How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[AlanSA]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

1994 Ukraine made a big mistake. The nuclear weapons on its soil went back to Russia. If they could say: Stop otherwise there is no more Moscow. I don't think Russia would ever have started it.

 

Yes because what the world needs is more nuclear armed states. Particularly deeply unstable ones wedged between competing nuclear armed world powers.

Edited February 26, 2022 by AlanSA

[melm]

31 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

First for the Russian apologist. Russia is defending itself. Against whom, Ukraine? Ukraine joining NATO? Only a single NATO country has to say no. I suspect behind the scenes a few have told Putin they would Veto it. Vladimir has only one agenda and that is restoring the Soviet empire. 

No one guarentees that Ukraine will never join NATO, and I still think it's the Ukraine's best choice to leave the Russian control. But Russia of course won't tolerate any offensive or defensive weapon deployed along its border, just like US didn't tolerate Soviet's missile in Cuba.

[borg]

From BBC 

 

Posted at 8:328:32

France sending weapons to Ukraine

Weapons and equipment are en route from France to Ukraine, as the West supplies aid to Ukraine in their battle with advancing Russian troops.

President Zelensky tweeted that he had spoken to France's President Macron early on Saturday morning as a "new day on the diplomatic frontline began".

"The anti-war coalition is working!" Mr Zelensky tweeted.

On Saturday, Mr Macron posted a video of himself declaring: "The war will last - we must prepare for it!"

[arkhangelsk2021]

2 hours ago, akd said:

This is BS.  Biden specifically offered to negotiate on arms control, which would include strategic weapons deployments and basing.  That is not what Putin demanded.  Putin demanded Ukraine be left open to attack by Russia if Putin deems it desirable. No defenses. No security agreements.

This is not about NATO defensive security pact. It is about having a successful, non-authoritarian Little Brother right on the borders with Big Brother.

I hope your friends in Ukraine are fine, @akd, but let's discuss the facts on this issue.

Biden didn't offer to negotiate on arms control in a way that would reasonably settle Russian concerns. Let's look at his letter, which can be found here:

Note all the qualifiers. First, it specifies offensive missile systems, which excludes Aegis Ashore (since the US will say it's a defensive system, and it will be - if you exclude the possibility of deception). Second, it distinguishes between Permanent and Non-Permanent Forces, and Combat and Non-Combat Missions.

Which means according to this, the US can have a "Temporary" force on "Training" missions in the territory of Ukraine, even if said force is quite large. Also,

The US also offers a "transparency mechanism" to check Aegis Ashore sites at two locations - Romania and Poland. Already in principle, if there's a third site, say in Turkey or Ukraine now or in the future, the US is not obliged to include them in the "transparency mechanism".

Such are the facts. Let's compare it with Putin's proposal.

Quote

Article 4
The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not
deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in
Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997.
With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in
exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.

First, it rejects the idea of permanent deployments of any kind on the new NATO members by the old NATO members, except by mutual consent. This avoids un-necessary disputes on Offensive v Defensive. The US can, under this framework, negotiate for Aegis Ashore (at least in theory and according to the text), under suitable conditions.

Quote

Article 5
The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties.

The implication is that this is about "offensive" missiles, but it makes the main criteria a more objective one - whether that missile can physically reach the other party's territory. SAMs can carry nukes.

Quote

Article 6
All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit
themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the
accession of Ukraine as well as other States.

is actually correctly written in its context. It just obliges countries to use their rights in NATO a certain way.

Quote

Article 7
The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine
as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in
Central Asia.
In order to exclude incidents the Russian Federation and the Parties that
are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct
military exercises or other military activities above the brigade level in a zone of
agreed width and configuration on each side of the border line of the Russian
Federation and the states in a military alliance with it, as well as Parties that are
member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Note the care taken in this part. It actually allows NATO to continue small to medium scale exercises with Lithuania while limiting excess. So despite the screams of the Western press, at least as written out it's not asking for a wholesale abandonment of the new NATO members, Russia's feelings on them notwithstanding.

Quote

 

Article 9
This Agreement shall enter into force from the date of deposit of the
instruments of ratification, expressing consent to be bound by it, with the
Depositary by more than a half of the signatory States. With respect to a State
that deposited its instrument of ratification at a later date, this Agreement shall
enter into force from the date of its deposit.

Note the care here. Once 15 NATO states (of 30) plus Russia ratifies this, the treaty enters into force ... BUT it won't bind 15 NATO states that didn't ratify. Don't be stupid - the 15 states must include the US, but it does mean NATO can strategize and have up to 15 states helping Ukraine.

