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 - Treefence - 04-19-2022

A few announcements are coming out this morning, it sounds like the Netherlands and Romania will now provide lethal aid to Ukraine, Netherlands will provide armored vehicles.  It sounds like Romania has some old stored T-72 tanks, for some reason Israel gave them those after capturing them in battle a long time ago.  Probably only a few will be usable, but at the very least could be used for parts.  It also sounds like factories in the Czechia (Czech Republic) will begin repairing Ukrainian tanks.  This poses an interesting issue, because they are a NATO country, so Russia likely won't risk attacking them, but might make some threats.

---

It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective, however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-19-2022

Quote:A bit of hyperbole here. The UK has already sent Startstreak missiles to the UK in a MANPAD configuration. They did that weeks ago. The vehicular version is a definite improvement but is not a different class of weapon. These missiles require the operator to keep the target in the viewfinder, as I understand it. It is not a "fire and forget" weapon.

Russia has limited standoff precision guided capability at best of times and even more so now. Their fast jets are operating at low altitude to reduce exposure to long range Ukrainian SAMs, but also because they need to be low and relatively slow compared to their capability in order to deliver unguided munitions with any accuracy.

The Starstreak is not fire and forget, but in this context it can still be very effective at taking down Russia's close air support planes, and will be tough for Russia to target. Hopefully Ukrainian soldiers have been training with the system so they can deploy it effectively.

This article on what Russian air operations in Donbas look like was good-

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/russia-likely-has-local-air-superiority-donbas-it-may-not-matter

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 08:54 AM)Treefence Wrote:  It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective,

By US standards, a unit with 25% losses would be considered combat ineffective. The Russian losses are however not evenly distributed. Some units suffered what appeared to be almost total destruction! It is therefore hard to say exactly what shape various units are in. Given the tendency to tell the higher ups what they want to hear, I suspect the Russian leaders don't know either.

Quote:however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

Traditionally Russia has used its units up, not rebuilt them. What they will do now in terms of a replacement strategy I don't know, but a few weeks isn't enough to replace a lot of your strength and fight well. This is especially true in an Army that lacks NCOs to lead at the lower levels. If Russia can accurately determine which units are actually good to go, they can still operate effectively offensively. If they try to use fought out units that way, casualties can skyrocket.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 08:54 AM)Treefence Wrote:  A few announcements are coming out this morning, it sounds like the Netherlands and Romania will now provide lethal aid to Ukraine, Netherlands will provide armored vehicles.  It sounds like Romania has some old stored T-72 tanks, for some reason Israel gave them those after capturing them in battle a long time ago.  Probably only a few will be usable, but at the very least could be used for parts.  It also sounds like factories in the Czechia (Czech Republic) will begin repairing Ukrainian tanks.  This poses an interesting issue, because they are a NATO country, so Russia likely won't risk attacking them, but might make some threats.

---

It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective, however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

Oryx has a good list of foreign aid here. They estimate the Netherlands APC will be YPR-765, an upgraded form of the M113 that the US is supplying.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - cardcrimson - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 10:59 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 08:54 AM)Treefence Wrote:  A few announcements are coming out this morning, it sounds like the Netherlands and Romania will now provide lethal aid to Ukraine, Netherlands will provide armored vehicles.  It sounds like Romania has some old stored T-72 tanks, for some reason Israel gave them those after capturing them in battle a long time ago.  Probably only a few will be usable, but at the very least could be used for parts.  It also sounds like factories in the Czechia (Czech Republic) will begin repairing Ukrainian tanks.  This poses an interesting issue, because they are a NATO country, so Russia likely won't risk attacking them, but might make some threats.

---

It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective, however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

Oryx has a good list of foreign aid here. They estimate the Netherlands APC will be YPR-765, an upgraded form of the M113 that the US is supplying.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html

Unless I'm misreading the list, everything from the US starts with "To Be Delivered". Have we not officially provided anything?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 11:18 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 10:59 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 08:54 AM)Treefence Wrote:  A few announcements are coming out this morning, it sounds like the Netherlands and Romania will now provide lethal aid to Ukraine, Netherlands will provide armored vehicles.  It sounds like Romania has some old stored T-72 tanks, for some reason Israel gave them those after capturing them in battle a long time ago.  Probably only a few will be usable, but at the very least could be used for parts.  It also sounds like factories in the Czechia (Czech Republic) will begin repairing Ukrainian tanks.  This poses an interesting issue, because they are a NATO country, so Russia likely won't risk attacking them, but might make some threats.

