Revelation wrote:

Depending on the policy towards Russia, Ukraine will probably drain the last bit of brain out of Russia.

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't see a lot of Americans decide to move to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

I do not predict a massive emigration from Russia to Ukraine after this mess is over, but I would not be surprised to moderate emigration.

The social, economic, and political circumstances are different. Vietnam did not have a very developed economy, the cultures are very different, and those most sympathetic to Americans fled. Americans wouldn't have discovered the novelty of nearly every household having a washing machine by moving to Vietnam.

But in Ukraine, Russians encountering the novelty of washing machines being a normal, widespread convenience has become a cliche. The tone of the posts I've seen in posts by Ukrainians about Russian looting seems like a mix of anger and pride - it comes across as "they're taking our stuff, but its because they're jealous of how much we've improved our country since 1991."

Culturally, the two countries have many similarities. Politically, there is going to be a lot of bitterness to get over, but I think less than compared to communist Vietnam-US relations, and from reading English language Ukrainian news sites, there does appear to be awareness that Russian sentiments on the war are mixed - it's Putin's war.

So while I don't know how much emigration is possible and how quickly, I would definitely say the conditions for it to occur are much better than they were for US to Vietnam emigration.

By the way, I know of a couple examples already. First of all, my employer has a business relationship with a company with offices around the world. Their Moscow office had been doing some work for us. Our contacts there dropped off the radar when the war started, and I believe it would have been illegal for us to continue work with them regardless. Maybe a month or so after Russia withdrew from Kyiv, they started contacting us again, because now working from Kyiv.

More anecdotal and less direct was a case of a member of a hobby forum I participate at. He earned side-money making components he sold to members of the forum. He lived in Belarus. Last year, he stopped filling orders and responding to messages, but a relative was eventually able to access his Telegram account and share that he had been arrested after criticizing the government. After several months, he was released, and fled his home country. Ukraine was where he chose to go. Unfortunately, then the war started, so last I heard he is in refugee housing in Norway or one of its neighbors. I suspect he'll go back to Ukraine rather than Belarus when this is over.

I don't imagine things will be great in Ukraine, but considering factors like these, I think there is some post-war immigration potential to help restore their economy.

Klaus wrote:

Revelation wrote:

incitatus wrote:

A country invaded another in an adventure that became a land grab. What should be the reward? Nothing.

There shouldn't even be a referendum.

I agree that this would be the case in an ideal world, but as another old saying goes, "might makes right".

Russia's "might" has pretty much crumbled into dust by now, so no.

He might be wrong about Russia turning pragmatic with the Kherson move. Russians have systematically retreated to positions they cannot hold. Kherson can be just more of the same.

Yes, thus my earlier point about striking while things are in flux, yet, it seems likely a winter pause is going to happen.

Ukraine has a major advantage in much better winter supplies militarily and at the same time a population hit hard by Putin's strikes against ukrainian infrastructure, very much needing a morale boost and also improved protection especially during the coming months.

I would be very surprised if Ukraine didn't do everything they can to press their advantage especially when the russian forces are going into their weakest season!

And it is not just the ukrainian population who could really use any positive news they can get in the coming months, it is also the allied countries needing to keep up their support. A winter lull in ukrainian initiatives could be outright dangerous if the international attention did wander off!

I hope Ukraine does manage to push Russia off its lands, because it's pretty clear that's the only way they will get them back. I hope allies keep supporting Ukraine, and refuse to lift sanctions till Russia is out of Ukraine, Putin is gone and Russia pays reparations. Yet, I feel that's probably not the way things are going to play out. I hope I'm wrong on that.

Had you felt that Ukraine could ever succeed to the extent they actually have by now? No? Then those premonitions may not be all that accurate.

I had said several months ago already (when almost everybody still considered that a completely absurd idea) that Ukraine could very much roll the russians back all the way, notably including from Crimea, if they have the means especially by degrading the russian positions and supply lines, the way they have indeed done it, of course substantially helped by russian corruption, lack of morale (including a total lack of ethics and integrity) and general(s) incompetence.

Right now the next obvious stage is pulling up resources, positioning and starting to degrade the land bridge to Crimea so Crimea's connections to Russia become too weak to hold on to it. And after sufficient degradation and interdiction of russian supplies the next stage in the advance, actually cutting the russian land bridge off entirely, also the fresh water supply from the Nova Kakhovka dam.

This is another reason why this is timing-critical, because Russia cannot be allowed to repair the Kerch bridge in time to compensate for a loss of the land bridge!

Without Crimea Russia's entire strategic case for the Ukraine invasion falls apart completely and nothing will remain for them but to cut their losses – the devastated Donbass alone without Crimea isn't worth the aggravation to Russia, not least after largely alienating the population there throughout the occupation phase with forced conscription of the male population as cannon fodder, even worse than in Russia.

None of this will be a walk in the park as none of the fight has been so far, but this is very much possible, and unfortunately also necessary.

That is why our allied nations need to keep up and further ramp up our support of Ukraine so an attempted land grab and genocide is beaten back at least now if not initially, because allowing the attacker to keep any gains would invite repetition, and that would be even more expensive in money, environmental damage, lost opportunities and above all lives.

Appeasement of the invader would be the most expensive option of all!

I completely agree, to answer the perhaps understandable concerns around Putin and his nuclear threats, now much less heard about though in the doctrine if they get truly desperate, not against Ukraine but NATO.
The best way to avoid that, or at least make it much less likely, is a total Russian defeat in Ukraine, this is also the most likely scenario for Putin being removed, Russian history is not kind to failed military adventures on the regimes that launched them.

