How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[BletchleyGeek]

On a second thought, that video is not that different from the poignant art produced by North Korean illustrators

 

[panzermartin]

Russian media states they used the Mach 10 missile for the first time in Ukraine. Looks like a very expensive weapon meant to counter NATO warships, why use against a warehouse 

[TheVulture]

7 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Russian media states they used the Mach 10 missile for the first time in Ukraine. Looks like a very expensive weapon meant to counter NATO warships, why use against a warehouse 

If it was a Soviet era nuclear storage facility then I'm imagining that it was more of an underground heavily strengthened stockpile than a warehouse l

[Hapless]

Potential footage of it:

Never really got the hypersonic thing, but if we're going to see more gimmicky weapon systems maybe they'll roll an Armata out so the Ukrainians can blow it up.

[BletchleyGeek]

21 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

Looks like a very expensive weapon meant to counter NATO warships, why use against a warehouse 

Signalling that they have the capability. Who knows how many of these they actually have?

We may see more "stunts" as negotiations get more serious.

[kraze]

52 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

I think it is because Putin its assuming that everyone is operating in the same world view that he has. Countries "applied to join" the Warsaw Pact because Russia had a strategic military use for them, combined with an ability to force them. I suspect he genuinely believes that e.g. the baltic states had pro-western governments put in and then instructed to ask to join NATO so that NATO could expand. In this world view the governments of 'minor'  countries are chosen by the covert decisions of the 'major' ones, and the idea of being responsive to the wants and needs of the population doesn't come up. 

In this world view, since the givens government of Ukraine wasn't chosen by Russia, then of course it was imposed and forcefully maintained by the west.  And the west have no legitimate military strategic interests in Ukraine unless their goal is to be able to threaten Russia.

The Western view of course is that countries get to choose their own governments,  and that countries can freely decide to join a security alliance (if they meet the entry conditions), and that this is a good thing because ultimately mutual defence reduces the chance of wars and leads to rising prosperity for all. 

As an aside,  Putin also has the "American disease" of assuming everything is about Russia, in the same way that Americans think that everything is about America ("why did Russia invade now? Let's look at what has changed in the USA recently to see what has caused this..." Ukraine might will view NATO membership as directly related to Russia, for obvious and entirely valid reasons,  but for the west,  Ukraine joining NATO isn't really about Russia. I'ts about extending the "peace bubble" to protect the lives and enhance the wellbeing of everyone inside it. 

But that's not something Putin would do,  so it's not something that he believes anyone else does either. 

Putin (and russians as a whole) thinks no such thing. He is perfectly aware of what NATO is. And he is perfectly aware that it's impossible to drag NATO into aggressive wars of any kind because of all the safeguards.

Furthermore russians are fully aware that no NATO country is interested in expansion because civilized world is all about trying to outrun other countries in money and money loves peace.

This all has to do with the fascist ideology of russians as a whole. Their ideology is that Russia is "a third Rome" (which is highly delusional in itself for oh so many reason), that their empire should spread to former USSR borders in the middle of Germany once again.

Likewise "Warsaw pact" was never any pact - USSR just couldn't say "this all belongs to us now" so soon after 1945 because they would look like an occupier, not unlike Nazi Germany, to the rest of the world and that's a bad idea in the aftermath of WW2. But make no mistake - all those countries were fully occupied.

So naturally NATO prevents the restoration of "former glory" (aka occupying half of Europe) and that's the only reason Russia opposes NATO. And that's why they wage wars since as early 1992, occupying parts of countries to use NATO safeguard about "countries with ongoing wars not able to join" against those countries.

And that's why they can't invade Baltic countries because those got protection.

With Ukraine it's an even more hardcore story, totally tied into faux russian greatness mythology, that was already discussed.

 

[borg]

7 minutes ago, kraze said:

Putin (and russians as a whole) thinks no such thing. He is perfectly aware of what NATO is. And he is perfectly aware that it's impossible to drag NATO into aggressive wars of any kind because of all the safeguards.

Furthermore russians are fully aware that no NATO country is interested in expansion because civilized world is all about trying to outrun other countries in money and money loves peace.

This all has to do with the fascist ideology of russians as a whole. Their ideology is that Russia is "a third Rome" (which is highly delusional in itself for oh so many reason), that their empire should spread to former USSR borders in the middle of Germany once again.

Likewise "Warsaw pact" was never any pact - USSR just couldn't say "this all belongs to us now" so soon after 1945 because they would look like an occupier, not unlike Nazi Germany, to the rest of the world and that's a bad idea in the aftermath of WW2. But make no mistake - all those countries were fully occupied.

