Revelation wrote:

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

While I thought highly of the Vlad Vexler presentation (I think it is important to see) I wasn't so much impressed with your second link.

The bit about how Putin locked himself away during Covid was interesting even though it is of no consequence, the 'back channels theory is just an uninformed guess; although I agree that there are 'understandings' between parties, whether stated or left unstated, everyone knows that.

What I don't go along with is the fear that things could get worse with Putin gone. The defang-ing of Russia that is taking place in Ukraine is very real and whoever replaces Putin will have to deal with the world without the rose colored glasses that Putin and many others were wearing on the morning of February 24th. Russia has no options other than to slog it out against the Ukrainian army until it can't even do that. So if there is a body of hard core militants waiting in the wings, I say bring them on. Let's see them publicly disgraced and be done with them; as I said: Russia has no more military options left to them, they've already played all their cards and they know that going to nukes will not bring any kind of victory.

The focus Owen Matthews gives to the Russian 'people' is misplaced IMO. The real power in Russia that Putin is usurping is that of the upper level politicians, oligarchs and intellectual influencers: not 'the people'. There will be no 1917 style uprising, but the people who can control events while the country is on the edge of chaos will likely be people who accept the reality of the situation, that a horrible mistake has been made, and it's time to change course.

I didn't watch the video but I also agree (and already said) that anyone replacing Putin will be better. Not a better person necessarily, but the fact that Putin is gone is what matters, because Putin commands a significant clout, it's basically a personality cult, and nobody can get that quickly. And Putin has basically put his men everywhere and anywhere, they're all loyal to him/what he does for them. So the new guy will have a tough time taking over.

I learned some history today, about Germany offering peace talks at the end of 1916 (and even before, but a bit more serious in December 1916). These talks never happened as Germany wasn't making a real proposal, so the Triple Entente assumed (rightly) that what Germany offered was "what we conquered we keep". I've read about this on French wikipedia, the article doesn't exist in English, but if you google you can find what I'm talking about. Or you can read the offer made (it's quite rambling, a bit like Putin) page 19 there : https://ia800209.us.archive.org/15/item ... 943106.pdf

It's titled : STATEMENT OF CHANCELLOR VON BETHMANN-HOLLWEG IN THE REICHSTAG

Vintage wrote:

What I don't go along with is the fear that things could get worse with Putin gone. The defang-ing of Russia that is taking place in Ukraine is very real and whoever replaces Putin will have to deal with the world without the rose colored glasses that Putin and many others were wearing on the morning of February 24th. Russia has no options other than to slog it out against the Ukrainian army until it can't even do that. So if there is a body of hard core militants waiting in the wings, I say bring them on. Let's see them publicly disgraced and be done with them; as I said: Russia has no more military options left to them, they've already played all their cards and they know that going to nukes will not bring any kind of victory.

If we posit Putin is gone, there will be a vacuum to be filled. I'm not sure how we can be sure his replacement won't be worse, if for instance that person is more convinced even more than Putin is that a world without Russia is without meaning and it's time to try the NBC options.

Aesma wrote:

I didn't watch the video but I also agree (and already said) that anyone replacing Putin will be better. Not a better person necessarily, but the fact that Putin is gone is what matters, because Putin commands a significant clout, it's basically a personality cult, and nobody can get that quickly. And Putin has basically put his men everywhere and anywhere, they're all loyal to him/what he does for them. So the new guy will have a tough time taking over.

I think you'll find it interesting because Matthews quotes Macron as saying Putin must not be humiliated, and says this reflects the view of his security advisers. He seems to suggest that for all Putin's flaws there are a lot of Western leaders want to deal with the devil they know, rather than the devil they don't know.

I think Macron simply accepts that there is literally nothing we can do about the removal of Putin. We couldn't even get rid of Assad. The "not humiliating" part is akin to Wilson's position during and after WW1, but it seems Macron has changed his mind since then. Probably because it's an impossible goal now, Putin is already humiliated, and letting him keep chunks of Ukraine to mitigate this isn't really feasible now that Ukraine is proving it can take them back.

Revelation wrote:

If we posit Putin is gone, there will be a vacuum to be filled. I'm not sure how we can be sure his replacement won't be worse, if for instance that person is more convinced even more than Putin is that a world without Russia is without meaning and it's time to try the NBC options.

So we should cower before nuclear blackmail? That's what it sounds like you are suggesting. If there is a faction that is even stupider than Putin, let's have them put on center stage and when everyone in the world, including Russia, sees that the new emperor has no clothes, his time will be over. Then the realists can take power.

It's not as though the west is holding a weak hand in this poker game.

Aesma wrote:

I think Macron simply accepts that there is literally nothing we can do about the removal of Putin. We couldn't even get rid of Assad. The "not humiliating" part is akin to Wilson's position during and after WW1, but it seems Macron has changed his mind since then. Probably because it's an impossible goal now, Putin is already humiliated, and letting him keep chunks of Ukraine to mitigate this isn't really feasible now that Ukraine is proving it can take them back.

The Treaty of Versailles was humiliating for Germany and avoidably so. Russia losing in Ukraine may be humiliating but unavoidably so. In the regions Russia has occupied the occupation has been characterised by execution, torture, killing of civilians and captured troops, vindictive destruction of buildings and infrastructure and by looting. That's what Russian troops do. Pushing Russian troops back so they can no longer commit such crimes in occupied areas is humiliating for Russia but that's unavoidable, isn't it? You can't let a bunch of Russian thugs run around committing war crimes in Ukraine because you are scared that kicking them out of Ukraine will humiliate Russia.

Revelation wrote:

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?

The classic "how do we win the peace" conundrum.

Revelation wrote:

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.

I hope they don’t try to build a bridge head this week. They should rotate the forces, start deteriorating the Russian logistics and strongholds with artillery and then think about a possible bridgehead. Now would be to risky and Ukrainian intel shows that Russian have been preparing defense lines on the other bank weeks before the definitive retreat…

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

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.

