Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-08-2023

Russia is making minimal gains and losing tens of thousands of soldiers for it. Ukraine would be plenty happy if that continues. They want to fix Russia in places of little strategic value and kill a lot of Russians while they wait for the right conditions for their own offensive.

Russians assault Bakhmut was a punchline 6 mos ago. And still they have not taken it.

Ukraine's Kherson and Kharkiv offensives are still miles beyond anything Russia has shown recently or is likely to show. And I think their next offensive will be a success as well, they just need to set the right conditions for it (which they have demonstrated much more proficiency for than Russia). Patience.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 02-08-2023

WSJ piece on Bakhmut

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-bakhmut-russia-soldiers-killed-11675810722?st=83sonjytr6uremw&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Quote:Even if Ukrainian troops are forced to withdraw from Bakhmut, the question remains whether Russia can successfully use such a slow and costly tactic more broadly. Ukrainian commanders say they are grinding down Russian forces, making them vulnerable to counterattacks. Ukraine has constructed strong defensive lines to the west of Bakhmut, and the plodding Russian advance shows no sign of scoring the kind of rapid breakthrough that could cause a broader Ukrainian collapse.

Again, there are echoes of last summer.  Maybe the outcome will be different this time, but I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

BC

---

And apropos nothing, Putin likely approved the missile that downed MH17 in 2014/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/investigators-say-putin-likely-approved-supply-of-missile-system-that-downed-flight-mh17-11675882515?st=eua6k43m9uws0de&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-09-2023

Some interesting things I read and saw today on Ukraine-

On Typhoons-

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/giving-raf-typhoons-ukraine-would-be-very-expensive-symbolic-gesture

Some of authors' arguments are that UK doesn't really have the Typhoons to spare, or the contractors to keep them running to spare, they would be prone to engine damage from the austere runways Ukraine likely would need to use (as would be F16s), and the weapons options are not great for ground defense and would need US approval for long range AAMs (AMRAAMs). The author pushes the Swedish Gripen as the best option, though admits there probably aren't a ton to spare of those either.

From what I've read elsewhere, there probably aren't really a ton of F16s either that could readily be sent, unless the US sends some.

Sending multiple types of a few western jets seems like a big logistics nightmare however, probably much more so than the tanks. Though I'm sure Ukraine would take what they can get and use them better than we'd expect.

---


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/09/ukraine-himars-rocket-artillery-russia/

---
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics/spacex-ukrainian-troops-satellite-technology/index.html

Quote:The president of SpaceX revealed the company has taken active steps to prevent Ukrainian forces from using the critical Starlink satellite technology with Ukrainian drones that are a key component of their fight against Russia.
“There are things that we can do to limit their ability to do that,” Gwynne Shotwell told reporters on Wednesday, referencing reports on Starlink and drone use. “There are things that we can do, and have done.”

F*cking Elon. Hopefully Biden nationalizes Starlink.

---

And some more Russians finding out.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/jabuttee/status/1623782805246300162?s=20&t=PDBwJelWWDIEFBZJMAnnzA
[/tweet]

Looks like the Vuhledar disaster assault is nearly on par with the atrocious mauling Russia took with that infamous river crossing last spring. 31+ vehicles and a lot of dead and captured Russian regulars, not just wagnerites.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 02-10-2023

The Russian offensive may have started.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1623891582079455232?s=61&t=pe03M73amjX8l4micR8Xaw[/tweet]

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 12:51 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  The Russian offensive may have started.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1623891582079455232?s=61&t=pe03M73amjX8l4micR8Xaw[/tweet]

BC

Yeah, it sounds like the real deal if you read OSINTdefenders' tweets since about 9PM Pacific. (7AM Ukraine)
Reports:
3 missile cruisers in the Black Sea = 60 missiles. (Maybe Putin will send a box of chocolates to Musk.)
10 Tu-95 strategic bombers airborne.
Lots of reports of successful missile strikes.

Report of 35 S-300 missiles that couldn't be shot down.

Nothing yet on Ukraine Ministry of Defense twitter account.

Good luck, Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-10-2023

I think the offensive started a week or so ago. The slaughter at Vuhledar involved parts of three separate Russian regular units.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 02-10-2023

Would Ukraine consider developing its own nuclear weapons?

Ukraine ‘could develop own nuclear weapons’ to stop Vladimir Putin's war 

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 08:15 AM)Mick Wrote:  Would Ukraine consider developing its own nuclear weapons?

Ukraine ‘could develop own nuclear weapons’ to stop Vladimir Putin's war 

How would this work in practical terms?  Would Zelensky all of a sudden say "you have 7 days to GTFO, or we liquify Moscow with our nukes?"

