Ukraine

There's already a thread matey.👍

I couldn't find it! What's it called?

It's called 'Lies and propaganda'

Or it could be

'Doing things the American way'

I still can't find it!

Singletrackworld barely makes a dent on Google these days...

Poopscoop isn’t getting confused with Kazakhstan by any chance?

Fair enough.
I never thought Putin would have the balls to invade but I guess the US's stature on the world stage has diminished to the point that he feels confidant enough to get away with it now. And, to be fair, I think he will!

It'll prob be more of an annex of the Donbas region, like he did with Crimea, rather than a full invasion but you never know...

I never thought Putin would have the balls to invade but I guess the US’s stature on the world stage has diminished to the point that he feels confidant enough to get away with it now.

And/ or Putin/ Russia is convinced the US is so heavily focussed on China they aren’t properly prepared (won’t notice?) for a sneaky peak over Ukraines borders.

Edit to add: Russia are unlikely to mount a full on invasion. There’s no longer popular support for that and risks a Vietnam situation for Russia. They are highly likely to take strategic chunks.

That is still an invasion no matter how much you cut it up. It should still carry just as much international condemnation as a "full invasion" whatever that is. There is no "annexation not invasion".

An invasion is a military offensive in which large numbers of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory owned by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof

Nobody should really have any illusions that Russia or China or anyone for that matter would prefer to  see themselves as top dog. But I think that should also and more so apply to the US/NATO. They dont give a flying for the trouble they cause by warmongering constantly and siding right up to Russia's borders.

There’s no longer popular support for that and risks a Vietnam situation for Russia.

Afghanistan may be a better comparison.
.
Should the West stand up to Russia militarily? I don't know, it could get nasty. But not standing up to Germany over the Sudetenland (sp?) didn't prove successful in the long run, had we done something earlier things may have turned out better. Or the Rhineland or Austria. The longer we left it the stronger they became and the harder the inevitable fight became.
When do we stand up to Russia? We didn't over Crimea. Donbas? The rest of Ukraine? Lithuania? Poland? Germany?

When do we stand up to Russia?

We already have; economic sanctions have decimated the Russian economy over the last 8 years and they would not be able to fund a war against NATO (probably couldn't have before that either) so no further action is needed.

Really? Yes, the sanctions have undoubtedly hurt them a bit, but they have not got them to return Crimea or to back down now, and I can't see more sanctions doing it either. Much, much tougher ones have failed to stop North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons for example or to change the regime in Iran and how long were sanctions in place against Cuba without causing a change in direction?
Sanctions just make the country imposing them feel like they have done something without actually taking any hard decisions or risks.
And we can't cut Russia off completely because Europe need their oil and Germany especially need their gas.
A lot of state of the art air defence systems being given to Ukraine would be a much bigger deterrent than a travel ban for a few politicians.
Ukraine may not be a member of NATO but the UK and US (and indeed Russia!) have an obligation to them under the Budapest Memorandum. If giving up nuclear weapons gets them bugger all help when under a real threat why should any other country ever consider giving them up, or indeed not acquiring them in the first place? Whether or not they would ever use them is something of a moot point, having the ability to wipe out most of the massed troops with half a dozen missiles would probably mean that this situation would never have arisen in the first place.

Nobody is going to start WW3 over Ukraine; the West defending them militarily was never on the table. The sanctions imposed weren't to stop them annexing more of Ukraine they were to stop their ability to fund a military capable of taking on the West. Hence it was a response to your comment on "the longer we left it the stronger they became".

The point is we don't need to involve ourselves in fighting because the economic sanctions have stopped them arming themselves to anywhere near the level required to threaten a NATO member state.

You mentioned Lithuania, Poland, Germany, they are NATO members so very different to Ukraine. Completely different.

So to summarise, yes the sanctions have worked. And we don't have a legal obligation to Ukraine under the BP, it's not a legally binding treaty and Ukraine know that.

Btw the sanctions are a lot more than "a few travel bans for politicians". To quote the Associated Press, "The sanctions contributed to the collapse of the Russian ruble and the Russian financial crisis.[5]".

That is still an invasion no matter how much you cut it up.