I hope they don’t try to build a bridge head this week. They should rotate the forces, start deteriorating the Russian logistics and strongholds with artillery and then think about a possible bridgehead. Now would be to risky and Ukrainian intel shows that Russian have been preparing defense lines on the other bank weeks before the definitive retreat…

Wouldn't it be better for the UA to strike down into Zaporizihzhia. Ukrainian forces are already across the Dnieper river in that area. There is a large area around Melitopol reported as one of partisan activity, which I presume weakens the Russian hold there.
Map on FT shows it: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

Approaching Kherson oblast from the east seems less challenging to me than trying to cross the river to attack it. Additionally, it might be possible to disrupt supplies to Russian forces in Kherson via Donetsk oblast to the east.

art wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think Macron simply accepts that there is literally nothing we can do about the removal of Putin. We couldn't even get rid of Assad. The "not humiliating" part is akin to Wilson's position during and after WW1, but it seems Macron has changed his mind since then. Probably because it's an impossible goal now, Putin is already humiliated, and letting him keep chunks of Ukraine to mitigate this isn't really feasible now that Ukraine is proving it can take them back.

The Treaty of Versailles was humiliating for Germany and avoidably so. Russia losing in Ukraine may be humiliating but unavoidably so. In the regions Russia has occupied the occupation has been characterised by execution, torture, killing of civilians and captured troops, vindictive destruction of buildings and infrastructure and by looting. That's what Russian troops do. Pushing Russian troops back so they can no longer commit such crimes in occupied areas is humiliating for Russia but that's unavoidable, isn't it? You can't let a bunch of Russian thugs run around committing war crimes in Ukraine because you are scared that kicking them out of Ukraine will humiliate Russia.

There's humiliating and there's slightly less humiliating.

Going back to 2014 borders is a given. Extracting enough from Russia to pay reparations is where things will get tricky.

The ones most likely to end up worse are likely the Ukrainians who for legitimate reasons considered themselves Russians. No doubt many (most) of them are appalled at what Russia has done, but there's going to be a lot of witch hunt and score settling in the formerly occupied territories with collaborationists of all types.

art wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Revelation wrote:

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.

I hope they don’t try to build a bridge head this week. They should rotate the forces, start deteriorating the Russian logistics and strongholds with artillery and then think about a possible bridgehead. Now would be to risky and Ukrainian intel shows that Russian have been preparing defense lines on the other bank weeks before the definitive retreat…

Wouldn't it be better for the UA to strike down into Zaporizihzhia. Ukrainian forces are already across the Dnieper river in that area. There is a large area around Melitopol reported as one of partisan activity, which I presume weakens the Russian hold there.
Map on FT shows it: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

Approaching Kherson oblast from the east seems less challenging to me than trying to cross the river to attack it. Additionally, it might be possible to disrupt supplies to Russian forces in Kherson via Donetsk oblast to the east.

It is risky, but Ukrainians have shown to be capable of creating bridgeheads. The main reason for doing it is to extend the front line for the Russians and create another axis to drain Russian resources…

JJJ wrote:

art wrote:

Aesma wrote:

I think Macron simply accepts that there is literally nothing we can do about the removal of Putin. We couldn't even get rid of Assad. The "not humiliating" part is akin to Wilson's position during and after WW1, but it seems Macron has changed his mind since then. Probably because it's an impossible goal now, Putin is already humiliated, and letting him keep chunks of Ukraine to mitigate this isn't really feasible now that Ukraine is proving it can take them back.

The Treaty of Versailles was humiliating for Germany and avoidably so. Russia losing in Ukraine may be humiliating but unavoidably so. In the regions Russia has occupied the occupation has been characterised by execution, torture, killing of civilians and captured troops, vindictive destruction of buildings and infrastructure and by looting. That's what Russian troops do. Pushing Russian troops back so they can no longer commit such crimes in occupied areas is humiliating for Russia but that's unavoidable, isn't it? You can't let a bunch of Russian thugs run around committing war crimes in Ukraine because you are scared that kicking them out of Ukraine will humiliate Russia.

There's humiliating and there's slightly less humiliating.

Going back to 2014 borders is a given. Extracting enough from Russia to pay reparations is where things will get tricky.

The ones most likely to end up worse are likely the Ukrainians who for legitimate reasons considered themselves Russians. No doubt many (most) of them are appalled at what Russia has done, but there's going to be a lot of witch hunt and score settling in the formerly occupied territories with collaborationists of all types.

Going to have to expel Russia from all of Ukraine. You cannot set the precedent of some conquest is fine.

At this point, Russia cannot supply the military sufficiently.
https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-r ... 0he%20said.
Russia has likely lost half its main battle tanks in Ukraine, a senior US defense official said.
...
Because of this, "Russia will emerge from this war weaker than it went in," he said.
[i]

HIMARS is now in range of a critical supply route:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru ... r-AA13YyzD

In my opinion, that means the Crimea is already lost. It is a question of when.
Supply problems caused the retreat from Kherson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60acCF0CA9c&t=15s

That will only get worse. Since Russia attacks from within Russia, Ukraine will have to retaliate (quietly). The #1 target should be railroad bridges.
Now that video also notes that because of the city bombardments, Ukrainians are fleeing in huge numbers again. War is not good and Russia must compensate for that in my opinion. 4.9 million refugees. Per the video $19 billion USD cost just for their care. Then the rebuilding...

Troops have been complaining for 3 weeks at the lack of Russian winter uniforms. Seriously, we all know the history of fighting in Ukraine without winter uniforms and it isn't pretty.
https://news.yahoo.com/russian-soldier- ... _ac9Dmki2m
[i]Corruption in the Russian military is endemic, and the chaos of their logistics chains, aided by precision Ukrainian strikes on supply hubs, has further damaged their ability to properly equip their soldiers.

