Europe War in Ukraine - Thread 2

[Gethelred]

This is a sensitive area for some. With that in mind, I'm going to remind a few posters a few things:

• personal attacks are against forum rules. From this point, any attacks that are directed at another poster will be treated with a warning, then infractions and threadbans if it continues.
• the spread of misinformation is also against the rules. This is taken very seriously by moderation, and you will be asked to support your opinion from time to time. If you cannot satisfy this, you will be provided an opportunity to retract your post; if you do not, you will receive an infraction and a threadban on that basis.

This is a forum for adults, and I'd appreciate you all treating each other appropriately.

 

[Lethality]

They never wanted Kyiv mate. That was a diversion to draw forces to defend the capital, so they could take the Eastern part of Ukraine (which is the bit they actually want).

Russia also committed their forces to Kyiv though. Why the diversion when they could have just sent that massive 70km convoy to the South?

 

[mighty tiges]

"When have Russians ever lost?"

Livonian War (1558-1583)
Ingrian War (1610-1617)
Smolensk War (1632-1634)
First Russo-Persian War (1651-1653)
Sino-Russian border conflicts (1652-1689)
Russo-Ottoman War (1710-1713)
Khivan disaster (1717)
War of the Third Coalition (1803-1806)
War of the Fourth Coalition (1806-1807)
Russo-Khivan War (1839–1840)
Crimean War (1853-1856)
Russo-Japan War (1904-1905)
First World War (1914-1917)
Lithuanian-Soviet War (1918-1919)
Latvian War of Independence (1918-1920)
Estonian War of Independence (1918-1920)
Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921)
Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989)
Cold War (1947-1991)
First Chechen War (1994-1996)
Russo-Ukraine War (2014-date TBA)

 

[Spearman]

more amazing drone footage...

 

[Malifice]

You think Russia is capable of taking Istanbul and the Dardanelles using some mix of nuclear weapons and the Black Sea Fleet.

Of course they are.

But your contention is that controlling Crimea is somehow going to allow NATO to stop the destruction of their entire Mediterranean fleet (and possibly large chunks of their global fleet as well) in this scenario. This makes no sense.

No, my contention is that controlling Crimea, grants control over the Black Sea, which in turn grants control over 1.8million barrels of Oil per day that leave from ports in that Sea (plus other resources).

 

[Malifice]

Russia also committed their forces to Kyiv though.

No, they didnt. They literally parked them on a road for a few weeks outside of Kyiv, and shelled it a bit.

When you're conducting an assault on (say) an Island, you shell the place you're not going to land (but your opponent has reason to think you do) first.

Russia have a long and storied history of throwing troops at a thing as a diversion.

 

[Malifice]

You're lecturing as though I don't understand what has happened here. I'm aware of these facts. None of them make one agreement signed with Russia 4 years before the Revolution the cause of that Revolution.

You're saying a treaty with Russia, signed by a pro Russian President, ousted a few years later because he was pro-Russian, had nothing to do with the Anti-Russian Euromaiden protests, that called for and got said Prez ousted, due to his pro Russian stance?

 

[Lethality]

No, they didnt. They literally parked them on a road for a few weeks outside of Kyiv, and shelled it a bit.

They didn't just park there, there were offensives and counter offensives with thousands of soldiers killed and wounded

But either way Russia "parked" a large force there, and it was partly around Kyiv as well. That's not even including the convoy. Wiki estimates 15 to 30000 soldiers, 700+ vehicles.

It doesn't make sense to use a force of that size as a diversion. They could have just made their way to Odesa, or the Donbas.

 

[mighty tiges]

 

[mighty tiges]

 

[GhostofJimJess]

No, it was the first of his Pro Russian moves, trying to drag the country closer to Russia, while his opponents (backed by the USA and NATO allies) wanted to take the country the other way.

Both powers (NATO and Russia) then used disinformation and propaganda campaigns, utilized political, economic and social leverage, engaged in espionage and covert operations to try and sway the country into choosing (them over the other side).

NATO won out. The Russian shill Prez was ousted, and a pro NATO/ EU Prez was installed.