One reason why there are "Kremlin fanboys" in this is that frankly from a third party view, the Russian proposals at least make sense and are not a "Trust Us" plan.

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

Zelensky shows himself to be a real wartime leader. Unfortunately, the video link didn't copy.
LIVE

Ukrainian troops fight Russian advance on Kyiv

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has declined a US request to evacuate Kyiv, citing "the fight is here, I need ammunition not a ride," AP reports. Zelenskyy has warned of further attacks, stating that Russian troops will "storm" the capital city of Kyiv, which has been hit by airstrikes as clashes continue on the outskirts.
 

 

Brave fellow. I dread to think what's in store for him if Putins henchmen can lay their claws on him. I've read that Zelenskyy is Jewish, which makes the accusations against him (Putin calls hime a neonazi) even more ridiculous.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[melm]

7 minutes ago, borg said:

From BBC 

 

Posted at 8:328:32

France sending weapons to Ukraine

Weapons and equipment are en route from France to Ukraine, as the West supplies aid to Ukraine in their battle with advancing Russian troops.

President Zelensky tweeted that he had spoken to France's President Macron early on Saturday morning as a "new day on the diplomatic frontline began".

"The anti-war coalition is working!" Mr Zelensky tweeted.

On Saturday, Mr Macron posted a video of himself declaring: "The war will last - we must prepare for it!"

It's good to see at least Ukraine is not totally abandoned to their own fate.

[arkhangelsk2021]

1 hour ago, CHEqTRO said:

It is a BS reason because we would already have the capability to strike Moscow within 5 minutes, following the logic from Putin, from the Baltic states. 

Several factors here:

1) Laches Doctrine / Estoppel / Time Prescription: Even if conditions are identical, Putin might simply recognize that Russia has passed up its chance to really object to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia joining NATO (which also explains why they are working hard on pre-empting the next guy from joining NATO).

2) Actual Practice: After a dozen or so years in NATO, the US has not placed an Aegis Ashore in the Baltic States.

3) Adjacent Factors: To put it bluntly, if things really came a push, Lithuania is relatively small and its organic Air Force very weak. The sheer small size places limits on the kind of forces NATO can additionally deploy there. Do you think it'd be easier to pre-emptively strike, if things come down to it, a bunch of offensive missiles in Lithuania or in Ukraine?

Thus, the ability to "grit teeth" for the Baltic States does not equate to the ability to "grit teeth" for Ukraine.

[chuckdyke]

25 minutes ago, melm said:

But Russia of course won't tolerate any offensive or defensive weapon deployed along its border

Quoting the Soviet argument during the Cuba crises. If the US can point nuclear weapons to Cuba, Cuba can point our weapons to the US. Ukraine is a sovereign country and has the right to protect itself against Russia as it sees fit. 

[John Kettler]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

What's wrong with that? This ain't your thread and as long as Probus doesn't complains I don't see the problem. Don't get me wrong, the military/combat posts are indeed more interesting, but people must also be able to discuss more than that.

Aragorn2002,

Am well aware this isn't my thread. As has been many times stated, though, this is intended to be a thread focused on the invasion of Ukraine. Yet there has been a ton of discussion of many topics not directly pertinent to the purpose of the thread. BFCElvis has several times issued reminders on this score, and I got dinged on this Forum myself for being OT while making an argument against a position taken by another member ref leadership. Given the stated  purpose of the thread, I find the discussions of China invading Taiwan, what India might do, China's position in this mess during and afterwards, not to mention the post-invasion world order, fascinating as they are, to be way beyond the scope of this post's stated purpose. My views, and YMMV.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, John Kettler said:

Aragorn2002,

Am well aware this isn't my thread. As has been many times stated, though, this is intended to be a thread focused on the invasion of Ukraine. Yet there has been a ton of discussion of many topics not directly pertinent to the purpose of the thread. BFCElvis has several times issued reminders on this score, and I got dinged on this Forum myself for being OT while making an argument against a position taken by another member ref leadership. Given the stated  purpose of the thread, I find the discussions of China invading Taiwan, what India might do, China's position in this mess during and afterwards, not to mention the post-invasion world order, fascinating as they are, to be way beyond the scope of this post's stated purpose. My views, and YMMV.

Regards,

John Kettler

I understand, John. No offence intended. I value your posts, you know that.

[AlanSA]

30 minutes ago, melm said:

It's good to see at least Ukraine is not totally abandoned to their own fate.

