Ukraine

[gowlerk 2,246]

Striking in western Ukraine near Poland is to be expected. The Russians are going after the supply lines. They would be foolish not to. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,426]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

Then why are you saying that declaring war was meaningless? You keep jumping back and forwards between claiming that the declaration of war was meaningless because we didn't actually do anything, and saying that it was meaningless because what we did didn't stop Hitler straight away. Even though it categorically did change the path of the war - nothing happens in isolation.

If you feel like words are being put in your mouth it's because you don't actually know what you're saying. You clearly haven't thought this through and instead of thinking about how each counterpoint affects your core idea you're just twisting around and moving the goalposts to avoid having to realise that maybe you didn't have a very good point to begin with.

Hi Jakee,

From my Post #705:  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 3,063]

18 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I'm certainly not an expert or even a well studied amature on war fighting. But that would not seem to be a tactical use of a weapon.

The term "tactical nuke" refers to its size, not how it is used.  

In this case Putin would use one to wipe out a section of a city, thus 1) accomplishing the tactical goal of shelling the city and destroying parts of it, and 2) accomplishing the strategic goal of having a bigger stick to wave at the Ukranians at the bargaining table.  He of course risks the wrath of the rest of the world if he does that, but so far he has not shown much concern over that.

[jakee 1,558]

3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Jakee,

From my Post #705:  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Jerry Baumchen

Yes, we will have to disagree with your insistence that any action which doesn't provide immediate victory is meaningless.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

The term "tactical nuke" refers to its size, not how it is used.  

In this case Putin would use one to wipe out a section of a city, thus 1) accomplishing the tactical goal of shelling the city and destroying parts of it, and 2) accomplishing the strategic goal of having a bigger stick to wave at the Ukranians at the bargaining table.  He of course risks the wrath of the rest of the world if he does that, but so far he has not shown much concern over that.

I'm thinking that we may be approaching the time to position some serious ground forces and air capability in Germany and Poland. Maybe now would also be a good time for our NATO allies to start loading armor on trains. No ultimatums. 

[gowlerk 2,246]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

He of course risks the wrath of the rest of the world if he does that, but so far he has not shown much concern over that.

He certainly has. Russia under Putin has been involved in more than one conflict where the power of a nuke could have come in handy. But for some reason they have not yet been used.....

[gowlerk 2,246]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I'm thinking that we may be approaching the time to position some serious ground forces and air capability in Germany and Poland. Maybe now would also be a good time for our NATO allies to start loading armor on trains. No ultimatums. 

Along with strong hints that unconventional field weapons are available if needed.

[brenthutch 444]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

The term "tactical nuke" refers to its size, not how it is used.  

 

Just the opposite actually.  A ten megaton device used over the fulda gap to stop thousands of tanks and APCs would be considered tactical.  A ten kiloton weapon detonated over the Kremlin would be strategic.  

[JerryBaumchen 1,426]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

Yes, we will have to disagree with your insistence that any action which doesn't provide immediate victory is meaningless.

Hi Jakee,

Re:  immediate victory

I never said that.

From my Post #721:  I would prefer that you not try to put words in my mouth.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,810]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Along with strong hints that unconventional field weapons are available if needed.

Yep. I remain opposed to nose punching at the first insult but the Russians are on the ropes a bit now so now it makes sense to me

[Phil1111 1,149]

"WASHINGTON — Russia asked China to give it military equipment and support for the war in Ukraine after President Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion last month, according to U.S. officials.

Russia has also asked China for additional economic assistance, to help counteract the battering its economy has taken from broad sanctions imposed by the United States and European and Asian nations, according to an official."

According to the Russian/Putin definition if China supplied aid it would be an act of war. I'm sure Xi will help is fellow dictator out of his current jam. A couple hundred billion now with low interest rates, say 15%. To be paid in oil at a 50% discount to the spot market.

Me thinks the vaunted Russian military machine. That the US military industrial complex has sold the world over the last 50 years, was oversold.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

16 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

"WASHINGTON — Russia asked China to give it military equipment and support for the war in Ukraine after President Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion last month, according to U.S. officials.

Russia has also asked China for additional economic assistance, to help counteract the battering its economy has taken from broad sanctions imposed by the United States and European and Asian nations, according to an official."

According to the Russian/Putin definition if China supplied aid it would be an act of war. I'm sure Xi will help is fellow dictator out of his current jam. A couple hundred billion now with low interest rates, say 15%. To be paid in oil at a 50% discount to the spot market.

Me thinks the vaunted Russian military machine. That the US military industrial complex has sold the world over the last 50 years, was oversold.

