Russia

[kyle04]

AZOV in action in Mariupol a few days ago. This is intense.

Edited 24 March, 2022 by kyle04

[badgerx16]

27 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

AZOV in action in Mariupol a few days ago. This is intense.

Given their history and Russia's stated war aims, they are fighting for their lives- I can't imagine them surrendering.

[sadoldgit]

5 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

Wanting to live in a world without nukes is idealistic and implausible.

Wanting to live in a world where Putin has nuclear weapons and we don’t is insanity.

I have never suggested that NATO should ditch all of its nukes while Putin has his! Also it is not implausible to live in a world without nukes. We have moved on since the 1940’s and 1980’s and there are many papers written about national defence measures in a nuclear free world.

[whelk]

6 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I have never suggested that NATO should ditch all of its nukes while Putin has his! Also it is not implausible to live in a world without nukes. We have moved on since the 1940’s and 1980’s and there are many papers written about national defence measures in a nuclear free world.

What are you saying then? Feels very unclear to me

Papers been written- by whom, saying what and clearly not implemented. Wow

[sadoldgit]

On 23/03/2022 at 14:49, AlexLaw76 said:

Name a NATO country he has invaded!?

I didn’t say he had. While we are on the subject of nukes being a deterrent, how much of a deterrent were they when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? I’ll grant you this though, Putin’s nukes are certainly deterring us from giving more substantial help to Ukraine.

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t say he had. While we are on the subject of nukes being a deterrent, how much of a deterrent were they when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? I’ll grant you this though, Putin’s nukes are certainly deterring us from giving more substantial help to Ukraine.

The Falklands were invaded because the Argentinian Junta thought that, following the Defence Review, the Conservative Government had eviscerated the Royal Navy to such an extent that the UK would be incapable of an amphibious operation to retake the islands. As it turned out, this was not an unreasonable assumption. If their domestic troubles had permitted them to wait for 6 months, they might have been proved correct.

Do you think that we would have been justified in nuking Buenos Aires as a retaliatory measure ?

Edited 24 March, 2022 by badgerx16

[Weston Super Saint]

31 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The Falklands were invaded because the Argentinian Junta thought that, following the Defence Review, the Conservative Government had eviscerated the Royal Navy to such an extent that the UK would be incapable of an amphibious operation to retake the islands. As it turned out, this was not an unreasonable assumption. If their domestic troubles had permitted them to wait for 6 months, they might have been proved correct.

Do you think that we would have been justified in nuking Buenos Aires as a retaliatory measure ?

Isn't that how MAD works?  Have a territory invaded by a conventional force, defeat said enemy with your own conventional force and then nuke the shit out of the country that 'started it'.  Seems reasonable.

[Weston Super Saint]

42 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t say he had. While we are on the subject of nukes being a deterrent, how much of a deterrent were they when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? I’ll grant you this though, Putin’s nukes are certainly deterring us from giving more substantial help to Ukraine.

Quantify 'substantial help'.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I have never suggested that NATO should ditch all of its nukes while Putin has his! Also it is not implausible to live in a world without nukes. We have moved on since the 1940’s and 1980’s and there are many papers written about national defence measures in a nuclear free world.

So it’s all a non starter then. Putin’s conventional forces are quite clearly substandard on the world stage, his nuclear deterrent is his last real betting chip at the big table. He’s never going to be persuaded to give it up, so neither can we. 

[egg]

33 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Quantify 'substantial help'.

No fly zone. If this onslaught wasn't by a nuclear Russia, I think it possible that the nfz would be in place by now. I agree with SOG to the extent that Putin’s nukes are deterring us from doing that. 

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

I didn’t say he had. While we are on the subject of nukes being a deterrent, how much of a deterrent were they when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands? I’ll grant you this though, Putin’s nukes are certainly deterring us from giving more substantial help to Ukraine.

It was resolved whilst you were eating avacado on toast, and hating Fatcher.

 

 

Edited 24 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[badgerx16]

34 minutes ago, egg said:

No fly zone. If this onslaught wasn't by a nuclear Russia, I think it possible that the nfz would be in place by now. I agree with SOG to the extent that Putin’s nukes are deterring us from doing that. 

