How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[poesel]

Interesting article about Belarus and Luka and how he maneuvered through this (in German).
In that article is stated that 50% of Belarus population support the war. That supports what Kraze said above.

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Stellt-Lukaschenko-Putin-eine-Falle-article23755467.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE

[Zeleban]

2 minutes ago, poesel said:

Интересная статья о Беларуси и Луке и о том, как он через это провернулся (на немецком языке).
В этой статье утверждается, что 50% населения Беларуси поддерживает войну. Это подтверждает то, что Крейз сказал выше.

https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Stellt-Lukaschenko-Putin-eine-Falle-article23755467.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-de-DE

They support the re-creation of the Soviet Union. for this, in their opinion, Russian troops are fighting

[Zeleban]

I personally think it's stupid that our command does not strike at the Machulichi airbase, from which strikes are regularly carried out against Kyiv. If they are afraid of Belarus joining the war, then in vain. Belarus has already been drawn into the war and the entry into the war of its troops is only a matter of time. In any case, our command has to keep significant forces on the border with Belarus to deter a possible attack. So the entry into the war of Belarus will not affect anything in terms of tactical alignment. Our forces are bound there and so

Support for the war in Russia fell after the strikes on Russian territory, as the Russians assumed that the war was a fun and interesting show where they were bystanders. The same will happen with support for the war in Belarus

[Kraft]

29 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

I personally think it's stupid that our command does not strike at the Machulichi airbase, from which strikes are regularly carried out against Kyiv. If they are afraid of Belarus joining the war, then in vain. Belarus has already been drawn into the war and the entry into the war of its troops is only a matter of time. In any case, our command has to keep significant forces on the border with Belarus to deter a possible attack. So the entry into the war of Belarus will not affect anything in terms of tactical alignment. Our forces are bound there and so

Support for the war in Russia fell after the strikes on Russian territory, as the Russians assumed that the war was a fun and interesting show where they were bystanders. The same will happen with support for the war in Belarus

Wouldn't that be a net loss though? Right now no equiptment and no lives are being lost on that front. If it went hot then ammo and the rest would have to be sent there as well, diluting the front with Russia for basically no gain as that airbase will continue to operate. Planes can be taken out just as well on Russian soil and maybe im judging it wrong but destroying 1 or 2 strategic bombers is nice, but will not prevent Russia from carrying out these attacks that have almost no military value.

 

Another problem would be western support, as many people in Europe would be far more afraid of a further escalation involving more and more countries, thus reducing help coming in for an increased front.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Kraft

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Right now no equiptment and no lives are being lost on that front.

If Russia had the strength to attack Kyiv again, it would. An attack on this front does not depend on Ukrainian shelling of the territory of Bellarusia, but on the presence of Russian combat-ready forces. I am sure that as soon as Russia accumulates enough forces to attack Kyiv, it will attack it. After all, not only our military and equipment will be destroyed, right?

How did the Ukrainian shelling of the Belgorod region and air bases in Russia affect the support of residents of Western countries? Belarus is the same participant in the war as Russia. Ukraine is attacked from its territory, an invasion was carried out from its territory.

We're not going to fire on quarters with civilians, but on a military base, right?

 

[kevinkin]

More speculation re: yesterday's deep strike:

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2022/12/explosions-russian-air-bases-may-change-several-nations-calculations/380521/

In 2014, Ukraine had some 68 of the decades-old Tu-144 drones, which function much more like a missile than a modern reconnaissance drone such as a Reaper. As Robert Beckhusen noted at the time, “With its powerful KR-17A turbojet, it zips over a target at a height of nearly 20,000 feet and a top speed of more than 600 miles per hour—all while snapping pictures.” The landing was choppy, requiring a parachute. Why land when you can crash?

Back in the day, that was considered real time intel by the Reds. Today, it's time on target with explosives for the Blues. Nice.

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, Fernando said:

I wouldn't trust that table at 100%. Just one example: The war "of Spanish Revolution" (the first time ever I have found the Spanish Civil War named that way) is close to 75 deaths x 100.000. However the world population in 1936 was about 2,1 billions. That means that according to above table total deaths during our Civil War were more than 1.5 million people, but total losses, military and civilian, are estimated at not much more  than 500.000 people, which is one third of the rate shown on the table. 

I don’t know where they pulled their data from but I have no doubt there are accuracy issues, especially the further back you get.  In reality this graphic is probably conservative as a I do not see the conquest of the Americas or Africa, which resulted in massive loss of life. The Holocaust is lowballed at about 4.4 million, depending on where one sticks the circle.

