How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Billy Ringo]

Just because Russian nukes are in Belarus doesn't mean that Belarus has the ability to use them.  Highly doubt Putin gave Lukashenko the keys.

[Letter from Prague]

Russian nukes being in a country also doesn't seem to prevent Ukraine from hitting that country with missiles, drones or even invading it. Case in point: Russia.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

AFU would need to encircle Leningrad so Russians would finally notice.

Yeah, but Muscovites probably wouldn't care

Steve

[Eug85]

14 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Russian nuclear weapons are also deployed at Briansk and Belgorod, and one site (Belgorod-22 was within a few Km of Ukraine's "free Russian" attack into Belgorod in 2023). So I'm not sure that there's any real deterrent effect to them being deployed in Belarus either, as long as everyone is very clear that they are not targeting Russia's nuclear weapons (and that really Russia ought to move them in the event of an attack on Belarus).

We all understand perfectly well that NATO troops will not invade Belarus as long as Putin's nuclear weapons are there. Otherwise, the US will go crazy over the risk of a nuclear war. So just forget about Polish mechanized columns driving through Belarus

[Centurian52]

32 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't know exactly how much leverage Putin has over Lukashenko, but as far as I understand it, his power (and life probably) depends on Putin staying in power.

As for how much military threat he could pose, if he deploys 20,000 men in an offensive posture on the border, Ukraine will at least have to redeploy some kind of units to fight them off if they invade. And they probably don't have that much to spare these days.

Belarus probably does Putin more good by having troops at the border in an offensive posture, tying down some Ukrainian units to keep an eye on them just in case they attack, than they would do by actually attacking. 

[Centurian52]

3 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

We all understand perfectly well that NATO troops will not invade Belarus as long as Putin's nuclear weapons are there. Otherwise, the US will go crazy over the risk of a nuclear war. So just forget about Polish mechanized columns driving through Belarus

I really don't think Russia's nukes are a deciding factor here. NATO troops will not invade Belarus unless Belarus attacks NATO first. If Belarus does attack NATO first, Russia's nukes won't help them.

[Sequoia]

What's the latest on how Belarus is keeping the widespread protests such as they had before the war down?

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, Centurian52 said:

I really don't think Russia's nukes are a deciding factor here. NATO troops will not invade Belarus unless Belarus attacks NATO first. If Belarus does attack NATO first, Russia's nukes won't help them.

Exactly.  The only threat NATO poses to Belarus is if Belarus does something to a NATO country first.  It could have no nukes or a billion, the equation is unchanged.

The Belarus charade has come up more times than I can count, but interestingly not for quite some time.  It seems to correspond to times when Russia is desperate to cause some sort of distraction because its own operations aren't going well.  I doubt very much that this time is any different.

The truth is that Russia needs Belarus intact.  Having it go into turmoil (again) because of a stupid, pointless military adventure into Ukraine is very much against Russia's interests.  IMHO this is why we haven't seen such an attack since the war started.  It's not because Russia lacks sway over Belarus, it's exactly because Russia controls Belarus.

Steve

[Eug85]

18 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I really don't think Russia's nukes are a deciding factor here. NATO troops will not invade Belarus unless Belarus attacks NATO first. If Belarus does attack NATO first, Russia's nukes won't help them.

Are NATO forces preparing to invade Belarus or Russia? Are invasion plans developed at NATO headquarters? I highly doubt it. It is scary to imagine what a scandal would break out in the press, if independent journalists found out about such a plan, and such an outcome is quite likely, given the number of pro-Russian officials in European countries. Therefore, NATO's strategy in a possible war with Russia, in my opinion, will consist of containing Russia and its allies, without invading the territories of these countries.

[MikeyD]

I genuinely doubt Belarus has enough artillery shells or small arms ammo left to cause harm. Russia had been 'transferring' ammo stocks out of the country for awhile. I expect they depleted Belarus's stockpiles before turning to North Korea.

[FancyCat]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/ukraine-offensive-kursk-russia

Ukraine has been very keen on establishing that this Kursk offensive was undertaken without U.S approval, or foreknowledge. Whether or not that is true, well tbh, i have no idea. On one hand, I assume U.S ISR can and do monitor how Ukraine is doing, but most sources say that U.S target data is not provided to Ukraine on targets outside of occupied Ukraine, and Biden's National Security Council has been established as both leaky and cautious. 

Pleased to see that the UK remains delighted in stabbing Russia. 

[FancyCat]

 

Quote

Zelensky confirms what @FT & other western news orgs reported at start of Ukraine's Kursk operation: that Kyiv didn't notify western partners in advance. He says because they "would have said that it was unrealistic and it crossed Russia’s main red line."

 

[Centurian52]

2 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

 

 

Hopefully this demonstrates to the west that Russia's red lines are just rhetoric.

[Centurian52]

2 hours ago, Eug85 said:

Are NATO forces preparing to invade Belarus or Russia? Are invasion plans developed at NATO headquarters? I highly doubt it. It is scary to imagine what a scandal would break out in the press, if independent journalists found out about such a plan, and such an outcome is quite likely, given the number of pro-Russian officials in European countries. Therefore, NATO's strategy in a possible war with Russia, in my opinion, will consist of containing Russia and its allies, without invading the territories of these countries.

NATO wasn't preparing to invade Belarus before Russia's nukes were deployed there. Nothing has changed.

Edited August 19 by Centurian52

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, but Muscovites probably wouldn't care

Steve

That would be entirely possible outcome.

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The truth is that Russia needs Belarus intact. 

+China. We already see their fingers in many places there.

This time Ms. Stanovaya is on point with her summary, roguhly in line what we are discussing in last days here:

 

Edited August 19 by Beleg85

[hcrof]

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, hcrof said:

 

 

Too funny!