The main weapons the Russians are using are artillery and multi-launch rockets, neither of which a NFZ will stop. Also, the Ukrainians seem to be making good use of drones, plus their air force is still operating - technically a NFZ stops them as well. That is notwithstanding the risk of a Russian SU25 flying into the NFZ just to see what happens.

Edited 24 March, 2022 by badgerx16

[egg]

12 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The main weapons the Russians are using are artillery and multi-launch rockets, neither of which a NFZ will stop. Also, the Ukrainians seem to be making good use of drones, plus their air force is still operating - technically a NFZ stops them as well. That is notwithstanding the risk of a Russian SU25 flying into the NFZ just to see what happens.

Yep get all of that. The question posed though was what more could the West do, and a NFZ is that. Whether we need to or should is another issue, but SOG is correct  that Putin’s nukes are a factor as to why that hasn't happened. 

[kyle04]

3 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

I have never suggested that NATO should ditch all of its nukes while Putin has his! Also it is not implausible to live in a world without nukes. We have moved on since the 1940’s and 1980’s and there are many papers written about national defence measures in a nuclear free world.

C'mon Soggy, you're flogging this to death. Bad man has nukes, so must we. Does anyone really know what narcissistic fantasies are in Putin's head, as he stalks the marble halls of the Kremlin or stares at old maps of the Soviet empire. He hates the fact that the Warsaw pact collapsed, while the West continues to grow and prosper. He wrongly believes that the world wants to destroy Russia. The arguments I've read dismissing MAD as redundant are bullshit, penned by "academics" who seem to exist in some other dimensional utopia. The world will not be "nuclear free" for a very long time, if at all, it's the world we live in.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Yep get all of that. The question posed though was what more could the West do, and a NFZ is that. Whether we need to or should is another issue, but SOG is correct  that Putin’s nukes are a factor as to why that hasn't happened. 

Is it just Putin's nukes stopping that or is there a legal question as well?

What right do we have to instigate a NFZ over another country - probably about as much right as Russia has to invade it...

[badgerx16]

New York Times analysing intercepted Russian comms from the opening days.....

https://streamable.com/wae2fs

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is it just Putin's nukes stopping that or is there a legal question as well?

What right do we have to instigate a NFZ over another country - probably about as much right as Russia has to invade it...

If the government on said country asks us to implement a NFZ then we have every right to do so. We’d have far more right to be there than Russia.

[egg]

25 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Is it just Putin's nukes stopping that or is there a legal question as well?

What right do we have to instigate a NFZ over another country - probably about as much right as Russia has to invade it...

 

19 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

If the government on said country asks us to implement a NFZ then we have every right to do so. We’d have far more right to be there than Russia.

Yep. 

[Weston Super Saint]

32 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

If the government on said country asks us to implement a NFZ then we have every right to do so. We’d have far more right to be there than Russia.

Would it not need to be ratified by the UN security council?  Somehow, I don't see Russia voting 'aye' for this :

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9488/

Quote

What is the legal basis?

A no-fly zone could have a legal basis where:

• It was authorised by the United Nations Security Council.
• Established on the principle of individual or collective self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.
• Established with the consent of the state whose airspace the no-fly zone is in.

Some no-fly zones have a disputed legal basis, especially where they were established without UN Security Council approval. In these cases, countries imposing the NFZ have cited humanitarian concerns.

 

[Lighthouse]

In other words Russia would, "dispute the legal basis," but I don’t think that’d make much real world difference, if it was agreed upon by Ukraine and nato.

[whelk]

Piss weak NATO eh

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/23/nato-leaders-slated-to-bolster-troop-presence-in-bulgaria-hungary-romania-and-slovakia.html

[sadoldgit]

15 hours ago, kyle04 said:

C'mon Soggy, you're flogging this to death. Bad man has nukes, so must we. Does anyone really know what narcissistic fantasies are in Putin's head, as he stalks the marble halls of the Kremlin or stares at old maps of the Soviet empire. He hates the fact that the Warsaw pact collapsed, while the West continues to grow and prosper. He wrongly believes that the world wants to destroy Russia. The arguments I've read dismissing MAD as redundant are bullshit, penned by "academics" who seem to exist in some other dimensional utopia. The world will not be "nuclear free" for a very long time, if at all, it's the world we live in.

