History in the Making: Russian Invasion

Nick Comstock said:

yupididit said:

In reply to wae :

Yeah I think Russia is fighting-lite right now. I know if they HAVE to they'll stop pulling punches. We don't want to see that for Ukraine or the rest of the world. 

With the long buildup to the invasion I wonder why they decided to play it this way? What strategic advantage does it give? Or did they just underestimate the resolve of the Ukrainians? 

So many questions. 

Are they a paper tiger or a boa constrictor? I guess time will tell. I am not sure if we have enough reliable information to know for sure.

Nick Comstock said:

yupididit said:

In reply to wae :

Yeah I think Russia is fighting-lite right now. I know if they HAVE to they'll stop pulling punches. We don't want to see that for Ukraine or the rest of the world. 

With the long buildup to the invasion I wonder why they decided to play it this way? What strategic advantage does it give? Or did they just underestimate the resolve of the Ukrainians? 

So many questions. 

Severe underestimation of Ukraine and international sanctions is the only thing I can think of.  Logistics decisions (or lack therof) seem to back that up.

I've seen quotes that they've already committed 1/4-1/3 of their armored forces to fighting Ukraine.

In reply to Nick Comstock :

Maybe they assumed Ukrainians would roll over after a week or so lol. I don't know why they'd think that though. Those PMC's over there are no slouches and know how to draw things out if they need to. 

Mr_Asa said:

Nick Comstock said:

yupididit said:

In reply to wae :

Yeah I think Russia is fighting-lite right now. I know if they HAVE to they'll stop pulling punches. We don't want to see that for Ukraine or the rest of the world. 

With the long buildup to the invasion I wonder why they decided to play it this way? What strategic advantage does it give? Or did they just underestimate the resolve of the Ukrainians? 

So many questions. 

Severe underestimation of Ukraine and international sanctions is the only thing I can think of.  Logistics decisions (or lack therof) seem to back that up.

I've seen quotes that they've already committed 1/4-1/3 of their armored forces to fighting Ukraine.

That's what I've heard as well. On one hand it's hard to imagine a superpower like Russia not able to take Ukraine easily, on the other it's maybe a reality that war stinks and taking a country by force without completely leveling it is really hard. It really hasn't happened since we left Iraq, and Iraq is bush league compared to Ukraine, with troops begging to surrender.

In reply to Mr_Asa :

The conclusion I have drawn is that they are using the B-Team conscripts as cannon fodder.

Send in the clowns. Let them create chaos on both sides. The Ukrainians will be feeling pretty good about their effort right about now. Then bring in the real Russian army and start the scorched earth policy. There is no worse feeling for a defender than to see that what they thought was the worst, turn out to be a warm-up for the real deal. Ultimately, Ukrain is not a NATO country, so Putin can drop a nuke  on them without fear of reprisal from the rest of the world; he has already invaded a sovereign nation and all the world had offered is "hopes and prayers", so HOW he continues the invasion is not going to change anything.  Not like Chernobyl was not already a nuclear disaster and nobody gives that a second thought anymore.

In reply to tuna55 :

"We left Iraq" LoL.

racerfink said:

So, in the midst of the third largest oil producer being involved in an invasion, sending oil prices sky high, we halt new oil leases? If we get involved, who do you think gets priority for the oil we have on hand?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-halts-oil-gas-leases-as-oil-prices-skyrocket-at-home

We made sure to buy our nearly 600,000 barrels from those invaders today though, along with most European NATO countries buying too.

Near as I can tell, this isn't political.  It's fact.  The link happens to name the current US president by name, though, so I guess that's taboo? 

I have not seen anything contradicting the fact that the US has been importing oil from Russia, thus financing, in a pretty direct way, the Russians' current military actions. 

I think they wanted to take Ukraine as intact as possible, and have it add to the Russian economy.  Leveling it and trying to rebuild it would be a net negative.

Now that that plan seems to have failed, it seems it is anybody's guess as to how far Putin will take this.

NOHOME said:

Ultimately, Ukrain is not a NATO country, so Putin can drop a nuke  on them without fear of reprisal from the rest of the world

LOL.

I was with you on the idea of sending in the B, or even C or D squad to get Ukraine to waste resources and maybe get them where Russia wants tactically, but this comment... man.

No.

volvoclearinghouse said:

racerfink said:

So, in the midst of the third largest oil producer being involved in an invasion, sending oil prices sky high, we halt new oil leases? If we get involved, who do you think gets priority for the oil we have on hand?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-halts-oil-gas-leases-as-oil-prices-skyrocket-at-home

We made sure to buy our nearly 600,000 barrels from those invaders today though, along with most European NATO countries buying too.

Near as I can tell, this isn't political.  It's fact.  The link happens to name the current US president by name, though, so I guess that's taboo? 

I have not seen anything contradicting the fact that the US has been importing oil from Russia, thus financing, in a pretty direct way, the Russians' current military actions. 

Article spends the entire time talking about domestic decisions and opinions of differing parties.  Mentions Russia in the last paragraph and as a throwaway note.

Coupled with follow up posts, political.

Nick Comstock said:

yupididit said:

In reply to wae :

Yeah I think Russia is fighting-lite right now. I know if they HAVE to they'll stop pulling punches. We don't want to see that for Ukraine or the rest of the world. 