I’d broadly agree. There is a difference though between an invasion of Ukraine where the intent is to take over the whole country, and an annexation of a part of the country. Arguably Russia would like the entire country to be in its power but only has resources to grab a portion.

Russia has a long history of destabilising neighbour states as a way of protecting it's borders (see Georgia) so maybe this is just that, but Russia has just spent a huge chunk of GDP upgrading their military and I suspect they plan to use it. A lot.

There is a difference though between an invasion of Ukraine where the intent is to take over the whole country, and an annexation of a part of the countr

I wonder what Poland would think of that.

<\goodwinslaw>

How much of a fight can Ukraine put up?
Are there any other interested parties who want to have a pop at the bear?

1) Not much
2) No-one

Transdinistra is mentioned in that article which if it kicked off there would probably drag in Moldova.

It could be that the Russians want to force the Ukrainians to defend on two fronts, thereby reducing the capacity to defend, or it could be that the Russians initial gambit is to seize the Black Sea coast.

That would make sense. No real reason to pass up on a strategic advantage like that

Actually, having looked at a map I'm not sure they will unless they are going for a total invasion on Ukraine. I'm currently guessing it will be Donbas only, plus aa far as I know there's no Russian troops amassing in Transninistria. However, if there was, that would be a pretty clear indicator!!

I reckon all the former Warsaw pact counties might feel a little uneasy, pity they don't club together and tell the Russian bully to do one.

It could be a case of "Careful what you wish for" given how Zelensky ended up where he is now:

"Ukrainians are waking up this morning and discovering that the last few months were not a dream.
They really have elected a man who currently stars in a TV series as the president - as the country's next real president. And it wasn't even close.
The pressure will now be on Mr Zelensky to demonstrate that he knows what he is doing.
Throughout the election campaign, he avoided serious interviews and discussions about policy - preferring instead to post light-hearted videos to social media.
He's got about a month before the inauguration. Then the comedian-turned-president will be faced with a complex in-tray that includes a simmering war with Russian-backed rebels in the east."

Oh man! I had forgotten about that. Imagine electing omeone to lead your country because he was funny on TV! So glad that would never happen here. Oh wait, hang on, this is awkward...

“The sanctions contributed to the collapse of the Russian ruble and the Russian financial crisis.[5]”.

that might well be true but they don’t send to have made any difference to the oligarchs and ruling elite

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/15/uk-defence-minister-warns-of-consequences-if-russia-invades-ukraine?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Ummmm....has anybody else never heard of Ben Wallace before?!

Isn't he Dave Gormans mate?

Haha!

How much of a fight can Ukraine put up?

More then we think. They have been investing in air defence systems. Equally Russia are effectively compelled to use Wagner group mercenaries to wage their wars. Russia is anxious about it’s borders. It’s interest is in destabilising those countries that get too close to the US and in getting access to a warm water port.

piemonster
Free Member
Poopscoop isn’t getting confused with Kazakhstan by any chance?

I can neither confirm or deny that is entirely correct.😁

Looks like this is really going to happen

Quite possibly, Putin has a lot to lose if Ukraine becomes a functioning democratic state

But I think that should also and more so apply to the US/NATO. They dont give a flying for the trouble they cause by warmongering constantly and siding right up to Russia’s borders.

I worry about your Facebook feed.
Other than Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, a no fly zone here and there what has NATO done? Independent US actions aren't NATO.

Remind me which state has just taken down half the Ukrainian state IT?

How much of a fight can Ukraine put up?

A significant portion of the Ukrainian population have done time fighting and are willing to fight. The joke that was Ukrainian military has changed as has the willingness to fight. Any invasion will see an intolerable number of body bags going back to mother Russia

Watch these

The big thing to note is the comments about ideological volunteers, people who are prepared to fight, sadly prepared to die. Ukraine will be Russia's Iraq/Afghanistan on steroids, the big issue is that Putin may think they have no option.

Ukraine will be Russia’s Iraq/Afghanistan on steroids

That would be nice, I just can't see a reason why it would be that way

, I just can’t see a reason why it would be that way

Population similar, prepared, ideological volunteers, real combat experience fighting the nutters and russian regulars and irregulars in the Donbas, expectation that it would see operations in Russia (I wouldn't use the Moscow underground after h hour)

Population similar,

Ukraine has 1/4 thw population and 1/8 the GDP. It doesn't really compare tbh

Sorry Airvent, I went up a mountain and never repied.