I don’t disagree that now is not the time to disarm the nukes but there is a wider discussion to be had about how nations defend themselves. These are ostensibly offensive weapons and hugely dangerous ones at that. There have been a number of near failures to the MAD policy over the last 70 years and once Putin is dealt with it is time the UN started to look at the alternatives to national security measures. There are safer alternatives that provide defensive security that do not threaten offensively. We are all wasting trillions of dollars on weapons systems that will not be used when the money could be used better elsewhere, still providing the security required. Even Putin agreed a few years ago that we needed to get rid of the nukes. It will happen eventually but sadly probably not in my lifetime. In the meantime the nuclear deterrent is working well in Putin’s favour as he has made threats to escape in that direction which in the West are rightly taking seriously. The problem is that he knows that we will not use them first and by threatening to do so himself he knows we are on the back foot. MAD only works when no one fires first. By making us believe that he might do, the system fails. All we can do is threaten to counter like with like as we do not want to escalate but once chemical weapons are used or tactical nukes on the battlefield, it is too late as the deterrent hasn’t deterred. Putin is using his desire for national security as his excuse to invade independent sovereign countries. If there was a better defensive system in place for all of us, there would be no need for him to seek buffer states as no one would be looking to site offensive nukes on his borders. Anyway, it makes no difference at the moment because the problem is that we are stuck with an outdated system and someone crazy enough to use it for his own advantage whilst butchering innocent people with conventional weapons.

As for No Fly Zones, didn’t we bring one in over the Balkans for humanitarian reasons?

Edited 25 March, 2022 by sadoldgit
Added text

[kyle04]

I think your arguments are rather niave Soggy. Nuclear weapons have not been used since their inception in WW2. The US accelerated its Manhattan project because they feared Germany was close to producing  a nuclear weapon, which Hitler would certainly have used as his Reich crumbled. As the vast destructive power of nukes developed, as well as the understanding of the dreadful aftermath of a nuclear explosion, they have long been deemed a taboo weapon, only to be used as an absolute last resort. To argue that because non have been used in anger since WW2 proves they are not necessary is counter-intuitive.

"MAD only works when no one fires first" - exactly, no one has fired first so it works. If European NATO countries were to turn to more conventional defense systems with the same deterent power as nuclear weapons the entire eastern flank of NATO would have to become a militarized zone, who wants to live in a country full of missile batteries, combat aircraft, armour and hundreds of thousands of battle ready troops.

[Lighthouse]

25 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

In the meantime the nuclear deterrent is working well in Putin’s favour

So it is working.

[skintsaint]

23 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Berdyansk is Russian occupied, not Russian. 

'Russian Territory'.

[badgerx16]

30 minutes ago, skintsaint said:

'Russian Territory'.

That is like saying Paris was German territory in 1943.

[sadoldgit]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

So it is working.

It is working for Putin. Not so much for those on the receiving end of his bullets, bombs, shells and missiles.

[Weston Super Saint]

55 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

It is working for Putin. Not so much for those on the receiving end of his bullets, bombs, shells and missiles.

This makes zero sense.

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, sadoldgit said:

It is working for Putin. Not so much for those on the receiving end of his bullets, bombs, shells and missiles.

So it is working.

So he’s not going to get rid of it.

So we can’t get rid of ours. 
 

Pretty much end of discussion.

[LuckyNumber7]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

It is working for Putin. Not so much for those on the receiving end of his bullets, bombs, shells and missiles.

Because the ones on the receiving end don't have the nuclear deterrant...

[sadoldgit]

52 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

So it is working.

So he’s not going to get rid of it.

So we can’t get rid of ours. 
 

Pretty much end of discussion.

Not really. He isn’t going to be there forever and once he goes we have a golden opportunity to re look at the whole strategy. As before, it’s all very well for us under the NATO umbrella to sit back with the we’re all right Jack attitude, but it does nothing for the security of non NATO countries.

As for MAD, it has been deemed a successful strategy so far because there has been no war between the major power blocks. What it it has nothing to do with MAD and all to do with the fact that there has been no reason for the major powers to go to war so far? If you haven’t, read the Guardian article. You probably won’t agree with it but it does make valid points.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not really. He isn’t going to be there forever and once he goes we have a golden opportunity to re look at the whole strategy. As before, it’s all very well for us under the NATO umbrella to sit back with the we’re all right Jack attitude, but it does nothing for the security of non NATO countries.

