Russia Invades Ukraine XIX
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
Pavel Gubarev, the former Governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic, says Russia is losing the war: “On many sections of the front we’re attacking, while the enemy is defending. Because of this, we are suffering incomparably heavy losses." “Ukraine’s military is completely satisfied with the current situation and doesn’t particularly need any peace. Considering their effective strikes against our oil refineries, with 26% of our production destroyed, the situation is strategically beneficial for them” “The current situation is already tantamount to defeat for us. Russia doesn’t have the capability to complete the special military operation”
I don't think so. I think it is a typical populist Trump talk,
since Rubio is saying the opposite :
Rubio Pushes Back on Tusk Threat to Shoot Down Russian Aircraft
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s assertion that his country was prepared to shoot down foreign aircraft that enter its territory after a series of Russian incursions into NATO airspace.
www.bloomberg.com
Trump has stopped military assistance to Baltic countries a few weeks ago. That assistance was authorized by Congress last year
Under the radar: The possible link between U.S. Baltic security cuts and airspace incursions
It is difficult to assess military effectiveness in the fog of war but reports that I continue to see is that Russian troops are poorly led, have not adapted their strategy to conditions on the ground and both troops and their equipment are being decimated in battalion size losses on a daily basis.
Instead of taking Ukraine on the ground Putin is resolved to breaking the will of Ukraine with nightly attacks on the civilian population.
If those reports are even close to being true the Russians are in no condition at all to take on a well prepared enemy that has NATO support.
I would think Poland would have every right to shoot down a Russian fighter jet that strayed into its airspace. Maybe lay down a "we will not tolerate" warning before doing so.
I know that the Kremlin routinely sends planes to skirt along the outside of the 12 mile limit in Alaska, but we just escort them out. I don't think he's stupid enough to cross that line.
I know that the Kremlin routinely sends planes to skirt along the outside of the 12 mile limit in Alaska, but we just escort them out. I don't think he's stupid enough to cross that line.
Yes, everything what you are saying about Russian troops is correct.
However, they possess one quality that NATO troops lack - total indifference to casualties. Including civilian casualties.
For example, as Tidewater wrote above, by NATO estimates, Russia can capture parts of Estonia (up to Tallinn) or parts of Latvia (up to Riga) before NATO will be able to react. What is next? Russia will be using civilians as a human shield as they have done multiple times in Ukraine. Will NATO bomb civilians to recapture territory?
It could be similar to Rome and the barbarians situation.
Last edited:
It was RAND, not NATO, and it was in 2015 (before the NATO's Enhanced Forward Presence deployments), not today.
Since 2015, Sweden and Finland have joined NATO. NATO nations' defense spending have all increased. Industrial production of key things like artillery ammunition have ramped up
Some things have changed now precisely because the RAND study was so dire (and because others took a realistic assessment of where matters stood vis-a-vis Russia instead of where we hoped Russia would be. Remember, in 2015, Russia was still officially denying that it had had troops in Ukraine at all. All the guys in Crimea or Donbas were either "locals" or "Russian volunteers."
Over breakfast I watched a video with Jeffrey Sachs going all the way back to the break up of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, Gorbachev then Yeltsin and the arrogance of the US in the expansion of NATO eastward. My much less than expert conclusion is that expansion of NATO into the Baltic states without a committment to a minimum a trip wire defense on the borders is tantamount to an invitation to another major European War. Now we find the US equivocating on the defense of Europe at all after advocating for pushing Russia back for the past 80 plus years.
The long video if interested:
I know Putin is trying to grind Ukraine to dust and is gambling that he can do so before his economy will no longer support the effort.
But I wonder about two points, one in favor of his strategy and one against.
For the people on the ground being attacked, I'm not sure there's much difference between being bombed and being attacked via missiles and drones. Point being, bombing has a long history of destroying a lot of stuff, but not the will of the people. Thinking WW2, first with Germans carrying out The Blitz on England. Also later in the ETO, Allies bombing Germany. And in the PTO bombing Tokyo and several other cities with incendiaries and burning them to the ground. They didn't quit until the atom bomb.
So what makes Putin think he can crush the Ukrainian people with missiles and drones?
Counter to that, Putin probably isn't as dependent as we think on the Russian economy to continue his war effort. Certainly, he's not completely divorced from economic considerations. But he has the ability to force diversion of resources, effects on the Russian population notwithstanding. It's not like he faces re-election or the possibility of impeachment.
IOW, he might be able to stick with his strategy far longer than a western population base would tolerate.
But I wonder about two points, one in favor of his strategy and one against.
For the people on the ground being attacked, I'm not sure there's much difference between being bombed and being attacked via missiles and drones. Point being, bombing has a long history of destroying a lot of stuff, but not the will of the people. Thinking WW2, first with Germans carrying out The Blitz on England. Also later in the ETO, Allies bombing Germany. And in the PTO bombing Tokyo and several other cities with incendiaries and burning them to the ground. They didn't quit until the atom bomb.