---

It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective, however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

Oryx has a good list of foreign aid here. They estimate the Netherlands APC will be YPR-765, an upgraded form of the M113 that the US is supplying.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html

Unless I'm misreading the list, everything from the US starts with "To Be Delivered". Have we not officially provided anything?

To this point, most of what the US had provided was smaller arms, javelins, and stingers.  In the most recent batch of aid, the US is providing armor, infantry vehicles and artillery, some of that has been delivered, but most updates are vague for obvious reasons.  I'd assume Oryx will do a clean update saying "delivered" once the US announces the next batch of aid, and says that "most" of the previous batches have been delivered.  

I believe the US and most other countries were hesitant to provide heavier armor, lethal aid, and such because they didn't want it to be lost in enemy hands (like recently in Afghanistan) and also worried about what might provoke Putin.  Ever since Bucha though, Ukraine has proven they can win this fight, and that they more than deserve just about everything they ask for.

---

(04-19-2022, 10:02 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 08:54 AM)Treefence Wrote:  It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective,

By US standards, a unit with 25% losses would be considered combat ineffective. The Russian losses are however not evenly distributed. Some units suffered what appeared to be almost total destruction! It is therefore hard to say exactly what shape various units are in. Given the tendency to tell the higher ups what they want to hear, I suspect the Russian leaders don't know either.

Quote:however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

Traditionally Russia has used its units up, not rebuilt them. What they will do now in terms of a replacement strategy I don't know, but a few weeks isn't enough to replace a lot of your strength and fight well. This is especially true in an Army that lacks NCOs to lead at the lower levels. If Russia can accurately determine which units are actually good to go, they can still operate effectively offensively. If they try to use fought out units that way, casualties can skyrocket.

That's interesting about them using units up.  I know Russian doctrine is very different from American, specifically they don't allow their NCO's to make decisions in combat situations, especially compared to western militaries.  From what I've heard, a lot of the more elite units, such as VDV, were hit particularly hard in the early days of the war, because they were mostly isolated, and working ahead of their main force.  It's hard to get a full idea of what the Ukrainian losses have been, but it seems they are not quite at the relative level as Russia.  They are also unlikely to experience morale issues to the same degree as Russians, so I'm really wondering if we can eventually see Ukraine pushing back, especially after this initial wave of Russian aggression.  A number I've heard often when you are attacking a defensive position, is needing a 3/1 advantage in man power.  If Ukrainians can hold a lot of key areas, and inflict heavy casualties to the Russians, all while many reserves and green units are being trained and armed by western aid, it really good turn into a humiliating defeat for Russia.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-19-2022

In areas that Russia is ceding, Russian troops are densely mining the areas they left. This is being reported more frequently for the Kyiv region, but it’s also true in parts of the Kherson region. In areas like Kherson, where battle lines remain active, I would expect the mines to contribute to a stalemated position. 

I wonder whether the Ukrainians would do this on any of the terrain they cede in the East. On the one hand, the strategy would be very effective for defense. On the other hand, the strategy will make parts of Ukraine into no-travel zones, will likely cause civilian deaths, and is considered a war crime by some. I think the negatives outweigh the positives, but maybe there will be select instances where the Ukrainians feel they don’t have a choice.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 11:18 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 10:59 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 08:54 AM)Treefence Wrote:  A few announcements are coming out this morning, it sounds like the Netherlands and Romania will now provide lethal aid to Ukraine, Netherlands will provide armored vehicles.  It sounds like Romania has some old stored T-72 tanks, for some reason Israel gave them those after capturing them in battle a long time ago.  Probably only a few will be usable, but at the very least could be used for parts.  It also sounds like factories in the Czechia (Czech Republic) will begin repairing Ukrainian tanks.  This poses an interesting issue, because they are a NATO country, so Russia likely won't risk attacking them, but might make some threats.

---

It was also just reported that the US estimates Russia is down to 75% of what was assembled leading up to the war.  That's a combination of man power, armor and aircraft. That's a significant amount, and bordering on combat ineffective, however Russia of course will reconstitute units to maintain combat effectiveness, but it means they can only effectively attack a smaller area, likely why they pulled out of most of the northern parts of Ukraine.

Oryx has a good list of foreign aid here. They estimate the Netherlands APC will be YPR-765, an upgraded form of the M113 that the US is supplying.

https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html

Unless I'm misreading the list, everything from the US starts with "To Be Delivered". Have we not officially provided anything?