Except it's only enough to keep them in the fight a little longer increasing the bloodshed.

Edited February 26, 2022 by AlanSA

[melm]

13 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Quoting the Soviet argument during the Cuba crises. If the US can point nuclear weapons to Cuba, Cuba can point our weapons to the US. Ukraine is a sovereign country and has the right to protect itself against Russia as it sees fit. 

Yeah, I totally agree that any country has the right to deploy weapons they see fit. However, US didn't think so in Cuban Crisis and now Putin doesn't think so either. 

[womble]

Maybe someone understands the current Russian regime's attitude, but I don't. If they didn't want their neighbours to try and join the defensive NATO military alliance, they shouldn't have maintained a threatening military posture towards them. If they didn't want to get shot at by the defensive NATO military alliance, they could simply have continued (as they currently are) not attacking any of the members of that defensive alliance.

Surely they're aware of game theory and can do the sums. So there must be some other reason they act in such a vainglorious manner, rather than expanding their influence into their neighbours by being their best buddy. Surely it's cheaper than maintaining the third largest army in the world...

Since 2014, they lost any chance of winning Ukrainian hearts and minds, and now they're pushing traditionally neutral countries (who had, I gather, never before expressed interest in joining NATO) into the welcoming arms of the West's defensive military alliance.

But I suspect there's some difference in the mindsets that it'll take a more gymnastic mind than mine to reconcile.

[CHEqTRO]

9 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Several factors here:

1) Laches Doctrine / Estoppel / Time Prescription: Even if conditions are identical, Putin might simply recognize that Russia has passed up its chance to really object to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia joining NATO (which also explains why they are working hard on pre-empting the next guy from joining NATO).

2) Actual Practice: After a dozen or so years in NATO, the US has not placed an Aegis Ashore in the Baltic States.

3) Adjacent Factors: To put it bluntly, if things really came a push, Lithuania is relatively small and its organic Air Force very weak. The sheer small size places limits on the kind of forces NATO can additionally deploy there. Do you think it'd be easier to pre-emptively strike, if things come down to it, a bunch of offensive missiles in Lithuania or in Ukraine?

Thus, the ability to "grit teeth" for the Baltic States does not equate to the ability to "grit teeth" for Ukraine.

Then there is more than just "they can put missiles near our borders", that was what I was saying 

The threat to Russia that Ukraine joins NATO resides in that they lose the capability to apply hard power to influence Ukraine, and that any attack into Poland would be meet with conventional strikes into staging grounds in Belarus and Rusiafrom Ukraine; from a military perspective. Ukraine was still not going to join NATO in like 10 to 20 years thought, even being optimistic (Germany and France would have always blocked such inclusion)

NATO accesion of Ukraine was not a cause for the current Russian aggresion, at best it was a timer, a timer that still had a lot of time to run its course.

[melm]

7 minutes ago, AlanSA said:

Except it's only enough to keep them in the fight a little longer increasing the bloodshed.

Very sadly. Yes. But what else can people of Ukranian do then? Giving up easily won't help to get Putin's leniency, won't get Crimea and Donbass back. They just have no choice.

[CHEqTRO]

The invasion, by the way, its going poorly. The russian are conducting an offensive as if this was still the 1980s. Very poor planing (The Hostomel airdrop was esentially a disaster), poor logistical support, they have failed to achieve air superiority, Ukranian armored formations are still able to freely manouver etc. Like I said yesterday, either we have severily overstimated russian capabilities, or they are holding back for something

Also, there was a lot of propaganda regarding that the Ukranians were ethnically cleansing the russian speaking population, and that they would recive the Russian Army as heroes. That is not what we have been seeing:

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by CHEqTRO

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, melm said:

US didn't think so in Cuban Crisis and now Putin doesn't think so either. 

I didn't know there were US nuclear weapons in the Ukraine. US never objected to conventional weapons from the Soviet Union in Cuba. 

[Zveroboy1]

Honest question here : how can Russia not achieve air superiority with the disparity in the numbers of planes on each side?

