|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Supplying Europe with LNG from other sources would take decades because the shipping terminal for those exports don't exist. Building that infrastructure would take years and probably even longer. This doesn't seem to actually be true: quote:Analyzing satellite data, Nikkei found that this month a daily average of 40 LNG carriers have been staying in the North Sea, the Baltic and Mediterranean seas, and waters along the west coast of France. The number is up nearly 70% from last January, when 24 such vessels were traversing the same waters. At present, the number of ships has increased to nearly 50.
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
e: ^^ LNG terminal build times in EU are being quoted to be around 2 years. Russia can yet find some fire to play with, with regards to their gas leverage, imo.Majorian posted:True, but wouldn't those factors suggest that if Russia wanted to actually annex more Ukrainian territory (instead of just continuing to isolate and destabilize the country), it should have done so between 2015-2017? It seems to me that what has deterred further Russian invasions hasn't been the lethal aid provided by the U.S., but rather the fact that the rest of Ukraine is a very different kettle of fish from Crimea. In the years leading up to the 2014 invasion, the people of the region overwhelmingly supported leaving Ukraine and joining Russia. One doesn't have to sacrifice too much blood and treasure on occupying a region that is already, for all intents and purposes, occupied. The rest of the country isn't quite so keen on the idea, though - even in places like Donbas, the population is much more divided over whether or not they want to join Russia. So it seems to me that what deters Russia from further invasions is less that the U.S. is arming Ukraine, and more that trying to conquer some or all of Ukraine, even under ideal circumstances, would be too much of a shitshow for it to be worthwhile. From armchair general point of view, I agree that every year after 2014 Ukrainian defensive capacity has strengthened significantly. I’ll not speculate if it outpaced the concurrent modernisation of Russian army, but today it definitely will be much more costly for Russia to annex anything more ambitious than a Crimea land bridge through Mariupol’, than it was in 3-4 years ago, and respectively for even further back. The polling story is a bit more nuanced than what you present, in my opinion. I had a great chat about it with Koos recently - if you care, I can dig that up, but also those details don’t affect present day defences of Ukraine. Back to the deterrence factors, I think it’s worth splitting Western aid into weapons and other stuff. Weapons probably don’t change Russian calculus on strategical level - I’d expect proliferation of MANPADs to just inform tactics for urban warfare and sieges, if they commit to a general invasion. Unless the Russian calculus shows that those weapons could cause enough damage to trigger a domestic backlash over unexpected casualties, I guess. I would prescribe that consideration more towards the replenishment of the suspicious ammunition stockpiles fires, which likely also had greater impact on the sustained combat capacity of Ukrainian armed forces. The other stuff though? That’s what Ukrainians used to rebuild their army with - not exclusively, but the impact shouldn’t be understated. Total aid from the U.S., since 2014, stands at $2.5bn I believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
If Russia goes ahead with an attack, how is it likely to unfold? A phased attack, initially with precision air or missile strikes on anti-aircraft defenses and command/control facilities? A shock-and-awe type bombardment of government and economic targets? Or just rolling the tanks & APCs, blitzkrieg style?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
It'll be a drive straight for Kyiv with massive air and artillery support, because it's one of the capitals Putin has to own to unlock the Form USSR national decision
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
And there's a huge traffic jam... The infrastructure doesn't exist the issue would only get worse if Russia did shut off gas pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
I’ve read some Eastern European military analysts in recent days, and the common theme so far is that they deride domestic media for suggesting blitzkrieg or shock-and-awe bombardment. On the ground, most visibly Ukraine is preparing against various saboteur/black ops scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:46
|
|
|
Defense analysts are thinking of a ton of logistics sabotage, electronic warfare with key points being hit by long range missiles followed by a ground war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:50
|
|
|
LOL this tweet was deleted so I had to take a screen shot.  https://www.defense.gov/News/Releas...xjm5AWmOS8Xm58/ quote:Immediate Release
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Cyber warfare playing a prominent role is one bet I’d make, yeah. Russians are very competent at that, c.f. Continental Pipeline and myriad of older attacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:LOL this tweet was deleted so I had to take a screen shot. I dont get why it was delated, just a typo?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 01:59
|
|
|
FishBulbia posted:I dont get why it was delated, just a typo? Most likely. Although I can't see what the problem with it is. e: here's the replacement. https://twitter.com/SecDef/status/1493386319778693123
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
Came for the big brain dnd takes and "it was wrong to give ukraine weapons" was lol
