Russia/Ukraine conflict

[RobStark]

Actually, in can't recall saying eitherbsidebis "winning".

What I can tell you is that Russia occupies territory in the extremely corrupt state of Ukraine. Does Ukraine occupy any territory in Russia?

Ukraine occupies territory in Russia's 4 newest Oblast.

Does occupying territory mean winning?

Russia and USA occupied quite a large piece of Afghanistan without Afghanistan occupying a square inch of Russia or the USA.

And however corrupt Ukraine is Russia is 10x more corrupt. If not they would have defeated Ukraine in three weeks. With such overwhelming manpower and weapons advantages.

 

[wdolson]

^^ this smells of trump-ese. Are HIMARS 'destroyed' if they are out of operation or hobbled ?

Do you have evidence of any HIMARS out of action?

Saw a tweet citing WSJ article that said China warned Russia about the use of nuclear weapons. Found the original source article -

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588795795335159810

Encouraging.

I wouldn't say China takes Russia's side in everything. China is playing its own game and they have taken Russia's side because they want to hurt the US. Helping an adversary of the US often helps Chinese interests. But not always.

In this war a collapse of Russia with no nuclear war helps China. If Russia breaks up into multiple countries China sees an opportunity to create more vassal states in Siberia.

I agree and acknowledged as such.

I am not talking about tactical nuclear weapons in theater. Which the US has hinted it would respond with overwhelming conventional force.

I think, like you, the Russian General Staff has concluded they can't win a conventional war. And they can't win with limited use of tactical nuclear weapons in theater. And there is no point of taking Ukraine if it is glowing nuclear orange.

I am talking about the annihilation of a midsize American city. In order to force the White House to withdraw from this proxy war. I think Putin may be willing to endure a proportional response. For a few rounds.

I think Putin may be willing to risk unintended escalation and a full nuclear exchange instead of accepting defeat.

Anyone who knows anything about US history should be aware that attacking the US and especially US territory unites the country in profound ways and the US has zero tolerance for it. As recently as 20 years ago GW Bush had one of the highest approval ratings of any US president since polling began because of the rally around the flag affect from 9/11. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor united the US better than anything else in its history.

Nuking a US city would be a very serious mistake for any foreign leader. The American people probably wouldn't be satisfied until Russia ceased to exist as a country, one way or another.

When Admiral Bill Halsey took over the Solomons Campaign in 1943, he put up a sign outside his headquarters that said
"Before we're through with them the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell!"

Racist as it was, it reflected the sentiment of a large percentage of Americans. I grew up in a heavily Asian community in the Los Angeles area (Monterey Park) and there were a lot of long term Japanese American residents. My parents had a lot of Japanese friends. Many had been in camps during WW II. Some said that they felt safer in the camps despite the indignity because the risk of vigil ante violence against them was so high.

Before Pearl Harbor there were many in the Japanese high command who thought Americans were weak and if they hit the Americans hard enough the US would run away and sue for peace. They vastly underestimated the reaction.

I think Putin understands this effect int he US. He was president of Russia when 9/11 happened and I'm sure he was watching how the US reacted with a lot of interest. From statements made by some of the people who might replace Putin if he were removed or died, they don't understand this facet of American culture and would be more likely to make the mistake of trying to hit America hard to get it to run away.

I think Yevgeny Prigozhin who runs Wagner PMC is most likely to take Putin's place in a coup. He's a crazy war hawk.

Actually, in can't recall saying eitherbsidebis "winning".

What I can tell you is that Russia occupies territory in the extremely corrupt state of Ukraine. Does Ukraine occupy any territory in Russia?

Ukraine has had corruption problems. By 2021 figures they are a little below middle of the pack in the world. The same corruptive forces that Russia had after the break up of the USSR happened in Ukraine too. Since the ouster of Yanukovych in 2014, the country has been moving towards less corruption. The government has taken advantage of the war to root out a lot of corruption in the country. I expect Ukraine to be a lot less corrupt after this war is over.

Russia on the other hand is much more corrupt than Ukraine and it is eating the country from within.

I don't know how Russia occupying Ukrainian territory and Ukraine not occupying any Russian territory pertains to corruption.

 

[BitJam]

I am talking about the annihilation of a midsize American city. In order to force the White House to withdraw from this proxy war. I think Putin may be willing to endure a proportional response. For a few rounds.