Russia has a corrupt government that leads to a very corrupt military. This long video goes into how the layers of corruption have doomed the Russian military:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik&t=3376s

At 14:40 in this video, it goes into how Russia is going to have trouble with technology due to the war/mobilization/fleeing conscription. It also goes into how Russia screwed all their Western business partners will inhibit their economy for... a long time. At 19:30 the video goes into how Russia cannot get consultants and because they are arresting students that will inhibit the country for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnL-UUmfzi8&t=601s

And Russia doesn't have a real leader. Zelensky went to Kherson! Think about that. He's in the middle of an armed army and so loved he is safe!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnL-UUmfzi8&t=601s


Historically, when Russia loses a war, there is regime change. WW1 kicked out the Rominovs. Afghanistan ended the Soviet dynasty. Ukraine ...

I see no reason for Ukraine to stop fighting before regaining all prior territory. There is no reason Ukraine must be humiliated by a loss of territory. But there will be reparations to discourage such behavior again. Multi-trillion in reparations in my opinion. If for no other reason, than to set a precedent for China to stop it in the South China sea and to stop threatening Taiwan. This is a far bigger issue than Ukraine. To keep world peace, Russia must be forced to pay reparations to set the example.

Lightsaber

Ps,
the war and fleeing the draft is exacerbating the Russian demographic problem.
Per this report, 4 million left prior to the mobilization: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/ ... fsb-a77603
I'm sure some returned, but I'm also certain with mobilization many won't.

As the first video notes, Russia losses $500,000, on average, of future GDP from every man who dies, is badly wounded, or flees Russia.

To others, a great video with the Chieftan on the wrong lessons of this war:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/ ... fsb-a77603
The video also notes that we are pretty much doomed to have this war go forward well into 2023. So Russia will loose many more men.

More cracks in the Kremlin: Alexander Dugin -- otherwise known as Putin's brain, who is believed to have created the blueprint for the invasion of Ukraine -- called on Telegram for Putin to be overthrown or killed over the retreat from Kherson. He later deleted the post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOSdAf5 ... annel=CRUX

And, speaking of thugs, Yegveny Pregozhin celebrates the sledgehammer killing of a Russian deserter:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/11/ ... ing-a79362

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

I hope they don’t try to build a bridge head this week. They should rotate the forces, start deteriorating the Russian logistics and strongholds with artillery and then think about a possible bridgehead. Now would be to risky and Ukrainian intel shows that Russian have been preparing defense lines on the other bank weeks before the definitive retreat…

Wouldn't it be better for the UA to strike down into Zaporizihzhia. Ukrainian forces are already across the Dnieper river in that area. There is a large area around Melitopol reported as one of partisan activity, which I presume weakens the Russian hold there.
Map on FT shows it: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

Approaching Kherson oblast from the east seems less challenging to me than trying to cross the river to attack it. Additionally, it might be possible to disrupt supplies to Russian forces in Kherson via Donetsk oblast to the east.

It is risky, but Ukrainians have shown to be capable of creating bridgeheads. The main reason for doing it is to extend the front line for the Russians and create another axis to drain Russian resources…

I'm no military-minded person but would Ukraine not be expected to lose more soldiers attempting to cross the Dnieper and then fighting through three lines of prepared defences than by going for Melitopol from the north and cutting supplies to Russian troops in Kherson from the east? If there is partisan activity in the (guessing here) 1,000 sq km around that city and a couple of pockets of partisan activity between the city and the frontline to the north, isn't that much easier to take than the land across the river from the city of Kherson?
If the Ukrainians did cross the river there, how difficult would it be to get supplies across the Dnieper - quite a wide river - under artillery fire? It could turn very badly for the Ukrainian army. A lot could become casualties crossing the river and once they got to the other bank, could not be sure supplies would not be halted by Russian artillery and tank fire.

FT map: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

art wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

Wouldn't it be better for the UA to strike down into Zaporizihzhia. Ukrainian forces are already across the Dnieper river in that area. There is a large area around Melitopol reported as one of partisan activity, which I presume weakens the Russian hold there.
Map on FT shows it: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

Approaching Kherson oblast from the east seems less challenging to me than trying to cross the river to attack it. Additionally, it might be possible to disrupt supplies to Russian forces in Kherson via Donetsk oblast to the east.

It is risky, but Ukrainians have shown to be capable of creating bridgeheads. The main reason for doing it is to extend the front line for the Russians and create another axis to drain Russian resources…

I'm no military-minded person but would Ukraine not be expected to lose more soldiers attempting to cross the Dnieper and then fighting through three lines of prepared defences than by going for Melitopol from the north and cutting supplies to Russian troops in Kherson from the east? If there is partisan activity in the (guessing here) 1,000 sq km around that city and a couple of pockets of partisan activity between the city and the frontline to the north, isn't that much easier to take than the land across the river from the city of Kherson?
If the Ukrainians did cross the river there, how difficult would it be to get supplies across the Dnieper - quite a wide river - under artillery fire? It could turn very badly for the Ukrainian army. A lot could become casualties crossing the river and once they got to the other bank, could not be sure supplies would not be halted by Russian artillery and tank fire.

FT map: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

That depends where the Russians have better defenses; near Melitopol or on the other bank.

There is already unconfirmed chatter the Ukrainian forces have secured a bridgehead on the Kilbun peninsula. Which would make sense as it under Ukrainian artillery umbrella…

Vintage wrote:

If there is a faction that is even stupider than Putin, let's have them put on center stage and when everyone in the world, including Russia, sees that the new emperor has no clothes, his time will be over. Then the realists can take power.

It's not as though the west is holding a weak hand in this poker game.

It seems you are suggesting is there is a viable group of realists waiting to take power and (hopefully) guide Russia to a soft landing? Care to elaborate?