Because if Putin somehow manages to wrangle even an obviously pyrrhic ‘victory’ in Ukraine, even if it’s a remnant of the Donbas, it would make his survival more likely, he could feel even more desperate to compensate for his now diminished strongman status by doing some kind of breaking Article 5 shit, be it undersea cables, or encouraging insurrection in a NATO Baltic State member with a large Russian descended population, whatever, then we are in a truly dangerous situation with his diminished conventional military but not the strategic weapons.
Therefore NATO, Ukraine and the world really, needs a Russian collapse and him gone, whoever comes next starts from a weakened position and whoever they are now, a need for pragmatism.

Klaus wrote:

Russia's "might" has pretty much crumbled into dust by now, so no.

Too optimistic, IMO.

Ukraine has a major advantage in much better winter supplies militarily and at the same time a population hit hard by Putin's strikes against ukrainian infrastructure, very much needing a morale boost and also improved protection especially during the coming months.

The strikes on infrastructure impact the military too.

I would be very surprised if Ukraine didn't do everything they can to press their advantage especially when the russian forces are going into their weakest season!

And it is not just the ukrainian population who could really use any positive news they can get in the coming months, it is also the allied countries needing to keep up their support. A winter lull in ukrainian initiatives could be outright dangerous if the international attention did wander off!

I hope you are right.

Had you felt that Ukraine could ever succeed to the extent they actually have by now? No? Then those premonitions may not be all that accurate.

And they may not be all that inaccurate. Ukraine is like 20% toward their goal of reclaiming all their territory even with the right bank recaptured. There's a long way to go.

I had said several months ago already (when almost everybody still considered that a completely absurd idea) that Ukraine could very much roll the russians back all the way, notably including from Crimea, if they have the means especially by degrading the russian positions and supply lines, the way they have indeed done it, of course substantially helped by russian corruption, lack of morale (including a total lack of ethics and integrity) and general(s) incompetence.

Right now the next obvious stage is pulling up resources, positioning and starting to degrade the land bridge to Crimea so Crimea's connections to Russia become too weak to hold on to it. And after sufficient degradation and interdiction of russian supplies the next stage in the advance, actually cutting the russian land bridge off entirely, also the fresh water supply from the Nova Kakhovka dam.

This is another reason why this is timing-critical, because Russia cannot be allowed to repair the Kerch bridge in time to compensate for a loss of the land bridge!

I hope you turn out to be right.

Without Crimea Russia's entire strategic case for the Ukraine invasion falls apart completely and nothing will remain for them but to cut their losses – the devastated Donbass alone without Crimea isn't worth the aggravation to Russia, not least after largely alienating the population there throughout the occupation phase with forced conscription of the male population as cannon fodder, even worse than in Russia.

The strategic case in Putin's mind isn't about Crimea, it's about fighting NATO in Ukraine rather than fighting NATO in Russia. It's more about the survival of Russia rather then the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea.

None of this will be a walk in the park as none of the fight has been so far, but this is very much possible, and unfortunately also necessary.

We agree, this is the necessity.

I heard a Ukrainian spokesman say something along the lines of "Now is the time for the Russian Empire to end". It's hard to argue that, it's definitely under more strain than it has been in decades. Any "land for peace" deal that keeps Putin in place is just kicking the can down the road.

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Depending on the policy towards Russia, Ukraine will probably drain the last bit of brain out of Russia.

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't see a lot of Americans decide to move to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

I do not predict a massive emigration from Russia to Ukraine after this mess is over, but I would not be surprised to moderate emigration.

The social, economic, and political circumstances are different. Vietnam did not have a very developed economy, the cultures are very different, and those most sympathetic to Americans fled. Americans wouldn't have discovered the novelty of nearly every household having a washing machine by moving to Vietnam.

But in Ukraine, Russians encountering the novelty of washing machines being a normal, widespread convenience has become a cliche. The tone of the posts I've seen in posts by Ukrainians about Russian looting seems like a mix of anger and pride - it comes across as "they're taking our stuff, but its because they're jealous of how much we've improved our country since 1991."

Culturally, the two countries have many similarities. Politically, there is going to be a lot of bitterness to get over, but I think less than compared to communist Vietnam-US relations, and from reading English language Ukrainian news sites, there does appear to be awareness that Russian sentiments on the war are mixed - it's Putin's war.

So while I don't know how much emigration is possible and how quickly, I would definitely say the conditions for it to occur are much better than they were for US to Vietnam emigration.

By the way, I know of a couple examples already. First of all, my employer has a business relationship with a company with offices around the world. Their Moscow office had been doing some work for us. Our contacts there dropped off the radar when the war started, and I believe it would have been illegal for us to continue work with them regardless. Maybe a month or so after Russia withdrew from Kyiv, they started contacting us again, because now working from Kyiv.

More anecdotal and less direct was a case of a member of a hobby forum I participate at. He earned side-money making components he sold to members of the forum. He lived in Belarus. Last year, he stopped filling orders and responding to messages, but a relative was eventually able to access his Telegram account and share that he had been arrested after criticizing the government. After several months, he was released, and fled his home country. Ukraine was where he chose to go. Unfortunately, then the war started, so last I heard he is in refugee housing in Norway or one of its neighbors. I suspect he'll go back to Ukraine rather than Belarus when this is over.

I don't imagine things will be great in Ukraine, but considering factors like these, I think there is some post-war immigration potential to help restore their economy.

Feels like you are indirectly supporting Putin's "Ukraine is a part of historical Russia" rhetoric.

