Russia invades Ukraine

[AM9]

The whole scenario is quite ludicrous though. We spend an extremely high amount on having a credible sub based nuclear deterrent. This to ensure we never have to use our conventional forces in a major conflict, or face attack by conventional munitions. (most likely from Russia). So you could argue the need to scope conventional forces for a major conflict?

Yes...Russia's actions in Ukraine will have focused the minds of our politicians, but whether we will actually see any real increase in military capability is open to debate.

I'd say conventionally...there is still no real military threat to the West at present.

If Russia has any sort of success in gaining territory or even just influence west of its current borders, the next nearest independent country would see itself as next in line, - hence the need for members of NATO to have a deployable non-nuclear capability. The UK's nuclear capability is as a deterrent, as is the case for the US, French, Chinese and even Russian capability. It is expensive because that is the level of commitment required to make the deterrent work.

 

[Annetts key]

I'd say conventionally...there is still no real military threat to the West at present.

This is, IMHO, where people get it wrong.

The point of having an effective military is to make an attack by a potential enemy unappealing. If your potential enemy thinks that they don’t have a very good chance against your military, they are unlikely to try invading.

If however, you reduce your spending and downgrade/downsize your military, potential enemies may develop ideas on the possibilities if they should decide to attack.

 

[ainsworth74]

The whole scenario is quite ludicrous though. We spend an extremely high amount on having a credible sub based nuclear deterrent. This to ensure we never have to use our conventional forces in a major conflict, or face attack by conventional
munitions. (most likely from Russia). So you could argue the need to scope conventional forces for a major conflict?

I do see where you're coming from and it seems bizarre to say that we have a nuclear deterrent to deter Russian (and others) aggression but at the same time that we need strong conventional forces to also deter Russian aggression. But that is the reality you do need both (when dealing with a nuclear armed state anyway).

Take, for instance, a slightly different version of reality where NATO's conventional forces were even weaker than they already are (perhaps little more than glorified border guards) and Putin hasn't wasted the best equipment and personnel on a futile war in Ukraine. Russia invades the Baltic States, they are NATO members and request Article 5 assistance. But NATO has nothing in the locker other than nuclear weapons. The first response is also the last resort. Putin is willing to gamble that we're unwilling to start a nuclear war over the subjugation of the Baltic States so invades anyway and then what do you do? The war continues and Russia launches cruise missile strikes on military targets in the UK, no civilian casualties but significant damage and loss of life amongst the armed forces, your conventional forces are unable to effectively strike back nor prevent further attacks. Do you use nuclear weapons now? Etc etc.

Unless you have a the conventional forces to resist a conventional Russian attack you're trapped into either nuclear war or submission.

Now, we don't live in that world. Even European NATO sans the US retains a significant latent military capability, more so with the addition of Finland and soon Sweden and the Russians expending themselves on Ukraine, but it is very fragile. There isn't much depth in terms of available equipment nor crucially in terms of ammunition and there we're only ever so slowly getting anywhere near addressing the industrial decline that has left us unable to ramp up production of munitions even as basic as 155mm artillery shells. Let alone the more sophisticated systems like Storm Shadow which is proving quite effective at the moment (see Sevastopol). We'd run out of ammunition in a week and then be up the creek without a paddle. Even if we didn't run out of ammunition we'd simply run out of vehicles, artillery pieces, aircraft and ships not long after that anyway and then same creek, same lack of paddle.

We have a nuclear deterrent but the cold reality is that you cannot just get by with nuclear weapons and no or extremely limited conventional forces. You need to have sufficient conventional forces such that any possible opponent knows for a fact that if they attack you, you will be able and willing to resist and indeed you might even win a conventional fight.

Of course you may also need conventional forces to deal with nations that don't have nuclear weapons of their own. We had nuclear weapons in 1982 and could certainly have threatened Argentina with nuclear annihilation. I'm pretty sure if we'd glassed Buenos Aires in mid-April they'd have surrendered the islands in short order afterwards. But we'd also have been international pariahs on a level with the likes of North Korea and guilty of a monstrous crime that I'm not sure could ever be forgiven. That sort of conflict requires conventional forces and, if you wish to avoid fighting those sorts of wars the best thing you can do is maintain a strong conventional military.

Yes...Russia's actions in Ukraine will have focused the minds of our politicians, but whether we will actually see any real increase in military capability is open to debate.

Signs point to no so far, plenty of words but that's about it. I've lost all faith that any of our politicians actually consider national defence anything other than a nice to have to be ignored the first time it actually requires difficult decisions or spending.