The point of course is not any one conflict but the reality that we have been doing war everywhere-all the time throughout history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

A lot of stuff here:

https://slides.ourworldindata.org/war-and-violence/#/title-slide

This from the Pinker school of decreasing violence over time, which could be the flip side argument that we are evolving away from war but I am not entirely sold as it relies a lot on deaths per capita, which is slippery.  Are we really more peaceful or has our population base accelerated faster than we can kill each other?  It also really only focuses on post-WW2 which is too short a period to determine if we are indeed becoming more peaceful or just pausing.  

As to “why do we count everything?”, well it is an attempt to understand our environment better through math I would guess. I mean democracy is founded on counting things in order to understand collective will better. We count deaths to try and avoid them in the future (e.g. COVID)- a human thing I suppose.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by The_Capt

[Kraft]

33 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

If Russia had the strength to attack Kyiv again, it would. An attack on this front does not depend on Ukrainian shelling of the territory of Bellarusia, but on the presence of Russian combat-ready forces. I am sure that as soon as Russia accumulates enough forces to attack Kyiv, it will attack it. After all, not only our military and equipment will be destroyed, right?

How did the Ukrainian shelling of the Belgorod region and air bases in Russia affect the support of residents of Western countries? Belarus is the same participant in the war as Russia. Ukraine is attacked from its territory, an invasion was carried out from its territory.

We're not going to fire on quarters with civilians, but on a military base, right?

 

Belarus would be fighting there, thry dont hace any offensive capabilities vut it would be a frozen front where soldiers die in daily shellings. And Russia cares little if Belarussian conscripts get fed to the grinder.

There was a poll done a while ago that showed that while "support" for Ukraine (as in: "Who do you support?") is high in Germany/France, supplying weapons into the conflict is another matter and Putins nuke threats had a noticable impact in reducing the latter as people fear to get involved.

Having the war expand would fuel exactly that fear that this is ww3 in the making and we shouldnt risk getting nuked, however unlikely that is.

Most people dont perceive Belarus an active participant. They allow Russians on their soil but are not fighting themselfs. Having that country join officially would make headlines everywhere and would not cause increased support..

Edited December 7, 2022 by Kraft

[Zeleban]

5 minutes ago, Kraft said:

frozen front where soldiers die in daily shellings

That is, you are saying that on the border with the Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions there are daily shellings, where Ukrainian soldiers die every day? Should convince you. Battered Ukrainian troops are being withdrawn to these areas to restore their combat capability. The Russians do not have the opportunity to bombard our entire border with artillery and at the same time storm Bakhmut.

Do you really think that Putin will use his main trump card - nuclear weapons in response to the shelling of Belarus? I am sure that even a full-scale invasion of the territory of Belarus by Ukrainian troops will in no way affect the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. This is the last resort, when the death of Russia becomes obvious to Putin.

[Beleg85]

4 hours ago, kraze said:

It's also helped by the fact that in western world you don't have the "luxury" of talking to belarussians

No offense mate, I live 40 kms from the border. Probably directly know more Belarussians than you do, and not only opposition ones. But of course you are entitled to your own opinion, which seems like traditionall mix of stereotypes, not adressing evidence contrary to your claims (election results, mass protests, low support for war, volunteers, pacification of society, heftly paid regime apparatus and bloody 40 k muscovite soldiers stationing in the country) + I'll of course soon hear next conspiration theory like the one with Russians supposedly "shooting down" PL presidential plane in 2010. With zero evidence to support it.

Of course you are right in a sense that large part of Belarussian population is indifferent, pre-political homo sovietici. Many are still enchanted by Luka propaganda, and he probably scores non-insignificant support just by playing protector against chaos raging around. Those stories of railway workers sabotaging Russian supplies lines seem also (largely) puffed with wishful thinking. But it s also a fact that active parts of society- quite unexpectedly even to themselves- did something to overthrow him, and almost succeeded. Lukashenka regime was saved mainly by Russian support and feeble reaction of the West/ China, which refused to heavily sanction Belarus as important transit country for their goods (again big thanks to Ms. Merkel and German business oligarchy- "the Spice must flow" like they say).

Just to compare- Maidan was also work of relatively narrow parts of society, and in 2014' Ukraine support for it was also by any means universal. So nobody force you to love Belarussians, especially considering harm done to Ukraine. However, turning the blind eye on all things put forward before is also not wise. All pro-demcratic changes must start somewhere, and Belarussian ones were not the worst, especially in comparision with Russians.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Beleg85

[Kraft]

1 hour ago, Zeleban said:

That is, you are saying that on the border with the Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions there are daily shellings, where Ukrainian soldiers die every day? Should convince you. Battered Ukrainian troops are being withdrawn to these areas to restore their combat capability. The Russians do not have the opportunity to bombard our entire border with artillery and at the same time storm Bakhmut.