Otherwise, how does the development of a UKR nuke capability - a weapon that is suppose to be a deterrent - evolve to actually stop the Russian invasion short of actually being used to wipeout a Russian city?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 08:15 AM)Mick Wrote:  Would Ukraine consider developing its own nuclear weapons?

Ukraine ‘could develop own nuclear weapons’ to stop Vladimir Putin's war 

I very strongly suspect not. They undoubtedly have the technical ability to do so. They lack a credible delivery system and lack the time and industrial capacity to produce one very soon. If they had such a system, they wouldn't need ATACMS :-). Loading a single bomb on a MIG and "trusting to luck" that it can reach Moscow is possible but 1) most probably the MIG would get shot down and 2) if it didn't, Russia would then just obliterate Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

Ukraine would also lose the "moral high ground" that it now enjoys in the rest of the world. As the owners of nuclear weapons quickly discover, they are valuable only for the threat they pose. If you actually use one against another major nuclear power, what will happen to you is so unacceptable you just don't go there. MAD is real. If you use a nuclear weapon in today's world even against a non-nuclear opponent, you for sure become an international pariah and it is far from certain another nuclear armed nation(s) won't (either mistakenly or intentionally) obliterate you because you are a "loose cannon" that simply has to go. Obviously the latter applies only to nations with limited nuclear capabilities.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-10-2023

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/OSINTua/status/1624061211561041920?s=20&t=R9XQUCmHYpqpwlkVJH5x9w[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 08:46 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-10-2023, 08:15 AM)Mick Wrote:  Would Ukraine consider developing its own nuclear weapons?

Ukraine ‘could develop own nuclear weapons’ to stop Vladimir Putin's war 

I very strongly suspect not. They undoubtedly have the technical ability to do so. They lack a credible delivery system and lack the time and industrial capacity to produce one very soon. If they had such a system, they wouldn't need ATACMS :-). Loading a single bomb on a MIG and "trusting to luck" that it can reach Moscow is possible but 1) most probably the MIG would get shot down and 2) if it didn't, Russia would then just obliterate Ukraine with nuclear weapons.

Ukraine would also lose the "moral high ground" that it now enjoys in the rest of the world. As the owners of nuclear weapons quickly discover, they are valuable only for the threat they pose. If you actually use one against another major nuclear power, what will happen to you is so unacceptable you just don't go there. MAD is real. If you use a nuclear weapon in today's world even against a non-nuclear opponent, you for sure become an international pariah and it is far from certain another nuclear armed nation(s) won't (either mistakenly or intentionally) obliterate you because you are a "loose cannon" that simply has to go. Obviously the latter applies only to nations with limited nuclear capabilities.

I don't disagree, but how far away is Ukraine from Assured Destruction in any event, particularly after Russia throws 500k soldiers at them in the upcoming offensive? Russia is destroying Ukraine's infrastructure and power grid. Ukraine is well on its way to Assured Destruction. Russia is kidnapping their people, they haven't conducted themselves as anything other than war criminals. Devil's advocate...why not make the Assured Destruction Mutual?  If Russia is going to fully destroy and take over Ukraine, why not develop ten nukes and send them Russia's way? I'm not advocating this, I just wonder how long it will take for Ukraine to reach that conclusion.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - OutsiderFan - 02-10-2023

It seems to me like the heavy weapons deliveries Ukraine is poised to get, are giving Russia the kind of choice Mick is applying to Ukraine and nuclear munitions. Meaning, after Ukraine has hundreds of tanks and IFVs it will be difficult for Russia to do anything but retreat, so might as well launch an offensive with man power hoping to make gains before Ukraine has those weapons.  In turn, if Ukraine is being destroyed by Russia without having nukes or using them, might as well have and use them.

The west needs to make a much larger commitment to Ukraine to avoid more needless death and suffering. The United States sent soldiers to Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan to die for far less important purposes with far less consequences than protecting Ukraine from Russian aggression. Nobody can make the case to me that the United States, NATO, and all democratic countries shouldn't be willing to put their own soldiers and equipment on the ground in Ukraine to end this bullshit ASAP.

Russia is now firing cruise missiles over Moldova and Romania apparently, because they feel emboldened, like they aren't going to face any consequences for doing so. And looking at where they hit, it looks to me like Russia is planning to hit the newly delivered armored assets to Ukraine before they hit the front lines. What happens if the new tanks from Germany are destroyed before being used?  Does Germany shrug its shoulders and say "we tried," or make a bigger commitment to defeating Russia? It's time to bring some serious muscle to the fight for Ukraine, and increase the cost to Russia for being such a destructive world actor. 