It would be impossible for the US and the rest of NATO to back down after such an attack. In addition, it would be possible to shoot down a single missile. It's also possible that a single warhead would be a dud. A nuclear attack on a US city seems extremely unlikely (ninja'd by wdolson).

I think Putin may be willing to risk unintended escalation and a full nuclear exchange instead of accepting defeat.

Elon and others agree with you. I don't. The problem with always backing down to the madman with nukes is you're always backing down to the madman with nukes. I posted about this previously:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.

The "appease Russia because they have nukes" mindset is what got us into this mess: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Donbas, Syria. Putin had every reason to believe the West would let him take the rest of Ukraine as well. In fact, right after the invasion, the West was ready to let him get away with it. On Friday Feb. 25, Biden said/complained that the EU was not willing to impose significant economic sanction (banning Russia from SWIFT). Then there was a sea change that weekend. Perhaps due to Zylenskyy's I need ammunition not a ride, strong arming from the US, a change of heart, or some combination. The EU got onboard with finally resisting Putin's aggression. The resistance started with freezing Russia's central bank assets which was much harsher than just banning them from SWIFT.

IMO it is appeasement comments like these from Elon that make the first use of nukes more likely. When you reward/ignore bad behavior then you get more bad behavior. In addition, our constant capitulation to Putin gave him an overblown sense of Russia's conventional military might. Most wars (like most bets) arise from conflicting views of reality. The reality conflict here is over Russia's economic and conventional military power. The military conflict will end when Russia re-aligns its reality and not before. It has been clearly demonstrated that promises of non-aggression from Putin are worthless.

One of Russia's motives for the current war was to establish a land bridge/route to Crimea. Unless Ukraine provides Russia with water and free access to Crimea, ceding Crimea to Russia is politically unstable. I grant you this would be a huge plum for Putin and would appease him -- temporarily. But by giving him such a juicy reward for behaving badly we are encouraging him to continue to threaten to use nukes in order to expand his Russian Empire. In addition, Ukraine would never go for this unless they were soundly defeated on the battlefield.

Here is Fiona Hill's take on Putin using tactical nukes in Ukraine:

 

[RobStark]

The American people probably wouldn't be satisfied until Russia ceased to exist as a country, one way or another.

I strongly disagree. The American people would not wish to cease to exist in order for Russia to cease to exist. Americans would not wish to trade America for Ukraine.

Neither the Nazis, Imperial Japan, nor Al Queda possessed 5k nuclear warheads.

So your recommendation to POTUS would be to try to win a full nuclear war with Russia after a Russian nuclear strike on 1 midsize American city? Which American doctrine has said is unwinnable for over 50 years.

Instead of a proportional response and withdraw from the Russo-Ukraine War.

 

[RobStark]

It would be impossible for the US and the rest of NATO to back down after such an attack. In addition, it would be possible to shoot down a single missile. It's also possible that a single warhead would be a dud. A nuclear attack on a US city seems extremely unlikely (ninja'd by wdolson).


Elon and others agree with you. I don't. The problem with always backing down to the madman with nukes is you're always backing down to the madman with nukes. I posted about this previously:



Here is Fiona Hill's take on Putin using tactical nukes in Ukraine:

A dud? Shoot one missile down?

This is a silly pedantic argument. Russia could keep firing hypersonic nuclear armed missiles until one hits.

In my scenario Russia would pay a very steep price for taking Ukraine.

1M dead in Volgograd and at least 100k dead soldiers in Ukraine.

This would not be an invitation to the next madman with a nuclear missile for easy victory.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

.../ In my scenario Russia would pay a very steep price for taking Ukraine.

1M dead in Volgograd and at least 100k dead soldiers in Ukraine.

This would not be an invitation to the next madman with a nuclear missile for easy victory [My underline.].

Why wouldn't it be a rather easy choice for any madman Dictator if the alternative includes his own death?...

 

[wdolson]

I strongly disagree. The American people would not wish to cease to exist in order for Russia to cease to exist. Americans would not wish to trade America for Ukraine.

Neither the Nazis, Imperial Japan, nor Al Queda possessed 5k nuclear warheads.