This pissed off Russia, and their supporters in Ukraine (mostly in the Russian speaking East and Crimea). Russia then (seeing the writing on the wall) then annexed Crimea, and deployed special forces and mercenaries into the Eastern Provinces, seeking to destabilize the region, hopeful of a voluntary referendum for those Eastern Provinces to join Russia, or alternatively as a casus belli for a subsequent invasion.

Again, NATO and the US opposed the Russians, sending Billions in weapons to Ukraine, plus espionage and political and economic pressure to help Ukraine.

Ukraine stopped any water from getting into Crimea (which has none) and denied any road access to the peninsula, forcing the Russians to build a Bridge to the Peninsula to resupply its considerable forces there.

Eventually, as Ukraine was getting closer to joining NATO and the EU, Putin realized he was going to lose Ukraine (and likely also Crimea) to NATO, so he invaded.

That largely brings us up to today.

Ukraine should have the right of self-determination (as should Crimea, and all national bodies). For example if Scotland wants independence, they should have it. If they also want to side with Russia, and leave NATO on so doing, they should also be able to (although I cant see England being happy with Russian tanks on the other side of Hadrians wall, but there you go).

To be clear, Russia are the bad guys here. Just like we were when we invaded Iraq.

But anyone buying Russian (or indeed NATO) propaganda that 'Putin is an Evil man doing this because he's a tyrant' or 'Putin is just doing this to stop Nazis' or 'It's really about Russian irredentism' are completely off the mark.

Putin is indeed a relic of the Cold War, and a threat to global rules based order, and I want the arseh*le gone asap, but it's a bit more complex (and in many ways, a lot more simple) than what the propagandists of either side are telling everyone.

It's a very reasonable post, and not too much in there with which I would disagree. And anyone with even half a brain knows that this had absolutely nothing to do with "de-nazification", so you're stating the bleeding obvious to us all here.

However, I'm not convinced at all by your statement that Putin's tyranny and evilness is not an underlying cause. And I disagree with you that believing Putin is a tyrant is completely off the mark.

But still, it's all based on the premise that Russia have greater designs than simply control of Crimea.

By your own reasoning, if they didn't, then Crimea would not be such a necessity.

 

[Profop]

No, they didnt. They literally parked them on a road for a few weeks outside of Kyiv, and shelled it a bit.

When you're conducting an assault on (say) an Island, you shell the place you're not going to land (but your opponent has reason to think you do) first.

Russia have a long and storied history of throwing troops at a thing as a diversion.

Even if I entertain the thought that they’d waste that much equipment and life in the North as a feint the bit that makes no sense is that they pushed past the river in the south

Based on your claims of what their goal was then the loss of life, equipment and societal standing in Russia that came with pushing further North past the river and then getting repelled back over it was all for what?

If what they wanted was the Black Sea then they get to the river, blow the bridges dig in and find a way to supply water to Crimea. No need to mobilise troops, no need for embarrassing retreats and defeats, most people at home stay happy

 

[Zidane98]

You're saying a treaty with Russia, signed by a pro Russian President, ousted a few years later because he was pro-Russian, had nothing to do with the Anti-Russian Euromaiden protests, that called for and got said Prez ousted, due to his pro Russian stance?

Yanukovych would have continued as president if he signed the European trade association agreement that the Rada had agreed on.

Instead he let Putin dictate foreign policy and did what was in the best interests of Putin / Russia instead of what was the best interests of the people of Ukraine.

This was the main driver behind Euromaidan.

 

[Malifice]

Yanukovych would have continued as president if he signed the European trade association agreement that the Rada had agreed on.

Instead he let Putin dictate foreign policy and did what was in the best interests of Putin / Russia instead of what was the best interests of the people of Ukraine.

This was the main driver behind Euromaidan.

Which was my point.

 

[Malifice]

It's a very reasonable post, and not too much in there with which I would disagree. And anyone with even half a brain knows that this had absolutely nothing to do with "de-nazification", so you're stating the bleeding obvious to us all here.

However, I'm not convinced at all by your statement that Putin's tyranny and evilness is not an underlying cause. And I disagree with you that believing Putin is a tyrant is completely off the mark.

