|
Majorian posted:Nah, it's a fair question - to me, it seems to be the consensus among economists looking at the issue. Russia's going to end up hurting badly from these sanctions, in all likelihood: (bear in mind, this article is from a week ago) Thanks! I wasn't sure how much they had tried to pivot away from international financial and economic institutions following 2014, but it seems like they were still largely dependent. Majorian posted:Yeah, but Germany had recovered dramatically by the time 1939 had rolled around. Russia was already having economic troubles for years before this war, thanks in part to COVID. And you can see with your own eyes, through this conflict in Ukraine, what kind of conventional army that tier of economy buys you. It's not going to get better for Russia anytime soon. They aren't going to get stronger because of this. Edit: Reiterpallasch posted:what a nuclear arsenal does do is improve the risk/reward assessment of a conventional invasion. having nukes means your military worst-case scenario (you lose and then they/their allies invade you) is no longer possible, because you can credibly threaten to use nuclear weapons in defense of your own sovereignty. I think your comment here is what I've been trying (ineffectively) to say. I fully believe that if western forces in some way engaged Russia within Ukraine, and then somehow it expanded in any way into Russian territory, that Russia might look toward its nuclear deterrence. But if all of the action stays within Ukraine, and it forces Russia to simply withdraw its force, I don't see how that is a significant risk for nuclear exchange. Canned Sunshine fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Mar 21, 2022 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Reiterpallasch posted:this is correct, but also somewhat missing the point of nuclear deterrence. it's true that a nuclear arsenal can't help you prey on a non-nuclear neighbor directly, since kazakhstan has no reason to believe you'll actually go through with your insane threats. what a nuclear arsenal does do is improve the risk/reward assessment of a conventional invasion. having nukes means your military worst-case scenario (you lose and then they/their allies invade you) is no longer possible, because you can credibly threaten to use nuclear weapons in defense of your own sovereignty. Well-put, I agree 100% with this.  SourKraut posted:Thanks! I wasn't sure how much they had tried to pivot away from international financial and economic institutions following 2014, but it seems like they were still largely dependent. Sure thing! Yeah, it's a hell of a thing to see it put in such stark terms, but it's part of what is so truly gobsmacking about this war. Putin very, very badly misread what the economic reaction to this was going to be. quote:Edit: Possibly, but if you're a decision-maker in Poland (to say nothing of, say, France or Italy), do you want to take that chance? Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:40 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:37
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Did the Russian stock exchange open? Apparently only for Russian bonds, which the government said they would buy lots of so it's basically just QE
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What army is he going to use to invade another neighboring country - the one that's currently getting ground down in Ukraine, and that's going to need decades to rebuild? You can't actually rule much completely off the table for countries that fall into overt fascist messaging. You can't rule out nationwide conscription initiatives, can't say that there's no chance they would core out various remaining national assets to some degree towards the rendition of new fighting force, and cannot assume the geopolitical situation will become so stable that there's no targets of potential future opportunity. You especially can't attest that it couldn't happen because it wouldn't make sense, because if you could, by your own admission, we wouldn't be talking about this in the Ukraine War Thread about the war in Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 09:59
|
|
|
Der Kyhe posted:Lukashenka is already a Putin's hand puppet, and it is more than likely that if that guy falls, Russia does an intervention and Belarus is back being part of Russia. Kazakhstan would have also had a government change in this January if the Putin didn't intervene, so that place is also running only because Putin wanted it to keep going that way. Armenia and Azerbaijan are a conflict zone where Russia back the Armenia and Turkey the other; there is already Russian troops in the area as "peace keepers". How is Russia going to intervene in Belarus when 75% of their combat capable battalions are currently engaged (getting mauled) in Ukraine?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:01
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Thanks! I wasn't sure how much they had tried to pivot away from international financial and economic institutions following 2014, but it seems like they were still largely dependent. The article doesn't mention much about industry, but there's approximately jack poo poo that Russian industry can produce without imports (mostly from the EU). We're about to run out of loving printing paper and milk cartons. This is on top of the finance sector and the freeze on the Central Bank's assets
