Ukraine

[Decourcy]

Another one for the list. Don’t have time for people telling Germans that they are reading German wrong. Jaysus

[George Jung]

When yer posting from your 'script', it's pretty easy to keep the BS going.

Saw this in the 'Times':

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/t...raine-war.html

An Alternate Reality: How Russia’s State TV Spins the Ukraine War

Leaked emails detail how Russia’s biggest state broadcaster, working with the nation’s security services, mined right-wing American news and Chinese media to craft a narrative that Moscow was winning.

[Peerie Maa]

Try reading a little slower. I question his English, or, more accurately, his ability to get between two languages without adding his own personal spin. This is a problem even for people who are tryng to be scrupulously impartial, much less someone posting their opinions in a hate-Russia thread.

You will find that most northern Europeans speak English as well as or better than you do.

You remind me of an ex forum member, now banned, who could not abide anyone who disagreed with him.

[George Jung]

You will find that most northern Europeans speak English as well as or better than you do.

You remind me of an ex forum member, now banned, who could not abide anyone who disagreed with him.

Hehehe... that doesn't narrow it down much, eh?

[Peerie Maa]

Hehehe... that doesn't narrow it down much, eh?

I was trying to be polite to the French, the western and southern Europeans may be bilingual, but I have no knowledge of those nations.

[sandtown]

You remind me of an ex forum member, now banned, who could not abide anyone who disagreed with him.

so writes the gent who knows so little about arms control . .

I did some translating from Spanish to English, and was not very good at it. But the price was right - I did it for nothing.

[Peerie Maa]

. . . . .

So, you served in the US Army, yes? What as, what rank did you attain?

What industry have you worked in since demob?

Any further education in the topic that you claim so much knowledge of?

I have posted how I attained my knowledge of the nuclear industry and arms, so now it is your turn to reciprocate, yes?

[sandtown]

"The Minsk Agreement is a set of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which broke away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time with a ceasefire in order to later come to a peace between Russia and Ukraine." ...

Was there ever actually a ceasefire ??? . . . not to my limited knowledge.

But hey, how about a Christmas Truce like back in 1914 ??

http://www.peacevoice.info/2014/12/1...ristmas-truce/

[Landrith]

Russia has survived sanctions pretty well. I think China does saber rattling over Taiwan from time to time merely to influence leaders and factions in Taiwan that China largely controls on a path toward reunification without war. So the possibility of sanctions by the West over an invasion is meaningless. But, worse than the West's addiction to Russian raw materials and energy is the West's addiction to cheap production from China by factories that also have all the West's current Intellectual Property and which only mildly respects patents of its favored trading partners.

I am looking at getting more into domestic transportations and I am looking at a current reduction of more than 40% of the goods from China and how that plays out in Spring container rail, store and factory freight. I cannot even imagine what sanctions on China would look like.

Our Bilge rats are from fiat currency countries. I don't think that when you have most of the world's gold, most of the world energy, and almost all of its new consumer markets that you could ever think you were deprived or disadvantaged by being part of BRICS. I dare say that even the Italian designer goods have been returned to Russian retail stores through BRICS intermediaries. Italy quietly removes its luxury items from NATO sanction list, others to follow suit https://tfiglobalnews.com/2022/02/28...o-follow-suit/ https://fortune.com/2022/02/25/putin...ope-sanctions/

[sandtown]

Any further education in the topic that you claim so much knowledge of?

I have posted how I attained my knowledge of the nuclear industry and arms, so now it is your turn to reciprocate, yes?

Sure, I will do that - just as soon as you admit you were ignorant about the Agreed Framework . . . and likely still are.

By writing falsely that I "claim so much knowledge" you are revealing your bad faith. I did no such thing and you know it.

No, I do not claim to be an expert, but I surely know more than you.

I realize that it is a low bar.

[Vadim 68]

Was there ever actually a ceasefire ??? . . . not to my limited knowledge.

There was several, and the withdrawl of heavy weapons from front line. Both sides were guilty of breaking ceasefires and both sides took advantage to move around logistics.

The people who were supposed to enforce Minsk 2 failed to do so, in turn not only allowing the further destruction of Ukraine, but also destroying the economy of the EU as a result .

No prizes for guessing who is making money out of the destruction.