Only decisive force wins wars. The only way the Allies forced German surrender was razing the entire country, civilians included.  The only way Japan gave up was after nuclear bombs were dropped on them.  The U.S. failed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq because it tried to fight "clean wars" and engage in nation building in places that didn't share the U.S. culture. Now we have Ukraine, as straightforward a military objective as could exist, pushing an invading country out of another, in a country without a civil war going on, and we aren't willing to go in. Why? Because we are afraid of Russia?  If this is the reason, we've already lost and should just let Ukraine fall into Russian hands.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 02:52 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  The only way Japan gave up was after nuclear bombs were dropped on them.

Not that this changes your overall point, but there is a vigorous debate over this statement.  As a kid, my parents told me that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what ended the war--that without them, my father would have been in the invasion force and would likely have died, I never would have been born!  Quite a conversation stopper.

However, over the years, I think the evidence has grown that the end of the war was much more complex, and H&N may indeed have not been necessary.  Bart Berstein at Stanford was one of the first to really put forward the alternative theory--probably more than a few here on this board had his class.  But this is an excellent popular summary of the arguments:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

I'm not enough of an expert to say whether my Dad or Ward Wilson was correct--but I've read enough to realize that use the A-bombs is no longer uncritically accepted as necessary--or even useful--to ending the war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  If Russia is going to fully destroy and take over Ukraine, why not develop ten nukes and send them Russia's way? I'm not advocating this, I just wonder how long it will take for Ukraine to reach that conclusion.

Ukraine might have enough fissile material for one small device. Even that isn't for sure. Supposedly they got rid of all they had, but I suspect there is enough "laboratory" material around to make one such device. They can't test it, it may not go off at all. Ten such devices are IMHO not possible.

As some of my other posts have indicated, I do think there is a point where organized resistance ceases. The Ukrainian people will not be wiped off the face of the earth unless things do go nuclear. They aren't suicidal, and realize blowing up a few Russian cities really won't help them.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - JJJ - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 03:44 PM)81alum Wrote:    But this is an excellent popular summary of the arguments:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

I'm not enough of an expert to say whether my Dad or Ward Wilson was correct--but I've read enough to realize that use the A-bombs is no longer uncritically accepted as necessary--or even useful--to ending the war.

Thanks for sharing that article. Very succinctly summarized, wrt Japan. Not enough of an expert either as to whether it'll work in this instance.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 05:33 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-10-2023, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  If Russia is going to fully destroy and take over Ukraine, why not develop ten nukes and send them Russia's way? I'm not advocating this, I just wonder how long it will take for Ukraine to reach that conclusion.

Ukraine might have enough fissile material for one small device. Even that isn't for sure. Supposedly they got rid of all they had, but I suspect there is enough "laboratory" material around to make one such device. They can't test it, it may not go off at all. Ten such devices are IMHO not possible.

As some of my other posts have indicated, I do think there is a point where organized resistance ceases. The Ukrainian people will not be wiped off the face of the earth unless things do go nuclear. They aren't suicidal, and realize blowing up a few Russian cities really won't help them.

What a cheery post.  I'm hardly the board's resident optimist, but for now I am keeping up my hopes that Russia's winter offensive won't net too much Ukrainian territory.  I am concerned about a stalemate, but I don't really think the entire Ukrainian state is likely to collapse.  I suspect Ukrainians living in Kyiv, for example, will be better off as citizens of a stub version of Ukraine that continues to resist a full takeover than as citizens of a Russian-owned territory.  I can't imagine that life is great for Chechens or Dagestanis, for example.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 03:44 PM)81alum Wrote:  

(02-10-2023, 02:52 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  The only way Japan gave up was after nuclear bombs were dropped on them.

Not that this changes your overall point, but there is a vigorous debate over this statement.  As a kid, my parents told me that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what ended the war--that without them, my father would have been in the invasion force and would likely have died, I never would have been born!  Quite a conversation stopper.

However, over the years, I think the evidence has grown that the end of the war was much more complex, and H&N may indeed have not been necessary.  Bart Berstein at Stanford was one of the first to really put forward the alternative theory--probably more than a few here on this board had his class.  But this is an excellent popular summary of the arguments:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

I'm not enough of an expert to say whether my Dad or Ward Wilson was correct--but I've read enough to realize that use the A-bombs is no longer uncritically accepted as necessary--or even useful--to ending the war.

A professor at UC-Santa Barbara, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, published a book on this topic eight years earlier in 2005 titled, "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman and the Surrender of Japan."

Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan: Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi

Counterpoint to the book from Richard Frank:

Frank-HasegawaRoundtable (issforum.org)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-10-2023

(02-10-2023, 06:00 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  What a cheery post.  I'm hardly the board's resident optimist, but for now I am keeping up my hopes that Russia's winter offensive won't net too much Ukrainian territory.  I am concerned about a stalemate, but I don't really think the entire Ukrainian state is likely to collapse.  I suspect Ukrainians living in Kyiv, for example, will be better off as citizens of a stub version of Ukraine that continues to resist a full takeover than as citizens of a Russian-owned territory.  I can't imagine that life is great for Chechens or Dagestanis, for example.