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:11
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:How is Russia going to intervene in Belarus when 75% of their combat capable battalions are currently engaged (getting mauled) in Ukraine? Belarus doesn't have an army, or international backing the Ukraine had between 2014 and 2022, or currently has. The Belarus army also lacks combat experience, uses old Soviet gear, and doesn't have the numbers to resist any Russian re-deployment if it would seem that the guy after Lukashenka tries to run away with the country towards EU. That 75%-90% of commitment was about troops reserved for Ukraine war, not all their troops.They haven't started mobilizing their reserves, besides digging their antiques cupboards for more ready-to-run stuff for the current conscripts to lose. Nato isn't going to do anything if Belarus implodes, because that would put Nato against Russia. Poland maybe, but unlikely. Ukraine cannot do anything to prevent Russia mobilizing inside Russia if it chooses to do so, since going over the border would be escalation towards nukes. Ukrainian army isn't made of miracles either, they would face the same attacker attrition that killed the Russian army going their direction. So basically it boils down to "would Russia mobilize if they were in position to lose Belarus?"; my guess is "definitely", since Putin does not want to risk losing Minsk to this fuckup of his, while trying to take Kyiv.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:17
|
|
|
nutri_void posted:The article doesn't mention much about industry, but there's approximately jack poo poo that Russian industry can produce without imports (mostly from the EU). We're about to run out of loving printing paper and milk cartons. "We're about to...?" Are you posting from Russia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:21
|
|
|
So how's the Mariupol surrender going? Any news on that front?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:22
|
|
|
I'm quite sure that the 200k they sent into Ukraine consisted of 75% of their tactical battalion groups or whatever they're called.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:25
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So how's the Mariupol surrender going? Any news on that front? Ukraine dismissed surrender and the offered deadlines, Groznying continues relentlessly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:28
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So how's the Mariupol surrender going? Any news on that front? It seems like it's going to be a repeat of "Russian warship, go gently caress yourself"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:28
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:Ukraine dismissed surrender and the offered deadlines, Groznying continues relentlessly. "To Grozny" is a really useful verb, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:49
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I think your comment here is what I've been trying (ineffectively) to say. I fully believe that if western forces in some way engaged Russia within Ukraine, and then somehow it expanded in any way into Russian territory, that Russia might look toward its nuclear deterrence. Thing is you *can't* contain a conflict between NATO and Russia to Ukrainian territory. There have been scores and scores of war games on how even a "small scale" conflict on discrete territory would quickly enter an escalatory spiral. And given the disparity in conventional forces, Putin would see this as an existential threat with all that implies. Stoltenberg, Biden and the Pentagon are, thank God, very aware of this dynamic and are at pains to explain the stakes and the necessity of western restraint. "Direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III -- something we must strive to prevent," as Biden puts it. Staluigi posted:Ukraine dismissed surrender and the offered deadlines, Groznying continues relentlessly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:51
|
|
|
PerilPastry posted:Thing is you *can't* contain a conflict between NATO and Russia to Ukrainian territory. There have been scores and scores of war games on how even a "small scale" conflict on discrete territory would quickly enter an escalatory spiral. And given the disparity in conventional forces, Putin would see this as an existential threat with all that implies. Stoltenberg, Biden and the Pentagon are, thank God, very aware of this dynamic and are at pains to explain the stakes and the necessity of western restraint. "Direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War III -- something we must strive to prevent," as Biden puts it. So, was the US foolish not to nuke the Chinese in 1950? Or restrain itself from conventional targets within China?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:54
|
|
|
 no bodies or gore but lots of destructionAftermath of the mall bombing [url]https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1505841703177097216 Is this thermobaric weapon damage? Looks like something big hit it. Soul cleansing post: https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1505839536944910339 Not sure why it's not parsing. The little bunker girl singing Frozen sings on stage at a fundraiser in Poland. ummel fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Mar 21, 2022 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 10:58