So your recommendation to POTUS would be to try to win a full nuclear war with Russia after a Russian nuclear strike on 1 midsize American city? Which American doctrine has said is unwinnable for over 50 years.

Instead of a proportional response and withdraw from the Russo-Ukraine War.

The US president would likely follow existing US nuclear doctrine, but I'm talking about the American people. There would be a very strong sentiment to end Russia as a power if they nuke an American city. The response might be conventional, but there would be an overwhelming push to deal with Russia.

The US nuclear doctrine has just been updated in the last month.
The 2022 Nuclear Posture Review: Arms Control Subdued By Military Rivalry

 

[Fred42]

I have read that Russian TV is citing NATO bombing of Serbian power plants/electricity grid during the Yugoslav breakup wars as precedent and justification.

Of course NATO was trying to stop Serbian genocide of Bosniaks/Albanians. Not engaging in genocide.

My recollection is that we didn't bomb Serbian power plants, we dropped lots of graphite strings on electricity distribution facilities that shorted them out. The intent was to stop the electricity while causing minimum damage that could be repaired at relatively low cost.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Called it….

Putin signs law to mobilize Russian citizens convicted of serious crimes | CNN

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law to conscript citizens with unexpunged or outstanding convictions for murder, robbery, larceny, drug trafficking and other serious crimes under the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to be called up for military service to mobilize.

edition.cnn.com

 

[RobStark]

Let me clarify would my position is and what I would advise POTUS in case of a Russian first strike on an American mid size city.

I think what would happen is there is a proportional retaliatory strike on Russia and we effectively withdraw from Ukraine if not officially do so. I think Congress would be unwilling to provide further deadly aid to Ukraine.

My advise to POTUS is to tell the Russians we are willing to go 100 rounds or a full nuclear exchange. And propose a partition of Ukraine. A return to Feb 24 borders. Where Ukraine joins NATO and EU but remains nuclear free. International recognition of Crimea and parts of Donbas as Russian. And the right of Ukrainians living in Russian controlled territories to return inside Ukraine's new borders.

I think Putin can sell this as a win to Russians. Particularly when there are already over 1M dead Russians with the possibility of all 140M plus dying in the immediate future. Ukrainians can now live among the civilized nations of the Earth.

I would be willing to risk 2 or 3 rounds of nuclear exchanges but I am not willing to launch a full first strike nuclear attack on Russia to decapitate the government & military and destroy their ability to launch nuclear weapons. This immediately and directly puts all 331M Americans of nuclear annihilation.

And yes I am willing to take the risk that a nuanced approach doesn't work and we blow up the world.

I don't think this position makes me a hippy peacenik Kremlin appeaser.

The Ukrainians are free to reject this proposal and fight the Russians on their own.

Or alongside their Franco-German allies ( ha ha ha).

 

[ElectricIAC]

How about no nukes, please? We’ve seen enough nuclear fallout from the Soviets (And Ukraine for that matter)

 

[petit_bateau]

My recollection is that we didn't bomb Serbian power plants, we dropped lots of graphite strings on electricity distribution facilities that shorted them out. The intent was to stop the electricity while causing minimum damage that could be repaired at relatively low cost.

We certainly used that approach on switchyards in Iraq (though it might have been foil) , but I am not sure if that was how it was done in Serbia. In Iraq we also did line-strikes in the desert where you drop a few HV pylons each day, enough that the repair crews can't keep up. In the case of line strikes it is fairly easy to fix it all up after the conflict as it is just cheap copper wire and steel girders, and nobody lives under a pylon in the desert so collateral fatalities is zero. In the case of shorting the switchyards it is more complex as the general hope is that the safeties will prevent serious damage; but if that fond hope is wrong then the loss of a switchyard can take at least a year to recover from due to lead time. We may also have hit some other power facilities with more 'kinetic' weapons, I cannot now recollect for either conflict. Hence my cautious response to the point that was being made.

This is clearly not the targetting approach being taken by Russia which is definitely going after physical long term damage to critical bits of the Ukraine power system (which is both a electrical system and a district heating system).