[sandtown]

There was several, and the withdrawl of heavy weapons from front line. Both sides were guilty of breaking ceasefires and both sides took advantage to move around logistics..

Thanks, can you suggest a good source for that ??

[Peerie Maa]

. . . .

Still with the insults.

I started a new thread setting out how N Korea acted in bad faith on the Nuclear issue from the 1990's onwads so not to derail this thread any further.
Go there: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...it-of-research and show us where it was the US of A who broke the agreement.
Meanwhile, care to answer the question put?

[Vadim 68]

Thanks, can you suggest a good source for that ??

I do not have links to specific dates, but ceasefire times and the breaking of them were reported by the OSCE.

The crisis in and around Ukraine | OSCE

Better source than some.

[Landrith]

The US military has undergone multiple doctrinal changes since WW2. To suggest that it's structured along "WWII unit tables" is incorrect. The doctrinal focus over the last 25 years or so is asymmetric warfare. If the US military was still structured along WW2 lines, we might be better prepared to fight a conventional war against a resurgent Russia.

And, unit structure has f*sk all to do with "the communications revolution".

In the video Odessa falls and Ukraine becomes a landlocked country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIIM043x_FI , the Colonel and Professor were discussing the top heavy US command, the unnecessary duplication of G1, G2, G3 and the immense staff that the Army tells the president it needs to transport to the theater and they were comparing that to Russia which still has Infantry Divisions but instead was using Brigades with a General in command and running as many as 8 battalions combined as needed. That is where they are discussing the communications transformation.

I could imagine a US Navy ship Captain in the Mediterranean being awakened late at night with a call from a Lt. Colonel in an Army Battalion he never heard of and being told to launch 2 twenty million dollar cruise missiles in the next ten minutes at a Kosovo target being transmitted. Wouldn't happen, couldn't even get the communication in the US system between different service peers. Supposedly it happened with Russian forces in Ukraine this year.

[Henning 4148]

Look, a squirrel ....

Well, there ain't no squirrel ... Can it be justified, that thousands of mostly young people die, people become homeless, have to flee or have to sit in the dark and cold? The answer is: No.

Do the various stakeholders in the conflict have their own interests, in some cases down to personal interests? Probably.

Can any of this justify the death of thousands, millions of refugees, people sitting in the dark and cold in winter at sub-zero temperature? No. Even if there was a squirrel, it would not justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Henning 4148]

As to buying time - already Sun Tzu had postulated to avoid conflict if the odds are against you.

[epoxyboy]

That's because I don't engage in insane fantasies (ever since Farrah Fawcett got old ;( )


If russian-scale sanctions were applied to New Zealand post a hypothetical invasion of Italy, how would that play out, in your learned opinion ?

Why don't you start off with something that's not so stupid for a premise ? After 75 years, the PRC has no reason to "invade taiwan" unless the dipsticks in washington, e.g. nancy pelosi, force the issue. The rest is all leftover lsd in some peoples' heads. And btw, the people of taiwan recently dumped the administration which had been pushing that. Maybe the people of taiwan are not so interested in being the US' catspaw either.

Also btw, the russian sanctions appear to have helped them economically. Some oligarchs lost their boats, so russia quit making payments on 400 leased airliners, for example. Who won ?

OK. Nice deflection - never mind that Xi has stated that he wants the PLA to develop exactly that capability.
Capability does not necessarily mean intent, and Putin said Russia was NOT going to invade Ukraine.

As for sanctions helping the Russian economy and insane fantasies, wtf are you smoking?
Yes, Russia's economy has had a short term boost in oil revenues, but it increasingly looks like the tide turned on that, likely for years.
Perhaps you're confusing the current rouble exchange rate with economic success?
Forex trading volumes down 24%. Since September!! So much winning.
https://financefeeds.com/moscow-exch...in-fx-volumes/

Looking at indicators of the domestic economy, it doesn't look any better. Vehicles sales, down 61% year on year, for example. There are plenty more.

Millions of formerly productive working age people are no longer contributing to that economy - they've either fled the country and taken whatever assets they can with them, or they're expending ammunition/pushing up sunflowers in Ukraine.
Do you want to talk about the best estimates on the numbers that Russia has lost to covid, out of that working age cohort?
I was reading an article that discussed the number of productive people that an established economy can lose, before running into serious bottle necks. It's surprising low, about 5%. And if you think that's bs, take a look at how losing staff temporarily to covid affected businesses pretty much globally. In Russia though, they've gone, and they aren't coming back for the foreseeable future, if at all.

