine spirit before winter but is (fortunately) too little too late.
The comments regards troop build up in Belarus is most likely trying to deflect Ukrainian focus on the land grabs in the south and east. Belarus dictatorship is hanging on by their figure tips and getting involved in a land war with troops even less engaged than the russian conscripts is recipe for disaster. It would most likely lead to internal unrest and the overthrow of putins puppet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Insel affe]

There you go chap, white horse and a sheriffs badge for you. Off you go now, good luck.

Any real need for that condescending post ?

 

[sparkie]

With the onset of winter the land war will slow down and both sides will dig in and consolidate, which is why Ukraine has moved to cut the supply lines before winter sets in. It makes for a miserable winter if you are short of supplies. It also means that the Russians would be hard put to start a spring offensive.

If the bomb on the bridge was coming in on a lorry from the ‘Russian’ side, then the second front in the form of resistance in the occupied zones is now starting. It makes sense as the land war will slow down other than strategic missile strikes.

The last couple of days has seen sustained missile attacks by the Russians. I read that a Ukraine spokesman said that some 87 missiles had been fired though many had been shot down which is interesting in itself. Taking out missiles is not easy unless you have the right kit.
I see these attacks as an act of desperation as it is using significant stock piles of ordinance that the Russians don’t have. It could be viewed as trying to break the Ukraine spirit before winter but is (fortunately) too little too late.
The comments regards troop build up in Belarus is most likely trying to deflect Ukrainian focus on the land grabs in the south and east. Belarus dictatorship is hanging on by their figure tips and getting involved in a land war with troops even less engaged than the russian conscripts is recipe for disaster. It would most likely lead to internal unrest and the overthrow of putins puppet.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I also think that Belarus getting involved in a land attack would lead to the overthrow of Lukashenko.

 

[Surf's Up]

There you go chap, white horse and a sheriffs badge for you. Off you go now, good luck.

You need to see a shrink mate, too much pent-up angst!

 

[Weststander]

It’s also getting too late in the year to be planning significant land operations really, unless you have the equipment, clothing etc for winter warfare. Which I doubt the Russians do, seeing as their army is largely equipped with t-shirts and water pistols.

They’ve lost 6,900 bits of key equipment eg tanks, aircraft. Some of these figures are half their entire capability, for a country stretching from Norway to Vladivostok.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1

Much of this is was left intact to the enemy, as they ran away.

 

[GT49er]

But at the same time, should Ukraine start lobbing (western supplied) missiles into Russian towns and cities as a tit-for-tat response, they would immediately lose the moral ground they have thus far held in the eyes of the world. I could imagine NATO taking a dim view of this as well. Its one thing for the West to supply weapons to help Ukrainians defend their homeland and drive the invading Russian forces back out from within their borders. But start shelling innocent Russian civilians in their towns - lowering themselves to the level of Putin - would be a dangerous escalation, and would not help them in the propaganda war.

You say Ukrainians shelling Russian towns would make Putin even more unpopular in Russia. I think it could have the reverse effect, and end up giving him a mandate to do something more drastic in response.

Yes, I fully recognise that by not throwing missiles at Russia Ukraine has held the moral high ground (I've indicated that in my post), and that has also prevented Russia from taken more retaliatory action. Now that (in Russia's deluded view) Ukraine isattacking Russian targets, rhe retaliation has begun.
The moral high ground, however, does not win wars. If Russia lays waste to Ukraine, destroying all the hospitals, schools, houses, no power, no water supplies, hardly anybody left alive, maybe nuclear fallout too, a barren, uninhabitable wasteland, Ukraine will still have the moral high ground, but will have lost the war - so, at what point would Ukraine be justified in retaliating without losing the moral high groind?

 

[Weststander]

Yes, I fully recognise that by not throwing missiles at Russia Ukraine has held the moral high ground (I've indicated that in my post), and that has also prevented Russia from taken more retaliatory action. Now that (in Russia's deluded view) Ukraine isattacking Russian targets, rhe retaliation has begun.
The moral high ground, however, does not win wars. If Russia lays waste to Ukraine, destroying all the hospitals, schools, houses, no power, no water supplies, hardly anybody left alive, maybe nuclear fallout too, a barren, uninhabitable wasteland, Ukraine will still have the moral high ground, but will have lost the war - so, at what point would Ukraine be justified in retaliating without losing the moral high groind?