My memory of how 'War Law' conventions act in practice has faded, but I think it was along the lines of:
- direct military utility;
- reasonable prospect of success;
- collateral damage to civilians and civian infrastructure as low as reasonably possibe in proprtion to value of miltary target selected;
- appropriate selection of weapon and weapon effects and aim point to match the above;

And clearly the particular Russian strikes on civilian energy infrastructure in Ukraine fail these tests both in quantity and in quality, hence my thought that they constitute a war crime. In contrast the particular allied strikes in Iraq and Serbia were selected to be in compliance. This is why there is ordinarily a (military) lawyer included in the target selection process for these sorts of activities in allied nations, and rightly so.

Russian activities in ZPPN and the big hydro plants also likely fail the tests.

 

[SageBrush]

My memory of how 'War Law' conventions

The US openly engaged in prisoner torture under Bush/Cheney. Why no prosecution ?

 

[Surfer of Life]

The US openly engaged in prisoner torture under Bush/Cheney. Why no prosecution ?

We did the opposite of the Marshall plan, and look at the results we got. Imagine serving in that war only to realize that all you did was soften up the country for ISIS or Al-Queida.

 

[petit_bateau]

The US openly engaged in prisoner torture under Bush/Cheney. Why no prosecution ?

At least not yet.

 

[petit_bateau]

Kerch road bridge seems to be a lengthy repair job and the rail bridge more badly damaged than initially thought

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588147952010379264

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588821466191364097

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588697303300177921

========================================
Manufacturing/logistics getting some love

Thread by @LeeHudson_ on Thread Reader App

@LeeHudson_: Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante says Ukraine has helped him understand what really matters. "What really matters is production." "We as a country did our best to not do production," LaPlante sa...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[MC3OZ]

Let me clarify would my position is and what I would advise POTUS in case of a Russian first strike on an American mid size city.

I think what would happen is there is a proportional retaliatory strike on Russia and we effectively withdraw from Ukraine if not officially do so. I think Congress would be unwilling to provide further deadly aid to Ukraine.

My advise to POTUS is to tell the Russians we are willing to go 100 rounds or a full nuclear exchange. And propose a partition of Ukraine. A return to Feb 24 borders. Where Ukraine joins NATO and EU but remains nuclear free. International recognition of Crimea and parts of Donbas as Russian. And the right of Ukrainians living in Russian controlled territories to return inside Ukraine's new borders.

I think Putin can sell this as a win to Russians. Particularly when there are already over 1M dead Russians with the possibility of all 140M plus dying in the immediate future. Ukrainians can now live among the civilized nations of the Earth.

I would be willing to risk 2 or 3 rounds of nuclear exchanges but I am not willing to launch a full first strike nuclear attack on Russia to decapitate the government & military and destroy their ability to launch nuclear weapons. This immediately and directly puts all 331M Americans of nuclear annihilation.

And yes I am willing to take the risk that a nuanced approach doesn't work and we blow up the world.

I don't think this position makes me a hippy peacenik Kremlin appeaser.

The Ukrainians are free to reject this proposal and fight the Russians on their own.

Or alongside their Franco-German allies ( ha ha ha).

Ukraine will decide what deal they will accept.

Western aid is necessary for Ukraine to retake territory as things stand Ukraine probably has the resources to defend fairly well with limited military aid. They do need economic aid.

I hope Russia doesn't resort to nukes, launching nuke sttacks on the US isn't guaranteed to end the war, it will probably start a bigger war.

This war has already dragged on longer than most of us expected, wars tend to drag on.

 

[lolachampcar]

Fantastic opportunity for the rest of the world to make it clear that any use of nuclear weapons makes for economic and physical blockade by every other nation on the planet (including Iran, Saudi, China - perhaps not N. Korea). We may not all agree on anything else but it would seem worth the effort to try to agree on this. It seems China is doing its part.

 

[wdolson]

Let me clarify would my position is and what I would advise POTUS in case of a Russian first strike on an American mid size city.

I think what would happen is there is a proportional retaliatory strike on Russia and we effectively withdraw from Ukraine if not officially do so. I think Congress would be unwilling to provide further deadly aid to Ukraine.

My advise to POTUS is to tell the Russians we are willing to go 100 rounds or a full nuclear exchange. And propose a partition of Ukraine. A return to Feb 24 borders. Where Ukraine joins NATO and EU but remains nuclear free. International recognition of Crimea and parts of Donbas as Russian. And the right of Ukrainians living in Russian controlled territories to return inside Ukraine's new borders.