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:"We're about to...?" Are you posting from Russia? Yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:13
|
|
|
PerilPastry posted:Can any armchair general weigh in on the implication of continued Ukrainian resistance here? Any specific strategic value to them continuing to hold out? I'm assuming it's relieving Russian pressure from other sectors?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:16
|
|
|
(CW: War) Ukraine v Russia: (56k no)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:18
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:I do wonder though how much of the Russian military's current issues are related to corruption; it has always seemed like they were somewhat keeping up with the US in most regards technologically - behind in some areas, further ahead in others. When, 1975?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
PerilPastry posted:Can any armchair general weigh in on the implication of continued Ukrainian resistance here? Any specific strategic value to them continuing to hold out? I'm assuming it's relieving Russian pressure from other sectors? Mauriopol sits along a strategically important highway and rail line. It's a key part of securing logistics for the southern invasion. It also has an international airport. Being able to pass logistics/land flights here is key to continuing further along the black sea coast. It will be absolutely vital to completely control it if someone decides to blow up a bridge or two on the eastern crimean peninsula.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:38
|
|
|
Wow, is accessing the site difficult?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:43
|
|
|
SYSV Fanfic posted:Mauriopol sits along a strategically important highway and rail line. It's a key part of securing logistics for the southern invasion. It also has an international airport. Being able to pass logistics/land flights here is key to continuing further along the black sea coast. It will be absolutely vital to completely control it if someone decides to blow up a bridge or two on the eastern crimean peninsula. Russia already has the entire Eastern Black Sea coast. Mauriopol is presumably significant because taking it allows a push inland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:45
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Assuming this is true, and I have no reason to doubt you, I should clarify that Elizarov's political beliefs are still very much out there, in the political space of leftist Soviet nostalgia and strong anti-Western sentiment. It's not an unfair assumption that he would write that song unironically, if you don't know the nuances. But his spite and disgruntlement are mainly towards post-Soviet Russian elites who try to exploit what he sees as pure Soviet ideals, while in reality being glorified robber barons and mafiosos. I don't think he made any statements regarding the ongoing full scale invasion, but his take on the LDNR project several years ago was that Russia hosed everything up and instead of actually caring for the Russian minority in Ukraine created an environment where the 'anti-Russia' narrative only solidified in Ukraine, even among the people who previously would be considered pro-Russian. Then he kind of disappeared for several years, so who knows where he is now with that thinking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:52
|
|
at that academic.
|
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1505859269522079746
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:When, 1975? One of the most surprising things about this whole war for me was how at the start, lots of people could not shut up about how advanced and intimidating the Russian military was, and how shocked they were to find out that it was not the case. I admit that I don't actively consume any content that muses on the general status of national militaries in peacetime, but every incidental piece of info I've ever seen that pertains to the modern Russian military over the last decade has made it look like a threadbare clown fiesta. Is this just a case of people slurping up years of thinkpieces from military strategy thinktanks or whatever that end up scaremongering about how incredibly dangerous every opposing geopolitical entity is or what? It feels like Cold War 2.0 where American intelligence consistently overestimated Soviet military capabilities to a farcical extent. What led so many people to have this consensus on Russian military power?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Russia already has the entire Eastern Black Sea coast. Mauriopol is presumably significant because taking it allows a push inland. My armchair opinion is that the offensive around Mykolaiv has stalled because of logistical issues with supplies from Russia. If you look at Lukashenko's invasion map, it doesn't show a northward thrust from the black sea. You can't operate the rail lines without the rail yards - shunting yards, turn tables, loops, etc. I don't think they stockpiled enough stuff in Crimea, and the quickest way to resupply is along the black sea. IMO Rail is going to be the workhorse of their invasion for the forseeable future. Whatever they do, expect it to involve rail lines and rail yards. Even if they get an airport I can't imagine trying to land a cargo plane with people taking stinger pot shots at you on approach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