I think there are a lot of Russians who were really happy about the trend lines of the last two decades where Russians were free to trade with most of the rest of the world and travel there too. Unfortunately there weren't enough of them upset enough about that going away after the invasion to risk their futures on it and protest. I suspect they felt like many others that the invasion would be over swiftly, and in any case, would not directly impact them. The mobilization changed that. Lucky for many of them there were at least a few different places they could run to. Yet, it makes one wonder what happens if/when their visas expire and the war isn't over. If they have to go back to Russia even for a day to renew their visas, they know they will get conscripted. So, I guess they go down the asylum path, if that exists in such places, or become outlaws. Yet another ugly aspect of this whole situation...

I foresee the Crimean situation being complex, but that's not a situation that has to be resolved yet. Russia's defensive lines have been shortened, and they have a major natural barrier to help them defend part of it. Ukraine has their work cut out for them to continue their advances.

When it does reach that point, Ukraine will have to decide how many lives they're willing to risk over it. The fact that legally Crimea is part of Ukraine does not mean that residents of Crimea will view Russia being forced out as a liberation worth the loss of lives. The history behind this is long and complex, and Stalin's purges and forced relocations of native residents for political reasons play into it. My understanding is Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014 went quickly and smoothly not merely because Ukraine was unprepared, but also because of the historic ties of much of the population to Russia. I don't believe most of them wanted it, but I also don't get the impression many of them felt much was changed by switching from being a semi-autonomous oblast that Ukraine had a history of ignoring the wishes of, to being occupied by Russia. No doubt that was particularly true in Sevastopol.

The other aspect is that it's the most difficult location to attack. The land connection between Ukraine and Crimea is narrow and exposed. Crimea is also the area probably most valuable to Russia, so the one they will be most motivated to defend.

bikerthai wrote:

As for worrying about Kerson being destroyed by Russian artillery, I find it unlikely. They don't have the logistics to provide enough shells to do the job. Ukraine has longer range artilery and is on higher ground than the right bank.

Many people are speculating that Russia will destroy Kherson because that's what they did to Mariupol and Sieverodonetsk, but I agree with you for three reasons:

1) Those prior examples of artillery bombardments that effectively destroyed the entire cities were conducted during offensives against dug-in defenses. It was a tactical decision. A tactical motive for destroying Kherson does not exist unless and until they rebuild their forces sufficiently to resume the offensive...but without the bridge. In the current situation, Russia would be expending those resources only vindictively, not tactically.

2) Russia did not destroy other cities they could not capture that were within artillery range. Kharkiv is the most significant, but there were others. They did continue to shell them, but not heavily. Had the front lines reached those cities, then we presumably would have seen the same devastation unfold, but it didn't reach the street fighting stage.

3) Sieverodonestk and Mariupol were destroyed before western heavy weapons started to arrive in significant numbers, and especially before Ukraine gained the long range precision capability of GMLRS and Excalibur. Russia had an overwhelming dominance in the number of tubes at Sieverodonetsk, and complete dominance at Mariupol. They could fire away all day from established positions, and they could stockpile ammunition close to the front to sustain the rate they were consuming ammunition. GMLRS forced them to stockpile ammunition further from the front, less efficiently in smaller caches. Excalibur rounds are proving to be an absolutely stellar counter-battery resource. Russian artillery can't stay in one place for very long anymore, and with the accuracy of Excalibur, they don't even know that time is up until they have already lost a vehicle.

Russia may keep pressure on Kherson with shoot and scoot sorties to intimidate residents, disrupt Ukrainian troop positions, and to try to prevent build-up of forces attempt a crossing, but they won't be able to sustain a high volume artillery campaign against the city.

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I'm not sure I follow. I didn't see a lot of Americans decide to move to Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.

I do not predict a massive emigration from Russia to Ukraine after this mess is over, but I would not be surprised to moderate emigration.

The social, economic, and political circumstances are different. Vietnam did not have a very developed economy, the cultures are very different, and those most sympathetic to Americans fled. Americans wouldn't have discovered the novelty of nearly every household having a washing machine by moving to Vietnam.

But in Ukraine, Russians encountering the novelty of washing machines being a normal, widespread convenience has become a cliche. The tone of the posts I've seen in posts by Ukrainians about Russian looting seems like a mix of anger and pride - it comes across as "they're taking our stuff, but its because they're jealous of how much we've improved our country since 1991."

Culturally, the two countries have many similarities. Politically, there is going to be a lot of bitterness to get over, but I think less than compared to communist Vietnam-US relations, and from reading English language Ukrainian news sites, there does appear to be awareness that Russian sentiments on the war are mixed - it's Putin's war.

So while I don't know how much emigration is possible and how quickly, I would definitely say the conditions for it to occur are much better than they were for US to Vietnam emigration.

By the way, I know of a couple examples already. First of all, my employer has a business relationship with a company with offices around the world. Their Moscow office had been doing some work for us. Our contacts there dropped off the radar when the war started, and I believe it would have been illegal for us to continue work with them regardless. Maybe a month or so after Russia withdrew from Kyiv, they started contacting us again, because now working from Kyiv.

More anecdotal and less direct was a case of a member of a hobby forum I participate at. He earned side-money making components he sold to members of the forum. He lived in Belarus. Last year, he stopped filling orders and responding to messages, but a relative was eventually able to access his Telegram account and share that he had been arrested after criticizing the government. After several months, he was released, and fled his home country. Ukraine was where he chose to go. Unfortunately, then the war started, so last I heard he is in refugee housing in Norway or one of its neighbors. I suspect he'll go back to Ukraine rather than Belarus when this is over.