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

Wouldn't it be better for the UA to strike down into Zaporizihzhia. Ukrainian forces are already across the Dnieper river in that area. There is a large area around Melitopol reported as one of partisan activity, which I presume weakens the Russian hold there.
Map on FT shows it: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

Approaching Kherson oblast from the east seems less challenging to me than trying to cross the river to attack it. Additionally, it might be possible to disrupt supplies to Russian forces in Kherson via Donetsk oblast to the east.

It is risky, but Ukrainians have shown to be capable of creating bridgeheads. The main reason for doing it is to extend the front line for the Russians and create another axis to drain Russian resources…

I'm no military expert, but IMO the idea of extending the front to the South to threaten Crimea would be brilliant. It would force Russia to stretch its supply lines to the limit, IMO. It's pretty clear Russia would have no choice but defend Crimea. It would be better for Ukraine if an invasion would cause the pro-Russian people in Crimea to head back across the Kerch Bridge before any peace took hold, otherwise they'll have a big bunch of unhappy Russians living on their territory.

Earlier in the war I heard it said that the whole summer offensive (faint towards Kherson, but thrust towards Kharkiv, and then defeat the Kherson salient in detail) was devised in cooperation with Western militaries, in particular advanced simulators designed to help make such plans. I wonder if we'll ever know if this was the case, and wonder if the next plan will be created the same way.

Aside: Khrushchev offered Kalingrad to the Lithuanian SSR at the same time he offered Crimea to the Ukraine SSR. Lithuania said no thanks. It was because it knew Kalingrad (former Koeningsburg) had been heavily Russified after the Germans were pushed out, and Lithuania did not want to skew its demographics by taking on more Russians. Turns out to have been a wise decision.

lightsaber wrote:

But there will be reparations to discourage such behavior again. Multi-trillion in reparations in my opinion. If for no other reason, than to set a precedent for China to stop it in the South China sea and to stop threatening Taiwan. This is a far bigger issue than Ukraine. To keep world peace, Russia must be forced to pay reparations to set the example.

Thanks for all the links!

China's neutral stance is very interesting to me. IIRC early on Putin expected help from China but got the cold shoulder, and there were statements made about respecting international borders, which is all very curious to me. Clearly China has its eyes on Taiwan so it would want to set a precedent that it's OK to "reunite" with long lost territories. Perhaps China knew enough about the state of the Russian military-industrial complex to know it was a sham, so they decided to stay away? Or, maybe their own domestic situation with stagnant GDP and teetering housing market while chasing COVID ghosts everywhere has them preoccupied? Or, we do have the theory that there was a back-channel agreement between US and China that said US would keep NATO out of it if China did not help Russia, but why would China care if NATO marched on Ukraine? And was that ever a possibility anyhow?

the war and fleeing the draft is exacerbating the Russian demographic problem.
Per this report, 4 million left prior to the mobilization: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/ ... fsb-a77603
I'm sure some returned, but I'm also certain with mobilization many won't.

I posted a link up-thread. Both Russia and Ukraine were already in the negative population growth zone. The war will only accelerate that trend. The thing is that IMO Russia was a more sophisticated economy, so a brain drain will hurt them more than Ukraine.

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

It is risky, but Ukrainians have shown to be capable of creating bridgeheads. The main reason for doing it is to extend the front line for the Russians and create another axis to drain Russian resources…

I'm no military-minded person but would Ukraine not be expected to lose more soldiers attempting to cross the Dnieper and then fighting through three lines of prepared defences than by going for Melitopol from the north and cutting supplies to Russian troops in Kherson from the east? If there is partisan activity in the (guessing here) 1,000 sq km around that city and a couple of pockets of partisan activity between the city and the frontline to the north, isn't that much easier to take than the land across the river from the city of Kherson?
If the Ukrainians did cross the river there, how difficult would it be to get supplies across the Dnieper - quite a wide river - under artillery fire? It could turn very badly for the Ukrainian army. A lot could become casualties crossing the river and once they got to the other bank, could not be sure supplies would not be halted by Russian artillery and tank fire.

FT map: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

That depends where the Russians have better defenses; near Melitopol or on the other bank.

There is already unconfirmed chatter the Ukrainian forces have secured a bridgehead on the Kinburn peninsula. Which would make sense as it under Ukrainian artillery umbrella…

Collection of multiple sources and videos of Kinburn landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za0B2wJW6k

JonesNL wrote:

Collection of multiple sources and videos of Kinburn landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za0B2wJW6k

The night time video seem to suggests helo escort providing guiding lights for the boats.

I guess they can take the spit with relatively light infantry. They would only need to hold the spit to open up the waterway to Mykolaive for additional ports for grain export.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Collection of multiple sources and videos of Kinburn landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za0B2wJW6k

The night time video seem to suggests helo escort providing guiding lights for the boats.

I guess they can take the spit with relatively light infantry. They would only need to hold the spit to open up the waterway to Mykolaive for additional ports for grain export.

bt

Another source:

According to Russian media sources, the Ukrainian army has entered the city of Herois’ke, in the Kinburn Peninsula in the southern part of Kherson, following an amphibious operation, as heavy fighting continues across the region.

Ref: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... e-invasion

Great news! Hope they continue the drive and isolate Crimea from the major northern supply lines and put themselves in position to neutralize the Kerch Bridge.

Also:

US president Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping have reiterated their agreement that a nuclear war “should never be fought” in a long-awaited meeting in Bali earlier today, the White House said. The pair shook hands in front of the US and Chinese flags ahead of the three-hour meeting on the resort island and “spoke candidly” about a range of issues, including key regional and global challenges, the White House said in a statement.

China’s read-out from the meeting differed slightly, with the New York Times reporting that “Unlike the White House’s account, the Chinese account did not mention Xi and Biden agreeing on opposing Russia’s threat of using nuclear weapons in the Ukraine war.”

So, same old same old Chinese bipolar behavior.

JonesNL wrote:

Collection of multiple sources and videos of Kinburn landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za0B2wJW6k

The AFU aren't wasting any time! The momentum is certainly with them. Russia-1 will be interesting tonight.

