How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Homo_Ferricus]

28 minutes ago, akd said:

Nice to see us sending some confusing, escalatory threats back the other way (without threatening escalation outside of Ukraine).

Was this quote deleted or something? It's not loading in for me. All I see is:

[dan/california]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I read more about the dialog exchange and it is pretty damned near perfectly done.  This has got to have the Kremlin upset, but not knowing how upset they should be.

Steve

First and foremost it put Lukashenko on notice that if he tried to cut the Ukrainians off from the Polish border the POLISH army was going to hand them their heads.

[Probus]

The deputy commander of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet has been killed in battle near the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol:
https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-black-sea-fleet-deputy-commander-killed/31762245.html

Andrei Paliy, Captain 1st Rank. Is that high enough to make your list @sburke?

[TheVulture]

7 minutes ago, Homo_Ferricus said:

Was this quote deleted or something? It's not loading in for me. All I see is:

 

Yes, it appears to have been deleted. I could see it before, but it's gone now.

Edited March 20, 2022 by TheVulture

[akd]

Just now, TheVulture said:

Yes, it appears to have been deleted. I could see it before, but it's gone now.

Here is what the tweet was referencing:

Linda Thomas Greenfield: “Other Nato countries may decide that they want to put troops inside of Ukraine, that will be a decision that they have made. We don’t want to escalate this into a war with the United States but we will support our Nato allies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/zelenskiy-biden-us-ukraine-talks-russia-putin-china-nato

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, akd said:

Here is what the tweet was referencing:

Linda Thomas Greenfield: “Other Nato countries may decide that they want to put troops inside of Ukraine, that will be a decision that they have made. We don’t want to escalate this into a war with the United States but we will support our Nato allies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/zelenskiy-biden-us-ukraine-talks-russia-putin-china-nato

On top of that she reminded people that the US has a LOT of forces in Europe and that any attack on a NATO member would trigger Article 5.  The implication here is that if a NATO member puts troops into Ukraine and Russia strikes the homeland of that nation... Article 5 applies.

In theory Russia could hit a NATO country's forces in Ukraine and not trigger Article 5 because the deployment is on foreign soil on a mission that is not backed by a NATO resolution.

This was a safeguard put into place to prevent NATO getting sucked into an individual member's conflict.  However, attacks on the homeland would be a definite Article 5 because there is a difference between a conflict outside of a NATO country's borders and one within.

Steve

[TheVulture]

8 minutes ago, akd said:

Here is what the tweet was referencing:

Linda Thomas Greenfield: “Other Nato countries may decide that they want to put troops inside of Ukraine, that will be a decision that they have made. We don’t want to escalate this into a war with the United States but we will support our Nato allies.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/zelenskiy-biden-us-ukraine-talks-russia-putin-china-nato

And as predicted the rhetoric of "things we're not going to do (honest) but are going to keep talking about" continues to push further and further to keep the line of "things we can actually do without Russia panicking/escalating in response" also moving slowly forward...

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

On top of that she reminded people that the US has a LOT of forces in Europe and that any attack on a NATO member would trigger Article 5.  The implication here is that if a NATO member puts troops into Ukraine and Russia strikes the homeland of that nation... Article 5 applies.

In theory Russia could hit a NATO country's forces in Ukraine and not trigger Article 5 because the deployment is on foreign soil on a mission that is not backed by a NATO resolution.

This was a safeguard put into place to prevent NATO getting sucked into an individual member's conflict.  However, attacks on the homeland would be a definite Article 5 because there is a difference between a conflict outside of a NATO country's borders and one within.

Steve

So how much do the Poles have? They are clearly the ones driving this.

Edited March 20, 2022 by dan/california

[dan/california]

 

4 minutes ago, dan/california said:

So how much do the Poles have? They are clearly the ones driving this.

 

The prime minister of Poland wants to be the Prime minister of the soon to be announced Polish-Ukrainian Federation, instead of Zelensky, Or at least the prime minister of the federation AFTER Zelensky. And yes I am kidding, but only sort of, kind of, barely.

 

I also wouldn't rule out that entire units of the Polish military are threatening to join the Ukrainian Foreign Legion, and the Government is just trying to get in front of a parade that leaving regardless.

To be clear, all of the above is speculation ob my part, but isn't crazy in my humble opinion.

[Battlefront.com]

I doubt that any NATO country would allow its personnel to fight in Ukraine.  However, Russia has shown how to do it.  In 2014 the Russian military allowed Contract soldiers to be released early from their military obligations, no questions asked. In reality these soldiers has signed contracts with Wagner or simply "volunteered" for the forces of DLPR.  The Russians then funded Wagner and the DLPR, covertly and at times overtly ("aid").  These units were overseen by uniformed Russian officers ("Shadows") who were embedded in the DLPR command structure.  Which meant that effectively the soldiers released from official duty were still working directly for the Russian government through its armed forces.

Since the organizational structures in Ukraine are valid and independent, unlike the Russian created/controlled DLPR, all a NATO country would have to do is honor a "separation" request by a soldier and that's it.  The rest would be completely off the books.  Legitimately.

Steve

[danfrodo]

over 200 pages ago on this forum I suggested a "humanitarian safe zone" in western UKR and it sounds like maybe that could happen now?  I suggested the Poles start the process.  This zone would accomplish multiple things:

1.  ensure that some portion of UKR does not fall

2. make the weapons supply line that much closer to the east (RU will freak about weapons moving thru the zone, tough luck)

3.  provide an area for refugees inside UKR, so that the MILLIONS of displaced persons are not all hitting europe at once and destabilizing gov'ts in NATO

4.  Provide a nice excuse to shoot down RU planes that try to attack the zon

5.  zone would start small, around Lviv and expand outward as seems reasonable. 