Aircraft vs super yachts, if you want to play that game some real numbers are handy. Average lease fleet age is approaching ten years, total lease fleet book value is approx USD 10 Billion. There are a bunch of twenty+ year old dungers there.
As of July there was over 330 Billion in frozen russian assets, it's probably more now. And some oligarchs super yachts. So who won?

Gazprom, 51% shareholder of two water filled tubes with holes in them. Ouch. That's at least a $7B hit right there, just on asset value. Never mind the lost revenue.

Roscosmos likely to see several billion in foreign business annually, heading elsewhere. Ouch

It just goes on and on, and all the while Putin is spending blood and treasure like there's no tomorrow.
But everything is fine, HRDavies says so.


Pete

[WX]

And by that tacit acknowledgment, Macron, Merkel, Johnson and Stolenburg showed themselves to be lying to the world, and some people do not understand the mistrust.

Jens used to be good at diplomacy, 12 years ago as a Norwegian minister he ended a 40 year disagreement with Russia over border disputes in the Barents Sea. The difference now is Stolenburg is a talking head for NATO, and admits himself that diplomacy is out of the window. His own admittance to that fact should disqualify him from the post, but then NATO is not a political party and it is not their part to do diplomacy, only enforce the mandate passed down by heads of State from NATO countries, and more obviously US dictates.

I find it dissapointing that some here think the behaviour is acceptable, while bemoaning the fact at Russias breaking of agreements. Two wrongs do not make a right, and using another country and its people as a means to weaken another State is hardly humane. Not the first or last time a country or people will be used in a proxy war for the benefit of others.

Russia broke any agreement with the annexation of Crimea.

[George Jung]

How's it going?

[Vadim 68]

Russia broke any agreement with the annexation of Crimea.

And? So that means the "Normandy 4" has the same right to breach an International agreement, in your view? Since when has stooping as low as the side you complain about been a winning tactic?

Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2202 (2015), Security Council Calls on Parties to Implement Accords Aimed at Peaceful Settlement in Eastern Ukraine | UN Press

Again, two wrongs does not make a right, leads to more mistrust and conflict. Too many seem ok with that.

[George Jung]

Yep. Whattaboutbothsides-ism?

An old, tried/un-true ploy.

[gypsie]

Wow almost a full page of nothing about Ukraine.
People really want to wrestle with pigs.

As to the question of why "the west" has not provided more and more advanced stuff, it's complicated. For european nations, one of the primary reasons is that they don't actually have enough capability to sustain the attrition of this campaign. If you ever wondered how Germany and other Nato countries have managed to avoid "pulling their economic weight", it was because the US preferres to sell its own wares instead of facing competition from local production. The tune was always "buy more from us" not "spend the money to build your own". So with the exception of a few products that have had a wide international market success there is no mass production capability. Even countries like the UK, that on paper have spent the money, actually used it for high dollar things like nuclear subs and not mass production facilities for land warfare equipment. The US is in a better place, but they also face the same problem, and while they can bridge the gap with their very large stocks, a lot of the needed material is not geared for true mass production.

Thanks Rumars, this makes sense to me.

The line that European countries need to keep weapons to defend themselves falls a little short for me. Defend against who? Russia is really the only entity that could/would project military force on their soil. Missile attacks to the UK and France, maybe Germany (their biggest source of income?). Invasion elsewhere. If they want to defend themselves then giving weapons wholesale to Ukraine seems like the best way.
But as you say, production capacity is limited, by design.....?

It was a Kennedy policy, to get other (allied) countries to subsidise the US economy during the Vietnam war by buying American arms. A complicated policy disguised, as De Gaule said, by straightforward emotions. Robert McNamara, 1961; "To further the practice of co-operation logistics and standardisation with our allies by integrating our supply systems to the maximum extent feasible and by helping to limit proliferation of different types of equipment."
Of course the net effect of this policy was the proliferation of nuclear weapons went up a notch or five, and of course the 'allies' forwent production to support the policy. 60 years of policy to be undone.