I'd say conventionally...there is still no real military threat to the West at present.

Agree to disagree! Russia is too wounded from its imperial adventures in Ukraine to pose a significant threat for a while even if the war ended tomorrow but it would be foolish in the extreme to presume that the peace and security we've enjoyed since 1989 will continue indefinitely. Russia will, absent a seismic internal shift, always remain a latent threat and will no doubt attempt to beggar its population to rebuild some fraction of what its lost. China is out there in the midst of the greatest military build up since the 1930s and 40s. Other parts of the world are destabilising around us. Trump could well win a second term in 2024 and he does there's every chance he could try to pull the US out of NATO and without the US we lose a gargantuan chunk of NATOs military potential.

To continue to act as if it 1995 is deeply unwise. I'm not trying to be alarmist nor suggest that we (and others) should immediately double or triple our defence budgets and build forces the size of which we haven't had since the 1980s. But it's time to arrest the decline, deepen the magazines, rebuild the defence industrial base, put more ships, aircraft and armoured vehicles into service.

The point of having an effective military is to make an attack by a potential enemy unappealing. If your potential enemy thinks that they don’t have a very good chance against your military, they are unlikely to try invading.

As the old saying goes: "If you want peace, prepare for war". It might seem counter intuitive, but there's more than a grain of truth to it.

 

[GS250]

This is, IMHO, where people get it wrong.

The point of having an effective military is to make an attack by a potential enemy unappealing. If your potential enemy thinks that they don’t have a very good chance against your military, they are unlikely to try invading.

If however, you reduce your spending and downgrade/downsize your military, potential enemies may develop ideas on the possibilities if they should decide to attack.

I totally get what you are saying. However clearly Russia overestimated their own military. Even before Western help started appearing...they had stalled badly against Ukraine.

Even after the cutbacks etc...I think we are still pretty safe collectively as NATO. I do agree though that we can no longer be complacent. Russia may be incompetent but the intent is there. An intent that the West thought has more or less vanished. However, I do not believe for one moment that Putin fancies a crack at NATO.

 

[brad465]

Rumours about Chechen leader Kadyrov's health have intensified in recent days, including that he's apparently in a coma. If he were to die soon, apparently this is bad news for Putin given the former's strong allegiance to the latter, so would Putin and the wider state authorities try to keep his death secret for as long as possible?

 

[Yew]

Even after the cutbacks etc...I think we are still pretty safe collectively as NATO. I do agree though that we can no longer be complacent. Russia may be incompetent but the intent is there. An intent that the West thought has more or less vanished. However, I do not believe for one moment that Putin fancies a crack at NATO.

I would be looking slightly south-easternly from Russia, for a potential future opponent.

 

[DustyBin]

I would be looking slightly south-easternly from Russia, for a potential future opponent.

Quite, although if the conditions under which Article 5 could be triggered were met, I imagine the US would be all-in and things would end very quickly. (It’s worth bearing in mind that our involvement may not be through NATO of course).

 

[dakta]

Ukraine should perhaps sit back and relax, it seems you could lock the Russian army in a room and it'd as likely invade itself

3 Russian soldiers on a supply run were blown up by a grenade when they had a barbecue, got drunk, and started arguing: local reports

The three soldiers were drinking heavily during a supply mission in Rossosh and were blown up by a grenade, per local reports.

uk.yahoo.com

A trio of Russian soldiers died in a grenade explosion on Saturday while having drinks and a barbecue on a supply run, according to local reports.

The three men, who were not named, were from the Central Military District and had been sent to the town of Rossosh in Russia's Voronezh region to purchase equipment, per the Telegram channel VChK-OPGU, which cited an anonymous security source.

They were part of a group of five men that was given three days to deliver the gear, according to VChK-OPGU.

During their mission, the group rented a private house on Chapaev Street and held a barbecue there when a "drunken conversation" among the men evolved into a conflict, the neighbors told regional outlet Notepad.

VChK-OPGU also reported that the group was drinking heavily on Saturday evening.