I don't imagine things will be great in Ukraine, but considering factors like these, I think there is some post-war immigration potential to help restore their economy.

Feels like you are indirectly supporting Putin's "Ukraine is a part of historical Russia" rhetoric.

I don't know what I said that would give that impression. The foundational premise of my post was what might happen after Russia loses the war. I simply brought up some reasons why some Russians might want to emigrate to Ukraine - it's a place they might be able to move to leave Russia where the language and customs have similarities, and where they would be economically better off (eg - they could afford washing machines).

The inherent nature of a position of, "They'd be better of in that country than their current country" is recognition the two countries are separate.

Revelation wrote:

The strategic case in Putin's mind isn't about Crimea, it's about fighting NATO in Ukraine rather than fighting NATO in Russia. It's more about the survival of Russia rather then the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea.

NATO has no interest in invading Russia and even Putin should understand that.

Also, Putin clearly has no interest in actually fighting NATO forces, he only likes the appearance of facing NATO (and at least surviving that) for his own home audience propaganda.

Crimea is a massively relevant strategic asset for Russia and always has been. That Putin has seized Crimea in 2014 was no accident.

Revelation wrote:

I agree that this would be the case in an ideal world, but as another old saying goes, "might makes right".
(...)

The might in this case might just not be there. Beyond Russia's untested nuclear capability, its military might has disappointed everyone. By some reports, Russia has consumed 80% of its active active tanks and is relying on 1960s supply. Their only option now is to attack Ukraine's civilian infrastructure with Iranian drones and long range missiles.

Was Kherson's retreat a result of lessons learned or is this Russia once again retreating to a position it cannot hold? I think it is the latter. Next the Ukrainians will let Russia's southern front freeze in the cold while they take back Svatove and Donetsk. The Russian supply lines continue to be exposed. The Russian soldiers hate the war. It is an open question whether they will lose the war, but they are unable to win it.

The UN General Assembly should boot Russia out of the Security Council. Offer that spot to India.

incitatus wrote:

The UN General Assembly should boot Russia out of the Security Council. Offer that spot to India.

China would veto such a proposal.
The UN would have to be terminated and re-created in order to take away Russia's veto.

Vintage wrote:

incitatus wrote:

The UN General Assembly should boot Russia out of the Security Council. Offer that spot to India.

China would veto such a proposal.
The UN would have to be terminated and re-created in order to take away Russia's veto.

Russia is not a founding member of the UN. The USSR is. Getting Russia out of the Security Council takes an amendment to its charter, which is not the same thing as terminating the UN. Russia deserves to be booted out.

incitatus wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I agree that this would be the case in an ideal world, but as another old saying goes, "might makes right".
(...)

The might in this case might just not be there. Beyond Russia's untested nuclear capability, its military might has disappointed everyone. By some reports, Russia has consumed 80% of its active active tanks and is relying on 1960s supply. Their only option now is to attack Ukraine's civilian infrastructure with Iranian drones and long range missiles.

Was Kherson's retreat a result of lessons learned or is this Russia once again retreating to a position it cannot hold? I think it is the latter. Next the Ukrainians will let Russia's southern front freeze in the cold while they take back Svatove and Donetsk. The Russian supply lines continue to be exposed. The Russian soldiers hate the war. It is an open question whether they will lose the war, but they are unable to win it.

The UN General Assembly should boot Russia out of the Security Council. Offer that spot to India.

No, the UN General Assembly should give Germany that spot on the Security Council. That would really irritate Putin and a lot of Russians.

incitatus wrote:

Russia is not a founding member of the UN. The USSR is. Getting Russia out of the Security Council takes an amendment to its charter, which is not the same thing as terminating the UN. Russia deserves to be booted out.

And as I said previously, China would veto such a proposal.

Revelation wrote:

incitatus wrote:

A country invaded another in an adventure that became a land grab. What should be the reward? Nothing.

There shouldn't even be a referendum.

I agree that this would be the case in an ideal world, but as another old saying goes, "might makes right".

He might be wrong about Russia turning pragmatic with the Kherson move. Russians have systematically retreated to positions they cannot hold. Kherson can be just more of the same.

Yes, thus my earlier point about striking while things are in flux, yet, it seems likely a winter pause is going to happen.

I hope Ukraine does manage to push Russia off its lands, because it's pretty clear that's the only way they will get them back. I hope allies keep supporting Ukraine, and refuse to lift sanctions till Russia is out of Ukraine, Putin is gone and Russia pays reparations. Yet, I feel that's probably not the way things are going to play out. I hope I'm wrong on that.

“Might makes right”, I agree with that statement, but I also agree more with what Klaus has spoken of. Now is the time to continue to go at them hammer and tong. No let up, keep the pressure on. Wouldn’t give them a moments respite, not even sleep.

Imagine being one of the pro Russians in the Donbas, drinking on the Putin Kool Aid, until despite being older, probably not very fit, being called up and given a ratty WW2 era uniform and a bolt action rifle, which if you are lucky might have a scope so you can pretend to be a sniper, albeit without the training.

dampfnudel wrote:

incitatus wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I agree that this would be the case in an ideal world, but as another old saying goes, "might makes right".
(...)

The might in this case might just not be there. Beyond Russia's untested nuclear capability, its military might has disappointed everyone. By some reports, Russia has consumed 80% of its active active tanks and is relying on 1960s supply. Their only option now is to attack Ukraine's civilian infrastructure with Iranian drones and long range missiles.

