Russia vs Ukraine critical assessment

[Vyn]

@Vyn: With what army? And I ask that as a "how would it be done?" type of question.

Anything I might posit would simply be idle speculation. Ill-informed idle speculation, at that. However, I suspect that the folks in our military that concern themselves with such things have considered such an eventuality in great detail. It was plausible 75 years ago, and if Putin gives us an excuse to start ramrodding a supply chain into Europe like we did in WWII, it might be plausible once again.

[Zzzptm]

To that, I'd ask if companies like Skoda, which manufacture rolling stock, and Voestalpine, which manufactures rail lines, are ready to ramp up for the effort needed to rebuild Ukraine's rails as the NATO forces head east? 75 years ago, there was lots more railroad manufacturing going on - can we ramp up fast enough to do the same in this century? Like you said, that's an open question we don't have a ready answer for.

On another matter, another open question is what does the long-term plan look like? There's much uncertainty, but what are the plans for the possible outcomes, and what are the percentage chances of those outcomes happening?

I see:
Deliberate Russian attack on NATO
Accidental Russian attack on NATO
Drawn-out Russian conquest of Ukraine and consequent guerilla war
Russian breakthrough and rapid conquest of Ukraine and consequent guerilla war
Russian forces enmired, Korea-like situation develops with last line of advance forming cease-fire/DMZ line
Russian forces withdraw, status quo antebellum restored
Russian forces withdraw in disarray, Russian government struggles to retain order
Coup forces Putin from power, status quo antebellum restored
Coup forces Putin from power, Russians forced into concessions for peace
Putin escalates with nuclear weapons

The last one has the biggest unknowns attached to it, as well as the highest risks.

[Jack the Stripper]

Meanwhile the world awaits on whether China will give Russia the military assistance they’ve requested and are desperately needing or will they renege on their no limits partnership that was announced only last month.

[Zzzptm]

I'd imagine China would give some, at least as a symbolic gesture: You are the *little* brother, Russia. China is the *elder* brother. And then whatever the Chinese word for "capice?" is after that.

If I was advising China, I'd go with providing the weapons, with the stipulation that there be zero (0) attacks on any Western supply convoys to Ukraine. That does a few things. 1 - limit scope of war: it remains contained to Ukraine. 2 - Russia develops dependence on China for support. 3 - if the West supplies Ukraine, Russia will need more and more Chinese gear just to survive, deepening that dependency as the war continues.

If a long term war takes Ukrainian goods off the table, China will have to source them elsewhere for the duration and the rebuilding years. Doesn't matter who wins, Ukraine is out of the picture for a decade at least. Therefore, use the situation for advantage - give the Russians all the rope they need to hang themselves, because they'll beg for China to cut 'em down.

[Zzzptm]

News for the 14th: Belarus appointed Russian commanders for its armed forces, likely as a prelude to going into war with Ukraine - not a popular move in Belarus, so Russian officers would stifle discontent, so the theory goes.

Moscow Stock Exchange remains closed this week.

Russia is set to default on its foreign debt. Should have the same impact as Argentina's default - IE non-event, except for the one bank that lent too much. Should not lead to systemic outages, likely containable.

The Russian Navy is blockading Odessa now.

Russian airstrikes have hit Lviv in the Western Ukraine... also, the Ukrainian nuclear company Energoatom reports Russian explosives detonated near Zaporizhzhia reactor. They also report that the power lines to Chernobyl are damaged.

[Typhon]

@Typhon: It happened. Plenty of documentation around that.

Read the transcript of the phone call that started it all.  There was no quid pro quo.  But if you want to see an example of such a despicable act like that, then here you go.

[Zzzptm]

Yes, I read it. There is quid pro quo. Saying that there isn't is basically aping the Russian propaganda line. I'm not going to swallow Russian lies. It's clear to many people on the left, center, and right that Trump made it very clear that he was willing to sacrifice US strategic interests for personal political or business gain. Trump was a weak, vacillating, emotionally needy leader and Putin played him like a fiddle.

Consider: the five times Putin met with Trump and sent everyone out except for Putin's interpreter and maybe a buddy of Putin's as well. Why was Trump hiding the information from the meetings from his own staff? Normal protocol is to have US persons present to record and analyze the conversations. That didn't happen, and the contents of those conversations remain secrets between Trump, Putin, and Putin's people. Good security practice is to have a word-for-word record of the conversation and then a memorandum of understanding issued to the participants to be sure that there's no misunderstanding of what was discussed.

Then there was the time Russia seized three Ukrainian vessels. Trump didn't do more than cancel a meeting planned at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, but had an informal meeting with Putin, anyway. US sanctions didn't happen until after public outcry mounted, and then it was some 4 months after the incident.

Trump even *congratulated* Putin on his rigged election victory.

So, no, not gonna bite the Russian line that Trump stronk y Biden veak. Trump was a craven appeaser. Biden is trying to keep global thermonuclear war from happening, that's job one.

[Typhon]

^^^^^^
Just keep on lying.  Soon you will be in the same category as the main stream media scum.

[Charger]

It's not that uncommon for world leaders to meet one on one...it's been done hundreds of times by hundreds of world leaders. But for some reason it just became news worthy only when Trump was in office...