Of the five men, two soldiers went inside the house before the explosion,

Grenade dropped from the upstairs window perhaps? :/ odd bunch

 

[brad465]

Without Russian peacekeepers on patrol, this was inevitable:

Azerbaijan launches operation against Nagorno-Karabakh and demands surrender

Baku says the operation against its ethnic-Armenian enclave will stop only if it sees a white flag.

www.bbc.co.uk

Azerbaijan's defence ministry says it has begun "anti-terrorist" operations in its breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, under Armenian control.
Tensions have been high for months surrounding the ethnic Armenian enclave, recognised internationally as part of Azerbaijan.
Eleven Azerbaijani police and civilians have been reported killed in a mine blast and another incident.
Air raid sirens have been reported in Karabakh's main city.
The two neighbours, Azerbaijan and Armenia, have gone to war twice over Nagorno-Karabakh, first in the early 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union and again in 2020.
Since December, Azerbaijan has mounted a de facto blockade of the only route into the enclave from Armenia, known as the Lachin Corridor.

 

[najaB]

Without Russian peacekeepers on patrol, this was inevitable

Indeed. The breakup of the Soviet Union continues.

 

[GS250]

I would be looking slightly south-easternly from Russia, for a potential future opponent.

Yes on paper China is the obvious potential threat. However culturally they are different from Russia when it comes to exercising their muscle. I'd say they would rather dominate World Trade than go to war. So much so that could we ever actually afford a war with China given our massive dependency on them?

 

[Killingworth]

Yes on paper China is the obvious potential threat. However culturally they are different from Russia when it comes to exercising their muscle. I'd say they would rather dominate World Trade than go to war. So much so that could we ever actually afford a war with China given our massive dependency on them?

Or them on us!

 

[DustyBin]

Or them on us!

Indeed; it works both ways.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes on paper China is the obvious potential threat. However culturally they are different from Russia when it comes to exercising their muscle. I'd say they would rather dominate World Trade than go to war. So much so that could we ever actually afford a war with China given our massive dependency on them?

Could they ever afford a war with us? We're dependent on them sure but if we're not buying the stuff from them then that has considerable implications for them as well. It isn't a one way dependency. That being said I would be extremely keen for us to divest ourselves of quite so much of our Chinese dependency! I would also note that its been considered before that nations that are extremely entwined with trade and commercial interests will never/are extremely unlikely to go to war with each other. So far that has often been shown to be a false assumption...

 

[Parjon]

The only thing that's been proven to prevent national governments from waging wars of aggression against neighbours has been when both sides have democracy, freedom and respect for other human rights.

Both the transient nature of government and the shared values create for peaceful coexistence.

By contrast, dictatorship is by definition an aggressive concept with a siege mentality. Conflict, including with other dictatorships, is inevitable. It's a backwards, unevolved outlook.

 

[REVUpminster]

The only thing that's been proven to prevent national governments from waging wars of aggression against neighbours has been when both sides have democracy, freedom and respect for other human rights.

Both the transient nature of government and the shared values create for peaceful coexistence.

By contrast, dictatorship is by definition an aggressive concept with a siege mentality. Conflict, including with other dictatorships, is inevitable. It's a backwards, unevolved outlook.

All true but the Roman Empire lasted 400 years. All dictators such as Hitler and now Putin think their empires will last.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

All true but the Roman Empire lasted 400 years. All dictators such as Hitler and now Putin think their empires will last.

Pedantry I know, but technically it was the Western Roman Empire that lasted from 27 BC until AD 476 (actually more than 500 years). The Eastern Roman Empire, centred on Constantinople (then called Byzantium), remained intact until AD 1453, having been a successor to Rome as the imperial centre since AD 395. It finally fell to the Ottomans at which point the Roman Empire can be said to have truly fallen.

 

[GS250]

Strange how Russia has has evolved under Putin. Early on there were signs that he was a man that the West could do business with. His willingness to work with the USA post 9/11 were encouraging. Although maybe there was a lot of self interest here as he knew Russia could be a potential terrorist target too. I don't think it took many years though for his true colours to shine through.

 

[DustyBin]

Strange how Russia has has evolved under Putin. Early on there were signs that he was a man that the West could do business with. His willingness to work with the USA post 9/11 were encouraging. Although maybe there was a lot of self interest here as he knew Russia could be a potential terrorist target too. I don't think it took many years though for his true colours to shine through.

In the early days of this thread a few of us discussed whether we (as in the West) could have acted differently, and been a little more accommodating towards Russia. Whilst I thought (and still think) we could have to an extent, I'm increasingly convinced that it's highly unlikely such an approach would have prevented this war. In fact, I dread to think where we'd be had Russia been more integrated into Europe/the EU (for example). As it stands, Hungary is the only EU member to really break ranks, but if Putin had spent the last 20 (or even 10) years interfering in European politics, extending his influence, and making allies, we may well have seen several other countries supporting Russia to varying degrees.