Take a moment to consider how Putin is reacting to the 'Nazi drug addict' (though of course Jewish) Ukrainian President in Kherson, less than two months ago where he declared it 'part of Russia forever'.
That drive across the bridge a few short years ago.
Sadly, Putin does not seem to do You Tube reaction videos.

On the use of the German mobile AA cannon against drones, Justin Bronk makes a minor verbal slip, they have of course 35mm guns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuWDtQhkF98

Braybuddy wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Collection of multiple sources and videos of Kinburn landing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_za0B2wJW6k

The AFU aren't wasting any time! The momentum is certainly with them. Russia-1 will be interesting tonight.

What! Russia-1 not ignoring bad news and actually reporting what is happening? Surely not.

There is unconfirmed chatter that AFU liberated Oleshky across the Dnipro. That would be quite remarkable this fast and form a second bridgehead…

This may be a stretch, but I see a similarity here between the Ukrainian Kinburn operation and the CIA takeover of Afghanistan in the early days, before Cheney screwed the pooch by withholding support at Tora Bora. The mostly light infantry invaders will be carrying laser range measuring equipment and GPS gear. They will fix Russian positions and call in the air strikes, but in this case the air strikes will come from Ukraine's 155s, that are on the other side of the Dnieper just a few miles away.

The Ukrainian offensive will get its 'support' when they get a few pontoon bridges in operation east of the landing zone (wherever that is)..

Revelation wrote:

It seems you are suggesting is there is a viable group of realists waiting to take power and (hopefully) guide Russia to a soft landing? Care to elaborate?

Why should it be necessary to point out that the Russian people are just humans like the rest of us? I have personally met some very normal Russian ex-pats, I know they exist.

JonesNL wrote:

There is unconfirmed chatter that AFU liberated Oleshky across the Dnipro. That would be quite remarkable this fast and form a second bridgehead…

I'm curious to know how the AFU is going to move heavy equipment across. The channel to Kinburn is about 4km wide there, I read, so I presume they will need to load heavy kit onto vessels. Landing craft going back and forth all day (or perhaps all night)?

art wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

There is unconfirmed chatter that AFU liberated Oleshky across the Dnipro. That would be quite remarkable this fast and form a second bridgehead…

I'm curious to know how the AFU is going to move heavy equipment across. The channel to Kinburn is about 4km wide there, I read, so I presume they will need to load heavy kit onto vessels. Landing craft going back and forth all day (or perhaps all night)?

They wouldn’t need heavy equipment. The front will be about 1km wide and they will have full artillery support and enough manpads to make Russians life difficult with light infantry. They would need a continuous supply, but heavy equipment like tanks are not needed for securing the peninsula. Some IFV’s that can cross on themselves will be probably added as time goes by…

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

There is unconfirmed chatter that AFU liberated Oleshky across the Dnipro. That would be quite remarkable this fast and form a second bridgehead…

I'm curious to know how the AFU is going to move heavy equipment across. The channel to Kinburn is about 4km wide there, I read, so I presume they will need to load heavy kit onto vessels. Landing craft going back and forth all day (or perhaps all night)?

They wouldn’t need heavy equipment. The front will be about 1km wide and they will have full artillery support and enough manpads to make Russians life difficult with light infantry. They would need a continuous supply, but heavy equipment like tanks are not needed for securing the peninsula. Some IFV’s that can cross on themselves will be probably added as time goes by…

They are going to need as many tanks as they can get, as soon as they can get them, this isn't just a Kinburn operation, this is the whole enchilada.

It can be assumed that Ukrainian artillery and HIMARS are working at a feverish pitch against the TWO railroad lines in the general area.

The two railroad lines are:
From the town of Armyansk toward Kherson.
and
Metipol - Vesele Becene - Kostyantynivka - Nova Khakovka.

Vintage wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

I'm curious to know how the AFU is going to move heavy equipment across. The channel to Kinburn is about 4km wide there, I read, so I presume they will need to load heavy kit onto vessels. Landing craft going back and forth all day (or perhaps all night)?

They wouldn’t need heavy equipment. The front will be about 1km wide and they will have full artillery support and enough manpads to make Russians life difficult with light infantry. They would need a continuous supply, but heavy equipment like tanks are not needed for securing the peninsula. Some IFV’s that can cross on themselves will be probably added as time goes by…

They are going to need as many tanks as they can get, as soon as they can get them, this isn't just a Kinburn operation, this is the whole enchilada.

It can be assumed that Ukrainian artillery and HIMARS are working at a feverish pitch against the TWO railroad lines in the general area.

The two railroad lines are:
From the town of Armyansk toward Kherson.
and
Metipol - Vesele Becene - Kostyantynivka - Nova Khakovka.

I won't be surprised to see airborne drops.

Vintage wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

art wrote:

I'm curious to know how the AFU is going to move heavy equipment across. The channel to Kinburn is about 4km wide there, I read, so I presume they will need to load heavy kit onto vessels. Landing craft going back and forth all day (or perhaps all night)?

They wouldn’t need heavy equipment. The front will be about 1km wide and they will have full artillery support and enough manpads to make Russians life difficult with light infantry. They would need a continuous supply, but heavy equipment like tanks are not needed for securing the peninsula. Some IFV’s that can cross on themselves will be probably added as time goes by…

They are going to need as many tanks as they can get, as soon as they can get them, this isn't just a Kinburn operation, this is the whole enchilada.

It can be assumed that Ukrainian artillery and HIMARS are working at a feverish pitch against the TWO railroad lines in the general area.

The two railroad lines are:
From the town of Armyansk toward Kherson.
and
Metipol - Vesele Becene - Kostyantynivka - Nova Khakovka.

I won't be surprised to see airborne drops.

