Ukraine Today

[kurczak]

This doesn't seem realistic to me. I have seen varying estimates but at most Russia has 200k troops in Ukraine right now. That's comparable to how many troops the US had in Iraq, which has a population comparable to Ukraine but is smaller (around 2/3rds of the territory that Ukraine has). I think Russia will have a hard time keeping hold of Ukraine, let alone move forward to invade other countries.

No, not in this immediate campaign, of course. They will stop and consolidate for the next move (Moldova and the Baltics). Maybe a year, maybe five, depending how easy or costly Ukraine will be. So again, everything and anything's that slows them down, makes it harder, more painful, more expensive, more tiresome is welcome.

Granted it will take some time for them to get to Italy and they might skip it altogether, since it's chronically quite pro Russian.

Also, Russia, if given opportunity will not **** around for 20 years like America in Iraq. They will go full Chechnya on it.

 

[Adorno]

Surely the NATO alliance is the natural "border" for Russian expansion west.

 

[kurczak]

Surely the NATO alliance is the natural "border" for Russian expansion west.

I would advise strongly against such assumptions and complacency. An alliance is only a deterrent if the attacker thinks it will be honored.

Will it? Or will we hear more of the "yes but is it worth ww3 tho?" when Russia goes to Latvia to "liberate" ethnic Russians in Latvia?

 

[Adorno]

NATO has been very active recently, also in the Baltic area.
I share your concern. But if a NATO country is invaded and the scenario is similar to Ukraine right now then the alliance never existed.

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Jack Watling, of the Royal United Services Institute estimate the Ukrainian forces at 125,600.
Also, remember Russia has invested a lot in their military and are more experienced.

How hard will it be to defend Ukraine from Russian invasion?

Ukraine is outgunned and outnumbered - and the invasion by Russian forces threatens to be bloody.

www.bbc.com

Thank you for informing me, I decided to comment on the situation while being completely unaware of either country's military capabilities so that was helpful.

People are bandying around numbers as if each army is going to be lining up like it's the 19th century. The situation is incredibly different and numbers are more or less meaningless in a modern war. In truth this could go a myriad of ways and speculating that this is predecided one way or another is just that - speculation, and nothing more.

 

[BenKenobi]

Also, Ukrainians don't defend every last piece of the line and on several places the Russians advance without any opposition since a lot of the terrain sucsk ass. Also, they mobilized late.

 

[Mad Vader]

NATO has been very active recently, also in the Baltic area.
I share your concern. But if a NATO country is invaded and the scenario is similar to Ukraine right now then the alliance never existed.

Agreed, even if a Trump-like wins power in the US and decides to not honor NATO, the Europeans will get their **** together to defend the Baltic States, because the alternative is far worse for everyone and there will be a popular support to send soldiers to contain Russia. Even former Putin-worshippers in Europe are quick to condemn him now, which suggest a high level of unity and popular outrage against Russian aggression.

Putin may be unhinged, but he is not stupid to attack a NATO country, he can only provoke with hybrid shenanigans.
The latest Biden statement on the NATO article 5 is that it's "sacred", which is meant to reassure certain Czech women and the Baltic States.

 

[eddiemccandless]

No, not in this immediate campaign, of course. They will stop and consolidate for the next move (Moldova and the Baltics). Maybe a year, maybe five, depending how easy or costly Ukraine will be. So again, everything and anything's that slows them down, makes it harder, more painful, more expensive, more tiresome is welcome.

Granted it will take some time for them to get to Italy and they might skip it altogether, since it's chronically quite pro Russian.

Also, Russia, if given opportunity will not **** around for 20 years like America in Iraq. They will go full Chechnya on it.

Moldova could be possible, just because of how small it is. As for the rest, if you give it enough time anything is possible. I do agree on the need of harsher penalties, it's just not easy to find an effective way to do it.

Also not sure why you think that Italy is pro Russia. Silvio Berlusconi had a weird thing for Putin, but then so did Trump. We are dependent on their gas, but then again so is all of Europe. I doubt he would be able to pull this off if it wasn't for that.