The point is we don’t need to involve ourselves in fighting because the economic sanctions have stopped them arming themselves to anywhere near the level required to threaten a NATO member state.

You mentioned Lithuania, Poland, Germany, they are NATO members so very different to Ukraine. Completely different.

I disagree with this. Russia are very well armed, and are developing some pretty fancy new weapons systems (hypersonic missiles, Su-35, Borei-A submarines for example) As we have seen with North korea, even much tougher sanctions do not limit military spending, that is the last thing to get cut (which actually makes sense if you perceive your country to be under threat from those imposing sanctions). The sanctions may have damaged the Russian economy, but they have neither substantially weakened Russia militarily, nor undermined Putin's position to an extent that it is under threat, and one or both of these things needs to happen to prevent them invading Ukraine.
.
Russia are more than capable of taking on, and beating, a number of NATO members fairly easily, any of the Baltic states for example. If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it. Would Putin try? He might if we don't stand up to him now

And we don’t have a legal obligation to Ukraine under the BP, it’s not a legally binding treaty and Ukraine know that.

The legal status is disputed (mainly by Russia) By not acting over Crimea we have given them carte blanche to ignore it and carry on, and Donbas will be next.
.
I am not advocating a nuclear strike on Moscow the instant that the first Russian soldier crosses the border but at this stage giving Ukraine everything it may need or ask for in terms of air defenses, including maybe stationing USAF and RAF aircraft there, and a substantial combined fleet being sent to the Black Sea - all with the clear message going out that they will under no circumstances cross the border first, but will place themselves between the parties and any attack on them including crossfire will result in military action being taken against those repsonsible from either side will have far more of an effect on Russia's actions than the threat of more sanctions ever will - as long as Putin takes this threat seriously. Which brings me back to my main point, if we do nothing now, why would he take a NATO threat seriously if he decided to attack the Baltic states? Or Poland? Or Germany? Where do we draw the line? If the 1930s taught us anything appeasement does not work in the long term

My understanding is that the NATO states have been deliberately not allowing Ukraine to join because the risk of Russia invading is so high and that they do not want to out themselves in a position where they have to send in their troops as a result. I'm hoping (hoping!) that this means they will send in their troops if another NATO state was attacked, but the West has been so successfully undermined in the last decade it is hard to know if this would happen or not

Ukraine has 1/4 thw population and 1/8 the GDP. It doesn’t really compare tbh

Does to Afghanistan and Iraq which is what I was referring to

Occupation is an expensive experience in blood and treasure

Putin may still decide to do something, but his success has mainly come from asymmetric warfare, occupation is completely different

If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it.

Yes we would, that's why there are tripwire deployments of NATO troops in the Baltic States. They aren't there to run to the coast or be captured by russia

If we do nothing in Ukraine why would they think we would do anything there? Would the US, UK or France go to war to protect Lithuania? I doubt it.

NATO presence in Baltic States

NATO Artical 5

It'll be very interesting to see if any NATO countries get involved if Russia invades Donbas. Looking at the media output I'd say the UK is making some noises while sitting firmly on the fence

I don't think any NATO countries are intending to send troops. What is very likely is that the U.S. and other countries will supply weapons and other support (intel, especially), plus freeze Russia out of the international economic system.

an interesting (probably not the best turn of phrase), vid from Vice News from back in June of last year

Inside the trenches

That video is a really interesting insight, thanks for posting!

But I think that should also and more so apply to the US/NATO. They dont give a flying for the trouble they cause by warmongering constantly and siding right up to Russia’s borders.

Or, its just possible, that those countries bordering Russia want the protection of NATO? Considering what the Russian Embassy in the UK tweeted earlier this week about those countries such as the Baltic states being *Russian orphans", is it any wonder they have joined the alliance?

Or, its just possible, that those countries bordering Russia want the protection of NATO?

It's probably no coincidence that they are the only countries that border Russia haven't either sworn their allegiance to Russia or has been destabilised by a 'breakaway state'. Or is China, obviously

Other than Finland?

Is Finland not in NATO?

Is Finland not in NATO?

No. They were once part of Russia, and during the Cold War had quite close ties to them.