Quoting Lightsaber;
Russia has a corrupt government that leads to a very corrupt military. This long video goes into how the layers of corruption have doomed the Russian military:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz59GWeTIik&t=3376s

I posted it yesterday, who spotted the quotes from the HBO drama doc 'Chernobyl'? At around 31.37 and 57.30?

Overview;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI9YpTqWIGc

Day one post liberation;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djbDDmR3S_o

With Ukrainian Tankies, a term which was a nickname for members of the world's first dedicated tank unit, the Royal Tank Regiment, in particular in WW2;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt5bdmgVHJM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tank_Regiment

Now it's a more disparaging term for those, usually on the old hard left, who make excuses for Russia, from the time those who stayed in the Communist Party after Hungary in 1956, Prague Spring '68, as Phil uses it;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPylkWAUPkY

Vintage wrote:

Revelation wrote:

It seems you are suggesting is there is a viable group of realists waiting to take power and (hopefully) guide Russia to a soft landing? Care to elaborate?

Why should it be necessary to point out that the Russian people are just humans like the rest of us? I have personally met some very normal Russian ex-pats, I know they exist.

There's a big difference between saying the average Russian is a decent human being, versus saying there is a viable group of realists waiting to take power in Russia.

I'm sure you know Putin simply does not allow viable opposition parties to form. He has many means at his hands to make sure that doesn't happen, and preserving power is his main interest in life these days.

AFAIK there is no "shadow government" in place, nor "government in exile" either. I am not a fan of politicians, but even I feel being a good politician takes a certain kind of talent, and coming up with a set of policies that could guide a defeated Russia to a soft landing is very difficult.

In particular, the West seemed to know how to win the Cold War, but it's debatable if they won the peace, given where we find ourselves today. The "shock therapy" applied to post-USSR Russia has been a disaster.

JonesNL wrote:

There is unconfirmed chatter that AFU liberated Oleshky across the Dnipro. That would be quite remarkable this fast and form a second bridgehead…

Wow.

If they can cross over at the dam as well . . .

bt

Ward Carroll, former F-14 Crew, meets in person Justin Bronk of the RUSI, to discuss the air war, air defence, what we have learned about early on, challenges now and ahead;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM

Revelation wrote:

AFAIK there is no "shadow government" in place, nor "government in exile" either.

Imagine the number of persons who would have fatal accidents falling out of windows or getting infected by touching restricted items in whatever western nation shelters them.
The issue we face is what Putin was allowed to "get away" with and his successor believing the same applies. Will a successor attempt to push further, maybe, the key there is what the rest of the world will allow for economic progress.
The atrocities that Russia has done in Ukraine gives me pause, how much is reported and how many persons believe them to be false, western or US propaganda.
I have to wonder if countries who support Russia whether openly or tacitly mention any concerns, and if not, if their country get's into a conflict, would their military do the same.

par13del wrote:

I have to wonder if countries who support Russia whether openly or tacitly mention any concerns, and if not, if their country get's into a conflict, would their military do the same.

Well, since two of the biggest "supporters" economically have been China and India, if they ever get into a war, it will be against each other. Not my problem, man...

JonesNL wrote:

There is already unconfirmed chatter the Ukrainian forces have secured a bridgehead on the Kilbun peninsula. Which would make sense as it under Ukrainian artillery umbrella…

I've noticed Twitter is exploding today with reports of Ukrainian forces on the Kinburn Peninsula and in the town of Oleshky, which is immediately across the Antonovskiy Bridge from Kherson.

There has been some video shared today of Ukrainian forces operating in small boats. They seem like they could be crossing to Kinburn, but the visible shoreline is pretty nondescript. I think it is fair speculation that they sent a special forces detachment over in platoon force or larger, either for reconnaissance, to hit some target of interest, or to tie up Russian forces. There also were reports that Russia fired artillery rockets at a location near the town of Herois'ke on the peninsula. All of this remains to be verified, and if it is, also whether Ukraine follows up with a large enough force to hold the peninsula.

Do keep in mind that Russia is not unaware of the risk of a flanking attack on Kinburn. Despite the withdrawal only being announced in the last week, and completed in a few days, preparations for the loss of Kherson have been going on for weeks, at a minimum. Prefab pillboxes were documented being transported to the area in October, and I have seen reports they have been digging trenches at the narrow part of the peninsula. They would be in range of Ukrainian tube artillery there, but that applies to every front-line area. At the same time, they have locations they could position their own artillery out of range of Ukraine's (except GMLRS, which Ukraine still uses sparingly), such that Russia could also shell Ukrainian troops on the peninsula.

https://twitter.com/jackryan212/status/ ... 9897250823

I consider it within the realm of possibility that Ukraine might use the rapidly shifting conditions following the withdrawal to rapidly establish a landing on the Kinburn Peninsula, but it would be a bold move, and likely challenging to break out from. Ukraine has to weigh the potential opportunity against the risk of such a thrust being pinned down, or potentially even counterattacked, and the possible value of instead sending the troops to help establish a new breakthrough somewhere else.

Regarding Oleshky, it appears the rumors are likely exaggerating hopeful posts by residents documenting an apparent lack of Russian soldiers in the town. I've seen no images yet of Ukrainian troops east of the Antonovskiy Bridge, although I did see a video from a drone operating at very low altitude that appeared to be at the east end of the bridge. As one would expect, Russia is keeping their forces on the east bank difficult to locate, but it is doubtful that they would not have forces in place to prevent a bridgehead from being established.

art wrote:

Wouldn't it be better for the UA to strike down into Zaporizihzhia. Ukrainian forces are already across the Dnieper river in that area. There is a large area around Melitopol reported as one of partisan activity, which I presume weakens the Russian hold there.
Map on FT shows it: https://www.ft.com/content/4351d5b0-088 ... c4dfbccbf5

Approaching Kherson oblast from the east seems less challenging to me than trying to cross the river to attack it. Additionally, it might be possible to disrupt supplies to Russian forces in Kherson via Donetsk oblast to the east.

