Russia invades Ukraine

[adc82140]

You have to remember that we are in the midst of a war- an information war. All of this WW3 talk is coming straight from the mouths of the usual suspect propagandists in Russia, and some of the conspiracy theorists in Trump's inner circle.

Unfortunately the tabloid media lap that sort of thing up, fear sells more of their scandal sheets. Sometimes I wonder why we bothered banning Russia Today when the Daily Express just go on and parrot what they are saying.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the tension is being dialled up deliberately by Russia in order for it to be lowered when Trump gets in to office in order to gain favour with him, and encourage the ending of the conflict very much in Russia's favour.

 

[Russel]

You have to remember that we are in the midst of a war- an information war. All of this WW3 talk is coming straight from the mouths of the usual suspect propagandists in Russia, and some of the conspiracy theorists in Trump's inner circle.

Unfortunately the tabloid media lap that sort of thing up, fear sells more of their scandal sheets. Sometimes I wonder why we bothered banning Russia Today when the Daily Express just go on and parrot what they are saying.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the tension is being dialled up deliberately by Russia in order for it to be lowered when Trump gets in to office in order to gain favour with him, and encourage the ending of the conflict very much in Russia's favour.

You're right, when you take a step back and think about things, what you're saying makes sense.

It's very easy to get swept up in the fear though.

 

[brad465]

You have to remember that we are in the midst of a war- an information war. All of this WW3 talk is coming straight from the mouths of the usual suspect propagandists in Russia, and some of the conspiracy theorists in Trump's inner circle.

Unfortunately the tabloid media lap that sort of thing up, fear sells more of their scandal sheets. Sometimes I wonder why we bothered banning Russia Today when the Daily Express just go on and parrot what they are saying.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the tension is being dialled up deliberately by Russia in order for it to be lowered when Trump gets in to office in order to gain favour with him, and encourage the ending of the conflict very much in Russia's favour.

Also if there is a strong likelihood Trump will reverse this ATACMS policy, Ukraine will probably try and blow all the stocks they can to get the most out of the policy, which could lead to some very intense-looking reports on the ground in the conflict, which then suddenly stops on Trump's arrival through reversing the policy and/or the specific rockets being used up.

 

[Trackman]

I suspect ATACMS weren't used, but it suits the Russian narrative to say they were.

After all they've published their updated nuclear doctrine today, which incidentally is full of coulds, mights, and reserve the right tos.

They also say they shot down 5 of the 6 missiles, which if they were really ATACMS would be quite a feat. I reckon they were domestically built Ukrainian drones.

Edit- they were ATACMS, so I suspect they weren't all shot down.

I was thinking the same, they travel at Mach 3 - it would take some doing to take them down.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the tension is being dialled up deliberately by Russia in order for it to be lowered when Trump gets in to office in order to gain favour with him, and encourage the ending of the conflict very much in Russia's favour.

Also if there is a strong likelihood Trump will reverse this ATACMS policy, Ukraine will probably try and blow all the stocks they can to get the most out of the policy, which could lead to some very intense-looking reports on the ground in the conflict, which then suddenly stops on Trump's arrival through reversing the policy and/or the specific rockets being used up.

I was waiting for this, I knew something was going to happen.

 

[Halwynd]

You have to remember that we are in the midst of a war- an information war. All of this WW3 talk is coming straight from the mouths of the usual suspect propagandists in Russia, and some of the conspiracy theorists in Trump's inner circle.

Unfortunately the tabloid media lap that sort of thing up, fear sells more of their scandal sheets. Sometimes I wonder why we bothered banning Russia Today when the Daily Express just go on and parrot what they are saying.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the tension is being dialled up deliberately by Russia in order for it to be lowered when Trump gets in to office in order to gain favour with him, and encourage the ending of the conflict very much in Russia's favour.

There's no doubt there's an information war taking place, I agree, and I hope more generally you are right.

But Putin will know that he can only do a Grand Old Duke of York so many times - that is the danger point.

He isn't going to back down, and he certainly isn't going to allow Russia to be defeated on the battlefield.

Where does that leave matters?