[arkhangelsk2021]

5 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

The invasion, by the way, its going poorly. The russian are conducting an offensive as if this was still the 1980s. Very poor planing (The Hostomel airdrop was esentially a disaster), poor logistical support, they have failed to achieve air superiority, Ukranian armored formations are still able to freely manouver etc. Like I said yesterday, either we have severily overstimated russian capabilities, or they are holding back for something

I don't know ... if their formation is out of fuel, why are there only three of them in this film? Unless the soundtrack (which of course I can't decipher) says something, at least from the video that's shown, these are vehicles that either suffered a breakdown or are being left to provide some security. The Russians would probably have liked Hostomel to go better, but frankly with only a company in the initial wave, the idea of them being able to establish a real foothold is worth no more than a contingency plan (in case the Ukrainian Army sucked more than imagined) - the realistic Middle Case is them being to tie up a disproportionate amount of Ukrainian forces trying to "squeeze the pimple" for critical hours.

[melm]

5 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I didn't know there were US nuclear weapons in the Ukraine. US never objected to conventional weapons from the Soviet Union in Cuba. 

Why nuclear weapons are not allowed in Cuba? And if UKR joins NATO, nothing stops UKR has nuclear weapons as Turkey already has.

Edited February 26, 2022 by melm

[Aragorn2002]

"NATO Head Stoltenberg - Cyberattacks "can trigger Article 5"."

Finally...

[CHEqTRO]

3 minutes ago, melm said:

Why nuclear weapons are not allowed in Cuba? And if UKR joins NATO, nothing stops UKR has nuclear weapons as Turkey already has.

Turkey does not border Russia. On the other hand, Russia unilateraly scrapped the INF treaty and positioned Nuclear weapon in Kaliningrad capabale of striking within minutes all of Europe, and in the border or a NATO country. If the russian want security guaranties, lets talk also some for us Europeans 

[arkhangelsk2021]

5 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:

Honest question here : how can Russia not achieve air superiority with the disparity in the numbers of planes on each side?

I'm going to guess that they actually have air superiority, just not quite full air supremacy. 

Quote

air superiority / supériorité aérienne AS That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. 01 Feb 1973

From AAP-6. I definitely don't see any stories about the Ukrainian Air Force laying waste to Russian battalions - the kills seem to be from ground forces. BTW air supremacy is:

Quote

air supremacy / maîtrise de l'air That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference. 01 Feb 1973

In fact, they might be here too. Air supremacy's definition, apparently, does not insist on a condition of Insta-Death for any enemy formation that moved.

[CHEqTRO]

11 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

I don't know ... if their formation is out of fuel, why are there only three of them in this film? Unless the soundtrack (which of course I can't decipher) says something, at least from the video that's shown, these are vehicles that either suffered a breakdown or are being left to provide some security. The Russians would probably have liked Hostomel to go better, but frankly with only a company in the initial wave, the idea of them being able to establish a real foothold is worth no more than a contingency plan (in case the Ukrainian Army sucked more than imagined) - the realistic Middle Case is them being to tie up a disproportionate amount of Ukrainian forces trying to "squeeze the pimple" for critical hours.

We know they run out of fuel due to the conversation with the civilians, which by theway, tell them that they should surrender as a lot of other russians have already done.

In the case of Gostomel, they had a big follow-up drop, but, due to the fact that the Ukranian air defense was still up, decided to abort. This air defence will then go to keep being operative and shoot down two IL-76, presumably packed with paratroopers, some time ago this morning. A success in that operation would have allowed Russian forces to deploy a VDV regiment inside the Kyiv perimeter, and could have precipitated a quick fall of the capital. As of now, all attacks trying to breakthrought the defenses of the capital have failed.

There are also more reports of logistic problem for the Russian army, albeit coming form the Ukranians, in the Sumy axis.

They have failed to breaktrough in the direction of Mariupol as of yet, and also in the direction of Kharkiv. They have broken throught in the Kherson, but as of now that situtation has stabilized. They are pinning the Ukranian forces in the Donbass yes, but the possibilities of an encirclement get slimer any moment they fail to achieve a complete breaktrhought.

EDIT: In regards to air superiority, the have achieved air advantage. However, considering the balance of forces and the russian "in paper" deep strike capabilities, they should have achieved complete air supremacy by now

Edited February 26, 2022 by CHEqTRO

[melm]

7 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

Turkey does not border Russia. On the other hand, Russia unilateraly scrapped the INF treaty and positioned Nuclear weapon in Kaliningrad capabale of striking within minutes all of Europe, and in the border or a NATO country. If the russian want security guaranties, lets talk also some for us Europeans 

Turkey used to border Soviet and its position has already allowed the nuclear missiles having full effect.

This is actually what I loathe. One side wants to be safer than the other. Then escalation becomes inevitable. Perhaps that's because I am a generation born after cold war that I already feel safe.

Edited February 26, 2022 by melm