Focusing on Zaporizhzhia is an option. I would rate it as the most obvious option, because of the lack of major geographic obstacles, the possibility of dividing Russian forces, and the opportunity to retake important infrastructure like the nuclear power plant at Enerhodar.

But because it is obvious, it might not be a very good option. Russia will defend this area heavily. As I indicated in my reply above to another post, Ukraine has to weigh each opportunity against its risks. There is no genuinely obvious answer what their best next move is. Ukraine will no doubt use a lot of reconnaissance, probing, war-gaming, and feints to set up their next major counteroffensive.

lightsaber wrote:

HIMARS is now in range of a critical supply route:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ru ... r-AA13YyzD

In my opinion, that means the Crimea is already lost. It is a question of when.

The overland supply route is important, especially for maximizing the strategic utility of Crimea to Russia, but it is not truly critical. Crimea has ports at Sevastopol and Kerch, plus there is the Kerch Strait bridges. Russia did not have the overland supply route through Ukraine from 2014 until 2022, roughly a month into the invasion when they completed surrounding Mariupol. They didn't have the road bridge until 2018, or the rail bridge until 2019.

I don't have complete information on the current bridge situation, but I believe they are currently using only one track of the railroad bridge, and one side of the road bridge with weight restrictions and periodic closures as needed for the repairs to the other side of the road bridge, plus ferries to further increase capacity.

Because of the urgency, they are rapidly making replacement spans to install on the existing piers. The first of four spans was shown to have been installed this weekend. They're supposed to finish replacing the spans on the collapsed side of the road bridge before the end of December. Then, due to damage to the other side of the road bridge, they'll replace several spans there, with a goal of completing by March. Then they will replace a portion of the rail bridge, with a plan to complete that by September.

The bridge is beyond the range of GMLRS from mainland Ukraine. Ukraine does not have an easy way to hit it again unless Russia learned nothing about truck bombs from the first attack.

Therefore, we should assume Russia will continue to be able to resupply Crimea indefinitely. It will be a very different situation logistically from western Kherson Oblast.

iamlucky13 wrote:

There has been some video shared today of Ukrainian forces operating in small boats. They seem like they could be crossing to Kinburn, but the visible shoreline is pretty nondescript. I think it is fair speculation that they sent a special forces detachment over in platoon force or larger,

I vote for larger.

There were probably more than one crossing as some of the video shows a night crossing and some a dawn crossing.

It is not a bridgehead, more like a beachhead with constant crossing now.

Even if they don't advance beyond the peninsula, maintaining a force there is highly useful to open the shipping lane to Mykolaiv.

If they did cross at Kherson, then logically, the two forces would want to meet up for a united front.

bt

Vehicle cam view of looks like at least one Russian fleeing at high speed, past what looks like abandoned defences;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAkzE6ReGY

If Ukraine has taken Oleshky, as some reports have it, things may be moving very fast.
Elsewhere I saw a video of the Russian demolition job on the Antonivskyi bridge; they blew two sections of the bridge near the shore. If that's all they did to that bridge, it can be functional again in a matter of hours if Ukraine has a Bailey bridge available - and I bet they do.

People of Russia talking sense, mind boggling to watch. A great example of state propaganda, fear, and a bit of ignorance thrown in for self preservation. That chap at the end “nothing good awaits us”, only one brave enough to see and say it like it is.

https://youtu.be/Tn-jBFbFfGA

hh65man wrote:

People of Russia talking sense, mind boggling to watch. A great example of state propaganda, fear, and a bit of ignorance thrown in for self preservation. That chap at the end “nothing good awaits us”, only one brave enough to see and say it like it is.

https://youtu.be/Tn-jBFbFfGA

There were a few others who also 'said it like it is'. There were only a few who were buying into the government propaganda. That video may get a few people sent to jail if I understand the way Putin's government is managing dissent correctly.

Aesma wrote:

I don't think Versailles was humiliating. Wilson wanted Germany to keep Alsace Lorraine, among other unacceptable stuff. All of WW1 was fought on French soil, bringing immense destruction, to this day a significant amount of formerly arable land is unusable due to the amount of shelling that polluted everything. Reparations for this were inevitable.

I would amend that statement. Belgium is not France, and there was this whole Eastern front, and the Balkans, and the Alpine regions, and Gallipoli, and a few more if we count skirmishes in Africa, battles at sea, etc. But I do agree that the damage to both French people and to French property was immense, and reparations were inadequate. A train car full of coal does not replace a human life. As @scbriml pointed out, winning the peace is pretty challenging.

The "stab in the back" mantra leading to WW2 is mostly due to the fact Germany didn't suffer enough in WW1 to realize it was losing.

Lessons need to be learned. GWB was too busy dodging the draft and doing coke to learn anything from Vietnam, but that's a topic for another day.

The Russians also don't admit their huge losses in WW2 were due to lack of preparation and meat-grinder tactics. Sound familiar? On top of that, there was also Stalin's purge of their officer corps just a few years earlier. They were literally pulling former officers out of the GULAG to try to reform their army after the invasion.

A bit like Russia thinking it won WW2 (and didn't cause it) all on its own, without realizing it had lots of help.

Russia is in hard denial about the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty.

For decades, it was the official policy of the Soviet Union to deny the existence of the secret protocol to the Soviet–German Pact. At the behest of Mikhail Gorbachev, Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev headed a commission investigating the existence of such a protocol. In December 1989, the commission concluded that the protocol had existed and revealed its findings to the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union.[245] As a result, the Congress passed the declaration confirming the existence of the secret protocols and condemning and denouncing them.[257][258] The Soviet government thus finally acknowledged and denounced the Secret Treaty[259] and Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Head of State condemned the pact.

Vladimir Putin condemned the pact as "immoral" but also defended it as a "necessary evil".[260][261] At a press conference on 19 December 2019, Putin went further and announced that the signing of the pact was no worse than the 1938 Munich Agreement, which led to the partition of Czechoslovakia.[262][263]

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E ... t_protocol

If it was no worse, then why the need for "secret protocols"?