Biding his time before he gets to talk to Trump officially? But we can't be sure what is going on in his head - few non-Russians understand the Russian mindset and Putin certainly isn't acting alone. How many times since WW2 have we been told the West has to stand up to Russian agression in order to deter - didn't work this time. It seems hard to believe that Putin once expressed an interest in joining NATO and the Western Alliance:

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

George Robertson recalls Russian president did not want to wait in line with ‘countries that don’t matter’

www.theguardian.com

Who knows what pressures Putin is under, something we rarely consider. Now that US and possibly other NATO country missiles have been authorised for use by Ukraine, will Putin wait, or be allowed to wait, until January next year? Will any proposals be even acceptable?

And if Russia does the unthinkable, possibly a very low-yield weapon in a sparsley populated area just to make a point, do we really think that would be an end to it?

I too take the side of Ukraine and I would like nothing more than to see Putin hauled before the International Criminal Court.

None of us are experts, certainly not me - but I'd rather not be charcoal-grilled in my bed one night if it can possibly be helped...

 

[Scotrail314209]

I really hope there's some backchannel work going on at the moment and that we're not sleepwalking into a catastrophe.

Seconded. It’s scary.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yeah, agreed.

I have no issue supporting Ukraine, but not at the expense of the rest of humanity.

I know what you mean but the problem won't go away. Let's say we abandon Ukraine, the risk becomes to great of a nuclear escalation. Okay, so then what? Russia absorbs Ukraine and will probably take some time to digest it but it won't be very much longer before they're ready to try again. Probably something smaller this time like Moldova, Moldova is so small and weak that even with Western support it's unlikely they'd be able to resist any sort of invasion for long. Okay so then they've gotten Moldova and Ukraine. What about a Baltic state? Perhaps Estonia? And so on and so on.

The brutal reality is that I don't think there's anything we could give Russia and Putin to make them go away and leave us alone. They'll always push for more. He probably doesn't have designs on painting the borders of Russia as far as the Channel but returning vast tracts to Russia, installing friendly regimes in other countries (like Poland, Czech Republic, Romanian, etc), destabilising and neutralising Western Europe and getting the Americans permanently out of Europe? Absolutely.

Is that something we can live with? Perhaps, perhaps not.

But the other problem is the lesson that this will teach. If Russia is able to conquer a non-nuclear weapon state, indeed one which gave up a vast nuclear arsenal (it was the worlds third largest nuclear weapon state after the break-up of the Soviet Union)*, then what do you think happens next? Nations around the world will take the lesson to heart that if you have a larger threatening neighbour, particularly one which has nuclear weapons, you're on your own. No-one is going to risk coming to your aid in case the aggressor uses nuclear weapons. So the only 'solution' in that situation is to make sure that you have nuclear weapons of your own.

Russia defeating Ukraine would mean that not only would we probably end up fighting Russia on the banks of the Vistula River rather than helping the Ukrainians to do it for us but it would also turbocharge nuclear proliferation risks. If you think that more nuclear weapon states reduces the risk to the continuation of humanity then I've got a bridge to sell you!

There are no good answers to this question and it's terrifying that Putin continues to slowly but surely escalate the nuclear rhetoric. But no good can come from leaving Ukraine to its fate or even allowing the present situation to continue indefinitely. If for no other reason than eventually Ukraine's strength will fail and they will buckle under the strain. Quite apart from the morality of stringing them along and allowing Ukrainian's to keep dieing who may have lived if we'd armed them properly.

*Technically the nuclear weapons left behind were still under the operational control of Russia not Ukraine. The Ukrainian President never had launch authority, that remained with the Russian President under the Russian military. But I think it perfectly credible that Ukraine could have taken control of a small number of the weapons on its territory to create a small but effective deterrent force. But instead they took us at our word and signed the Budapest Memorandum, gave up the nuclear weapons and joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I wonder if those on the Ukrainian side of Budapest now regret this decision?

 

[adc82140]

I'm not sure he is increasing the rhetoric. It's more of the same.

Feb'22- Nuclear forces put on "special alert" whatever that means.

April '22- Lavrov threatens full arsenal of weapons

Sept '22- The angry "we will use all the means at our disposal, and I'm not bluffing" speech

Jan '23- Volodin threatens "more powerful weapons" if there is any border incursion

June '23- Sergey Karaganov calls for pre empive strikes

Feb '24- Presidential Address "further western involvement will lead to nuclear war"

Sept '24- Updated nuclear doctrine

Today's nuclear doctrine news is just a reannouncement of what was said in September.