Russia spent only $65 Billion last year on it's military in a kleptocracy. For certain it is overrated.

[gowlerk 2,246]

16 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Me thinks the vaunted Russian military machine. That the US military industrial complex has sold the world over the last 50 years, was oversold.

Russians have always been known to be very tough and very hard and to be willing to make sacrifices. They have not been known for having great leadership. 

[riggerrob 643]

Has anyone else noticed that Russians achieved their major southern objectives (e.g. Dnieper River) during the first day of the war?

Part of the hang-over from their 2014 invasion of Crimea was the lack of water. Crimea has a dry climate and had depended upon fresh water pumped in from the Dnieper River for the last 50 odd years. After the 2014 invasion Ukraine dammed the North Crimean Canal in 2 places. The first dam was merely concrete chunks and rubble dumped into the canal. The second - more permanent - solution was building a concrete dam, but never opening the sluice gates.

Crimean agricultural production dropped by 40 percent. While Moscow made a big PR production about new donated farm equipment returning production levels to almost pre-2014 levels, I remain skeptical. This PR "maskovka" reminds me too much of the PR "successes" published about Soviet-era collective farms.

Sarcasm alert!!!!!!

During the first day (February 24, 2022) Russian troops marched out of Crimea and all the way to the shores of the Dnieper River. Then they made a big show of dynamiting the rubble dam. It made for great news footage with explosions and flames and black smoke and flying chunks of concrete and screaming and shouting and running abouting. 

How much rubble was removed is a second question.

Which shifts our focus to the fighting around Mariopul. Russians need to capture that city on the Sea of Azov (East of Crimea) to secure a land route connecting the Crimea to mother Russia. Ukrainian soldiers have stubbornly defended Mariopul, but are running low on supplies.

Meanwhile, Ukrainian forces east of the Dnieper River risk being cut off if they merely sit in defensive lines. This may end up as a battle for control of the few bridges crossing the Dnieper River.

Finally, resistance proved stiffer than expected on the approaches to Keeve and Kharkov. After a couple of days marching, Soviet troops consolidated on the outskirts of Keeve to re-supply. Russia can afford to play the long game while besieging Keeve.

But we have to wonder if all the "sturm und drang" around Keeve is merely political smoke and mirrors.

Hint: go look at maps published by historical legends on www.youtube.com.

[jakee 1,558]

7 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Jakee,

Re:  immediate victory

I never said that.

From my Post #721:  I would prefer that you not try to put words in my mouth.

Jerry Baumchen

I'm disagreeing with the argument that you're actually making. You said the UK made a meaningless declaration of war that it didn't follow up on, and you're justifying that statement by saying we didn't beat the Germans in Europe in 1939/40.

Again, if you're complaining about your argument being mischaracterised it's because you don't really know what you're saying.

[Phil1111 1,149]

11 hours ago, riggerrob said:

Has anyone else noticed that Russians achieved their major southern objectives (e.g. Dnieper River) during the first day of the war?...

Hint: go look at maps published by historical legends on www.youtube.com.

Speaking of the south. I'm surprised that Ukraine hasn't sent special forces out to destroy Putin's bridge: Russia’s $3.69bn Crimean bridge

It needs it less now but would be a nice victory for Ukraine.

In other news of the decline of the Russian empire. "Russia’s natural population has undergone its largest peacetime decline in recorded history over the last 12 months, according to an analysis of official government statistics made by a prominent independent demographer, as the country battles a deadly fourth wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The natural population, a number calculated from registered deaths and births, excluding the impact of migration, declined by 997,000 between October 2020 and September 2021, the demographer Alexei Raksha has calculated."

Meanwhile: "According to one estimate by a Russian economist, as many as 200,000 Russians have left their country since the start of the war." Mostly educated Russians and Putin critics.

While its fertility rate has declined. "The total fertility rate after 2015 began to decline, dropping to 1.5 in 2020. In addition, a general decline in the number of women of childbearing age has also begun(to decline).

As a result, 1.94 million children were born in Russia in 2015, but only 1.44 million in 2020."

Edited March 14, 2022 by Phil1111

[ryoder 1,590]

15 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Speaking of the south. I'm surprised that Ukraine hasn't sent special forces out to destroy Putin's bridge: Russia’s $3.69bn Crimean bridge

It needs it less now but would be a nice victory for Ukraine.

Ooh! That would be a lovely target!