Jeza posted:One of the most surprising things about this whole war for me was how at the start, lots of people could not shut up about how advanced and intimidating the Russian military was, and how shocked they were to find out that it was not the case. Propaganda, memes, and no evidence how badly they could fail against a near-peer power that's well supplied, motivated, and better organized.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
Jeza posted:One of the most surprising things about this whole war for me was how at the start, lots of people could not shut up about how advanced and intimidating the Russian military was, and how shocked they were to find out that it was not the case. I feel like all these thinktanks and scaremongers only exaggerated Russian military prowess so to justify their own increased spending. It worked before. The MiG-25 scared the entire west into spending billions more, when they finally got one from a defector they found it was dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Is this just a case of people slurping up years of thinkpieces from military strategy thinktanks or whatever that end up scaremongering about how incredibly dangerous every opposing geopolitical entity is or what? It feels like Cold War 2.0 where American intelligence consistently overestimated Soviet military capabilities to a farcical extent. What led so many people to have this consensus on Russian military power? Because the Russian army should have been at least the Red Army light, by following the investments into it and the numbers game, and seeing how it performed on the previous, albeit much more limited, engagements. No-one in their right mind would have considered that all of the army modernization projects were paper bears, and that the kleptocracy had reached the point where even the actual fighting forces are down to USSR spec stuff from the 80's and early 90's, everything else being made for parades only or mostly for photo ops to give the impression that these weapon systems exist in larger numbers. For example, there was a Russian article linked to the Finnish wikipedia page of the T-14 Armata saying that the armed forces are beginning to favor upgrading existing vehicles over switching immediately to Armata, published in 2018. What we can see is that now there are neither upgrades nor Armatas involved in this war after three weeks are done, so every ruble was stolen, to buy non-existent modernized MBTs and mech. infrantry vehicles. They are also pulling out of the moth balls their previous missile weapons platform from the 70's, most likely because they are running out of ammo for the new one. So in short and as a surprise to everyone, if it wasn't made in USSR, there aren't reserves or stockpiles for resupplies. For anything. ^^^ Also that, its easier to sell your F-45 Another Trillion Dollars if you upsell your opponents
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
Russia is mostly rolling out gear that they were bragging about in the 1990s that military intelligence was pretty sure was poo poo even then lol The T90 was a rebranded T72 upgrade because the T72 was so disgraced in the 91 Gulf War that nobody would buy it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:18
|
|
|
Unfortunate fact however is, that the 80's/early 90's Soviet gear is still adequate enough against anyone not-USA if they are used in sufficient numbers. Those craptastic T72's, BMPs and such still take AT-weapon such as Javelin each to kill, and they are in limited supply unless you are backed by Nato. This also means that if Russia mobilizes and is able to get enough of that late Soviet gear running, they will be a serious threat to everyone in their neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
Kchama posted:I didn't mean to start this whole derail, I was just unhappy at someone having natural (and noble!) intentions and desires being degraded as 'adventurism' because Putin might get mad that someone was stopping him from willingly and eagerly committing great evil. FWIW I'm glad you did, it's a conversation worth having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:28
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:I feel like all these thinktanks and scaremongers only exaggerated Russian military prowess so to justify their own increased spending. It worked before. The MiG-25 scared the entire west into spending billions more, when they finally got one from a defector they found it was dogshit. Less "dogshit" than "Wait, it was designed for- and does quite well- one single, solitary mission, intercepting a B-70 Valkyrie, extremely well, but we never took the B-70 into production, so this MiG-25 is now a plane without an actual mission." Which still boils down to dogshit, but it has the added hilarious context of the MiG-25 itself was created because on the other side people were scaremongering about the B-70! It's overreactions and massive plane spending all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:29
|
|
|
Yeah 10 million refugees and burning down the second largest country in Europe in a brual attritional war is not a paper tiger. And lets not forget that Ukraine has spent the last 8 years preparing for this day to come. Nobody else in Europe is remotely as prepared to fight a large scale conventional war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:32