So what makes Putin think he can crush the Ukrainian people with missiles and drones?
Counter to that, Putin probably isn't as dependent as we think on the Russian economy to continue his war effort. Certainly, he's not completely divorced from economic considerations. But he has the ability to force diversion of resources, effects on the Russian population notwithstanding. It's not like he faces re-election or the possibility of impeachment.
IOW, he might be able to stick with his strategy far longer than a western population base would tolerate.
NATO did not expand eastward. Sovereign states in Eastern Europe requested admission and NATO accepted. To deny agency to smaller countries is to accept the premise of imperial Russia: small peoples do not get to have agency. Only great powers do. Great powers will decide what happens to smaller countries.
As for equivocating on the defense of Europe, nobody on this board knows what was said behind closed doors when Poland invoked Art. IV and consulted the NATO Allies.
Poland came out yesterday and said that any Russian aircraft, manned or unmanned, that violates Polish airspace will be shot down if at all possible. That does not sound to me like a country that believes it has no back-up.
I asked before - what more can we give them we haven't already? That might make a real difference, I mean...
Early in the war, artillery was the big killer. Now, FPV drones cause most of the casualties in Ukraine. In some locales, the figure is 90%.
I would draw a distinction between air attacks on troops (to kill/wound) and air attacks on civilians in cities (to destroy national morale). The former is quite effective. The latter, much more difficult.
Still Europe is sending more money to Russia (in gas purchases) than they are to Ukraine (in military and economic aid). Stop the flow of the former and the war will be over shortly.
I guess it is quantity not quality. I suppose we could continue to give them the things we have already given.
Only the US and Turkey have larger armies than Poland and Poland plans to have the largest army in Europe. Historically one can understand why Poland is committed to their independence. I recall that they have not taken the question of them possessing nuclear capability off the table.
With US commitment to Article 5 a huge question mark with Trump the question remains what European Countries have the will too put boots and needed armaments on the ground in the Baltics?
The fact that Putin's military has depleted its' strength in Ukraine may save the Europeans from having to answer that question in the short term.
I thought that was FY 2025 funding which ends 30 SEP. I think the administration decided not to seek a renewal of funding for the Baltic Security Initiative (BSI) for FY 2026.
Because American journalists generally suck at their jobs, they noted that the Administration, I found lots of stories about the cancellation, but nothing about what that program actually does.
Here is the text from Congress.gov
BSI is intended: "to enhance regional planning and cooperation among the military forces of the Baltic countries, particularly with respect to long-term regional capability projects, including—
(A) long-range precision fire systems and capabilities;
(B) integrated air and missile defense;
(C) maritime domain awareness;
(D) land forces development, including stockpiling large caliber ammunition;
(E) command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance;
(F) special operations forces development;
(G) coordination with and security enhancements for Poland, which is a neighboring NATO ally; and
(H) other military capabilities, as determined by the Secretary of Defense; and
(3) with respect to the military forces of the Baltic countries, to improve cyber defenses and resilience to hybrid threats.
The BSI started in 2017 because of the situation at that time. The situation has evolved since then and ending US funding today does not mean going back to the pre-2017 situation, it just means Estonian defense now depends more on Estonian funding. The US is saying, "You want it? You pay for it."
Last edited:
Russian planes conducted provocative flights over German frigate in the Baltic Sea and faced no consequences
According to Der Spiegel, on Friday and Saturday, Russian reconnaissance aircraft flew less than 100 meters above the German Navy frigate "Hamburg" while it participated in NATO's "Neptune Strike" exercises.
The Russian planes did not respond to radio messages.
NATO forces classified the incidents as "unfriendly and provocative," but did not consider them dangerous.
According to Der Spiegel, on Friday and Saturday, Russian reconnaissance aircraft flew less than 100 meters above the German Navy frigate "Hamburg" while it participated in NATO's "Neptune Strike" exercises.
The Russian planes did not respond to radio messages.
NATO forces classified the incidents as "unfriendly and provocative," but did not consider them dangerous.
I'm fairly sure flying at a low level over a foreign warship in international waters is not a reason to shoot them down. I can guarantee you the rules of engagement issued by the German government to that ship captain did not authorize him to shoot. If the ROE had authorized shooting the Russian down, the captain would have done it.
Latest threads
-
Game Thread: 9/27 Afternoon Games: AU/TAMU | LSU/OleMiss | Others- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 108
-
-
-
Bama Game Thread: Official Game Thread - Bama @ UGA, 2nd Half...
- Started by TIDE-HSV
- Replies: 0
TideFans.shop - Get your Gear HERE!
Alabama Crimson Tide Car Door Light
Get this and many more items at our TideFans.shop!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.