[Rumars]

The line that European countries need to keep weapons to defend themselves falls a little short for me. Defend against who? Russia is really the only entity that could/would project military force on their soil. Missile attacks to the UK and France, maybe Germany (their biggest source of income?). Invasion elsewhere. If they want to defend themselves then giving weapons wholesale to Ukraine seems like the best way.
But as you say, production capacity is limited, by design.....?

The problem is that your argument was used in the last 30 years to justify not spending on military infrastructure, and right now it doesn't fly anymore. This war has prompted public assessments of readiness, and in most cases the results were abysmal. For most goods the existing stocks are insufficient to bridge the time until the industry can tool up for wartime consumption. Wich means the peacetime enlisted force is unable to perform its basic duty, and no politician can sell this to the public anymore.

As to weather this is by design, that's debatable. There are two models used in europe, state owned and private industry. Both have the same problem, keeping production facilities online without enough orders. So people spend money for R&D and marketing, but production is only actually scaled when contracts are signed, and not mothballed for years afterward. Most countries have their own procurement processes baked into national law, so there is a lot of red tape to navigate around. In a real emergency the economy would shift to wartime production, wich is a different thing, but right now we are still at peace.

[skuthorp]

"The problem is that your argument was used in the last 30 years to justify not spending on military infrastructure, and right now it doesn't fly anymore. This war has prompted public assessments of readiness, and in most cases the results were abysmal. For most goods the existing stocks are insufficient to bridge the time until the industry can tool up for wartime consumption. Wich means the peacetime enlisted force is unable to perform its basic duty, and no politician can sell this to the public anymore."

Applies to Aus in spades. Defence procurement has been a complete and uncontrolled mess for decades.
Combination of technical incompetence, budgetary failures and political interference, and likely as not a little corruptuion on the side.

[gypsie]

Applies to Aus in spades. Defence procurement has been a complete and uncontrolled mess for decades.
Combination of technical incompetence, budgetary failures and political interference, and likely as not a little corruptuion on the side.

Dare we mention a conservative/libertarian party hell bent on deleting the necessary heavy industry skills out of the country.

[skuthorp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhi1XwoTjKU

[sandtown]

Do the various stakeholders in the conflict have their own interests, in some cases down to personal interests? Probably.

You got that right, mein freund - Nick Kristoff (a big LIBERAL) said the quiet part out loud in today Gray Lady (New York Times)

The Very Serious People of the DC Blob are using Ukrainian blood to weaken Russia . . .

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/14/o...in-russia.html

"We are holding Ukraine’s coat as it is sacrificing lives and infrastructure in ways that benefit us, by degrading Russia’s military threat to NATO and Western Europe — and thus to us."

[dutchpp]

the ISW Russian offensive campaign assessment, December 15.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...nt-december-15

Key Takeaways

• Russia may be setting conditions to conduct a new offensive against Ukraine—possibly against Kyiv—in winter 2023. Such an attack is extraordinarily unlikely to succeed. A Russian attack from Belarus is not imminent at this time.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin’s objectives in Ukraine have not changed.
• Putin is using two simultaneous military efforts to pursue his objective of conquering Ukraine and securing major concessions.
• Putin is likely setting conditions for a renewed offensive before the spring of 2023 to coerce Ukraine into offering concessions.
• Russian forces may be setting conditions to attack from Belarusian territory, although ISW continues to assess that the Belarusian military will not join the fighting in Ukraine.
• Ukrainian forces reportedly continued counteroffensive operations in the direction of Kreminna and Svatove.
• Russian forces continued offensive operations in the Bakhmut and Avdiivka areas.
• Russian forces continued defensive operations south of the Dnipro River in southern Ukraine.
• The Russian officer corps continues to suffer heavy losses in Ukraine.
• Ukrainian partisans conducted a sabotage attack on a power transformer substation in Berdyansk, Zaporizhia Oblast.

[Henning 4148]

The thing is - all the arguments and squirrel pointing do not excuse or justify starting an invasion where as a result many many thousands of mostly young people die, millions become refugees or sit frightened in unheated uniluminated homes in winter. The invasion is not justifyable.

[WX]

Russia invaded Ukraine, and Russia has committed numerous war crimes against civilians and POWs. Russia is consistently targeting civilian infrastructure and living areas.
All that is documented...forget the whataboutism, that is just distraction.