 

[gingerheid]

As it stands, Hungary is the only EU member to really break ranks, but if Putin had spent the last 20 (or even 10) years interfering in European politics, extending his influence, and making allies, we may well have seen several other countries supporting Russia to varying degrees.

And potentially Slovakia from very shortly

 

[brad465]

And potentially Slovakia from very shortly

Assuming Smer find allies to form a coalition that allow them to align with Russia more, this will be a horseshoe theory demonstration; you've got far-right Hungary effectively supporting Russia, Slovakia would under Smer be left/far-left supporting them.

 

[1D54]

And now Poland are withdrawing from military support for Ukraine, they are instead going to beef up there own defences with the money saved. This decision has apparently been taken because of a spat between the pair over grain supplies being blocked from crossing into Poland.

 

[357]

And now Poland are withdrawing from military support for Ukraine, they are instead going to beef up there own defences with the money saved. This decision has apparently been taken because of a spat between the pair over grain supplies being blocked from crossing into Poland.

It's elections in less than a month. Wait and see what happens afterwards I'd say.

 

[gg1]

And now Poland are withdrawing from military support for Ukraine, they are instead going to beef up there own defences with the money saved. This decision has apparently been taken because of a spat between the pair over grain supplies being blocked from crossing into Poland.

I suspect this is only short term and will be resolved shortly. My understanding is the dispute is around exporting Ukrainian grain to Poland itself and the resultant effect on domestic sales of Polish grain, not the transportation of Ukrainian grain through Polish territory to the rest of Europe.

Poland's primary defence concern is the same is Ukraine's so it's in Poland's interest to continue to supply arms.

 

[takno]

I suspect this is only short term and will be resolved shortly. My understanding is the dispute is around exporting Ukrainian grain to Poland itself and the resultant effect on domestic sales of Polish grain, not the transportation of Ukrainian grain through Polish territory to the rest of Europe.

Poland's primary defence concern is the same is Ukraine's so it's in Poland's interest to continue to supply arms.

It is mostly posturing in advance of the election - the Polish government has a habit of proudly and loudly refusing to do things the EU hasn't asked them to do in an attempt to curry favour with the ever-dwindling minority of Polish people who trust their government more than the EU.

In terms of whether it's short-term, that may depend on the outcome of the election. The likely outcomes are a PiS win, which will lead to a continuance in arbitrary and inconsistent decision-making, a Tusk-led centrist-ish coalition, which won't have the same degree of paranoia about Russia as the current government but may want to cut spending generally because they're basically Thatcherites, or a PiS-Konfederacja coalition, which will be arbitrary inconsistent and even more spiteful..

 

[DustyBin]

I suspect this is only short term and will be resolved shortly. My understanding is the dispute is around exporting Ukrainian grain to Poland itself and the resultant effect on domestic sales of Polish grain, not the transportation of Ukrainian grain through Polish territory to the rest of Europe.

Poland's primary defence concern is the same is Ukraine's so it's in Poland's interest to continue to supply arms.

According to our Polish friends there are a couple of issues that aren’t widely reported in the UK.

Firstly, there’s a little resentment brewing over the way some Ukrainian refugees are abusing (or are seen to be abusing) the system. It’s no surprise that it’s got “political” really.

Secondly, the grain situation is a little more complicated than it first appears. Apparently, Polish farmers have inflated their prices on the basis that the supply from Ukraine would dry up. The latter hasn’t materialised which has somewhat scuppered their profiteering, so again it’s all got rather political.

Again, the above is anecdotal but sounds perfectly feasible. Regardless, I agree that it will almost certainly blow over as there’s a much bigger concern from a Polish perspective.

 

[nw1]

Assuming Smer find allies to form a coalition that allow them to align with Russia more, this will be a horseshoe theory demonstration; you've got far-right Hungary effectively supporting Russia, Slovakia would under Smer be left/far-left supporting them.

Not sure Smer could be called left-wing looking at their Wikipedia page; quite the opposite, in fact.

Some of the things on there (for example a militant anti-LGBT attitude) would suggest to me "far-right authoritarian".