 

[Arvenski]

Ukrainians may actually do two things surrender or bleed out. When it will move to guerilla in the cities this will be a bloody mess but may end up inflicting heavy casualties on Russians as well. I wish them all to stay safe and pity the victims, but on the other hand, part of me wishes they could resist a little longer. The longer it takes - Putin will have a bigger headache.

I hope the Ukrainian military and government can hold out. I don't want to see lots of civilian casualties, but if they can dig in in the cities, fight guerilla warfare, and generally be stubborn as ****, maybe that will eventually make Putin start to have second thoughts. Or at least wear down his military and buy time before he can start thinking about taking over another country. On the other hand, if the country falls and is occupied, I think peace sounds preferable to a mess like Iraq or Ireland, with rebels blowing up Russian vehicles in streets full of civilians.

Honestly, I wonder if the best solution would've been for the US or NATO to send troops to Ukraine a couple weeks ago to defend the borders. I realize that would've been unrealistic because it would've been awfully hard to justify politically, but I don't think Putin would've risked starting WW3 for the sake of invading Ukraine. It seems to me his goal is to regain as much of the former Soviet territory as he can without starting a war with the West.

 

[Adorno]

From a Russian perspective the overarching goal is to stop the NATO expansion further east.
Russia has especially since 1997 seen NATO as the prime enemy.
A Ukraine in NATO would mean NATO troops at the Russian border.
If Russia can annex all of Ukraine to the Russian Federation it will be a giant victory.

I know a lot of people are using strong words on how Russia must suffer with severe measures, economic sanctions etc.
I just don't think it will mean much in the end. Sure they'll suffer some economic blows but China will be there to help and buy Russian goods.
Isn't the Russian economy about 80% gas and oil exports? Many countries still need it and gas prices are soaring.
I just don't see a scenario where Russia will be sufficiently hurt to really care. The urgency of stopping NATO and expanding the Federation far outweighs the trouble they are in now.
The only thing that can derail the plan now is if Ukraine manages to withstand the invasion long enough to make it a real mess of death and destruction, reflecting the terror and insanity of Russian forces. Even that I doubt.

 

[Bluehawk]

A Ukraine in NATO would mean NATO troops at the Russian border.

Yes and no. The Soviet Union bordered NATO via Norway since the alliance's creation, and the Russian Federation has bordered five NATO states since 1999 (Lativa and Estonia opposite the Pskov and Leningrad Oblasts; Poland and Lithuania around Kaliningrad). What Ukraine's admission into NATO would do is add over 2,000 km of contact along Russia's own borders and another 900 km along Belarus.

I think Putin was telling us the unvarnished truth when he laid out his grievances. He's not just concerned with buffer zones and NATO expansion for security reasons - that was a partly a pretense - the core issue is he simply regards Ukraine as essentially Russian and the possibility of being unable to directly or indirectly dictate terms to Ukraine regarding its economy, internal politics and foreign policy in intolerable for him. To him, If Ukraine joined the EU or NATO, it would be like losing his legs and being wheelchair bound for life.

 

[Do not look here]

A Ukraine in NATO would mean NATO troops at the Russian border.

As opposed to Ukraine in Russia?

 

[Nodice83]

From a Russian perspective the overarching goal is to stop the NATO expansion further east.

I think nobody in the Eastern bloc and Baltics has ever believed this rhetoric to be true. Their (Putin's) sole purpose is to at least redraw the maps to match those of the Soviet Union - everything else is a lie to cover the ultimate goal and buy some time.

A Ukraine in NATO would mean NATO troops at the Russian border.

Technically this is the reality since 99' when Poland joined (border with Kaliningrad Oblast) and the Baltics 5 years later.

Agreed, even if a Trump-like wins power in the US and decides to not honor NATO, the Europeans will get their **** together to defend the Baltic States, because the alternative is far worse for everyone and there will be a popular support to send soldiers to contain Russia. Even former Putin-worshippers in Europe are quick to condemn him now, which suggest a high level of unity and popular outrage against Russian aggression.