As for MAD, it has been deemed a successful strategy so far because there has been no war between the major power blocks. What it it has nothing to do with MAD and all to do with the fact that there has been no reason for the major powers to go to war so far? If you haven’t, read the Guardian article. You probably won’t agree with it but it does make valid points.

The reason that there haven't been any wars is MAD.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Not really. He isn’t going to be there forever and once he goes we have a golden opportunity to re look at the whole strategy. As before, it’s all very well for us under the NATO umbrella to sit back with the we’re all right Jack attitude, but it does nothing for the security of non NATO countries.

As for MAD, it has been deemed a successful strategy so far because there has been no war between the major power blocks. What it it has nothing to do with MAD and all to do with the fact that there has been no reason for the major powers to go to war so far? If you haven’t, read the Guardian article. You probably won’t agree with it but it does make valid points.

Given the situation is as it is, how do you expect things to go ? Does the UK unilaterally get rid of it's independent deterrent and, instead, rely on the USA, a country that could quite easily elect Trump2.0 as President and go fully isolationist or turn it's attention fully to China.

[Weston Super Saint]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Given the situation is as it is, how do you expect things to go ? Does the UK unilaterally get rid of it's independent deterrent and, instead, rely on the USA, a country that could quite easily elect Trump2.0 as President and go fully isolationist or turn it's attention fully to China.

If you read the Guardian article that soggy posted you'd understand his argument that the only way to guarantee no one ever uses nukes is to get rid of all nukes.

He's not figured out how that will happen, just noted it as some sort of utopia.

[kyle04]

39 minutes ago, LuckyNumber7 said:

Because the ones on the receiving end don't have the nuclear deterrant...

... having given their nukes to Russia in exchange for guarantees they would never be invaded. That lasted then

 

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

So it is working.

So he’s not going to get rid of it.

So we can’t get rid of ours. 
 

Pretty much end of discussion.

...please?

[badgerx16]

22 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If you read the Guardian article that soggy posted you'd understand his argument that the only way to guarantee no one ever uses nukes is to get rid of all nukes.

He's not figured out how that will happen, just noted it as some sort of utopia.

But after complete disarmament, how do you get rid of the knowledge of how to build nukes ?

[badgerx16]

The Pentagon is reporting that Russian forces have "lost control" of Kherson, the largest city they have captured in the war.

[badgerx16]

Russia says that "Phase 1" of the invasion has been successfully concluded. It's difficult to work out what "Phase 1" was intended to acheive; they have failed to encircle Kyiv and Kharkov, failed to capture Mariupol, haven't got near to Odessa, and are still bogged down in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Russian forces will now concentrate on operations in the Donbas region.

Edited 25 March, 2022 by badgerx16

[Jimmy_D]

Russia claiming the first phase of the war has successfully been completed.

To me it seems like they’re starting to deem taking the whole of Ukraine either too costly or not possible, and are laying the groundwork to make scaling back as palatable as possible.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Russia claiming the first phase of the war has successfully been completed.

To me it seems like they’re starting to deem taking the whole of Ukraine either too costly or not possible, and are laying the groundwork to make scaling back as palatable as possible.

But what is the minimum Vlad can sell as a successful conclusion to the SMO ?

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

But what is the minimum Vlad can sell as a successful conclusion to the SMO ?

Need to remember this probably isn’t aimed at an international audience, but at a domestic audience that has so far been given a story of very few Russian losses, surgical strikes against Ukraine military targets, and aims of ‘denazifying’ and demilitarisation of Ukraine without specifying what that actually meant.

Social media and the internet has made that less effective than it would have been in the past, but this entire war has looked like Russia using old out of date tactics.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy_D said:

Need to remember this probably isn’t aimed at an international audience, but at a domestic audience that has so far been given a story of very few Russian losses, surgical strikes against Ukraine military targets, and aims of ‘denazifying’ and demilitarisation of Ukraine without specifying what that actually meant.

Social media and the internet has made that less effective than it would have been in the past, but this entire war has looked like Russia using old out of date tactics.

Whilst the war is ongoing he will find it reasonably easy to control the narrative. However, it will be increasingly difficult to hide the thousands of dead, tens of thousands of wounded, and nearly a hundred thousand 'veterans' returning home and providing their own assessment.