I am concerned that there's just too many refugees for EU to handle, so building refugee camps in a defended safe zone would be a good solution.  Other countries would be invited to contribute whatever to the zone: military, medical, shelter, food, etc. 

[Fenris]

(If true) Another indication of manpower being a problem - as one of the comments suggests, comms for co-operation might be interesting

 

[panzermartin]

If we were listening to Poles and Zelensky we would be already in nuclear war. I'm more worried than in the cold war era, the people in charge seem to not have a real grasp of the grave situation. We may laugh here with the tractors but Russia is still good old Soviet union when it comes to the rocket nuclear arsenal but actually far more lethal due to the advanced delivery platforms. This is bigger than we can handle and maybe Kissinger was right. 

[Fenris]

And something re the info wars side of things - VK is apparently the number one russian social media app and one of the only ones still operating.  Comments suggest it was the admin account rather than a platform wide hack that was being used to distribute the message. 

 

Edited March 20, 2022 by Fenris

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Fenris said:

And something re the info wars side of things - VK is apparently the number one russian social media app and one of the only ones still operating.  Comments suggest it was the admin account rather than a platform wide hack that was being used to distribute the message. 

 

In 2014 and 2015 if you wanted to know what Russian units were in Ukraine and where, you turned to VKontakte to see all the idiot soldiers uploading their geo-tagged images of them bragging about what big men they were.  It was comical how bad Russian OPSEC was at the time.  I don't think it's gotten significantly better.

Steve

[dan/california]

Speaking of VKontakte, apparently people with connections to the Russian military are connecting the dots about what the parade of funerals foe senior officers means for the rest of their units. Thread above has translated comments.

[Battlefront.com]

Article profiling some of the 20,000+ foreigners that are in Ukraine now to take part in the war:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/03/20/hey-putin-natos-already-here-foreign-fighters-arrive-to-battle-russian-invaders-in-ukraine/?swcfpc=1

[Fenris]

Have we noted this? (sorry don't know how to do the thread)

I wonder how correct this is, anyone else seen this to verify?  I think I've seen the commander mentioned before.

 

[akd]

16 minutes ago, dan/california said:

“Babushka fascism.” So ***king true.

[sburke]

6 hours ago, akd said:

Looks like this should be Colonel Alexander Vladimirovich Zakharov.

thanks, corrected

[keas66]

 

47 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

If we were listening to Poles and Zelensky we would be already in nuclear war. I'm more worried than in the cold war era, the people in charge seem to not have a real grasp of the grave situation. We may laugh here with the tractors but Russia is still good old Soviet union when it comes to the rocket nuclear arsenal but actually far more lethal due to the advanced delivery platforms. This is bigger than we can handle and maybe Kissinger was right. 

Well not really agreeing with the first sentence - I am starting to get a little more nervous about how this is going to end if Putin will not back down . I live close enough to some  Key Logistical AF bases in the US to make this topic of the final end to this conflict something I have a great deal of interest in .

[BletchleyGeek]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

On top of that she reminded people that the US has a LOT of forces in Europe and that any attack on a NATO member would trigger Article 5.  The implication here is that if a NATO member puts troops into Ukraine and Russia strikes the homeland of that nation... Article 5 applies.

In theory Russia could hit a NATO country's forces in Ukraine and not trigger Article 5 because the deployment is on foreign soil on a mission that is not backed by a NATO resolution.

This was a safeguard put into place to prevent NATO getting sucked into an individual member's conflict.  However, attacks on the homeland would be a definite Article 5 because there is a difference between a conflict outside of a NATO country's borders and one within.

Steve

Biden is travelling to Europe this week for a NATO summit. I am pretty sure that they are going to be "wargaming" the options available. I have been reading a bit about this "NATO peacekeeping mission" the Polish government wants to bring up at the summit

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/poland-propose-ukraine-peacekeeping-mission-nato-summit-says-pm-2022-03-18/

which sounds more like a thought bubble than anything else

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/03/20/magierowski-on-nato-peacekeeping.cnn

The interview above was the clearest public statement I have read/heard about so far.

Also: a bit of a misnomer. Wouldn't it rather be a "peacemaking" rather than "peacekeeping" mission? Personal opinion of mine: the Polish government at times seems to be to be quite klutz when it comes to apply logic.

Edited March 20, 2022 by BletchleyGeek

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

The deputy commander of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet has been killed in battle near the Ukrainian port city of Mariupol:
https://www.rferl.org/amp/russia-black-sea-fleet-deputy-commander-killed/31762245.html

Andrei Paliy, Captain 1st Rank. Is that high enough to make your list @sburke?

already on it - apparently the conversion means that is equivalent rank to Col.

Captain of 1st rank (=colonel) Andrei Paliy Deputy of Black Sea Fleet commander,

[akd]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

already on it - apparently the conversion means that is equivalent rank to Col.

Captain of 1st rank (=colonel) Andrei Paliy Deputy of Black Sea Fleet commander,

Deputy to the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet for Military-Political Affairs (or something like that).  Deputy Commander of the BSF is a Vice-Admiral post.

Edited March 21, 2022 by akd

[Probus]

10 minutes ago, akd said:

Deputy to the Commander of the Black Sea Fleet for Military-Political Affairs (or something like that).  Deputy Commander of the BSF is a Vice-Admiral post.

Thanks akd.