I think Putin can sell this as a win to Russians. Particularly when there are already over 1M dead Russians with the possibility of all 140M plus dying in the immediate future. Ukrainians can now live among the civilized nations of the Earth.

I would be willing to risk 2 or 3 rounds of nuclear exchanges but I am not willing to launch a full first strike nuclear attack on Russia to decapitate the government & military and destroy their ability to launch nuclear weapons. This immediately and directly puts all 331M Americans of nuclear annihilation.

And yes I am willing to take the risk that a nuanced approach doesn't work and we blow up the world.

I don't think this position makes me a hippy peacenik Kremlin appeaser.

The Ukrainians are free to reject this proposal and fight the Russians on their own.

Or alongside their Franco-German allies ( ha ha ha).

When things get nuclear the options available all suck. I just don't see the US reaching any kind of negotiated settlement with Russia if they attack the US. There are Russia lovers in the Republican party, but the old cold war warriors in the party will probably beat them to death if they don't change their tune. If the US was attacked probably 90% of the Democrats would get behind the necessity of a war with Russia. There would be a few peace nicks, but they would be a minority. The Democrats would be less enthusiastic about going to war than the warhawk Republicans, but they would see it as a necessity.

Any administration that didn't go along with the sentiment would get some pretty intense feedback from both parties.

At that point in the conflict I think any abandonment of Ukraine would be seen by most as both moral/ethical cowardice and political suicide.

The US openly engaged in prisoner torture under Bush/Cheney. Why no prosecution ?

It should have been. The Obama administration made a mistake not doing a full investigation. There was an attitude among Democrats at that point that pursuing these things would be a lot of trauma on the country and we should just move on. In 2006 when the Democrats won back the House Nancy Pelosi was ready to file impeachment against Bush and other administration leaders, but settled for Rumsfeld falling on his sword and resigning instead.

I'm not sure if it could have helped things much and may have made things worse by 2016. Hard to tell. What's obvious is things did get worse and now we are having to prosecute an administration that clearly broke the law. The grand jury considering indicting Trump is hearing testimony now. Cash Patel testified under limited immunity on Friday. The terms of his deal is he has to tell the truth 100% or he gets the book thrown at him and they have him nailed on several crimes (which is why he flipped).

Kerch road bridge seems to be a lengthy repair job and the rail bridge more badly damaged than initially thought

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588147952010379264

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588821466191364097

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588697303300177921

========================================
Manufacturing/logistics getting some love

Thread by @LeeHudson_ on Thread Reader App

@LeeHudson_: Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante says Ukraine has helped him understand what really matters. "What really matters is production." "We as a country did our best to not do production," LaPlante sa...…

threadreaderapp.com

When I saw the damage to the rail bridge and read about what fire does to reinforced concrete structures I figured that a section was going to have to be removed and replaced.

If this is a cold winter in Ukraine, it will be tough on the Ukrainian civilian population, but on the other hand it will be even harder on the poorly supplied Russian troops and may hinder repairs on the Kerch bridge. The Azoz sea is shallow and is one of the freshest water seas in the world. In colder winters it freezes all the way to the Kerch straits and any kind of construction work is going to get a lot tougher.

During WW II the Russians tried to build a Kerch strait bridge, but ice flows from the Azoz damaged the structure under construction and it had to be abandoned.

And for the manufacturing realizations, the pandemic followed by the war has driven home to many American leaders in industry and government that farming out so much of our manufacturing was not a good thing. It's one thing if the cheap junk you find at a pound shop/dollar store is made somewhere else. The country can do without most of those things in a crisis, but you can't survive without critical ingredients to core products.

I have heard that the US is re-industrializing at a fairly intense pace and the infrastructure bills passed by Congress have a fair bit of money to help this along, especially in new technologies. The $40 billion bill to send aid to Ukraine also allocates money for US defense manufacturers to make replacements for the munitions sent to Ukraine.

The US and NATO in general are probably going to be re-evaluating their needs for ammunition storage after this war. It's becoming obvious that a serious conflict burns through significantly more ammunition than most people thought possible. But that's typical in war. Ammunition usage is almost always higher than anticipated.

 

[SageBrush]

It should have been.

I was thinking more of the international courts, like the Hague