[Jimmy_D]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Whilst the war is ongoing he will find it reasonably easy to control the narrative. However, it will be increasingly difficult to hide the thousands of dead, tens of thousands of wounded, and nearly a hundred thousand 'veterans' returning home and providing their own assessment.

Yeah, at this point, even a complete military victory tomorrow would have cost far more than Putin wanted it to, but if reports of the Russian army’s morale are anywhere near to accurate, continuing the same way as they have been would end up even more costly.

[kyle04]

It's clear initial Putins objectives have utterly failed. If "phase 1" was the loss of nearly 2000 pieces of equipment, 40,000+ dead wounded or missing and the economic destruction of his country then well done, mission accomplished. His forces are in many places on the back foot, those on the outskirts on Kyiv for example are dug with no way in or out, their only option is surrender or annihilation, thats 12000 men and machines. If Kherson is retaken then more cities will follow. hopefully Mariupol will be liberated in the near future. I think Russian forces may retreat to the Donbas with Putin claiming victory, much as Saddam did when his arse was kicked out of Kuwait, claiming that was the objective all along. I sincerely hope if this happens, the Ukrainians push on and take back the Crimea as well as Donbas, why not, the gloves came off a long time ago.

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, kyle04 said:

It's clear initial Putins objectives have utterly failed. If "phase 1" was the loss of nearly 2000 pieces of equipment, 40,000+ dead wounded or missing and the economic destruction of his country then well done, mission accomplished. His forces are in many places on the back foot, those on the outskirts on Kyiv for example are dug with no way in or out, their only option is surrender or annihilation, thats 12000 men and machines. If Kherson is retaken then more cities will follow. hopefully Mariupol will be liberated in the near future. I think Russian forces may retreat to the Donbas with Putin claiming victory, much as Saddam did when his arse was kicked out of Kuwait, claiming that was the objective all along. I sincerely hope if this happens, the Ukrainians push on and take back the Crimea as well as Donbas, why not, the gloves came off a long time ago.

Donbas maybe, but I think Crimea may be a bit of a stretch. It’ll be interesting to see how much attitudes have changed in these areas since the invasion.

[AlexLaw76]

It is not hard to find claims that Russia believe they  have eliminated the Neo-Nazi battalion in Ukraine, which was/is a starting objective.

No idea if that is true, but sure as hell we won't get updates on the success of any Neo-Nazis armed with UK/Western kit. 

On another note, Tobias Elwood wants the UK to transfer our tanks to Ukraine..is he stark raving mad?

Edited 25 March, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Jimmy_D]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is not hard to find claims that Russia believe they  have eliminated the Neo-Nazi battalion in Ukraine, which was/is a starting objective.

No idea if that is true, but sure as hell we won't get updates on the success of any Neo-Nazis armed with UK/Western kit. 

On another note, Tobias Elwood wants the UK to transfer our tanks to Ukraine..is he stark raving mad?

They must think they were hiding among the civilians they’ve been targetting.

[AlexLaw76]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_D said:

They must think they were hiding among the civilians they’ve been targetting.

Probably. 

[kyle04]

6 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

It is not hard to find claims that Russia believe they  have eliminated the Neo-Nazi battalion in Ukraine, which was/is a starting objective.

No idea if that is true, but sure as hell we won't get updates on the success of any Neo-Nazis armed with UK/Western kit. 

On another note, Tobias Elwood wants the UK to transfer our tanks to Ukraine..is he stark raving mad?

The AZOV "battalion" of Neo Nazis (with several Jewish members) number about 1000, out of an army of around 200,000. Of those, only around 10% you could say have far right leanings. The have long been integrated into the regular army units and do not function as a stand alone rogue fighting force. The term "Nazi" is perhaps the most overused in history, people with "far right" views are not Nazis, racists maybe yes. The Germans who threw live babies onto bonfires were Nazis.

As for Elwoods reported plan, WTF? The Ukrainians do not need more tanks, the Russians have generously donated dozens as their troops have fled a battle. They need above all aircraft , which so far NATO has stalled on providing.

[Lighthouse]

It would be good, longer term, if we can provide the Ukrainian AF with some reasonable NATO aircraft. It’ll take years to equip, train and bring their pilots up to speed with the operation and logistics, so not much use for this conflict but some second hand F16s or F/A18s would probably be handy.