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Is this just a case of people slurping up years of thinkpieces from military strategy thinktanks or whatever that end up scaremongering about how incredibly dangerous every opposing geopolitical entity is or what? It feels like Cold War 2.0 where American intelligence consistently overestimated Soviet military capabilities to a farcical extent. What led so many people to have this consensus on Russian military power? While there is probably a bit of truth to this it must be remembered that Russian military capabilities, manpower and spending are but a pale shadow of the Soviet Union's particularly during the 70s and early 80s. The Soviet Union spent a truly ruinous amount of their resources on the military (to where practically every other public program suffered and declined, perhaps most dangerously healthcare), at its height maintaining a peacetime standing army (that is active service, not the grand total including reserves) of close to 5 million with tens of thousands of tanks and aircraft and missiles, the economy was dominated by the military sector and its adjacent industries. Whether or not that was ever actually a match for the US economy's ability for military spending is debatable, but it's not debatable that post-Soviet Russia has never even come close to the Soviet Union in military spending or capability. Nor should any sane Russian government want to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:33
|
|
|
Also it's been posted a number of times in this thread before but we are having the conversation again so bears repeating: in the first week of the war Russia did not fight according to doctrine and tripped up over its own feet assuming it could seize Ukraine by storm and not have to seriously fight. The second week of the war consisted of trying to fix the mess from the first week, and the third week has consisted of reorentation and reorganisation (in broad strokes, recognising that different things are happening in different theatres). As Michael Kofman has said over and over, Russia would not attempt to fight NATO the way that it has attempted to fight Ukraine, there are some lessons to learn about just how bad their Command and Control and logistics organisation is, as well as how they appear to be missing some key enablers to get them to actually use their artillery and rocketry/air force effectively, but it would be a mistake to assume that the Russian armed forces aren't a real threat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:42
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:"To Grozny" is a really useful verb, sadly. It's fitting, as groznyi means terrible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
KillHour posted:How many times has it been pointed out that NATO members are free to go to war all they like and article 5 doesn't apply to that? It has to have been at least a dozen and I know you've seen it so I don't know why you keep saying this when you know it's not true. Escalation is a horrible idea, and luckily it's irrelevant as Nato members won't get involved in this war more than they already are. Which is already a lot, and unprecedented. Nessus posted:At a certain point, this argument - which I think is only one that exists in rhetoric, not even Putin has actually seriously advanced it - is that since the cost of nuclear war is so unthinkably high, Putin can have anything he wants if he only threatens to destroy the world if he does not get it. It's the world we live in. Der Kyhe posted:Maybe stop apologizing for Putin and the overall Russian behavior, and tell them to stick those demands up their pipes? Russia does not own the only nukes on the planet and giving into their constantly larger demands just makes them demand bigger things. Appeasement does not work with an enemy whose entire thing is stealing everything they get away with. Der Kyhe posted:There is Belarus, and several *stans in the inner Asia where he can just tighten his grip and erase the international border that isn't fooling anyone. And depending how much Germany wants to think that this didn't happen and go back to buying Russian gas and oil, there is no saying if the EU or Nato would do anything meaningful if Russia were to attack Finland in, lets say, 2038 when this conflict is already the one before the other preceding the previous. SourKraut posted:But again, going back to my original question, if you are willing to allow Ukrainians to die out of fear of greater escalation, than I don't think you can use the morality principle of avoiding escalation between two nuclear-armed countries. You can make it a logical judgement, but I don't think allowing innocent people to die because of an extremely unlikely result, is a "moral" decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Regarding Russia's military - don't underestimate the intelligence benefit Ukraine has. Ukraine has a near total awareness of Russia's movements/plans thanks to the US/EU. They know exactly where and when to inflict the most damage possible. Including being able to kill a substantial portion of the Russian command within hours of them coming forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2022 12:45
|
|