Do you really think that Putin will use his main trump card - nuclear weapons in response to the shelling of Belarus? I am sure that even a full-scale invasion of the territory of Belarus by Ukrainian troops will in no way affect the use of nuclear weapons by Russia. This is the last resort, when the death of Russia becomes obvious to Putin.

What I think or dont think doesnt really matter neither does whether Belarus would have any implications militarily for the the publics perception, which is what matters, of people who do not follow this war closer than what major news outlets report on maybe a weekly basis about Ukraine.

When it is enough of a scare for people here to change their attitude about supplying weapons just because Putin said we shouldnt, what do you think happens when another Nation gets dragged into the war, seemingly by Ukraines actions because the average Joe doesnt know the fine details of its support of Russian invasion and considers it outside the conflict.

And for what? Destroying a few bombers that you can also destroy on a Russian airbase without any additional risk, is not worth it in my opinion.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Kraft

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Kraft said:

seemingly by Ukraines actions

By what actions exactly does Ukraine provoke shelling from the territory of Belarus?

 

Does Ukraine have the right to shell the territory of a third country in response to shelling of its territory by that country?

[Kraft]

49 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

By what actions exactly does Ukraine provoke shelling from the territory of Belarus?

 

Does Ukraine have the right to shell the territory of a third country in response to shelling of its territory by that country?

Please notice I wrote seemingly, this is not my opinion but what is generally thought. 

If it were up to me everything would be fair game and NATO would intervene but if you look at what is actually the case, it is even a debated topic whether or not Ukraine should step foot into Russia or stop at the border.. those are political constraints set simply because public opinion in the west matters for the level of support that can be given to Ukraine.

Back when the Mi choppers attacked Gas storage inside russia, or back when the Kerch bridge was hit, or the nazi daughter of that ru nat was killed, each time news channels here spoke of escalation and the Risks this brings with Russian retaliation etc, which influences people who do not care beyond those news and as you might see on western europes decisions, politicians are not sending everything they could because of the fear of escalation.

Dragging another country into this (even if it is already hybrid involved, but thats details) would fuel this thinking of people who wince when Putin talks about red lines, Nukes for the 100th time.

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Kraft

[Kinophile]

@Zeleban I don't think he's say Ukraine has no right,  of course it does.

Belarus stages Russian troops, trains, arms and feeds them, sends its ammo to kill Ukrainians in the Donbass and let's RUS war planes bomb from its airbases. We all know this and I'm pretty sure Lukashenko is very much on  Zaluzhny's To-Do List,  the one titled "Asshats To Squish". 

He's saying,  from a military-political POV that expanding the active fighting to another front, one thats geographically directly opposite to the main effort,  would have several very major implications:

- Splitting the logistics effort 

- Which implies diluting the Eastern front supply 

- Removing a valuable quiet prep/rest/refit/training area for UKR troops

- Confuse world media attention from the simple clear narrative of Ukraines defensive war against Horrible Orcs to (offensive)  War against Horrible Orcs...and Belarussians? Who have nominally not invaded?  

I personally do think bombing BRUS airbases is perfectly legit and makes Lukashenko vulnerable.

If anything, hitting the BRUS fuel supply infrastructure, causing nationwide civilian supply issues, would probably have a very strong negative impact on his support. This would require more RUS troops, a useful trade for cheap & easily run drone campaign. 

The trick is **** with Lukashenko without over-investing men/supply or activating the border into actual combat. 

[Zeleban]

3 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Back when the Mi choppers attacked Gas storage inside russia, or back when the Kerch bridge was hit, or the nazi daughter of that ru nat was killed, each time news channels here spoke of escalation and the Risks this brings with Russian retaliation etc

But despite this, support for Ukraine has not weakened, has it? Perhaps the military support of Ukraine is not so much dependent on public opinion? After all, there are other factors affecting the support of Ukraine by the West (political struggle, the interests of industrial giants and big business)

[Kinophile]

14 minutes ago, Kraft said:

 

Dragging another country into this (even if it is already hybrid involved, but thats details) would fuel this thinking of people who wince when Putin talks about red lines, Nukes for the 100th time.

 

Exactly. 

The vast, vast majority of Western populace know if this war from one liner headlines. 

They read RUSSIA INVADES UKRAINE and say oh noes, those mean Ivans.  Oh well.  Then they read UKRAINE ****S UP RUSSIA and they go Oh yay,  plucky Ukies!  Good on them,  I'll stick a UKR flag on my car. Here's some spare change. Yay me.  Then they read UKRAINE HITS RUSSIAN STRATEGIC NUCLEAR AIRBASE and they say Wait up, Nuclear?  Oh kayyy, ummmm.. Now,  if we add in UKRAINE HITS BELSRUSSIAN CITY (totally misrepresented) they say HOLD ON, WHO IS ATTACKING WHOM?  I'm confused!