Despera fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Number_6 posted:If Russia goes ahead with an attack, how is it likely to unfold? A phased attack, initially with precision air or missile strikes on anti-aircraft defenses and command/control facilities? A shock-and-awe type bombardment of government and economic targets? Or just rolling the tanks & APCs, blitzkrieg style? Which do you want, Crimea land bridge, or gently caress IT everything East of the Dnieper?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
Despera posted:Came foe the big brain dnd takes and "it was wrong to give ukraine weapons" was lol Big important American: It's only good if the country meets my internet politics roleplayer standards of freedom and LGBT rights Idiot 3rd worlder: but friend we have free elections, free press, LGBT parades, Russian and Belarusian LGBT folks often seek refuge in Ukraine. The weapons sent don't go to nazis, they go to the military protecting a liberal state Big important American: but have you established socialism? Have you established a workers paradise you loving lib? You are not worthy of my support until you meet my expectations rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:17
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Most likely. Although I can't see what the problem with it is. Original said “to visit discuss”.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
Despera posted:Came for the big brain dnd takes and "it was wrong to give ukraine weapons" was lol That's relatively mild as far as those go. Pure isolationists w/o any of typical thinly disguised Chomskyite racism are almost refreshing in this day and age.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
I don't know if it's relative to the conversation but I posted in the last EE thread that Javelins are a slightly safer option as lethal aid. Safer being a lot harder to use if you aren't supplied like a professional military. You can't use them without a control unit, the control unit takes very specific batteries, and the batteries have a shelf life of ~6 months (an give you a couple hours of power with continuous use). Nothing an organized group couldn't eventually overcome but logistically a pain in the butt to keep up for long terms.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:That's relatively mild as far as those go. Pure isolationists w/o any of typical thinly disguised Chomskyite racism are almost refreshing in this day and age. Yeah Im imaging that a forum that will go unnamed expects somone worth 250 billion to start raising the old hammer and sickle once the tanks get rolling
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:29
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The polling story is a bit more nuanced than what you present, in my opinion. I had a great chat about it with Koos recently - if you care, I can dig that up, but also those details don’t affect present day defences of Ukraine. I'll take your word for it - I definitely believe that the polling is not clear-cut anywhere in a country as big as Ukraine (although I'll read what you had to say if you'd like to dig it up - I'm always interested in learning something new). But my point is less that polling affects present-day defenses and more that broad popular resistance to being occupied by Russia would probably lead to (well-funded, well-armed) uprisings, necessitating a costly, bloody counterinsurgency campaign by Russia. As the U.S. learned the hard way in Iraq, insurgencies can make rebuilding the economies and infrastructures of recently-conquered regions all the more difficult. My overarching thesis here is that Russia's already going to take a big economic hit if it invades, to the point where it would probably impact how well they can conduct a campaign of conquest and occupation. It's high risk, with no guaranteed reward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:32
|
|
|
I am really worried that some of you may have more accurate assessment of the risks than Putin does (and you near certainly care more about regular Russians than him). It's hardly unheard of for leaders of government to make poor judgement of risks --- in 1914 it was hardly only Kaiser Boneheadfancymustache who did (yeah, I know, new tech, but still).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'll take your word for it - I definitely believe that the polling is not clear-cut anywhere in a country as big as Ukraine (although I'll read what you had to say if you'd like to dig it up - I'm always interested in learning something new). But my point is less that polling affects present-day defenses and more that broad popular resistance to being occupied by Russia would probably lead to (well-funded, well-armed) uprisings, necessitating a costly, bloody counterinsurgency campaign by Russia. As the U.S. learned the hard way in Iraq, insurgencies can make rebuilding the economies and infrastructures of recently-conquered regions all the more difficult. My overarching thesis here is that Russia's already going to take a big economic hit if it invades, to the point where it would probably impact how well they can conduct a campaign of conquest and occupation. It's high risk, with no guaranteed reward. Yeah I don't see any end scenario where an invasion benefits Russia in the long run, which is why its rather confusing. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah I don't see any end scenario where an invasion benefits Russia in the long right, which is why its rather confusing. It could end up creating the factors needed for a multi polar world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah I don't see any end scenario where an invasion benefits Russia in the long right, which is why its rather confusing. People have made mistakes before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Azov is explicitly sanctioned by US DoD, and does not benefit from American military aid, as far as I know. The ban on arming them ended half a decade ago unless there was a second go of it. Seems weird of someone who posts about this nonstop every day not to know that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:It could end up creating the factors needed for a multi polar world. Bad TV images cause Biden to lose in 2024 and Trump come to power again and destroy America?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am really worried that some of you may have more accurate assessment of the risks than Putin does (and you near certainly care more about regular Russians than him). It's hardly unheard of for leaders of government to make poor judgement of risks --- in 1914 it was hardly only Kaiser Boneheadfancymustache who did (yeah, I know, new tech, but still). Also notable; Japan in 1941, smart enough to field a more modern Navy and maintain logistics in a massive war on land in China, and at sea with the US. Dumb enough to start a war with the economic and industrial powerhouse that is the US. Their calculation being "if we kick this bear hard enough, maybe it'll stay in its cave". US isolationism and the parts of Pearl Harbor that succeeded showed it wasn't a completely insane approach but, sure didn't pan out. The most intelligent people in the world can and will make glaringly dumb mistakes. Putin has managed to make himself dictator over Russia, that is no small feat that takes a hell of a lot of intelligence and skill. I think he's still backed himself into a very stupid corner with Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
Tiger Team, Go! https://twitter.com/ashleyrparker/status/1493383882678444033?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah I don't see any end scenario where an invasion benefits Russia in the long run, which is why its rather confusing. In the long run, existing Russian oligarchs lose power with a democratic neighbor next door that's empowering the EU economically along with changes in social politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I am really worried that some of you may have more accurate assessment of the risks than Putin does (and you near certainly care more about regular Russians than him). It's hardly unheard of for leaders of government to make poor judgement of risks --- in 1914 it was hardly only Kaiser Boneheadfancymustache who did (yeah, I know, new tech, but still). Well, part of the reason why I'm at least fairly confident in my assessment is that Putin doesn't seem to be stupid or crazy. He's a nasty piece of work, but he's no Wilhelm II or Nicholas II (or George W. Bush, for that matter). He's made missteps and done plenty of downright evil things, but he hasn't done anything that makes me believe he would suddenly go down such a reckless, self-defeating path. The craziest thing he's done that I can think of was annexing Crimea, and that was a much, much simpler operation than trying to take a region that the Russian navy isn't already leasing. Crosby B. Alfred posted:In the long run, existing Russian oligarchs lose power with a democratic neighbor next door that's empowering the EU economically along with changes in social politics. But again, Russia seems to be succeeding at keeping Ukraine out of the EU without invading.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:50
|
|
|
Orthanc6 posted:Also notable; Japan in 1941, smart enough to field a more modern Navy and maintain logistics in a massive war on land in China, and at sea with the US. Dumb enough to start a war with the economic and industrial powerhouse that is the US. Their calculation being "if we kick this bear hard enough, maybe it'll stay in its cave". US isolationism and the parts of Pearl Harbor that succeeded showed it wasn't a completely insane approach but, sure didn't pan out. The Peter Principle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But again, Russia seems to be succeeding at keeping Ukraine out of the EU without invading. It's not about keeping them out of the EU. The whole Country is getting closer, closer and closer every year as opposed to be being neutral or friendly with Russia. Business relationships are developing with European companies which will likely last decades even if they aren't a formal European Union member. Putin and the rest of friends do not want this to occur. It's not just about membership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:It's not about keeping them out of the EU. The whole Country is getting closer, closer and closer every year as opposed to be being neutral or friendly with Russia. Business relationships are developing with European companies which will likely last decades even if they aren't a formal European Union member. That's not much of a casus belli though - especially when Russia can easily trigger capital flight from Ukraine just by indirectly threatening to invade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
Flights, trade, embassies, etc. only got delayed, closed, cancelled earlier this week because people believe the threats actionable because there's now a military presence significant enough to support a invasion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Hi folks, the thread seems to have mostly calmed down now but just a reminder that this is not a thunderdome thread. All regular D&D rules apply. Please make sure your posts are informative, interesting, or funny and not repeating yourself, talking points, catchphrases, white noise. Some degree of chat-thread laxness is okay but please try to keep your posting substantive. It's in the OP but "cinci zoo sniper" remains a thread IK. CommieGIR, myself, and other mods will be keeping an eye on this thread and reports. If you have issues with moderation, please PM a mod (Koos of course is still overseeing D&D moderation) or take it to QCS if you're unable to get resolution by PMs. For now we would like posting and moderation to be similar to the US Current Events thread. If you wouldn't post like that in US CE, don't post like that in here. Also, both D&D and CSPAM are running Valentine's Day 6er events, the threads are stickied if you'd like an AI-generated story and vaguely homoerotic USSR-PRC poster on your rap sheet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