I guess I shouldn't complain, those protocols are the reason I grew up in the USA instead of the USSR. Both my parents families fled when the USSR claimed the prize they were afforded under the secret protocols. The story goes that this period was a relatively safe time to flee compared to the chaos at the end of the war, yet, still my families lost almost all their possessions and had to live as refugees for over a decade and start all over again as poor immigrants when they finally made it out of the hell that was post-war Germany.

Back on topic, where I would stay but for the above, these Dragon's Teeth we have seen much of, largely from satellite images;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-37YFM7d10

To modify a WW2 song 'we'll be hanging out the washing on the Pu-tin line.......'

Newark727 wrote:

If they weren't aware they were losing why did an armistice happen in the first place? No, they were suffering plenty at the time. The stab-in-the-back myth came strictly after the fact.

They invented their own mythology by careful cherry-picking of past events, dropping ones that don't fit the narrative.

We can see that in effect today, with Putin's latest ramblings:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday accused Western countries of rewriting world history in an attempt to "weaken" Russia and undermine its sovereignty.

During a meeting tasked with memorialising Russia's World War II, Putin said Western countries' goals were to "disunite, deprive us of guidelines, and ultimately to weaken Russia and to influence its sovereignty, in fact, to undermine sovereignty."

He added that the "distortion" of history and "planting of myths" were responsible for the situation in Ukraine.

"Such a scenario, as we see, has already been tested in some countries, including Ukraine, and in a number of other states," he said.

He added that Russia's national identity "remains the continuity of generations, loyalty to traditions, high spiritual moral guidelines."

Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU8wV5qqh0Y

"The West" doesn't need to have such goals, Putin himself is destabilizing his own country. "The West" was happy to keep buying oil and gas from Russia to prop up his oligarchy, but it turns out he couldn't keep the Russian economy on track in the face of all of that greed and corruption.

For background, Russia signed the Molotov-Ribbentropp pact, so they were partners of Hitler, not his enemy. They wanted land for free and decided to trust Hitler. They could have used the time to build up their army, but, nope, they did not, and they folded like a house of cards once Hitler stabbed them in the back and invaded. Their only recourse, then as now, was to feed troops into the meat grinder and hope they could outlast the Germans. Unfortunately for Putin now, "The West" is not giving him the latest military weapons in huge numbers, that support is going to Ukraine.

As above, Putin himself links WW2 to Ukraine, so this topic is not OT. He keeps using the mythology the USSR constructed after WW2 to support the "special military operation" in Ukraine. This includes denying the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentropp secret protocols for a solid 40 years, as per my Wikipedia link given in a previous post.

In WW2 Russia was the aggressor in that they picked sides and chose to partner with Hitler, and their reward was to absorb half of Poland and the Baltic States. They ended up paying for that big time later in the war.

In the current situation Russia is also the aggressor, and they are being made to pay for it. There were all kinds of non-lethal ways to address their concerns with Ukraine, but, nope, they chose to invade. IMO the main reason for the invasion was the Russian economy was going to go into recession and Putin needed something to take the people's attention off of that. The "storm und drang" of a military invasion and the appeal of a land grab at someone else's expense provides that.

The problem in the long term battle to "win the peace" is that he has sole control of media in Russia and has for the last 20+ years. Even if they get swept out of Ukraine, and even if Putin falls, this ideology is not going to go away. The Russian people have only been hearing one side of the argument for the last 20+ years. Some know it's all propoganda, but most do not, or if they do, they aren't willing to do anything about it. There will be suffering after the end of the "special military action", and it will be easy to continue to blame it all on "The West", even though it's clear it's Putin that is to blame.

There seems to be an acceptance that eventually Putin will be deposed and somebody will slip into his chair and sanity will return. What if Putin is actually ill, and is kept alive but with no grip on the levers of power. Grabbing those levers then becomes a free-for-all - Prigozhin has his Wagner troops as ruthless clout, the Military in various and multiple forms under one or more generals, frighteningly Kadyrov, although Chechnya might be too far to move his troops to Moscow in time,and leaves his back door unlocked at home. Without some effective armed force, I don't see anybody else getting very far.

Whilst civil war is going on in the Moscow/St Petersburg belt, what is the likelihood of the various republics around the fringes making a bolt for the door of independence, especially the Muslim ones who have been disproportionately represented in the 'special operations' casualties and the Far Eastern areas that are more ethnically Chinese.

The real nightmare does arise if the Russian Republic does collapse. I don't know the distribution of Russia's nuclear weapons at present, but in this scenario that is where they will stay. Who wants to imagine a wannabe-Kadyrov with nukes ?

Some numbers behind the discussion;
https://ru.usembassy.gov/world-war-ii-a ... 1941-1945/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Leas ... viet_Union

Lot of Twitter and news chatter about a stray missile landing in Polish territory and killing two in a small village called Przewodów

You can probably already hear the typing of Russian media and useful idiots saying it's a false flag operation and the excuse NATO needed to get in the fray.

Not good.

Revelation wrote:

(...)

In the current situation Russia is also the aggressor, and they are being made to pay for it. There were all kinds of non-lethal ways to address their concerns with Ukraine, but, nope, they chose to invade. IMO the main reason for the invasion was the Russian economy was going to go into recession and Putin needed something to take the people's attention off of that. (...).

For Russia, Ukraine's role in the world is to be in Russia's sphere of influence. They see themselves as not quite the owners but the ones who should benefit from Ukraine's natural resources and production of wealth. Ukraine belonging to NATO is a problem because of that, not because of the Russian border with Ukraine.

The Baltics and Moldova are also perceived by Russia to be in their rightful sphere of influence. As for other countries that used to be in the Warsaw Pact, it depends on who you ask.

Two dead in Poland from suspected Russian missile strike.

https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/11/15/b ... oland/amp/