That being said I do think Trump was probably the most Russia friendly potus in a long time. In good and bad.

Trump might not have been strong but by no means is Biden strong either. Biden is a blabbering old geezer who can barely utter a coherent sentence WITH a teleprompter and that's how Putin sees him as well.

But all in all I doubt it matters much who the Potus is for Putin. He does what he does no matter what. When everyone else is too scared to do anything then the bully comes out to play freely...and that's what has happened here.

[Thelemech]

Joe Biden is senile and a danger to the free world. He is also very weak as a leader. Trump had his problems but Biden is far worse on a massive scale.

[KiloDeltaCharlie]

The point is that the Free World are far more willing to work with Biden because they didn't like Trump.

The Free World doesn't want a Nuclear War until all other options are exhausted. The options being taken at the moment are beginning to hurt the Russian populace but the full effects won't happen overnight.

[Zzzptm]

Most evidence is showing that Russian logistics has been a victim of corruption - soldiers are having to eat MREs that expired years ago.

One of the items Russia is asking China to supply, in fact, is fresh MRE rations. The USA has issued a warning to China about assisting Russia. On the one hand, China doesn't want to have to take instructions from the USA. On the other hand, the Chinese economy is having real difficulty as the nation continues to grapple with both COVID-19 outbreaks inside of China as well as worldwide supply chain issues that means their goods aren't getting bought and/or paid for due to delivery problems... that means the Chinese can't afford to upset any trade with the rest of the world. Helping Russia could mean mild or worse sanctions imposed on it globally, and mild sanctions alone would damage their economy further. China could go either way, but they're playing a long game, for sure. No need to mess with trade and if Russia exhausts itself in May or 4 years from now, it's the same thing - Russia is exhausted and in a better position for Chinese influence.

Around May, by the way, is when it looks likely for Russia to run out of steam, in terms of finance and internal supplies for key items. With Russia set to have a sovereign default, there's no good ending for Russia.

There's already no good ending for Ukraine: they've been invaded by Russia.

[Zzzptm]

I found this article to be worth reading. It's slightly dated, but the four scenarios it paints are still roughly possible, more or less.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/four-ways-the-war-in-ukraine-might-end/

There's also a possibility that China offers no help or minimal help to Russia because it plans to head north into Siberia. Loads of resources there. Chinese propaganda claims Siberia and that Russian presence there is due to unjust treaties. If China doesn't go for Taiwan, why not take on a Russia that has shown gross errors and military weakness in Ukraine? The Russian move was supposed to have been a page out of NATO's Cold War Nightmare scenarios: rapid armored envelopments, precision strikes, paratroop assaults and mechanized combined arms groups sweeping a path through defenses that, at best, are speed bumps for the Russian conquest. Kyiv and Kharkiv, close to the border, were supposed to be overrun inside of 24 hours. That did not happen. Hapless Ukrainians giving up all hope and surrendering did not happen.

The Ukrainians driving stolen Russian tanks are real enough - and the other tanks that are stuck in mud or smoldering wrecks holding up military columns are just as real. The Russian military is humiliated at the hands of a smaller army they thought they'd just roll over. The problem in Ukraine is that the rest of the world is not preoccupied with Hitler having just invaded Poland, so they can send lots of military aid, which didn't happen as much for Finland in the Winter War of 1939-40. Another difference is that Western aid can arrive in Ukraine through Poland, Slovakia, and Romania - unlike how Allied aid could not reach Finland through then-neutral Norway and Sweden. That puts another idea on the table: what if NATO nations not only don't want to get involved, but want Ukraine to win or at least stalemate Russia on its own? Think of this: if Russia is defeated with NATO forces, it will make plenty of excuses that act as teflon for Putin. It's another Great Patriotic War, yadda yadda. But if Russia is defeated by *just* Ukrainians, regardless of how much aid they get, Putin isn't just a butcher, he's a butcher that cut off his own hand - an incompetent blunderer.

There's also a global arms business angle: there are both large businesses and entrepreneurs eager to send aid to Ukraine as a form of advertising. Russia, meanwhile, is losing arms contracts not only because of the sanctions but because of the crappy performance of their weapons in Ukraine. Israel, China, and US firms are picking up the Russian customers.

[Charger]

I find it very strange that a country with such rich military support as Russia is running out of supplies and gear...where the hell has all that money gone?

They've spent billions of dollars on their military...

If some have pocketed the money there should be some rich motherfuckers in the military....which might be very possible. I think some evidence of money lost has already surfaced (ofcourse shot down by the russian propaganda machine quickly) on some news outlets.

I think Russia's military might has been grately exaggerated over the years and corruption has been going rampant and now they are paying the price for it...I think Putin himself had no or very little idea of the real state of their armed forces....that's what I'm thinking now anyways...

[Jack the Stripper]

The point is that the Free World are far more willing to work with Biden because they didn't like Trump.

Only the woke left didn’t like him and only because he didn’t act like a conventional presidential or didn’t act presidential enough for lack of a better word. Biden seems just as much as if not more of an embarrassment to the U.S the way he is though and Harris might be the dumbest VP in history.