I feel the polling is a red herring. Say for the sake of argument the polling in Crimea was 100% correct, or even understated support for joining Russia.... does it matter? A territorial cession of any kind tramples on the rights of those who did not want it and any nation has a legitimate and undeniable interest in protecting the rights of those citizens. The whole enterprise is so fraught with moral hazard it should be entertained in only extreme circumstances. After all history is a gently caress, and if a region is free of ethnic minorities its probably only because of particularly successful ethnic cleansing... and this clusterfuck has been a case in point. What the Crimean Tatars are going through is an entirely predictable consequence and natural risk of any such endeavor, and IMO it has so poisoned the self-determination argument that I wince every time polling comes up. It is impossible to defend Russia's seizure of Crimea on moral grounds without simply ignoring the Tatars even exist. Even if there weren't such a beleaguered minority to point to, you'd still have a high # of locals being hosed over. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Feb 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Big important American: It's only good if the country meets my internet politics roleplayer standards of freedom and LGBT rights (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:23
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:I feel the polling is a red herring. Say for the sake of argument the polling in Crimea was 100% correct, or even understated support for joining Russia.... does it matter? A territorial cession of any kind tramples on the rights of those who did not want it and any nation has a legitimate and undeniable interest in protecting the rights of those citizens. The whole enterprise is so fraught with moral hazard it should be entertained in only extreme circumstances. After all history is a gently caress, and if a region is free of ethnic minorities its probably only because of particularly successful ethnic cleansing... and this clusterfuck has been a case in point. My point wasn't that Crimean approval of joining the Russian Federation made it moral or legal, but rather that it made Russia annexing the region a lot easier. If you annex a region where over 90% of the population welcomes you as liberators, you're probably not going to worry as much about insurgencies as if you've annexed a region where 50% of the population wants to resist you as a foreign invader.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, part of the reason why I'm at least fairly confident in my assessment is that Putin doesn't seem to be stupid or crazy. He's a nasty piece of work, but he's no Wilhelm II or Nicholas II (or George W. Bush, for that matter). He's made missteps and done plenty of downright evil things, but he hasn't done anything that makes me believe he would suddenly go down such a reckless, self-defeating path. The craziest thing he's done that I can think of was annexing Crimea, and that was a much, much simpler operation than trying to take a region that the Russian navy isn't already leasing. I agree with you but there's one thing: just their threats, which to make no mistake these are huge threats, is resulting in and going to result in pretty heavy consequences for them. So they not only have the cost of this massive movement but also they'll be dealing with the blowback from this for quite some time. It could be argued that Putin didn't expect the response they've been getting so far from this and maybe will now try to back down while losing a minimal amount of face, but the problem with that is this bluff was one hell of a bluff if so. It's hard to believe that Putin *wouldn't* expect there to be a huge response to this. Just by getting to where we are now has been reckless and self-defeating. This is what I keep coming back to when I tell myself surely an invasion would be a colossal mistake. He could have kept eastern Ukraine destabilized just fine with a fraction of what he now has sitting on the border. If that was his goal then why did he go and screw the pooch like this? To be totally clear if you pressed me on it I'd still say an invasion is unlikely, but after thinking on it I think the odds are quite higher than we would have thought a year ago. Maybe 2% before and 20% now, to pull totally arbitrary number out of my rear end
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:34
|
|
|
PIZZA.BAT posted:It could be argued that Putin didn't expect the response they've been getting so far from this and maybe will now try to back down while losing a minimal amount of face, but the problem with that is this bluff was one hell of a bluff if so. What response?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
If he quietly winds down the mobilization I don't think he'll suffer too many external consequences from this other than every Ukrainian soldier in Donbass dual wielding javelins. He can even quip a few zingers at all the international hysteria triggered by a few ~exercises~
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2022 03:40
|
|