I think confirmation of what exactly has been delivered is not as easy as collating the announcements. Until we see videos of this stuff in action, hard to know what exactly has been delivered. And a lot of things have only been recently announced. We've officially delivered many, many, many planes worth of equipment, probably more than anyone else, what's exactly in them I think is unknown, and probably for good reason.

.......

Apparently the antiship missiles from UK are not really antiship missiles, but Brimstone missiles which could make take out small landing craft, but nothing like the Moskva sinking. Not enough range or warhead. 

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1516493736909447169[/tweet]

I think facilitating a license for MBDA or another western missile manufacturer to produce more Neptunes for Ukraine would seem to be much more impactful. 

Boris has been a very visible hawk on Ukraine probably for domestic political reasons given his issues at home, but UK is actually lagging in per GDP assistance. Baltics leading way, US probably first when it comes to overall and not per GDP.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/kajakallas/status/1516415850894528537?s=20&t=HpB8D_rmh0Q8vpC7pri5gA[/tweet]

.....

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1516499879329411072?s=20&t=Ecbg-h3nRip3SidIT7CPCg[/tweet]

???

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 04-19-2022

RE: The aircraft announcement by the Pentagon, I believe they were intentionally leaving it vague, but it sounds more likely that a large number of parts for airplanes were provided, and likely not complete airplanes. That being said, I wonder if they are trying to slyly lay the ground work for an announcement in a week or so that Slovakia has already provided their MiG 29's to Ukraine, or something of that sort.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 11:43 AM)Treefence Wrote:  That's interesting about them using units up.  I know Russian doctrine is very different from American, specifically they don't allow their NCO's to make decisions in combat situations, especially compared to western militaries.

It isn't so much they are not allowed to do so. It is more that they are totally unqualified to do so and are not trained to do so. There are also not nearly as many of them as there are in Western armies. It is also true of company grade officers. They are not paid to think, and generally they don't. It has been claimed that Russia has been trying to change that (for quite some years actually), but so far there hasn't been much evidence of Russian units showing initiative. For both the NCOs and the officers, the theme seems to be that you are less likely to be blamed if you follow orders to the letter than if you recognize the orders are wrong and do something else. Of course, you can be scapegoated no matter what you do, but initiative won't get you rewared  and may get you punished. The Russians are not big at all on Auftragstaktic.

Quote:From what I've heard, a lot of the more elite units, such as VDV, were hit particularly hard in the early days of the war, because they were mostly isolated, and working ahead of their main force.  It's hard to get a full idea of what the Ukrainian losses have been, but it seems they are not quite at the relative level as Russia.  They are also unlikely to experience morale issues to the same degree as Russians, so I'm really wondering if we can eventually see Ukraine pushing back, especially after this initial wave of Russian aggression.  A number I've heard often when you are attacking a defensive position, is needing a 3/1 advantage in man power.  If Ukrainians can hold a lot of key areas, and inflict heavy casualties to the Russians, all while many reserves and green units are being trained and armed by western aid, it really good turn into a humiliating defeat for Russia.

I think it is well to note that we in fact do not know the casualty rate for either Ukraine or Russia. We see reports, and I am sure that at least some of the people involved are trying to get it right, but the fog of war is real. The Moskva casualty situation demonstrates this clearly. While I think the "final" best guess number is that 40 out of 500 or so died, even that is uncertain. The Ukraine is undoubtedly overestimating Russian losses in general. The Russians aren't saying much, but what they have said is ridiculously low. I see few reports on Ukrainian casualties at all, but they are undoubtedly substantial as well. The balance is unclear to me.

I also get worried when I see reports on Russian morale. I do agree that undoubtedly in many ways it is probably low. However, I know we here are all hoping the Ukraine will win. It fits our narrative that the Russian's won't fight. It fit Japan's narrative that the US wouldn't fight, and they made some very bad decisions because they got that wrong. One thing to remember is that Russian armies have a long history of enduring bad weapons, bad officers and bad governments. They then go ahead and win, partly because they learn by experience and even more because units fight for their comrades, not their officers or their government. They could endure anything. It may well be this current Russian army is not cut from that cloth, but I wouldn't count on it.

The 3:1 number is a rule of thumb when infantry formations are fighting each other head to head. It doesn't translate well to modern combined arms operations. For example, at the start of WWII in 1939 Germany attacked France and Belgium with an army of 103 divisions. France defended with an army of 100 divisions and Belgium contributed 22. The BEF contributed 13 divisions. We know how that turned out.