Was Kherson's retreat a result of lessons learned or is this Russia once again retreating to a position it cannot hold? I think it is the latter. Next the Ukrainians will let Russia's southern front freeze in the cold while they take back Svatove and Donetsk. The Russian supply lines continue to be exposed. The Russian soldiers hate the war. It is an open question whether they will lose the war, but they are unable to win it.

The UN General Assembly should boot Russia out of the Security Council. Offer that spot to India.

No, the UN General Assembly should give Germany that spot on the Security Council. That would really irritate Putin and a lot of Russians.

China would veto any proposal to change composition of the Security Council.
What it cannot veto, however, is a resolution of the General Assembly, simply enforcing the Charter -- there's no mention of Russia in the Security Council chapter of the Charter. The seat belongs to USSR, and in absence of a USSR, that seat is in abeyance.

Once that step is complete, next step would be to determine, which of the former members of USSR, who were UN members at foundation, are entitled to that seat. There were two such -- Belarus and Ukraine.
Logically, those are the only two countries, who could pick up that seat, without the need to rewrite the Charter. The formula would be complex, as in "Country XYZ, ex-member of USSR, standing for no longer extant ex-country USSR" or something. But doable, should there be a will.

Russia claimed that no equipment was left behind in Kherson....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4v7y-SpMTA
You may have seen videos of stacks of mortar bombs captured, well I suppose Russia will be getting them back after a fashion.

A story seemingly out of a movie;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1NeHt4bFDA

iamlucky13 wrote:

I don't know what I said that would give that impression. The foundational premise of my post was what might happen after Russia loses the war. I simply brought up some reasons why some Russians might want to emigrate to Ukraine - it's a place they might be able to move to leave Russia where the language and customs have similarities, and where they would be economically better off (eg - they could afford washing machines).

The inherent nature of a position of, "They'd be better of in that country than their current country" is recognition the two countries are separate.

I am saying you are *indirectly* supporting the idea that Russia and Ukraine form something like a mono-culture. This is a part of Putin's ideology.

Klaus wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The strategic case in Putin's mind isn't about Crimea, it's about fighting NATO in Ukraine rather than fighting NATO in Russia. It's more about the survival of Russia rather then the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea.

NATO has no interest in invading Russia and even Putin should understand that.

There are a lot of things ideologues like Putin *should* understand, but they exist within their own information bubble.

If you can make it through the rambling, drama-heavy presentation style, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6UiEXrVrvg is very helpful.

In Putin's mind it really is more about what Russia is and is not, rather than acquiring a specific chunk of earth.

Revelation wrote:

There are a lot of things ideologues like Putin *should* understand, but they exist within their own information bubble.

If you can make it through the rambling, drama-heavy presentation style, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6UiEXrVrvg is very helpful.

In Putin's mind it really is more about what Russia is and is not, rather than acquiring a specific chunk of earth.

Very interesting insight - and I loved the dramatic presentation style. That guy hardly blinks all the way though it.

Klaus wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The strategic case in Putin's mind isn't about Crimea, it's about fighting NATO in Ukraine rather than fighting NATO in Russia. It's more about the survival of Russia rather then the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea.

NATO has no interest in invading Russia and even Putin should understand that.

Also, Putin clearly has no interest in actually fighting NATO forces, he only likes the appearance of facing NATO (and at least surviving that) for his own home audience propaganda.

Crimea is a massively relevant strategic asset for Russia and always has been. That Putin has seized Crimea in 2014 was no accident.

Russia obviously thinks that the Crimea is of strategic military importance. That is just plain stupid (and for the rest of the world dangerous) There is literally nothing about the Black Sea that adds to Russia's military capability or defense. It is six choke points, maybe more, to the open ocean. Russia (and the Ukraine/Turkey) need several Coast Guard kinds of vessels. Their role is ensuring commerce, fishing, travel, rescue sorts of things.

Rev - "I am saying you are *indirectly* supporting the idea that Russia and Ukraine form something like a mono-culture. This is a part of Putin's ideology." US and Canada form something like a mono-culture, but neither is interested or assumes the the sovereignty of the other is to be tested. The oft mentioned 'pig war' made it very clear that the bigies would not allow some lowly hot heads on the islands upset the status quo.

dampfnudel wrote:

No, the UN General Assembly should give Germany that spot on the Security Council. That would really irritate Putin and a lot of Russians.

No, Germany will come to the Security Council when Scotland and Northern Ireland secede, leading to the dissolution of the United Kingdom. Same process as the dissolution of the USSR. We should have the United States, China, India in the Security Council plus France and Germany representing Europe.

Some reports are starting to emerge that the Russians have blasted the Kherson dam.

There is a video of the blast that is being aired by Russian media:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru ... ory=foryou

No word on the extent of the damage yet or if the dam has been breached.

Francoflier wrote:

Some reports are starting to emerge that the Russians have blasted the Kherson dam.

There is a video of the blast that is being aired by Russian media:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru ... ory=foryou

No word on the extent of the damage yet or if the dam has been breached.

That's a stunning CCTV clip.

I can't tell if that's the dam or the bridge and the service road over the floodgates. It seems like an excessive explosion for engineers destroying the bridges, but I don't see any clear change in the turbulence below the dam at the end of the video compared to the start. I believe we are seeing the explosion that caused the damage seen in these satellite photos taken yesterday:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ne ... 022-11-11/

Presumably the flood gates in that section are at least inoperable, and depending how they are supported might have fallen to their low position or were also destroyed.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Russia obviously thinks that the Crimea is of strategic military importance. That is just plain stupid (and for the rest of the world dangerous) There is literally nothing about the Black Sea that adds to Russia's military capability or defense. It is six choke points, maybe more, to the open ocean. Russia (and the Ukraine/Turkey) need several Coast Guard kinds of vessels. Their role is ensuring commerce, fishing, travel, rescue sorts of things.