Imagine Trump's reelection with what happened 3 days ago... I can't express enough how grateful I am to Americans to elect Joe Biden as their President. No doubt all those puppet figures' placement (Trump, Orban, etc.) were part of "new Hitler's" plan... How fragile is the world we live in?

 

[eddiemccandless]

Imagine Trump's reelection with what happened 3 days ago... I can't express enough how grateful I am to Americans to elect Joe Biden as their President. No doubt all those puppet figures' placement (Trump, Orban, etc.) were part of "new Hitler's" plan... How fragile is the world we live in?

Unfortunately there's a good chance that this will be a pyrrhic victory. Biden isn't exactly delivering on his promises and that plays into the hand of the American neonazi party pretty well.

 

[Count Delinard]

Unless he gets overthrown internally by fed up Russians (which probably won't happen) I don't see Putin stopping anytime soon..

 

[Nodice83]

Unfortunately there's a good chance that this will be a pyrrhic victory. Biden isn't exactly delivering on his promises and that plays into the hand of the American neonazi party pretty well.

I saw the tweets - I don't know who are those people writing that "Trump would do what is right", but they are either ultimate idiots or Russian trolls...

Unless he gets overthrown internally by fed up Russians (which probably won't happen) I don't see Putin stopping anytime soon..

Maybe except the large cities, most of this nation has been pretty successfully poisoned with propaganda. I wouldn't expect anything major going on soon. I wish I'm wrong about them though...

 

[Vermillion_Hawk]

If anyone needs further convincing of the uselessness of the UN in actually preventing conflicts, remember that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council that would authorize any peacekeeping operation...

 

[Adorno]

To Russia it is a peacekeeping operation

 

[The Bowman]

Moldova

Ah, thank you.

 

[DanAngleland]

Honestly, I wonder if the best solution would've been for the US or NATO to send troops to Ukraine a couple weeks ago to defend the borders. I realize that would've been unrealistic because it would've been awfully hard to justify politically, but I don't think Putin would've risked starting WW3 for the sake of invading Ukraine. It seems to me his goal is to regain as much of the former Soviet territory as he can without starting a war with the West.

I think you're right, that is probably the only thing that would have stopped Putin. As it stands now, I don't think he will stop until he has executed or imprisoned all the Ukrainian politicians and perhaps also activists in the country that would oppose a Russian puppet government. I don't want to see Ukraine fall fast but without any hope of outside intervention I think Putin will be too stubborn to give up, even if it means a lot of Russian soldiers dying and grumbles at home. As well as his history (Chechnya got pretty tough when they had to take the cities, but if I remember rightly Russia then resorted to dropping fuel-air bombs to flatten Grozny. Someone please correct me if I've got that grossly wrong), I get the feeling that Putin has an ideological drive regarding Ukraine. Well, I suppose it's part of the same pattern as with Chechnya and Georgia.

When Putin came to power all I knew about him was that he was ex-KGB or FSB etc., and I naively presumed that meant he would be more pragmatic than a career politician and a cooler head, i.e. not invading neighbours. Unfortunately he's a real arsehole. Who'd have looked at Boris Yeltsin in the late 90s and thought that Russia could do much worse, or that in twenty years time another Boris could be leading one of the prominent nations of the world and be even more of an embarassment.

This war came as quite a surprise to me, though it seemed more likely to happen over the past week or two. At first there seemed to be too many political commentators, not to mention Ukraine itself, saying that it was very unlikely Putin would actually invade and that it was all mind games, just a way of forcing the West's hand. They said panicking politicians were either grandstanding to distract from domestic problems (very plausible, particularly in the case of Boris Johnson!) or simply naively misunderstanding Putin's ways. It's a nasty shock to find out that the intelligence predicting Putin's moves was rather accurate this time (shame it hadn't been more so with Iraq).