Maddening. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by Kinophile

[Zeleban]

4 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

- Splitting the logistics effort 

- Which implies diluting the Eastern front supply 

But after all, Russia will also have to divide its forces and logistics, and this will certainly affect its offensive capabilities in the east. I have already said above that significant Ukrainian forces are already on the border with Belarus, they cannot take part in the battles in the east. So would it not be wiser to respond to the blows of the Russians? As practice shows, Russians understand the language of violence much better than any other existing

[Battlefront.com]

Not directly related to the war, but another example of Russia's continued importance to the far right movements around the world.  In this case German police busted a domestic far right terrorist organization, intent on toppling the German government, that was actively trying to get support from Russia.  One Russian was arrested along with two dozen others.

This should be a reminder to the West of why it is so important to knock Russia out completely.  The amount of trouble it causes, large and small, is cumulatively an enormous threat to the stability of democratic countries around the world.  Russia is as much of an exporter of misery as the Soviet Union was.  It would be very nice if that tradition came to an end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/world/europe/germany-coup-arrests.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20221207&instance_id=79523&nl=from-the-times&regi_id=77867169&segment_id=115251&te=1&user_id=06eb42ecc9056dd32ea63af0c30707b6

Steve

[Kinophile]

10 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

But after all, Russia will also have to divide its forces and logistics, and this will certainly affect its offensive capabilities in the east. I have already said above that significant Ukrainian forces are already on the border with Belarus, they cannot take part in the battles in the east. So would it not be wiser to respond to the blows of the Russians? As practice shows, Russians understand the language of violence much better than any other existing

I dunno,  Im not convinced that Ukraine has the bandwidth yet to activate another front, into actual ground combat I mean.  

Even a drone campaign would need to be careful, strictly targeted and working towards some later end state. But drones sent against Belarus are drones not sent against Russian forces in the East. That's for Z&Z to calculate. 

 

[FancyCat]

 

[Zeleban]

15 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I dunno,  Im not convinced that Ukraine has the bandwidth yet to activate another front, into actual ground combat I mean.  

Hey, I'm not suggesting a ground attack on Belarus, but only a retaliatory strike on the air base.

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Kraft said:

Please notice I wrote seemingly, this is not my opinion but what is generally thought. 

If it were up to me everything would be fair game and NATO would intervene but if you look at what is actually the case, it is even a debated topic whether or not Ukraine should step foot into Russia or stop at the border.. those are political constraints set simply because public opinion in the west matters for the level of support that can be given to Ukraine.

Back when the Mi choppers attacked Gas storage inside russia, or back when the Kerch bridge was hit, or the nazi daughter of that ru nat was killed, each time news channels here spoke of escalation and the Risks this brings with Russian retaliation etc, which influences people who do not care beyond those news and as you might see on western europes decisions, politicians are not sending everything they could because of the fear of escalation.

Dragging another country into this (even if it is already hybrid involved, but thats details) would fuel this thinking of people who wince when Putin talks about red lines, Nukes for the 100th time.

 

I think this discussion brings up a really good point that I hadn't fully realized to now.  We talk about how we manage escalation all the time in regards to Putin but forget there's another side to it -- managing public opinion.  And that may be a much bigger player in decisions than we generally recognize.  Keeping the citizens of allied countries in support of Ukraine is probably one of the biggest concerns for those leaders.  Kraft is on to something important here.

[Battlefront.com]

If Ukraine should decide to strike into Belarusian territory, I would fully support it.  Belarus is at war with Ukraine and has been since the start of this mess.  The fact that Belarusian forces haven't been directly involved, as far as we know, makes no difference.

Having said that, I support Ukraine's continued policy of *not* attacking Belarus.  It is the smart thing to do and I am pleased and impressed by the Ukrainian's intelligence, willpower, and discipline to keep this policy in place.  We don't see calls for attacking Belarus from the political establishment.  We don't see rogue commanders lobbing shells into Belarus.  Instead, we see Ukraine focusing everybody's attention on defeating Russia.

In my view, Ukraine is far better off not attacking Belarus than attacking.  At least since February 23rd through to today.  Circumstances can change at any minute that may require a change in policy.  And if that policy shift happens based on new circumstances, I will support it fully even if I think it isn't the right move.  This is Ukraine's decision to make, not anybody else's.

Steve

[Kinophile]

25 minutes ago, Zeleban said:

Hey, I'm not suggesting a ground attack on Belarus, but only a retaliatory strike on the air base.

Ah k, gotcha

[Kinophile]

https://newlinesmag.com/first-person/what-ukraine-means-for-lithuanians-haunted-by-soviet-past/

This is why Lithuania supports Ukraine,  its why Ukraine fights, they know full well what awaits them as an entire society if they let the Ivan win.