The great Russian Orthodox wet dream, going back to the days of the Czars, is to retake Constantinople and then the holy lands. Crimea is a needed stepping stone to fulfill that mission.

par13del wrote:

Will just use wiki for now but there are other sites which explains the 1991 UN accommodation of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the makeup of the Security Council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Un ... Federation.

Thank you -- good summary.
"A letter was circulated".
WWII outcome has led to the composition of the SC. A bit more, than "a letter was circulated" and "nobody wrote to object" should be required to change it.

Reporting from Ukraine explains why the next Ukranian target will probably be the Kinburn peninsula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj ... romUkraine

John Sweeney, who has been reporting from Ukraine since the start, prepares to return and gives his thoughts on the war and Putin;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZbsb0RHx4

Francoflier wrote:

Some reports are starting to emerge that the Russians have blasted the Kherson dam.

There is a video of the blast that is being aired by Russian media:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru ... ory=foryou

No word on the extent of the damage yet or if the dam has been breached.

The exact same footage was used by Russia to portportedly show them destroying the last bridge out of Kherson.

I think some news outlets have grabed the wrong end of the stick/ Crossed wires

Braybuddy wrote:

Reporting from Ukraine explains why the next Ukranian target will probably be the Kinburn peninsula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj ... romUkraine

I find the Russians asking to negotiate entertaining. They cannot win in the battlefield. They will then try to win at the negotiation table. Good luck.

Braybuddy wrote:

Reporting from Ukraine explains why the next Ukranian target will probably be the Kinburn peninsula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj ... romUkraine

I've been gaming that idea for the last week or so. They might be building a fleet of homemade LSTs in Mikolayiv. Mikolayiv looks like a giant machine shop. They could keep all their artillery on the right bank until they get further east. This would be the ideal place to begin the offensive from if they could make it far enough east to set up some pontoon bridges. There are no railroads for the Russians in the west and the road network is poor. The Ukrainian flanks would be secure and they would gain a launch pad into Crimea.

incitatus wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Reporting from Ukraine explains why the next Ukranian target will probably be the Kinburn peninsula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj ... romUkraine

I find the Russians asking to negotiate entertaining. They cannot win in the battlefield. They will then try to win at the negotiation table. Good luck.

The most entertaining is Russia crying that Ukraine doesn't want to negotiate because of a law, while Russia has in its law that it can't give any territory back, so there is literally nothing to negotiate anyway.

Ukraine has an area of around 600,000 sq km. Before the Russian withdrawal from Kherson north and west of the Dnieper Russia was reported to occupy about 124,00 sq km of Ukraine. About 4,000 sq km of territory was retrieved in that withdrawal, I ihink. While a great liberation for the Ukrainian citizens involved, there is still a long, long way to go until Ukraine becomes whole again.

I hope that with more and more weapons supplied Ukraine can continue cutting Russian supply lines and retrieving territory throughout the winter where ground conditions allow.

PS Congratulations to the Ukrainian military who forced the Russian withdrawal.

With the precision and effect of a 155mm Excalibur round, this week's deep dive from Perun, on the culture of BS and it's effects across the spectrum of the Russian political and military establishment and it's tragic effects;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik

Revelation wrote:

Indeed, and with both Nord Stream pipelines filled with sea water corroding their innards, there is no way back to the old status quo. Europe will have to figure out a new way forward. All this LNG import capacity means Europe is now a part of the world market, not tethered to Russia.

What LNG import capacity? there is a massive deficit in LNG carriers, at the moment there are approx 260 LNG carriers on order. These carriers are highly complex vessels which only a limited number of yards can build, each takes 18 to 24 months to build. Building the required capacity is going to take a long time.

Vintage wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

Reporting from Ukraine explains why the next Ukranian target will probably be the Kinburn peninsula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj ... romUkraine

I've been gaming that idea for the last week or so. They might be building a fleet of homemade LSTs in Mikolayiv. Mikolayiv looks like a giant machine shop. They could keep all their artillery on the right bank until they get further east. This would be the ideal place to begin the offensive from if they could make it far enough east to set up some pontoon bridges. There are no railroads for the Russians in the west and the road network is poor. The Ukrainian flanks would be secure and they would gain a launch pad into Crimea.

The shipyards in Ukraine don't have the ability to build vessels like that anymore. Last time I was in Nikolayev was in 2014, they were struggling to build tugs and trawlers, the industry had lost it's trained staff, especially skilled welders to yards in the Baltics and Russia. I sold equipment that was used on the Project 58155 Gyurza patrol boats, it was the last project I was involved in before my company stopped selling to Ukraine,

Ukraine comes clean on the kamikaze drones, and wants to crowdfund 100 of them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY2TzLf ... annel=CRUX

GDB wrote:

With the precision and effect of a 155mm Excalibur round, this week's deep dive from Perun, on the culture of BS and it's effects across the spectrum of the Russian political and military establishment and it's tragic effects;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik

I watched that earlier and found it jaw dropping. He ties everything together so neatly that I worry some of it might be fanciful although it seems thoroughly researched. It reads like a script for a really dark comedy. It would make a great satirical film. "The more paper you have the cleaner your arse".

