Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[bickster]

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I think the point of confusion here is that it’s not that Putin would need to find additional troops allocate along this new frontier with NATO. It’s just that his own ideology means he thinks he now needs to find more resources to move up to defend this new (long) frontier and he doesn’t have them readily available so he’s going to have some tough decisions to make on which troops to send where. 

This is closer to my take, than @magnkarl's. My perspective is that Putin doesn't necessarily see NATO as militarily aggressive towards Russia (or at least not until he started his war). More that he sees the West and westernisation of former Soviet states as a threat to himself and his control of Russia. I've been up in the North of Norway (though a fair distance west of Kirkenes, tbh) when I was in the RAF and there's not much up there in terms of NATO bases or forces or ability to mount any attacks into Russia - it would require an immense mobilisation of NATO forces, which Russia could spot and counter by moving its own forces. Mainly that area is a route for subs and surface vessels out into the Atlantic (which is why I went there with Maritime Patrol aircraft).

For instance, in terms of northern Norway, there's zero threat of NATO attacking Russia via that route, it's more that he puts troops there to re-inforce Russia's "importance" and status and leverage as "serious" - it's kind of reputational, really. SO places like that, where he has troops, he could move them, without weakening his military ability, but it would look "weak" - again, reputational, not actually strategically significant.

[avfc1982am]

24 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Desperate times call for desperate measures.  /

James Blunt is ex-forces and specialised in tank warfare.  Let's give him a billion pounds, our best tank, a commitment to provide permanent stealth fighter cover and send him to the Donbass.  

Just think of the massive increase to Ukrainiane's morale and willingness to fight knowing that he's  joined the Russian Army. 

 

Uh???? What a strange thing to say. Do you know him then?

[Mandy Lifeboats]

5 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

Uh???? What a strange thing to say. Do you know him then?

I don't think you got the joke.  

[Mandy Lifeboats]

I am now very worried that @avfc1982am is about to slap me in the face and yell, "Keep James Blunt's name out of your flipping posts."

[avfc1982am]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is closer to my take, than @magnkarl's. My perspective is that Putin doesn't necessarily see NATO as militarily aggressive towards Russia (or at least not until he started his war). More that he sees the West and westernisation of former Soviet states as a threat to himself and his control of Russia. I've been up in the North of Norway (though a fair distance west of Kirkenes, tbh) when I was in the RAF and there's not much up there in terms of NATO bases or forces or ability to mount any attacks into Russia - it would require an immense mobilisation of NATO forces, which Russia could spot and counter by moving its own forces. Mainly that area is a route for subs and surface vessels out into the Atlantic (which is why I went there with Maritime Patrol aircraft).

For instance, in terms of northern Norway, there's zero threat of NATO attacking Russia via that route, it's more that he puts troops there to re-inforce Russia's "importance" and status and leverage as "serious" - it's kind of reputational, really. SO places like that, where he has troops, he could move them, without weakening his military ability, but it would look "weak" - again, reputational, not actually strategically significant.

Spot on imo. The threat to Russia isn't via military action, it's influence over the population. It always has been more about the kids seeing the toys the neighbours have and wanting the same rather than a physical threat. It's been going on since the end of the cold war with Russia. More and more of the population want western opportunities and the lifestyle that comes with it.

[avfc1982am]

1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I am now very worried that @avfc1982am is about to slap me in the face and yell, "Keep James Blunt's name out of your flipping posts."

I wouldn't do that. however, I didn't get your joke but I'm having a busy day with much going whoosh over my head.  

And James Blunt is a pal of my brother which is why I asked. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

I wouldn't do that. however, I didn't get your joke but I'm having a busy day with much going whoosh over my head.  

And James Blunt is a pal of my brother which is why I asked. 

No problem.  I am not a fan of James Blunt's music but the team that run his Twitter feed are hilarious. They often joke about his music.  They once suggested repeatitive playing  of "You're Beautiful" should  be legally  recognised as torture. 

[avfc1982am]

Surely all these fires are not accidental regardless of how random they now appear

 

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

Surely all these fires are not accidental regardless of how random they now appear

 

I am assuming they are linked to the fact Russia is currently firing rockets into Kyiv. Something it said it would after the Moskva was sunk if any similar attacks happened.

 

[avfc1982am]

1 minute ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

No problem.  I am not a fan of James Blunt's music but the team that run his Twitter feed are hilarious. They often joke about his music.  They once suggested repeatitive playing  of "You're Beautiful" should  be legally  recognised as torture. 

Nor am I, it's shit. He is an absolutely top lad though. Loves getting smashed too lol. True story. An ex I was with and trying to tickle was really into his music so I got my brother to get him to call from Ibiza and serenade her down the phone. He was pissed out his face, got slung in the pool for sounding like a girl after a few bars. She was made up, I got the roast and they carried on getting smashed. Later that day we found out my brother had nearly drowned after also getting thrown in the pool, only he couldn't swim. Fortunately not everyone was battered and my bro got pulled out. .  