I don't think it probable the Ukrainian state will collapse either. I don't have any expectations that Russia will overrun Ukraine in this offensive either. I wouldn't be amazed if they did have significant success, and I also wouldn't be amazed if Ukraine subsequently took it all back. What was being discussed was a scenario that involved being so desperate they would attempt to use nuclear weapons. If things get that bad I do think the Ukrainian state may collapse.

The decision by Japan to unconditionally surrender is an interesting case. The fact is nobody really knows what would have happened in all the counterfactual scenarios. One possibility not mentioned here yet was that the US naval blockade would simply starve Japan to impotence. Russia right now appears on a road to the "unconditional surrender" approach. That precludes a stub Ukraine surviving. Obviously if Russia reaches the point it "gives up" on that notion, other outcomes are possible. Right now, I doubt Putin can be persuaded to end the war short of total victory. Ukraine will never have the power to dictate the terms of a settlement. Russia may, and as long as they believe they can and are trying to do so, the war goes on. Unfortunately that is just how it is. The "trick" is to weaken Russia so it can't continue or get a leader in Russia who is sane enough to realize it isn't worth it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-11-2023

I'd say modal outcome is Ukraine regains territory to pre 2022 invasion borders and Putin stays in power. Russia has already lost half of all their tanks, including the shitty old ones they've been refurbishing. And they aren't making more very quickly. At a certain point Russian combat power will be exhausted, and I'm pretty certain it will be before Ukraine loses the will to fight. Like Afghanistan for Russia or Vietnam for the US, eventually even a stronger nation will decide they've had enough and just leave.

Ukraine retaking Crimea and Putin getting ousted would be upside scenario, but less likely. Russia holding onto the territory they presently hold possible but I think it's extremely unlikely they gain much more and hold it until hostilities end.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-11-2023

(02-11-2023, 02:22 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  I'd say modal outcome is Ukraine regains territory to pre 2022 invasion borders and Putin stays in power.

This could indeed happen. However, I believe that if Ukraine can achieve this result they will press very hard to eliminate any Russian control in Donbas. The DPR and the LPR becoming part of Russia is a recipe for ongoing conflict. Of course Ukraine could be pressured by their "allies" to give in on this, but if things are going that well for Ukraine, I doubt anybody is going to try and stop them from that outcome. I do however disagree that Putin could survive such an outcome. It would be such an obvious and massive failure that there would be no way he could "spin" his way out of it. He may be around long enough to sign the treaty (and take the blame), but not long after that. Hopefully we will all soon get to find out.

Quote:Russia has already lost half of all their tanks, including the shitty old ones they've been refurbishing. And they aren't making more very quickly. At a certain point Russian combat power will be exhausted, and I'm pretty certain it will be before Ukraine loses the will to fight.i

I totally agree with this statement. However it is must be recognized that while Ukraine may still have the will to fight their ability to do so can be exhausted too, and possibly before Russia's is. It isn't just the supply of weapons. It is the ability of an organized country to act on a large scale. Obviously if Russia overruns lots of Ukraine they will have trouble doing that. It is also true that the destruction of Ukrainian infrastructure can preclude effective resistance.

Quote:Like Afghanistan for Russia or Vietnam for the US, eventually even a stronger nation will decide they've had enough and just leave.

That is the only way this war can end with a "Ukraine" remaining. We just have to figure out how to make Russia realize that  it just isn't worth it. So far we haven't done it.

Quote:Ukraine retaking Crimea and Putin getting ousted would be upside scenario, but less likely.

I am (as you undoubtedly know :-) of the opinion that the odds of Russia deciding it just isn't worth it are pretty low as long as Putin is in a "net positive" position territory wise. He and his country can look at it as "only a matter of time", something Russia is historically good at doing. Eventually maybe that would stop working, but I don't think Ukraine can tolerate say five more years of intense war. Only by converting the situation to a clearly "net negative" can the Russian body politic be pushed/shocked into somewhat rapidly making a decision that it "obviously" isn't worth it.

Quote:Russia holding onto the territory they presently hold possible but I think it's extremely unlikely they gain much more and hold it until hostilities end.

I think this is an unlikely outcome. Ukraine would be in a position like Czechoslovakia after Munich, only worse. They would have lost their access to the Sea of Azov and would be 2/3 surrounded by Russia. Economically it would also be a serious blow to a country that was already the poorest per capita in Europe. I think Ukraine would keep fighting at that point, as they undoubtedly would believe quitting on these terms just isn't viable.

---