So naturally NATO prevents the restoration of "former glory" (aka occupying half of Europe) and that's the only reason Russia opposes NATO. And that's why they wage wars since as early 1992, occupying parts of countries to use NATO safeguard about "countries with ongoing wars not able to join" against those countries.

And that's why they can't invade Baltic countries because those got protection.

With Ukraine it's an even more hardcore story, totally tied into faux russian greatness mythology, that was already discussed.

 

I loved reading this... 

On a serious note. Now that over 20 days elapsed. Is this war still bound to go either way, or can some solid conclusions start to be made  ? 

At times, it feels surreal that all this started, and has been going on for three weeks already !

[TheVulture]

Three destroyed Russian tanks (plus one other vehicle) on the M-06 highway west of Kiev. Ukrainian losses appear to be two abandoned tractors, but hopefully they can be recovered.

 

https://t.me/dvish_alive/10496

 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Russian media states they used the Mach 10 missile for the first time in Ukraine. Looks like a very expensive weapon meant to counter NATO warships, why use against a warehouse 

Interesting, that local publics of Delyatyn never wrote about any huge explosions

[Eddy]

Regarding NATO expansion I found this interview on History Hit interesting. It's with a bloke called Jamie Shea who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary-General there in the 80s, 90s and 00s. Now I have no idea whether that role is merely looking after the paper clip inventory or what, but he is a primary source and probably worth considering.

The bit about NATO expansion is around the 13 min 40 sec mark but I found the whole thing a good listen.

NATO and Putin

"The purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down" - Lord Ismay, Nato's 1st Secretary General

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, panzermartin said:

Russian media states they used the Mach 10 missile for the first time in Ukraine. Looks like a very expensive weapon meant to counter NATO warships, why use against a warehouse 

Either a) Because they want to show they have that kind of missile and what they can do, and that next time there might be a different warhead on it. And they want to test the missile under combat conditions.

Or b) They are getting desperate and running out of everything else.

[The_Capt]

34 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Either a) Because they want to show they have that kind of missile and what they can do, and that next time there might be a different warhead on it. And they want to test the missile under combat conditions.

Or b) They are getting desperate and running out of everything else.

I am betting on “a”, that demonstration wasn’t for the Ukrainians it was for us.  Lead story from news back here this morning:https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/north-america-vulnerable-to-russian-and-chinese-hypersonic-weapons-norad-commander-1.5825995 

[kraze]

1 hour ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Signalling that they have the capability. Who knows how many of these they actually have?

We may see more "stunts" as negotiations get more serious.

Wasting expensive strategic missiles designed to battle the best of NATO on Ukraine and having no way to restock them due to sanctions is certainly a stunt

Edited March 19, 2022 by kraze

[Ts4EVER]

6 minutes ago, kraze said:

Wasting expensive strategic missiles designed to battle the best of NATO on Ukraine and having no way to restock them due to sanctions is certainly a stunt

Hello, I am Vladimir Putin and this is Jackass.

[db_zero]

2 hours ago, panzermartin said:

Russian media states they used the Mach 10 missile for the first time in Ukraine. Looks like a very expensive weapon meant to counter NATO warships, why use against a warehouse 

It’s a message to the West. You have your Patriot missiles, ABM batteries and naval forces - (many US ships have the Aegis system with ABM capability)…

we have a missile system that renders your ABM systems useless…

could also be a message to Ukraine-the west can’t protect you and the next one may be a nuke.

Whatever the message is, Russia would not lob one of these for no reason. This launch was undoubtedly detected and tracked by US early warning systems and probably got some very high level people woken up.

Edited March 19, 2022 by db_zero

[Bulletpoint]

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am betting on “a”, that demonstration wasn’t for the Ukrainians it was for us.  Lead story from news back here this morning:https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/north-america-vulnerable-to-russian-and-chinese-hypersonic-weapons-norad-commander-1.5825995 

But North America has been vulnerable to Russian ICBMs for half a century.. I don't believe for a moment that the US ballistic missile defence system could protect against a full salvo.

I think the hypersonic missile was a demonstration that Russia still has assets that could penetrate Ukrainian air defences at any moment.

[domfluff]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think the hypersonic missile was a demonstration that Russia still has assets that could penetrate Ukrainian air defences at any moment.

If there's a genuine value in Russia expending assets to prove that, I suspect that's indicative of much bigger problems.

[Bulletpoint]

5 minutes ago, domfluff said:

If there's a genuine value in Russia expending assets to prove that, I suspect that's indicative of much bigger problems.

So you're voting for explanation b) - desperation?

[dan/california]

NATO just needs to start sellingUkraine cruise missiles for a dollar each. In the air, when they cross the Ukrainian border. 

[domfluff]

13 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

So you're voting for explanation b) - desperation?