And here is another one just 100 miles to the Southeast: Putin's $1.3B palace that looks like a supervillain's lair:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Black+Sea/@44.4233483,38.2058381,2749m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x405db94b77d2f233:0xfe5cd6c659adc698!8m2!3d43.413029!4d34.299316

Edited March 14, 2022 by ryoder

[riggerrob 643]

44 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Speaking of the south. I'm surprised that Ukraine hasn't sent special forces out to destroy Putin's bridge: Russia’s $3.69bn Crimean bridge

It needs it less now but would be a nice victory for Ukraine.

In other news of the decline of the Russian empire. "Russia’s natural population has undergone its largest peacetime decline in recorded history over the last 12 months, according to an analysis of official government statistics made by a prominent independent demographer, as the country battles a deadly fourth wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The natural population, a number calculated from registered deaths and births, excluding the impact of migration, declined by 997,000 between October 2020 and September 2021, the demographer Alexei Raksha has calculated."

Meanwhile: "According to one estimate by a Russian economist, as many as 200,000 Russians have left their country since the start of the war." Mostly educated Russians and Putin critics.

While its fertility rate has declined. "The total fertility rate after 2015 began to decline, dropping to 1.5 in 2020. In addition, a general decline in the number of women of childbearing age has also begun(to decline).

As a result, 1.94 million children were born in Russia in 2015, but only 1.44 million in 2020."

Russian population decline is not a new problem. A Russin aboy - born in 1920 - had only a 20 percent chance of surviving 1945. Instead it dates back to the 19202, during Stalin's first round of political purges. Stalin killed or imprisoned millions of people that he suspected fo opposing him during the Communist revolution. Millions of Ukrainians and Georgians starved to death during the 1930s famines. Millions of Soviet soldiers died during World War 2.

All these casualties caused shortages of young men to sire a "Baby Boom" after World War 2. The drop in birth rates has recurred in several waves after 1946. The latest problem is a shortage of young women of child-bearing age.

Other Russian limits to birth rates are racism, aging, alcoholism and abortion. Russians have always feared people-of-other-colors after more more invasions than the average historian can count, ergo few Africans, Asians, etc. want to emmigrate to Russia. Aging relates to the previous paragraph about war losses. Alcoholism is rampant among Russian men, causing brewers' droop and other medical problems. Abortion is the most popular method of birth control in Russia, partly because of the shortage of pre-natal care, condoms, pills, diaphrams, IUDs, etc.

[jakee 1,558]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Speaking of the south. I'm surprised that Ukraine hasn't sent special forces out to destroy Putin's bridge: Russia’s $3.69bn Crimean bridge

I'm sure that would be just as easy as it sounds.

[billvon 3,063]

I heard a fascinating interview (I think it was on Sway) with a (formerly) Russian journalist who had just spent a week in Russia before returning to the US.  He talked about the state of broadcast journalism in Russia.  Some of the things he mentioned:

The Ukrainians are being portrayed as "Nazis" and the invasion deemed only a "special military action."  Journalists who report it as an invasion or a war are made to disappear.  He didn't imply that they were killed - but they are taken off the air and often arrested.

One Russian outlet reported that the special military action was going well, and that the pictures of people injured and killed on TV were "crisis actors" who were paid to act injured.  (Does that ring any bells?)

News reports often do not lead with the invasion.  Instead they lead with the "economic war" that the West is waging on Russia in a bid to take over Russia, then they spend no more than five minutes on the successful special military operation against the Nazis in their brother state of Ukraine.  He noted that the tone of the news hasn't changed at all.  Whereas on FOX and CNN and the like the news of the war is being reported in large type and with constant coverage, the Russian media is doing its best to make it seem like nothing is going on (other than the West's economic attacks on Russia, that is.)

He noticed two sorts of people there.  People who watched Russian media and were going on about their business normally.  Other people who had access to outside media (via the internet and apps that haven't been cut off yet) are preparing for the worst and often leaving.  He told stories of people he would visit on Tuesday and hear about their concerns on the invasion, and notice suitcases and passports out.  By Thursday they were gone.

This reminded me of another Russian journalist I read about - Peter Pomerantsev.  He worked in Russian television production, both entertainment and news, and regularly attended the news meetings where government officials told them what they could report on, and how it should be presented.  He now lives in the US and teaches political science at the Agora Institute, part of Johns-Hopkins.  He talks about watching FOX News, OAN and Newsmax and realizing how similar they were to Russian TV propaganda:

“It’s the same game.  It’s the same rhetorical tactics, the same intellectual tactics, the same psychological tactics.  There’s this kind of pop-postmodernism, where Sean Hannity will say things like objectivity doesn’t exist, everybody’s biased.  That’s exactly the same argument the Russians make."  He mentions a quote from Dmitry Kiselev, a news anchor and propaganda expert for Putin: "Objectivity is a myth that is proposed and imposed on us.”  Hannity's version of this was “I don’t pretend that I’m fair and balanced and objective,”

He also talks about how both Russia and right wing media present opinions from both sides to appear to be fair and balanced.  To not undermine their mission, they choose buffoonish carciactures of their opposition by using their resources to search out, elicit and even sometimes invent vapid opposing viewpoints.  "They turn everything into a Jerry Springer show. ... Essentially, Tucker Carlson has ‘idiot liberals’ on.” The primary difference is that Russia maintains buffoons who espouse the opposition's position to have on interviews; the right wing in the US mainly finds, edits and alters media clips of their enemies saying things they can spin as foolish.