But still, it's all based on the premise that Russia have greater designs than simply control of Crimea.

By your own reasoning, if they didn't, then Crimea would not be such a necessity.

Oh, he's a tyrant. No arguments from me there. The sooner we see the back of him the better.

It's just he's not doing this 'just to be an arseh*le'. He's doing it to retain control of the Crimean peninsula, and retain Russian Hegemony over the Black Sea.

Killing tens of thousands of people in the process.

 

[Mobbs]

"The fighting going on now in the Donbass, Volodymyr Zelensky calls "hell". It may depend on their course whether it is worth waiting for a breakthrough of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the Crimea in the coming weeks"

From Meduza:

ВСУ решили продолжать оборону Бахмута. Но главная опасность для украинских сил в Донбассе — это возможная потеря соседнего города Часов Яр Обновленная карта боев на 10 марта — Meduza

Эта карта показывает масштаб военных действий, а также фиксирует ущерб, который нанесла российская армия Украине. Карта составлена с использованием только ранее опубликованных в открытых источниках (как правило, в соцсетях) фото- и видеоматериалов. «Медуза» сама не создает и не публикует такие...

meduza.io

Highlights from the latest update, November 14, 22:30 Moscow time
Russian troops left the bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnieper (including Kherson). Thus, a long stage of the war was completed, during which the RF Armed Forces tried to hold all the territories in the south and north-east of Ukraine, captured by them in the first months of the war. The withdrawal from Kherson (and earlier from most of the Kharkiv region) means that the Russian command resigned itself to the failure of this part of the “mission”: it was not possible to hold all the territories. At the same time, since the end of April, Russian troops have been trying to expand their zone of control in the Donbass.

Now the RF Armed Forces will try to prevent the Armed Forces of Ukraine from returning the most important part of Ukraine captured by the Russians in the spring - a vast area along the Sea of Azov from Mariupol to the Dnieper delta (Dnieper floodplains and Kinburn peninsula). It can be formulated differently: the task of the Russian army is to prevent the Ukrainian army from breaking through to the Crimea and cutting off the supply of the Russian Armed Forces. Obviously, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been preparing such an operation for a long time. Probably, large forces (about 50-60 thousand military men), released in the Kherson region, the Ukrainian command will send just to the Zaporozhye and Gulyaipol region in order to launch an offensive in the direction of Crimea.

A new Russian offensive in the Donbass can prevent this. It has already begun (President Volodymyr Zelensky said that what is happening in the Donbass is “just hell”). It is possible that the troops withdrawn from the bridgehead on the Dnieper will be used to intensify the offensive.

• Russian troops organizedly left the bridgehead on the right bank of the Dnieper. This operation can be considered successful: unlike the flight from Izyum and Kupyansk, the RF Armed Forces did not leave hundreds of units of damaged and serviceable equipment to the enemy. There were not even dozens of prisoners and dead, abandoned in forest plantations and on the roads. Losses during the exit of tens of thousands of military personnel from a huge bridgehead through damaged crossings can be called moderate (judging by the videos published by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the main trophies are damaged Russian and Ukrainian equipment from a warehouse of broken vehicles in Chernobaevka near Kherson; possibly, as Ukrainian troops explore the territory of the former bridgehead, the list of losses will grow). Although, in general, the outcome of the battle for Kherson, which began on February 24, is an unconditional strategic defeat of the RF Armed Forces
  
  
• The Russian army continues to build fortifications along the left bank of the Dnieper. They will probably be occupied by part of the troops withdrawn from the bridgehead. Ukrainian forces have already launched harassment attacks across the river, by boat so far. Capturing, holding and, most importantly, supplying the territories on the left bank with light forces will be difficult. Perhaps, for the time being, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will limit themselves to attacks here, designed to tie down Russian troops on the shore. The bulk of the Ukrainian troops can be easily transferred to Zaporozhye to launch an offensive against the Crimea. So far, there has been a lull on this front - of course, with artillery exchanges of fire, rocket and air strikes from both sides, but without major attacks on the ground.
  