I think so. Having access to Ukrainian airspace shouldn't even be a question 24 days into an offensive campaign, so if the aim here is posturing (and it probably is, in some manner), then this is presumably an expensive and extreme way to do that.

Whether that posturing is "we can get into your airspace", "look at our advanced kit" or even "imagine this was carrying an NBC warhead" - any of those options are pretty desperate.

[Haiduk]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The Ukrainian General Staff reports are more cagey about this, reporting that they've conducted counter attacks in several places, but did not get specific.

This was officially announced by general Gruzevich, one of the Kyiv defense HQ members. There is happend a situation, when the general spoke rather toungue-tied and the journalists interpreted his words like wished for reality. Indeed he meant Ukrainian forces stopped Russian advance NW from Kyiv on 70 km front. 

Later Zelenskiy has announced about 30 settlements were liberated, but I think indded this is whole number of whole Ukriane, not in Kyiv direction

Though, Russians relally turned to defense. Already two days there is no artillery sounds around Kyiv. Today Russians shelled Makariv town in Kyiv oblast, which is holding by Ukr troops in semi-encirclement. 

 

PS. Ukrainian General Staff confirmed the strike in Deliatyn, but has no information either this was Kinzhal or othe rmissile. They reported about damages, domolishes and some ammunition detonations. 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Haiduk

[Combatintman]

I'm with @The_Capt - it is a). in the same way that the strike on the training base in west Ukraine was a few days back, which many similarly interpreted as a bit of a waste of gucci ordnance.  I also wouldn't be too sold on the desperation angle either.  It could equally mean that the Russian political leadership still thinks it can win this so long as NATO stays out, hence sending a 'message.'

Edited March 19, 2022 by Combatintman

[BeondTheGrave]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Sorta, this has been largely accepted as true (to some extent, anyway) and the Russians have never been shy about pointing towards it while, at the same time, totally ignoring the SIGNED treaty they made guaranteeing Ukrainian independence if it gave up its nuclear weapons.  This means the Russians, according to their logic, should expect the West to be held to an informal discussion and not expect Russia to be held to a signed treaty.  Or International Law for that matter.

It also needs to be pointed out that whatever was said went on the assumption that Russia wouldn't try invading and covertly undermining those countries in violation of International Law.

So no matter what, Russia doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Steve

[EDIT] Just found an article in NY Times talking this.  It's behind a paywall, but here's an important piece of it:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html

I need to stress this, because its a part that has been left out of so many of the narratives around this which just focus on the US v. Russia dimensions of this. 

Poland, the Baltics, Romania and southern Europe, they saw all this coming. If you know anything about the position of Poland and the Baltics in the WP, you know they were UNHAPPY with being second fiddle (or outright annexed territories, in the case of the Baltics) to Moscow. They wanted independence, they hated what Russia did to keep them in orbit, but most of all they were deeply afraid that in a decade or two Russia would come back and do to them what Putin is now doing to Ukraine. And they had good reason to, from 1990-2000 Russia invaded or intervened in a number of post-Soviet issues. Georgia, Transnistria, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Dagestan. Why wouldn't they move in to Estonia or Latvia to restore order? 

We can debate all we want about the Baker promise, how binding it was, how binding the Russians think it is. Thats an open question. But the way Putin, and unfortunately a lot of people in the west who dont know better, tend to paint it, they make it sound like the US sneakily broke its word and pushed up on Russia while it was weak. Snuck a march on a beaten foe. Thats not what happened. Poland joined NATO in May 1999, in August Russia invaded Chechnya again for the second time. These are not unrelated events. Russian bad behavior in former Soviet republics, Russian behavior towards additional republics who wanted to break away, these  pushed Eastern Europe under the NATO nuclear umbrella. 

This story is inconvenient for Putin, he cant say in a packed soccer stadium "The choices of my government scared Eastern Europe into finding security with the US" so instead he hangs everything on a promise of dubious sincerity that was never backed up by serious action.  

[Bulletpoint]

This raises some questions:

Who provided these uniforms? Were they already in stock but just chosen for this mission? Or were they custom made to make a political statement? Who authorised this?

Just like with the TV editor and her anti war sign some days ago, is this a sign that Putin's control is slipping? Are individual Russians jumping ship now and trying to make sure that in a post-Putin Russia, they will still be in good graces?

I expect more and more such signalling in the coming days. It could quickly snowball, as more and more people in high places realise it's time to pick their side in public.

Russians board International Space Station in Ukrainian colours

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60804949

 

Edited March 19, 2022 by Bulletpoint

[Haiduk]

Despite Iskanders can have decoys, theses missiles can be intercepted. Parts of 9M723 missile, one of three, shot down yesterday in Vinnytsia oblast