In Ukraine, the German army had success by utilizing the open ground to find undefended corridors to encircle the defending Russian forces who couldn't move nearly as fast. If the Russian army is any good at all, they will do the same to the Ukrainians. OTOH if the Ukrainian army can fix the Russian army in place after such an advance, the Russian army can be chewed up in pieces because their salients are static and unsupported. That is what happened around Kiev. The key for the Russians is NOT to fight, but rather to move to places of overwhelming tactical advantage. Their aim should be to cut off the Ukrainians. The Ukrainian aim is to force the moving Russians to fight, fix them in place (the mud is still helping), and destroy them piecemeal. Worst case, the Ukrainians have to avoid encirclement and retain tactical mobility. If they fail to stop the Russian advance on day 1, do it on day 2. Don't get bypassed. Real simple.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 04-19-2022

Re: TBD...soon to be delivered, I hope.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/paulmcleary/status/1516442336590450689[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 01:09 PM)Treefence Wrote:  RE: The aircraft announcement by the Pentagon, I believe they were intentionally leaving it vague, but it sounds more likely that a large number of parts for airplanes were provided, and likely not complete airplanes. That being said, I wonder if they are trying to slyly lay the ground work for an announcement in a week or so that Slovakia has already provided their MiG 29's to Ukraine, or something of that sort.

Yes, I think if Slovakia, Bulgaria, or Poland sends MIG 29s or SU 25s, they will send them before they announce them (with very good reason). Possibly relevant here last week from John Kirby the Pentagon Press Secretary, though perhaps just referring to parts.

Quote:John Kirby:

Well, I would tell you that there are some nations that are helping Mr. Zelenskyy with his fixed-wing aircraft fleet, and he has more aircraft available to him now than, frankly, he did just a couple of weeks ago.

Now, every nation-state that does this does this on their own terms. They talk about it or they don't talk about it. That's their decision, and we respect that. But he continues to be able to put more aircraft into operational condition even as the war goes on.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/pentagon-spokesperson-john-kirby-new-u-s-military-aid-will-help-save-ukrainian-lives

Medium or long range SAMs still will be much, much more useful to Ukraine than aircraft given the risk of Russian long range air defenses that Ukraine probably cannot significantly degrade operating from Russia or the separatist areas. Norwegian/US NASAMS would be very effective likely if Ukraine can get them. Hopefully this training may be underway already, I would think Ukraine's S300 stocks are going to run out at some point.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-19-2022

(04-19-2022, 02:45 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Medium or long range SAMs still will be much, much more useful to Ukraine than aircraft given the risk of Russian long range air defenses that Ukraine probably cannot significantly degrade operating from Russia or the separatist areas. Norwegian/US NASAMS would be very effective likely if Ukraine can get them.

Indeed they would! The added benefit is that there are such systems already in Europe. If we could get the Europeans to give them up, it would be great. It will be immediately obvious to the Russians what they are dealing with however when they detect the air search radar, so the "political" ramifications are there.
Failing that, there are Tors out there that could be had. Ukraine already has these units so there is deniability of source for "extra" ones. Greece, Egypt, and Algeria would be the potential source countries. The Tor has a larger engagement envelope than NASAMS, which is a plus. It is older, so Russian ECM may work better against it, which is a minus.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-19-2022

Timely from the NYT-

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/19/world/europe/us-ukraine-weaponry.html

Quote:There is an especially acute need for Soviet-bloc standard 152-millimeter howitzer shells, since NATO uses a different, 155-millimeter shell.

The United States has also agreed to provide some 155-millimeter howitzers, along with 40,000 matching rounds, while trying to buy Soviet-standard ammunition from countries that use it, including nations outside of Europe, like Afghanistan and even India, a longstanding buyer of Russian arms.

Imagine that, US trying to buy arms from Afghanistan to support Ukraine. And India, which is still waiting on Russian advanced S-400 SAMs to be delivered. Unsaid if the ammo was delivered.

Quote:Unlike the early part of the war, when many countries seemed to compete to announce what they were providing Ukraine, the current race is being run largely in secret......A clear example was the confusion over reports that Poland had supplied more than 100 Soviet-era T-72 and T-55 tanks to Ukraine. Poland refuses to confirm any such shipment.


Not all nations are being coy. The Czech government says it has supplied Ukraine with T-72 tanks and BMP-1 armored vehicles, while the Slovak government has made a big show of supplying a Soviet-era S-300 antiaircraft missile system.