[magnkarl]

19 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is closer to my take, than @magnkarl's. My perspective is that Putin doesn't necessarily see NATO as militarily aggressive towards Russia (or at least not until he started his war). More that he sees the West and westernisation of former Soviet states as a threat to himself and his control of Russia. I've been up in the North of Norway (though a fair distance west of Kirkenes, tbh) when I was in the RAF and there's not much up there in terms of NATO bases or forces or ability to mount any attacks into Russia - it would require an immense mobilisation of NATO forces, which Russia could spot and counter by moving its own forces. Mainly that area is a route for subs and surface vessels out into the Atlantic (which is why I went there with Maritime Patrol aircraft).

For instance, in terms of northern Norway, there's zero threat of NATO attacking Russia via that route, it's more that he puts troops there to re-inforce Russia's "importance" and status and leverage as "serious" - it's kind of reputational, really. SO places like that, where he has troops, he could move them, without weakening his military ability, but it would look "weak" - again, reputational, not actually strategically significant.

Now take a place like Kotka in Finland where the Finns have a quite large military presence and look at the distance to Russia's second largest city. I don't think it's unfathomable that Russia will need to readjust its presence on the Finnish border if they were to join NATO. There's already a 'front' at Kirkenes, I presume Putin will want to show what he considers force along the Finnish border too. 

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I presume Putin will want to show what he considers force along the Finnish border too. 

Sure, but not as a militarily defensive measure, as per my previous post.

[Straggler]

24 minutes ago, Genie said:

I am assuming they are linked to the fact Russia is currently firing rockets into Kyiv. Something it said it would after the Moskva was sunk if any similar attacks happened.

 

The mentality of this sort of Russian threat still boggles my mind. The idea that they can do worse than they are already doing is laughable (nukes excepted). They are kidnapping entire towns worth of people, murdering, raping on some horrific genocidal rampage then think they can turn around and say "you had better not do anything to piss us off it you will suffer a fate even worse"

A fate worse than a fate worse than death. That is pretty bad.

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure, but not as a militarily defensive measure, as per my previous post.

Arraying forces in a military defensive posture will be a redundant option for Russia, and it is staggering how completely Putin has wrecked its strategic position. Post-war Ukraine will join NATO at the insistence of the US and Austria-Hungary-Germany have no chance of blocking it, that’s a banker.

Furthermore this won’t end with Ukraine, Lukashenko will not be able to hold down the population of Belarus and that country will then beg to be let in to the western security orbit to escape any future Russian intervention.

There’s a high probability that in 5 years Russia will have an unbroken border with NATO from the Barents to the Black Sea, making Putin’s legacy the complete and total failure of Russia’s post-Soviet strategic concept. It’s a mind-blowing degree of change. 

[sidcow]

38 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure, but not as a militarily defensive measure, as per my previous post.

Hey @blandy, your new avatar is a dog. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by sidcow

[Seat68]

1 minute ago, sidcow said:

Hey @blandy, your new avatar is a dog. 

You get used to Hats then what do you know, he brings the wolf back. 

[Genie]

23 minutes ago, Straggler said:

The mentality of this sort of Russian threat still boggles my mind. The idea that they can do worse than they are already doing is laughable (nukes excepted). They are kidnapping entire towns worth of people, murdering, raping on some horrific genocidal rampage then think they can turn around and say "you had better not do anything to piss us off it you will suffer a fate even worse"

A fate worse than a fate worse than death. That is pretty bad.

It’s even worse than that, Russia blowing entire towns up, killing, torturing and raping its inhabitants has the cheek to say “not cool” when Ukraine fires at a war ship. Like it has the moral high ground and Ukraine has delivered a low blow.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Hey @blandy, your new avatar is a dog. 

He's got confused with grinder man!

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

Arraying forces in a military defensive posture will be a redundant option for Russia, and it is staggering how completely Putin has wrecked its strategic position. Post-war Ukraine will join NATO at the insistence of the US and Austria-Hungary-Germany have no chance of blocking it, that’s a banker.

Furthermore this won’t end with Ukraine, Lukashenko will not be able to hold down the population of Belarus and that country will then beg to be let in to the western security orbit to escape any future Russian intervention.

There’s a high probability that in 5 years Russia will have an unbroken border with NATO from the Barents to the Black Sea, making Putin’s legacy the complete and total failure of Russia’s post-Soviet strategic concept. It’s a mind-blowing degree of change. 

It's interesting to compare Putin's pre-war demands with the current likelihood

He wanted a ban on Ukraine joining NATO, NATO forces to be limited in NATO's eastern borders, removal of NATO troops from places they'd gone to after 1997, no future expansion of NATO, Legal guarantees of Russia's security and so on.

I think he's probably not going to get any of that at all, some of it was never going to be given anyway, but now none of it will be, in all likelihood. IN addition to what he won't get, but demanded, he's also seen the reputation of the Russian military capability severely diminished, Russia's economy mangled and its population impoverished, the Oligarch supporters kind of disappear from the radar with pariah status and the west if not completely uniting, certainly coming closer together in the face of his actions.

There's also the chance that his forces will be defeated and have to retreat out of Ukraine, but even if not, the losses of life on both sides are horrendous and all caused by him.

Just looking at the situation without taking sides, I struggle to see how this ends well for anyone.