From Wikipedia (so maybe not fully accurate, but most points referenced):

The party holds strongly conservative views on social issues with a record of anti-LGBT,[65][66] anti-Romani,[67][68] Islamophobic[69][70] and anti-immigration statements. It proclaims its strong opposition to liberalism and progressivism, advocating traditional family values and running for the patriotic electorate.[71][72] Party's leading politicians spread disinformations and conspiracy narratives, including antisemitic George Soros conspiracy theories.[73][74]

Regarding LGBT rights, it calls for a constitutional ban on same-sex civil unions, marriages as well as adoptions. It opposes the allocation of state subsidies to LGBT rights organizations. In 2022, almost all Smer's deputies in the National Council voted for a bill prohibiting the display of rainbow flags on public buildings.[citation needed]

During the 2015 European migrant crisis, the party's leader Robert Fico stated that the government monitors every single Muslim who is on the territory of the Slovak Republic. In 2016, Fico declared that Islam has no place in Slovakia. He challenged multiculturalism and called for the preservation of the country's traditions and identity. In 2021, Fico called on political scientist Jozef Lenč of the Muslim faith, commenting on Smer, not to work as a political scientist in a Christian country.[citation needed]

In 2019, Fico stood up for the Member of the National Council for the neo-Nazi ĽSNS Milan Mazurek, who was convicted of the intentional crime of defaming a nation, race or belief. In 2022, Smer criticized the proposal for a comprehensive compensatory social benefit for people in need, interpreting it as buying Roma votes before local and regional elections. Throughout his political career, Fico has repeatedly stated that the Roma abuse the Slovak social system, drain the government and called for order and action.

If the above is accurate, they sound utterly terrible. "Direction - Social Democracy" indeed! Reminds me of the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" in terms of almost comic inaccuracy in their name.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If the above is accurate, they sound utterly terrible. "Direction - Social Democracy" indeed! Reminds me of the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" in terms of almost comic inaccuracy in their name.

Smer are very similar to Milosevic's SPS in terms of describing themselves as left wing but actually behaving like a right wing party.

Firstly, there’s a little resentment brewing over the way some Ukrainian refugees are abusing (or are seen to be abusing) the system.

It would take a lengthy explanation to explain this all, but I'm heavily involved with the upcoming election, and the gist of it is that there's the perception that Ukrainians are 'getting everything for free'. It's very similar to what was happening in 2004-2010 in the UK, where the claims are not true, but "those people" are the ones causing public services to collapse and so on. There was one particular stupid piece of disinformation recently, where it was claimed that Ukrainians receive the minimum Polish pension after just one month of work here.

However, there is one curious thing: Polish women in particular are coming out strongly against paying Ukrainians the "500+" child benefit.

Secondly, the grain situation is a little more complicated than it first appears. Apparently, Polish farmers have inflated their prices on the basis that the supply from Ukraine would dry up. The latter hasn’t materialised which has somewhat scuppered their profiteering, so again it’s all got rather political.

It is a complete mess. In short: when Ukrainian grain could be imported, cronies connected to the ruling party are known to have made a lot of money by not exporting it, but rather by simply buying it and dumping it on the local market. Farmers were told by the ruling party not to sell their grain as the price would increase, but in fact, it collapsed and the farmers were left with overflowing silos.

Had there been controls on the movement of grain to begin with, it wouldn't have been a problem. But well, this government...

If the above is accurate, they sound utterly terrible. "Direction - Social Democracy" indeed! Reminds me of the "Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" in terms of almost comic inaccuracy in their name.

Smer are essentially United Russia or the Milosevic's SPS. They pretend to be left wing, but in reality, they're right wing socially and left wing economically, something that a lot of poorer/less educated voters embrace.

 

[DustyBin]

It would take a lengthy explanation to explain this all, but I'm heavily involved with the upcoming election, and the gist of it is that there's the perception that Ukrainians are 'getting everything for free'. It's very similar to what was happening in 2004-2010 in the UK, where the claims are not true, but "those people" are the ones causing public services to collapse and so on. There was one particular stupid piece of disinformation recently, where it was claimed that Ukrainians receive the minimum Polish pension after just one month of work here.

However, there is one curious thing: Polish women in particular are coming out strongly against paying Ukrainians the "500+" child benefit.



It is a complete mess. In short: when Ukrainian grain could be imported, cronies connected to the ruling party are known to have made a lot of money by not exporting it, but rather by simply buying it and dumping it on the local market. Farmers were told by the ruling party not to sell their grain as the price would increase, but in fact, it collapsed and the farmers were left with overflowing silos.

Had there been controls on the movement of grain to begin with, it wouldn't have been a problem. But well, this government...

That’s interesting, thanks.

 

[brad465]

Mike Martin is reporting movement on the Zaporizhizhia front. Will be interesting to see what he comes out with in due course:

https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1704928250965758293

Hmm. Movement on the Zaporizhizhia front. Crayons coming online soon.