Quote:The Pentagon has urged manufacturers to ramp up production. So far, some 7,000 Javelins have been given to Ukraine, about a third of the total American inventory, which will probably take three or four years to replace, wrote Mark F. Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Last week, the Pentagon met with leaders of eight large military contractors, like Raytheon Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation, to discuss how to overcome any supply problems — both to replenish American weapons stocks that have been drawn down to help Ukraine and to keep Kyiv in the fight. The two companies together make the Javelin, and Raytheon makes the Stinger.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 04-19-2022

Someone ask for more military aid?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/biden-announce-another-large-military-aid-package-ukraine-sources-say-2022-04-19/

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 04-19-2022

Relevant quote from The NY Times article:

Quote:American officials say the warning shows that the weapons being sent are making a big difference on the battlefield. So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.

The most likely scenario is that Russia is bluffing and that they are powerless to do anything no matter what we give Ukraine. However, there has always been concern about tail risk, a low probability but high impact event. I think that threat recedes as the reality that we are fully arming Ukraine is a “fair accompli”, but it cannot be entirely ignored.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-20-2022

(04-19-2022, 11:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Relevant quote from The NY Times article:

Quote:American officials say the warning shows that the weapons being sent are making a big difference on the battlefield. So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.

The most likely scenario is that Russia is bluffing and that they are powerless to do anything no matter what we give Ukraine. However, there has always been concern about tail risk, a low probability but high impact event. I think that threat recedes as the reality that we are fully arming Ukraine is a “fair accompli”, but it cannot be entirely ignored.

BC

Russia certainly isn't "powerless" to do anything. However, they too are concerned about widening the war. IMHO in so far as our arming Ukraine becomes effective enough that Russia (Putin) has to deal with the fact they might "lose" (where we aren't sure what losing actually is), the more probable he will do something drastic to scare us (or the EU) into stopping. Your take on the subject is rational. Unfortunately, Putin's probably is not.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 04-20-2022

(04-20-2022, 06:31 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(04-19-2022, 11:01 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Relevant quote from The NY Times article:

Quote:American officials say the warning shows that the weapons being sent are making a big difference on the battlefield. So, for Washington at least, concerns about supplying arms that Russia might consider “escalatory” have ebbed — as has the initial worry that Ukraine will use longer-range weapons, like jet fighters, to attack Moscow itself and set off a bigger war.

The most likely scenario is that Russia is bluffing and that they are powerless to do anything no matter what we give Ukraine. However, there has always been concern about tail risk, a low probability but high impact event. I think that threat recedes as the reality that we are fully arming Ukraine is a “fair accompli”, but it cannot be entirely ignored.

BC

Russia certainly isn't "powerless" to do anything. However, they too are concerned about widening the war. IMHO in so far as our arming Ukraine becomes effective enough that Russia (Putin) has to deal with the fact they might "lose" (where we aren't sure what losing actually is), the more probable he will do something drastic to scare us (or the EU) into stopping. Your take on the subject is rational. Unfortunately, Putin's probably is not.

What do you think is the likelihood that Putin resorts to nukes?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 04-20-2022

(04-20-2022, 07:51 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(04-20-2022, 06:31 AM)Goose Wrote:  Russia certainly isn't "powerless" to do anything. However, they too are concerned about widening the war. IMHO in so far as our arming Ukraine becomes effective enough that Russia (Putin) has to deal with the fact they might "lose" (where we aren't sure what losing actually is), the more probable he will do something drastic to scare us (or the EU) into stopping. Your take on the subject is rational. Unfortunately, Putin's probably is not.

What do you think is the likelihood that Putin resorts to nukes?

Sadly, I have no idea. Certainly no sane man would do so. There is always the hope that those ordered to do so would simply not do it. Russia has always promulgated the idea that using a tactical nuclear weapon in Europe was a rational "sign" to the other side that continued advances would result in a nuclear war (escalate to de-escalate). While NATO never publicly agreed with this idea, it did resonate back in the years that NATO was drastically outnumbered by the Warsaw Pact forces. It was a "last-ditch" option.

In this case, neither Russia nor NATO are getting invaded and in danger of being overrun. Rationally, even the "signalling" option should be off the table. What will Putin do? Rationally, he doesn't invade Ukraine. Rationally, he would have just bought Crimea (with the implicit threat of invading if Ukraine wouldn't sell). The sad fact is that nobody has any idea what he will do. That is one of many reasons he has to go.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 04-20-2022

Pessimistic outlook on Russia's Donbas offensive, interesting because it's from Igor Girkin, Russian Army vet and leader of separatist militias in 2014 Donbas offensive.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status/1516796704816832512?s=20&t=GdigHHzFUlwUETTUkQGabA[/tweet]

---