  
• To the east of the Zaporozhye front, the RF Armed Forces launched a major offensive against Ugledar in early November. In almost two weeks of fighting, the Marine Corps brigade of the Pacific Fleet and the large forces of the self-proclaimed DPR managed to occupy only a large part of the village of Pavlovka, 4 kilometers from Vugledar, at the cost of heavy losses. On November 14, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced that Pavlovka had been completely taken, but the attackers (generally very willing to share visual evidence of their successes) did not publish a single video from the western part of Pavlovka. But compared to last week, the situation for the RF Armed Forces has improved here: they, at least, managed to organize the supply of the units storming Pavlovka, which had previously fought in a semi-encirclement.
  
  
• In any case, the capture of Vuhledar is still very far away: the city is located on a hill and consists entirely of high-rise buildings; therefore, probably, the Russian army will try not to storm it "on the forehead", but to surround it. This will require new offensives across the muddy fields to the east and west of Ugledar.
  
  
• The separatist forces of the DPR approached the center of the western suburb of Donetsk - Maryinka. Street fighting is going on there, pro-Russian forces are advancing tens of meters a day.
  
  
• In the northwest of Donetsk, pro-Russian forces completely occupied the territory of the Donetsk airport, knocking out the Armed Forces of Ukraine from the strongholds at the far (from the terminals destroyed in 2015) end of the runway. They also managed to enter the village of Opytnoe to the north of the runway. Obviously, the ultimate goal of this offensive is to block the main fortified area of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Donetsk - the city of Avdiivka. However, the pro-Russian forces are still very far from this goal.
  
  
• North of Donetsk, the Wagner PMC is attacking . Despite the transfer of reserves of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the city of Bakhmut and its environs, the PMC continues its slow advance in its southeastern outskirts. The city is under constant bombardment. Probably, the PMC does not plan to storm the city yet, but wants to cover it from the south, occupying the heights located there, in order to force the Armed Forces to retreat. Both sides are suffering heavy casualties, and this carnage is clearly far from over.
  
  
• The massacre continues in the northern part of Donbass, where the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine against Svatovo and Kremennaya continues (sometimes fading, then flaring up with renewed vigor). Throughout the last week, Ukrainian troops have been trying to break through to the Svatovo-Kremennaya highway between the villages of Makeyevka and Nevskoye, where they have created a bridgehead on the Zherebets River. On November 13, Makiivka came under the control of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, they attacked the village of Novoselovskoe, but Ukrainian troops have not yet broken through to the Svatovo-Kremennaya highway.

 

[Malifice]

Even if I entertain the thought that they’d waste that much equipment and life in the North as a feint the bit that makes no sense is that they pushed past the river in the south

Based on your claims of what their goal was then the loss of life, equipment and societal standing in Russia that came with pushing further North past the river and then getting repelled back over it was all for what?

This is Russia. The country that is literally sending 300,000 barely trained conscripts to hold ground, treats its own Soldiers (especially the conscripts) like utter shit, and has a long and storied history of throwing its own men at enemy forces - in waves - as diversions.

Heck, these guys basically invented sacrificial units.

They positioned a massive force outside the capital, forcing Ukraine to concentrate on them. Meanwhile, they took the key cities and territory in the East they actually wanted.

 

[LittleG]

IF Russia loses Crimea.

There will be no US or NATO fleet based in the Black Sea. None.

Why?

It would be easily targeted and sunk by the Russian fleet. It would be a stupid place to leave expensive warships.

Any argument based around supposed NATO wanting Crimea for Naval Bases is complete Russian propaganda.

 

[Zidane98]

The most ironic thing is Russia would have retained its Sevastopol base until 2042 if it remained a peaceful neughbor.

Instead Putin couldnt handle not having a puppet in control so he made a play for Crimea and eventually all of Ukraine.


If he loses Crimea he will beg for the lease to be reinstated.

 

[Baldur]

IF Russia loses Crimea.

There will be no US or NATO fleet based in the Black Sea. None.

Why?

It would be easily targeted and sunk by the Russian fleet. It would be a stupid place to leave expensive warships.