Braybuddy wrote:

Reporting from Ukraine explains why the next Ukranian target will probably be the Kinburn peninsula:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmv0PPj ... romUkraine

Too bad he didn't suggest how Ukraine is going to cross the Dnipro, nor to my knowledge has he given his sources for his reports that Ukraine has ATACMS. His presentations the last two episodes about the desert-like geography of area south of the lower Dnipro were interesting. It's clear it's not a great place for a military campaign. Yet the danger of just letting Ukraine cross the Dnipro with little opposition then cut off Crimea has to be very obvious to the Russians. Maybe that can/will happen, maybe not.

Kiwirob wrote:

What LNG import capacity? there is a massive deficit in LNG carriers, at the moment there are approx 260 LNG carriers on order. These carriers are highly complex vessels which only a limited number of yards can build, each takes 18 to 24 months to build. Building the required capacity is going to take a long time.

Sorry, I failed to communicate accurately. I was going off a source that said Europe has ordered 3x the needed capacity for importing LNG in the medium term. You are right it will take some years for that capacity to come online.

art wrote:

Ukraine has an area of around 600,000 sq km. Before the Russian withdrawal from Kherson north and west of the Dnieper Russia was reported to occupy about 124,00 sq km of Ukraine. About 4,000 sq km of territory was retrieved in that withdrawal, I ihink. While a great liberation for the Ukrainian citizens involved, there is still a long, long way to go until Ukraine becomes whole again.

I hope that with more and more weapons supplied Ukraine can continue cutting Russian supply lines and retrieving territory throughout the winter where ground conditions allow.

PS Congratulations to the Ukrainian military who forced the Russian withdrawal.

I agree on all of the above. Ukraine has come up with excellent plans and have followed through with excellent execution of those plans under difficult circumstances. I hope they can continue to do so till every occupier leaves Ukraine, but as you point out, there is a lot more work left to do.

Revelation wrote:

Too bad he didn't suggest how Ukraine is going to cross the Dnipro, nor to my knowledge has he given his sources for his reports that Ukraine has ATACMS. His presentations the last two episodes about the desert-like geography of area south of the lower Dnipro were interesting. It's clear it's not a great place for a military campaign. Yet the danger of just letting Ukraine cross the Dnipro with little opposition then cut off Crimea has to be very obvious to the Russians. Maybe that can/will happen, maybe not.

He claims at 2:58 that the Ukranians have a lot of boats at their disposal in the coastal towns, or that it shouldn't be a problem to bring them down from Mykolaiv. They may even have already done so:
https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/stat ... 6339488775

Revelation wrote:

Too bad he didn't suggest how Ukraine is going to cross the Dnipro, nor to my knowledge has he given his sources for his reports that Ukraine has ATACMS. His presentations the last two episodes about the desert-like geography of area south of the lower Dnipro were interesting.

This narrative is being pushed by several Ukrainan Youtubers. So I chalk it up as sophisticated mis-information/mis-direction.

On the face of it, the plan has merit. The terrain looks boggy with lots of bodies of water. It is ideal landscape for small force action. You can not move large vehicles in the area and artilery would be useless. Ukraine special forces can secure the area, and with artilery support on the right bank, the Russian knows they can't do anything about it. That is probably why they decided to vacate the area.

As a bridgehead though, there not many exit point from the peninsula. So trying to establish a beach head would be difficult. However, I can see them working up the bank quickly and make their way to the east end of the Kerson bridge.

The other important aspect of securing the peninsula is they can then protect shipping traffic coming out of Kerson with out worry about Russian harassment.

bt

If and when they start moving into the peninsula, I'll be waiting to see if a battery or two of M777s gets helo lifted into the area.

bt

Braybuddy wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Too bad he didn't suggest how Ukraine is going to cross the Dnipro, nor to my knowledge has he given his sources for his reports that Ukraine has ATACMS. His presentations the last two episodes about the desert-like geography of area south of the lower Dnipro were interesting. It's clear it's not a great place for a military campaign. Yet the danger of just letting Ukraine cross the Dnipro with little opposition then cut off Crimea has to be very obvious to the Russians. Maybe that can/will happen, maybe not.

He claims at 2:58 that the Ukranians have a lot of boats at their disposal in the coastal towns, or that it shouldn't be a problem to bring them down from Mykolaiv. They may even have already done so:
https://twitter.com/Euan_MacDonald/stat ... 6339488775

Boats are fine for light infantry, less fine for tanks, artillery, etc.

If it is feasible, I hope they strike while the iron is hot, take advantage that the Russians are now pretty disorganized and that the region is still difficult for the Russians to supply. Of course it will be difficult for the Ukrainians to supply as well.

bikerthai wrote:

The terrain looks boggy with lots of bodies of water. It is ideal landscape for small force action. You can not move large vehicles in the area and artilery would be useless.

If you look at it with Google Earth you'll see that while there are swampy areas, there is farmland with roads all the way to Vulytsya Lenina which turns into P-57. It is tank country or AFV country. They could drive Russian artillery beyond the range of Kherson and gain a crossing if they could land a dozen tanks on the peninsula. The question is: are there enough ships and barges available upstream in the Bug River to get the ball rolling? They could use smaller boats for infantry.

When you said Rambling and dramatic, I expected just another ex-military guy wanting attention mix of History Channel editing and hollywood movie trailer voice over trying to sound intellectual with the depth and insight of a mediocre Tom Clancy novel. The link, on the contrary was engaging and insightful, I withdraw 1 point for the cliche SM7b, so 9 points out 10. Thanks!

Revelation wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

I don't know what I said that would give that impression. The foundational premise of my post was what might happen after Russia loses the war. I simply brought up some reasons why some Russians might want to emigrate to Ukraine - it's a place they might be able to move to leave Russia where the language and customs have similarities, and where they would be economically better off (eg - they could afford washing machines).