Steve

[Fenris]

I very much doubt there will be a widening of the conflict.  Lukashenko will not commit to anything more than posturing.  And stop with the Polish mechanized forces driving on anything, that's pure boneheaded fantasy.

Re not telling western partners - well, they wanted to retain opsec not read all about it in the WSJ from unnamed sources in the Pentagon.

 

[Fenris]

That's a big fire, check the clip in the second post.

Quote

#Proletarsk , Rostov region, 08/18/24: - attack: in progress; - debris: falling; - oil depot: catching fire; - train: arriving

 

Edited August 19 by Fenris

[Fenris]

End of this clip looks very similar to that bunker complex taken early on in Kursk.

Aftermath of taking bunker in this clip.  I'll just link it, is all corpses.  Is strange, they look burned but their gear isn't and the surrounding timber isn't particularly blackened.

Quote

A position near Oleshnya in the Kursk region is filled with casualties from the 488th Motor Rifle Regiment. Oleshnya was captured during the initial stages of the Kursk operation.

https://x.com/i/status/1825633922543182249

Edited August 19 by Fenris

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Hopefully this demonstrates to the west that Russia's red lines are just rhetoric.

Until they are not.  Wanna try NATO airstrikes into Russia?  NATO control of the Black Sea? How about direct NATO strikes on Moscow?  Hell, lets send in US and Western troops...Russia has no red lines apparently.

In fact this report is not good news at all.  It means there is daylight in the risk calculus between the US and Ukraine...not good.  The main reason is that the US likely knows what is going on inside Russia better than Ukraine.  This is not the first time the UA has played a bit fast and loose.  The fact they did so without US buy in is not a good thing, it is dangerous.

[FancyCat]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Until they are not.  Wanna try NATO airstrikes into Russia?  NATO control of the Black Sea? How about direct NATO strikes on Moscow?  Hell, lets send in US and Western troops...Russia has no red lines apparently.

In fact this report is not good news at all.  It means there is daylight in the risk calculus between the US and Ukraine...not good.  The main reason is that the US likely knows what is going on inside Russia better than Ukraine.  This is not the first time the UA has played a bit fast and loose.  The fact they did so without US buy in is not a good thing, it is dangerous.

The West spills out classified info like a leaky faucet. Not even Zelensky's Chief of Staff Yermak knew of Kursk.

https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/08/18/russias-double-punch-back-against-ukraines-shock-raid

Besides, considering the West has maintained a position that Ukraine is the lead in negotiations with Russia, and which Russia refuses to acknowledge, any actions that forward that position is essential for kicking in Russia's delusion/calculation about the conflict.   

Quote

Rumours circulated that General Syrsky was on the verge of being dismissed, with attack dogs associated with Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s all-powerful chief of staff, even suggesting he had been “lying” to his bosses.

General Syrsky kept his plans under wraps, sharing them only with a tight group of generals and security officials. He spoke to the president on a one-on-one basis, without his staff. The army’s intelligence did much of the reconnaissance, rather than leaving it to HUR, Ukraine’s military intelligence agency, which was included only at a late stage.

Western allies were also deliberately left in the dark, claims the source. “Syrsky had two previous operations undermined by the West. One was leaked to the Russians, and on another occasion, we were instructed to abort.” Limiting communication to a need-to-know basis enabled the Ukrainians to launch their attack before the Russians grasped what was happening. “They realised something was afoot but likely assumed we would need American approval for such a daring operation.” Having been presented with a fait accompli the West did not object.

 

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Wanna try NATO airstrikes into Russia?  NATO control of the Black Sea? How about direct NATO strikes on Moscow?

I think it is extremely unlikely that Russia would go nuclear in response to any of these actions. You need to think a bit bigger if you want an example that might actually trigger a nuclear response. A full scale NATO ground invasion of Russia, in which NATO forces got close to actually physically capturing Moscow, would likely trigger a nuclear response. NATO strikes against Russia's nuclear infrastructure that threatened the existence of their nuclear deterrent would likely trigger a nuclear response. But just conducting airstrikes against Russia (even against Moscow), or gaining control of the Black Sea, would not. 

The notion that the Russians will go nuclear in response to every new aid package, or in response to us allowing the Ukrainians to use Storm Shadow or ATACMS against targets in Russian territory, is frankly absurd. When the Russians make claims to the contrary, they are lying. We can either call Russia's bluff, or we can create a world in which dictators can get away with absolutely anything they want by using nuclear blackmail. That would be an extremely dangerous world to live in, so I think it's pretty vital that we put our foot down right now.

Edited August 20 by Centurian52

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Until they are not.  Wanna try NATO airstrikes into Russia?  NATO control of the Black Sea? How about direct NATO strikes on Moscow?  Hell, lets send in US and Western troops...Russia has no red lines apparently.

In fact this report is not good news at all.  It means there is daylight in the risk calculus between the US and Ukraine...not good.  The main reason is that the US likely knows what is going on inside Russia better than Ukraine.  This is not the first time the UA has played a bit fast and loose.  The fact they did so without US buy in is not a good thing, it is dangerous.

Color me somewhat skeptical about all of this for a few reasons: 

1. Are we really buying that the US is leaking plans while an often badly penetrated Ukraine is not as much or more? 

2. Do we really think that the targeting and ISR analytics available to the Pentagon didn't pick up preparations? 

Let me suggest that perhaps there are some powerful reasons for Ukraine's government to justify earlier failures.  That there are powerful reasons for the US to be able to deny responsibility for actions Ukraine takes. That this is much as or even more a political offensive than a military one with goals both domestic, towards Moscow and internationally.

[Kinophile]

Taking bets -

How many days until Zelensky is doing a photo op with the 82/80th in Sudzha, as the President of Ukraine, balls deep in Russian territory?

Me - within two weeks.