Any argument based around supposed NATO wanting Crimea for Naval Bases is complete Russian propaganda.

Correct, no US fleet at least. There is already NATO fleets based in the black sea, the fleets of the NATO members on the black sea.

Furthermore while Turkey is a NATO member, it is not in good relations with the USA. There is no way that the US is going to place a carrier battle group in a small enclosed sea, whose entry/outlet they do not control, close to masses of anti ship missiles of an unfriendly Russia.

While we are at it, is Crimea important and maybe in Putiers eyes the main reason for the war? Maybe, but not becouse it controls access to the med, it does not. The dardanelles control access to the med from the black sea, which is why so many Australians lost their lives there in 1915.

But Crimea is important for other reasons. Firstly Oil, there is a lot of oil and gas under eastern Ukraine and the northern black sea. Control of Crimea and the coastline of Ukraine puts this oil in the economic zone of Russia.

Secondly Putier sees himself as the man who will recreate the Russian Empire, Crimea having been part of the Russian SSR prior to the 19th Feb 1954 its a personal vanity project of his.

 

[footyfan1978]

The most ironic thing is Russia would have retained its Sevastopol base until 2042 if it remained a peaceful neughbor.

Instead Putin couldnt handle not having a puppet in control so he made a play for Crimea and eventually all of Ukraine.


If he loses Crimea he will beg for the lease to be reinstated.

Yeah, I wondering whether Ukraine will even accept any Russian fleet presence on Crimea after this war is conceded lost by Russia, however long that will take.

 

[Saint]

Now imagine Crimea goes to the EU and NATO. Plonk a US based Aircraft carrier group, 30,000 marines and thousands of anti-ship missiles on and around Crimea, and delete all Russian forces on Crimea, and Ukraine's territorial waters.

Do Russia:

1) Lose control of the Black Sea (1.8 million barrels of Oil per day, easy ability to enter the Mediterranean).

2) Not lose control of the Black Sea (1.8 million barrels of Oil per day, easy ability to enter the Mediterranean)

There is your answer.

Their access to the Mediterranean does not change 1 bit. Turkey still controls that.

But essentially you're admitting that it's all about the oil/gas, and not about the naval access.

 

[Mobbs]

It's equally as simple to throw claims that the south is the feint, or the east. Regardless if 0, 1 or 2 aspects were diversionary, Russia invested resources in each, capable of winning that territory, in their eyes.

The parade of tanks weren't parked, they were halted by the failure of the first phase. Gostomel was expected to be secured by that point. Demydov residents flooding their town added additional obstruction.

 

[Baldur]

Australia doesn't control the Suez Canal or the Arabian or South China Seas, but freely profits from our ships moving through these waters. Surely we don't need to go to war with the nations that flank these trade routes just to ensure our control over them for our maritime movement?

Oddly enough we kind of have & do. Australia has always allied ourselves with the dominant naval power of the time. First Britian and then the USA, we have gone to war to assist these powers. So in WW2 when the axis threatened to take control of the Suez Canal, Australian forces fought them.

If Eygpt was ever stupid enough to deny US commerce access to the Suez Canal, than Australian forces maybe involved in the US's reversal of this situation. China is attempting to seal off the South China Sea, if they decide to block US commerce, there is almost certain to be a naval war, with our involvement.

But of course Turkey was not and has no intention even now of blocking Russian commerce.

 

[Zidane98]

Yeah, I wondering whether Ukraine will even accept any Russian fleet presence on Crimea after this war is conceded lost by Russia, however long that will take.

Would have to be a totally new Russian government for Ukraine to be ok with it. 0% chance of a Russian presence if Putin is still around. How could he ever be trusted after his unprovoked attacks from Crimea on Ukraine?

 

[Saint]

Yeah, I wondering whether Ukraine will even accept any Russian fleet presence on Crimea after this war is conceded lost by Russia, however long that will take.

An attack on Crimea by Ukraine would be very very difficult and cost too many lives. I can't see them ever regaining it by invasion. The best they could do is to cut off northern access and blow the Kerch bridge again (and again).