So a lot of form for the rhetoric. It was employed when tanks were sent, when HIMARS rockets were sent, when F-16s were sent.

 

[35B]

I'm not sure he is increasing the rhetoric. It's more of the same.

Feb'22- Nuclear forces put on "special alert" whatever that means.

April '22- Lavrov threatens full arsenal of weapons

Sept '22- The angry "we will use all the means at our disposal, and I'm not bluffing" speech

Jan '23- Volodin threatens "more powerful weapons" if there is any border incursion

June '23- Sergey Karaganov calls for pre empive strikes

Feb '24- Presidential Address "further western involvement will lead to nuclear war"

Sept '24- Updated nuclear doctrine

Today's nuclear doctrine news is just a reannouncement of what was said in September.

So a lot of form for the rhetoric. It was employed when tanks were sent, when HIMARS rockets were sent, when F-16s were sent.

True. As someone who is pleased that Biden has, eventually, provided that permission and believes this war is as important in shaping Europe's future as was the Spanish Civil War, I am nonetheless reminded of the significance of the story of the boy who cried wolf. One day, the wolf did come…

 

[Peter C]

I've barely been following developments in this conflict but each time a message like this comes from Moscow I'll admit, it does get me pretty worried. Would anyone on here be able to maybe please suggest some good sources/predictions from experts etc. which could put one's mind at rest (at least to an extent)?

Thanks.

-Peter

 

[class ep-09]

I've barely been following developments in this conflict but each time a message like this comes from Moscow I'll admit, it does get me pretty worried. Would anyone on here be able to maybe please suggest some good sources/predictions from experts etc. which could put one's mind at rest (at least to an extent)?

Thanks.

-Peter

Just chill.

Putin and his cronies do , what they do best.

They lie … and try to scare us how powerful they are.

Meanwhile 30% of russians sh…t in the fields because they have no toilets and running water .

 

[dgl]

Remember Putin is very much the Wizard of Oz.

 

[wilbers]

BBC have just reported that the US is giving Ukraine anti-personnel land mines and presumably minefields will be deployed as soon as they arrive (if they haven't already got there). The threat of a Russian breakthrough must be worse than it has been for the policy to suddenly change - think its Pokrovsk that has been the key city the last few months.

 

[edwin_m]

BBC have just reported that the US is giving Ukraine anti-personnel land mines and presumably minefields will be deployed as soon as they arrive (if they haven't already got there). The threat of a Russian breakthrough must be worse than it has been for the policy to suddenly change - think its Pokrovsk that has been the key city the last few months.

This is most likely triggered by the need to use up the Congress allocated funding before January 20, which can only mean things that are already in stock and which don't leave a critical gap in US capabilities. There is an international convention banning anti-personnel landmines, and I think the US has signed up to it. For this reason supply to Ukraine has been controversial but the justification is that if the Ukraine government wants to use them on its own territory then nobody should have a problem with it. Using them in Russia has been forbidden.

 

[Doctor Pepper]

So the whole "convention" on landmines is a total sham thing then? They're a "bad thing", until it's not convenient, then they're a vital tool.

 

[brad465]

So the whole "convention" on landmines is a total sham thing then? They're a "bad thing", until it's not convenient, then they're a vital tool.

Welcome to the modern world.

 

[ainsworth74]

So the whole "convention" on landmines is a total sham thing then? They're a "bad thing", until it's not convenient, then they're a vital tool.

Brutally there's a few conventions which were luxuries that could be afforded in the immediate post-Cold War period which I do not think can still really be relied upon in the world in which we now find ourselves. The convention on anti-personnel landmines (anti-armour, booby traps, remote detonation, etc are not covered) and also the cluster munitions is another which, fundamentally, I do not think in their present form can continue to be stuck to.

Personally for both I would be looking at exemptions for usage in defence of your own territory, the territory of an allied state (where they've agreed to their usage), and for cluster munitions, usage up to 50km into the territory of the aggressor state along a shared border. For cluster munition there would need to also be a requirement for an extremely high reliability of the sub-munitions whilst for landmines there would be an expectation that both minefields are clearly recorded (so you know where you put them) and that they'll be clearly signposted and cleared after hostilities end.