Try and stay positive, the Ukrainians are.

Posting doom and gloom stuff, serves no purpose. We knew Putin doesn’t value life at home or abroad, he’s a murderer, but if you listen to the overwhelming majority of genuine military analysts this war is wiping out decades worth of Russian capability, they’re starved of Western technology to complete manufacture of key missiles and the US/UK/Germany have only just begun delivering incredible technologies that will wipe Russian/Iranian drones, missiles and aircraft from the skies.

 

[sparkie]

Try and stay positive, the Ukrainians are.

Posting doom and gloom stuff, serves no purpose. We knew Putin doesn’t value life at home or abroad, he’s a murderer, but if you listen to the overwhelming majority of genuine military analysts this war is wiping out decades worth of Russian capability, they’re starved of Western technology to complete manufacture of key missiles and the US/UK/Germany have only just begun delivering incredible technologies that will wipe Russian/Iranian drones, missiles and aircraft from the skies.

It is also worth noting that while HIMARS seems to be a wonder weapon for destroying the Russian army, it isn't even rated by the US military as a key system. There are plenty more even better systems to come if Putin wants to escalate.

 

[Easy 10]

Yes, I fully recognise that by not throwing missiles at Russia Ukraine has held the moral high ground (I've indicated that in my post), and that has also prevented Russia from taken more retaliatory action. Now that (in Russia's deluded view) Ukraine isattacking Russian targets, rhe retaliation has begun.
The moral high ground, however, does not win wars. If Russia lays waste to Ukraine, destroying all the hospitals, schools, houses, no power, no water supplies, hardly anybody left alive, maybe nuclear fallout too, a barren, uninhabitable wasteland, Ukraine will still have the moral high ground, but will have lost the war - so, at what point would Ukraine be justified in retaliating without losing the moral high groind?

The issue with that is Ukraine are so heavily reliant on being armed by the west, they are not entirely in control of the scale of retaliation they can strike back with. And of course they aren't nuclear (and never will be during this "proxy war"). The Americans have been supplying them with ballistic missiles with around a 95km range, but have held back on the ones with a range of 300km+ for obvious reasons.

The way this is going, the only way Russia will manage to fully "lay waste" to Ukraine in the way you describe, is by hitting the Big Button. It can't be entirely ruled out with that nutter in charge, but still looks highly unlikely. Russia will not win this war through troops on the ground and conventional shelling. Ukraine do not need to retaliate, they just need to continue to repel, along with the continued backing of the western nations.

 

[Eric the meek]

The issue with that is Ukraine are so heavily reliant on being armed by the west, they are not entirely in control of the scale of retaliation they can strike back with. And of course they aren't nuclear (and never will be during this "proxy war"). The Americans have been supplying them with ballistic missiles with around a 95km range, but have held back on the ones with a range of 300km+ for obvious reasons.

The way this is going, the only way Russia will manage to fully "lay waste" to Ukraine in the way you describe, is by hitting the Big Button. It can't be entirely ruled out with that nutter in charge, but still looks highly unlikely. Russia will not win this war through troops on the ground and conventional shelling. Ukraine do not need to retaliate, they just need to continue to repel, along with the continued backing of the western nations.

Agreed. Neither are working.

Russia is clearly losing on the battlefield. What has Putin done recently?

1) He has carried out a terror offensive of indiscriminate bombing of soft civilian targets. It's unverified, but a member of the Ukrainian military said that not one military target was hit yesterday. A number of commentators have said this simply isn't going to work.
2) He has asked Lukashenko to rattle his sabre and put out a story of Russian and Belarusian troops gathering to advance on Kyiv, in an attempt to get Ukraine to redirect its troops away from the southern and eastern fronts.

Inspite of the shelling, Ukraine has already announced its counter offensive will continue. So, Putin using a reported 87 missiles has had no effect, other than further reduce his dwindling supply of munitions.

Yesterday, another way for Putin to finish his own war, was closed off to him. Defeat for Russia, and Putin's demise or replacement, may have just come a little closer.