The inherent nature of a position of, "They'd be better of in that country than their current country" is recognition the two countries are separate.

I am saying you are *indirectly* supporting the idea that Russia and Ukraine form something like a mono-culture. This is a part of Putin's ideology.

Klaus wrote:

Revelation wrote:

The strategic case in Putin's mind isn't about Crimea, it's about fighting NATO in Ukraine rather than fighting NATO in Russia. It's more about the survival of Russia rather then the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea.

NATO has no interest in invading Russia and even Putin should understand that.

There are a lot of things ideologues like Putin *should* understand, but they exist within their own information bubble.

If you can make it through the rambling, drama-heavy presentation style, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6UiEXrVrvg is very helpful.

In Putin's mind it really is more about what Russia is and is not, rather than acquiring a specific chunk of earth.

journeyperson wrote:

GDB wrote:

With the precision and effect of a 155mm Excalibur round, this week's deep dive from Perun, on the culture of BS and it's effects across the spectrum of the Russian political and military establishment and it's tragic effects;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik

I watched that earlier and found it jaw dropping. He ties everything together so neatly that I worry some of it might be fanciful although it seems thoroughly researched. It reads like a script for a really dark comedy. It would make a great satirical film. "The more paper you have the cleaner your arse".

He started these deep dives a few weeks into the war, not known in those circles before, nonetheless very well sourced, from both sides, later ones have had respected guests who advised before, such a Lt.Col. in the US Army, now a reservist after combat in the 2000’s, known as ‘The Chieftain’ as well as a high ranking former US officer who has been on more established media channels.
Not all directly about the war, some have gone into the US and European defense industries who are supplying so much, economic factors on both sides, comparing training and motivation etc.

I know with its economy in tatters it must be difficult, but I wonder if Ukraine is doing what it can to produce weapons and ammo right now ? Just in case Western support falters.

About natural gas and Europe, I sure hope we invest a lot into...not gas. Nuclear, wood, solar, wind, whatever.

Vintage wrote:

If you look at it with Google Earth you'll see that while there are swampy areas, there is farmland with roads all the way to Vulytsya Lenina which turns into P-57. It is tank country or The question is: are there enough ships and barges available upstream in the Bug River to get the ball rolling? They could use smaller boats for infantry.

Yeah it looks like it may require significant force to move up river as there are a few build up area before they get to the bridge.

bt

What the liberation of a city looks like, including from Luke Harding, a veteran from reporting on Russia, so well he was expelled from there some years ago;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... son-region

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... jubilation

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... an-retreat

M564038 wrote:

When you said Rambling and dramatic, I expected just another ex-military guy wanting attention mix of History Channel editing and hollywood movie trailer voice over trying to sound intellectual with the depth and insight of a mediocre Tom Clancy novel. The link, on the contrary was engaging and insightful, I withdraw 1 point for the cliche SM7b, so 9 points out 10. Thanks!

Revelation wrote:

There are a lot of things ideologues like Putin *should* understand, but they exist within their own information bubble.

If you can make it through the rambling, drama-heavy presentation style, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6UiEXrVrvg is very helpful.

In Putin's mind it really is more about what Russia is and is not, rather than acquiring a specific chunk of earth.

I probably should have communicated this better as well.

I said I found the presentation was very helpful at the end of my statement, I should have led with that. I found the presentation style somewhat hard to get through, but that's because that style isn't often used in mainstream media around here. I made myself listen to it a few times and got past that aspect of it all. I learned more each time I listened.

Another talk worth listening to at least once if you want to understand more about Putin's mindset and how he came to form it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugRsfhFWvc&t=851s

It's another interview with Owen Matthew (time stamp points to the start of the interview), but longer than the one that was posted here earlier. It has so much content!

He talks about how Putin locked himself away during Covid, reduced his inner circle back to his old-school FSB cronies and left out the more West-leaning pragmatists, took in a lot of Russian Orhodox ideology, cooked up a "remix" of his previous ideology (we eventually heard this "remix" via the three hour speech this June), and decided on this whole Ukraine adventure with his inner circle, without letting many others in on it.

He also suggests there are back channels between US and China that have reached the agreement that China will not provide financial or military support as long as the US keeps NATO out of the fight. Not sure about that one, or how long such an agreement will hold, but this suggests to me at least another possible reason why Ukraine isn't being given ATACMS: the US doesn't want to give China a reason to change its mind on not providing support to Russia.

Some food for thought: Suppose (as many feel) Ukraine has better strategy, organization, morale, weaponry and logistics, so they do as they intend and push Russia out of all of Ukrainian territory. Also, suppose sanctions work and the Russian economy crashes. Suppose this all leads to the end of Putin. So, how do "we" make sure Russia comes down to a "soft landing" instead of Russia finding an even worse Putin to take his place?

We seem to have a pretty naive idea that somehow the Russian people will see how awful Putin was, how corrupt the oligarchs are, sweep them all out, and, somehow, a Western liberal democracy will rise from the ashes. How exactly can that happen? Is there a realistic plan in place to help make that happen, as opposed to, let's say, what happened in Germany after WWI or in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union? How can the old Russia become (let's say) a new France?

These questions were provoked by the above interview, FWIW. I don't agree with all of it, but will say I found it very thought provoking. I really should buy his book, but, man, I'm already spending way too much time on this stuff.

Reporting on the recent events and possible next steps, on a political level;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N40NBixghLc

Inevitably...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58zySlc8D9E