[WX]

United States consistently does the same thing, so why do you only get incensed when it is Russia doing this ?

Serious question. I can understand being a peacenik but this self-righteous teeth-gnashing doesn't make sense.

See, this is your problem. You automatically assume things. I protested against Australian involvement in a number of US wars. Just about every US president, at least since the late 19th century has bombed someone.
This thread is about Russian aggression in Ukraine, it's a discussion about that conflict. The fact other countries are supplying weapons and support, and why is just part of it.
As far as I am concerned Ukraine is fighting for survival. And given their past history at the hands of Stalin, and Hitler, I think they deserve to be left in peace.
If you want to discuss US aggression, or for that matter any other countries aggression towards a neighbouring country then start a thread.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

The problem is that your argument was used in the last 30 years to justify not spending on military infrastructure, and right now it doesn't fly anymore. This war has prompted public assessments of readiness, and in most cases the results were abysmal. For most goods the existing stocks are insufficient to bridge the time until the industry can tool up for wartime consumption. Wich means the peacetime enlisted force is unable to perform its basic duty, and no politician can sell this to the public anymore.

As to weather this is by design, that's debatable. There are two models used in europe, state owned and private industry. Both have the same problem, keeping production facilities online without enough orders. So people spend money for R&D and marketing, but production is only actually scaled when contracts are signed, and not mothballed for years afterward. Most countries have their own procurement processes baked into national law, so there is a lot of red tape to navigate around. In a real emergency the economy would shift to wartime production, wich is a different thing, but right now we are still at peace.

What an excellent post.

I thought it was just Britain that had these troubles. I hadn’t been looking around.

[skuthorp]

Well Aus. it seem will, on the surface at least, contract to buy 2 'off the shelf' Nuke driven subs from America. But in the not too fine print you'll find we are being allowed to supply crewmen to American subs, but it'll be the American crew in charge. In other words we are about sub-contracting Aus's military to America, and an expanded military presence everywhere will be our reward. Aus. will be an extra large American carrier moored between the Pacific and China, and the primary target if things get antsy.
And we don't even get the vote, but then dependencies never do.

[C. Ross]

Meanwhile, this:

In an interview with the Guardian, Ukraine’s defence minister, Oleksii Reznikov, said that while Ukraine was now able to successfully defend itself against Russia’s missile attacks targeting key infrastructure, including the energy grid, evidence was emerging that the Kremlin was preparing a broad new offensive.

Reznikov’s comments echoed similar remarks made to the Economist this week – including from the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the head of the armed forces, Gen Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and the chief of ground forces, Col Gen Oleksandr Syrskii.

The briefings appeared to be part of a broad, coordinated effort to warn against complacency among western allies and highlight the continuing threat Russia poses to Ukraine.
While Reznikov suggested a new offensive could happen by February, the other senior officials indicated they believed it might come as early as January.
Referring to Russia’s partial mobilisation of about 300,000 soldiers, Reznikov suggested that while half – often after receiving minimal training – were being used to reinforce Moscow’s forces after a series of battlefield setbacks, the remainder were being prepared more thoroughly for future offensives.
“The second part of the mobilisation, 150,000 approximately, started their training courses in different camps,” said Reznikov, speaking of Russia’s mobilisation drive, which started in October.

“The [draftees] do a minimum of three months to prepare. It means they are trying to start the next wave of the offensive probably in February, like last year. That’s their plan.”

The warnings come amid evidence of Putin’s continuing desires to continue the war into next year, including missile procurement efforts from Iran, and analysis by Russian commentators suggesting that the Kremlin sees no way of retreating from the conflict.
Reznikov said he expected Russia would continue to mobilise its citizens beyond the current partial mobilisation, describing the main tactic of Russian commanders as a “meat grinder” whereby they throw as many bodies at a battle as possible in the hope they will overwhelm the smaller Ukrainian force.
“The Kremlin is trying to find new solutions [for] how to get the victory,” said Reznikov. In the Economist, Gen Zaluzhnyi delivered a similar warning, discounting some western claims that Putin’s mobilisation had largely been a failure.

“Russian mobilisation has worked,” said Zaluzhnyi. “They are 100% being prepared.” He added that a major new Russian attack could come “in February, at best in March and at worst at the end of January”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ve-in-new-year