It's interesting to watch the propaganda war unfold as quickly as the ground invasion did.

[billvon 3,063]

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

I'm sure that would be just as easy as it sounds.

I saw a movie about something like that once.  Seemed pretty easy.

[Bigfalls 111]

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

I heard a fascinating interview (I think it was on Sway) with a (formerly) Russian journalist who had just spent a week in Russia before returning to the US.  He talked about the state of broadcast journalism in Russia.  Some of the things he mentioned:

The Ukrainians are being portrayed as "Nazis" and the invasion deemed only a "special military action."  Journalists who report it as an invasion or a war are made to disappear.  He didn't imply that they were killed - but they are taken off the air and often arrested.

One Russian outlet reported that the special military action was going well, and that the pictures of people injured and killed on TV were "crisis actors" who were paid to act injured.  (Does that ring any bells?)

News reports often do not lead with the invasion.  Instead they lead with the "economic war" that the West is waging on Russia in a bid to take over Russia, then they spend no more than five minutes on the successful special military operation against the Nazis in their brother state of Ukraine.  He noted that the tone of the news hasn't changed at all.  Whereas on FOX and CNN and the like the news of the war is being reported in large type and with constant coverage, the Russian media is doing its best to make it seem like nothing is going on (other than the West's economic attacks on Russia, that is.)

He noticed two sorts of people there.  People who watched Russian media and were going on about their business normally.  Other people who had access to outside media (via the internet and apps that haven't been cut off yet) are preparing for the worst and often leaving.  He told stories of people he would visit on Tuesday and hear about their concerns on the invasion, and notice suitcases and passports out.  By Thursday they were gone.

This reminded me of another Russian journalist I read about - Peter Pomerantsev.  He worked in Russian television production, both entertainment and news, and regularly attended the news meetings where government officials told them what they could report on, and how it should be presented.  He now lives in the US and teaches political science at the Agora Institute, part of Johns-Hopkins.  He talks about watching FOX News, OAN and Newsmax and realizing how similar they were to Russian TV propaganda:

“It’s the same game.  It’s the same rhetorical tactics, the same intellectual tactics, the same psychological tactics.  There’s this kind of pop-postmodernism, where Sean Hannity will say things like objectivity doesn’t exist, everybody’s biased.  That’s exactly the same argument the Russians make."  He mentions a quote from Dmitry Kiselev, a news anchor and propaganda expert for Putin: "Objectivity is a myth that is proposed and imposed on us.”  Hannity's version of this was “I don’t pretend that I’m fair and balanced and objective,”

He also talks about how both Russia and right wing media present opinions from both sides to appear to be fair and balanced.  To not undermine their mission, they choose buffoonish carciactures of their opposition by using their resources to search out, elicit and even sometimes invent vapid opposing viewpoints.  "They turn everything into a Jerry Springer show. ... Essentially, Tucker Carlson has ‘idiot liberals’ on.” The primary difference is that Russia maintains buffoons who espouse the opposition's position to have on interviews; the right wing in the US mainly finds, edits and alters media clips of their enemies saying things they can spin as foolish.

It's interesting to watch the propaganda war unfold as quickly as the ground invasion did.

"They turn everything into a Jerry Springer show.

I know the intent of the comparison but it may actually be an insult to the Jerry Springer show.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

18 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Along with strong hints that unconventional field weapons are available if needed.

I wouldn't. But I don't believe in making threats or bluffing. They know we have them, they know what we can do. 

[gowlerk 2,246]

7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I wouldn't. But I don't believe in making threats or bluffing. They know we have them, they know what we can do. 

Are they stationed in Europe already? I'm not certain but I don't believe NATO nations are allowing them there at this time.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Are they stationed in Europe already? I'm not certain but I don't believe NATO nations are allowing them there at this time.

I am unaware of any US forces that have been positioned in Europe as a direct result of the war in Ukraine. The presumption is that if the Europeans are willing to load armor on trains they would already have agreed to US troops and air assets.