I'm not particularly happy with either munition coming back but I don't think we live in a world anymore where we can unilaterally just give up on a weapon type which a) remains highly effective and b) our potential adversary is happily using in vast quantities.

There is an international convention banning anti-personnel landmines, and I think the US has signed up to it.

The US is not a signatory to either the anti-personnel landmine convention nor the cluster munitions convention.

 

[Adrian Barr]

I've barely been following developments in this conflict but each time a message like this comes from Moscow I'll admit, it does get me pretty worried. Would anyone on here be able to maybe please suggest some good sources/predictions from experts etc. which could put one's mind at rest (at least to an extent)?

Vlad Vexler is a poliitical commentator on YouTube with a good understanding of Kremlin politics and disinformation:

PUTIN: long-range missiles may trigger nuclear response

The Truth Behind Putin's Nuclear "Red Lines"?

 

[Peter C]

Vlad Vexler is a poliitical commentator on YouTube with a good understanding of Kremlin politics and disinformation:

PUTIN: long-range missiles may trigger nuclear response

The Truth Behind Putin's Nuclear "Red Lines"?

Thanks for this - much appreciated.

-Peter

 

[wilbers]

Another escalation from Putin, first ever use of an ICBM in a war. As it didn't target Kiev, maybe used more as a reminder that he does have the really big red button at his disposal.

 

[ainsworth74]

Another escalation from Putin, first ever use of an ICBM in a war. As it didn't target Kiev, maybe used more as a reminder that he does have the really big red button at his disposal.

Only the West can escalate the conflict. Russian actions are never escalatory as they are simply victims of Western aggression. I would have thought people would understand this by now?

 

[dgl]

Or he's using ICBM's because he hasn't got much else to use.

 

[adc82140]

Turns out it wasn't an ICBM. The media really need to fact check their sources. It WAS a ballistic missile, but not of the intercontinental variety.

 

[najaB]

Turns out it wasn't an ICBM. The media really need to fact check their sources. It WAS a ballistic missile, but not of the intercontinental variety.

It was, apparently, fired from Astrakhan, which is over 1,300km away. That's far enough that it absolutely could have been an ICBM launched on a depressed trajectory.

 

[adc82140]

Sky News are reporting that it was launched from Kapustin Yar, only 800km from Dnipro, which is way under the minimum range of an ICBM.

 

[DustyBin]

Sky News are reporting that it was launched from Kapustin Yar, only 800km from Dnipro, which is way under the minimum range of an ICBM.

I'm yet to see it confirmed beyond doubt, but it appears highly unlikely that the missile in question was actually an ICBM. Whatever it was, I personally see it as a tit for tat response as opposed to a huge escalation (that's not to minimise it of course). Unfortunately the media seem determined to hand Putin a propaganda win by leading with alarmist and sensationalist headlines for a change!

 

[Trackman]

Well, Putin has spoken
From BBC website at 17:30 -

"In response to the use of American and British long-range weaponry on 21 November this year, the Russian armed forces carried out a combined strike on one of Ukraine's military-industrial complex sites. In combat conditions, a test was carried out of one of the latest Russian intermediate-range missile systems. In this case, with a non-nuclear hypersonic version of a ballistic missile," Putin says, before adding that the "test was successful. The target was reached".

"One of the largest industrial complexes known since the Soviet era has been hit on Ukraine’s territory, in the city of Dnipropetrovsk. It is still manufacturing missiles and other armaments," he adds.

Reckons he has a new toy to play with.

Ukraine war latest: Putin says Russia hit Ukraine with new intermediate-range ballistic missile

The Russian president says the strike was in response to the Ukraine's "use of American and British long-range weaponry".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[wilbers]

Seems to be a previously unknown weapon, is it really named after a small village in Bulgaria??

Oreshnik - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pete_uk]

Putin didn't look very well in his latest video.

 

[Russel]

Putin didn't look very well in his latest video.

Not this again, since Feb 2022, the media has suggested he has every illness known to man!

He must have a very good doctor!