With the long buildup to the invasion I wonder why they decided to play it this way? What strategic advantage does it give? Or did they just underestimate the resolve of the Ukrainians? 

because Pootin is KGB and they're berkeleying with us. Giving us a false sense of encouragement over success of resistance.

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

I didn't see it that way either, and "the artist formally know as... I mean currently warship " jumped the gun calling him on it. But he did it politely, and racer decided to take it farther... not acceptable. 

yupididit said:

In reply to tuna55 :

"We left Iraq" LoL.

Just to be clear, I meant 1991, but I get the point.

NOHOME said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

The conclusion I have drawn is that they are using the B-Team conscripts as cannon fodder.

Send in the clowns. Let them create chaos on both sides. The Ukrainians will be feeling pretty good about their effort right about now. Then bring in the real Russian army and start the scorched earth policy. There is no worse feeling for a defender than to see that what they thought was the worst, turn out to be a warm-up for the real deal. Ultimately, Ukrain is not a NATO country, so Putin can drop a nuke  on them without fear of reprisal from the rest of the world; he has already invaded a sovereign nation and all the world had offered is "hopes and prayers", so HOW he continues the invasion is not going to change anything.  Not like Chernobyl was not already a nuclear disaster and nobody gives that a second thought anymore.

I doubt there wouldn't be serious reprisals from the west if Putin nuked Ukraine.

I think people have seriously over estimated the military might of Russia. I mean there spending is less then a 10th of ours and you consider they do all their own R&D ($$$) and the corruption in Russia means I bet a decent amount disappears off the top. It seems like they have spent lots of that money on R&D of showpieces of military technology but they do not have enough in operation to actually make a difference. My understanding is they only have 10 Su-57s their 5th gen fight and only 100 of the T-14 main battle tank. And there is serious wonder if they will ever be able produce these in mass. Plus they have to try to maintain all their current arsenal. They have some well trained troops but the vast majority of Russian troops are conscripts that are poorly trained and poorly lead.

NOHOME said:   ... Not like Chernobyl was not already a nuclear disaster and nobody gives that a second thought anymore.

Europe gives a second thought about Chernobyl. A new containment system was built for the main reactor site, completed in 2019 at a cost of about €2.1 billion. (A couple years ago a "billion" was a big number.) War could easily damage the containment system and make a significant hazard. Currently the war is disturbing a lot of contaminated soil, but the radiation level is still considered "below harmful levels". 

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

eastsideTim said:

I think they wanted to take Ukraine as intact as possible, and have it add to the Russian economy.  Leveling it and trying to rebuild it would be a net negative.

Now that that plan seems to have failed, it seems it is anybody's guess as to how far Putin will take this.

This seems like a decent interpretation, but we're all rational people trying to tease out the next actions of an irrational man in a weird situation.

93EXCivic said:

NOHOME said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

The conclusion I have drawn is that they are using the B-Team conscripts as cannon fodder.

Send in the clowns. Let them create chaos on both sides. The Ukrainians will be feeling pretty good about their effort right about now. Then bring in the real Russian army and start the scorched earth policy. There is no worse feeling for a defender than to see that what they thought was the worst, turn out to be a warm-up for the real deal. Ultimately, Ukrain is not a NATO country, so Putin can drop a nuke  on them without fear of reprisal from the rest of the world; he has already invaded a sovereign nation and all the world had offered is "hopes and prayers", so HOW he continues the invasion is not going to change anything.  Not like Chernobyl was not already a nuclear disaster and nobody gives that a second thought anymore.

I doubt there wouldn't be serious reprisals from the west if Putin nuked Ukraine.

I think people have seriously over estimated the military might of Russia. I mean there spending is less then a 10th of ours and you consider they do all their own R&D ($$$) and the corruption in Russia means I bet a decent amount disappears off the top. It seems like they have spent lots of that money on R&D of showpieces of military technology but they do not have enough in operation to actually make a difference. My understanding is they only have 10 Su-57s their 5th gen fight and only 100 of the T-14 main battle tank. And there is serious wonder if they will ever be able produce these in mass. Plus they have to try to maintain all their current arsenal. They have some well trained troops but the vast majority of Russian troops are conscripts that are poorly trained and poorly lead.

Also a decent interpretation. I hope this one is more correct. Either one could lead to "F it, let's use the nukes", though perhaps those won't work either, or perhaps nobody will hit the button if Putin tells them to.

AngryCorvair (Forum Supporter) said:

Nick Comstock said:

yupididit said:

In reply to wae :

Yeah I think Russia is fighting-lite right now. I know if they HAVE to they'll stop pulling punches. We don't want to see that for Ukraine or the rest of the world. 

With the long buildup to the invasion I wonder why they decided to play it this way? What strategic advantage does it give? Or did they just underestimate the resolve of the Ukrainians? 

because Pootin is KGB and they're berkeleying with us. Giving us a false sense of encouragement over success of resistance.

That makes zero sense. You are expending resources (money, equipment, troops) you have a finite number of for a supposed advantage later? Plus soldiers coming back in body bags, scenes of your soldiers getting killed in battle never play well at home and can lead to citizens and politicians turning on you. Yes Putin has a strong grip on the country but at some point the sharks smell blood in the water.

In reply to Mr_Asa :

Understood.  I didn't click on the article, I figured the title/ link pretty much said all I needed to know. 

I do think this is important in context of understanding the war in Ukraine, though I understand the inherently political nature of it.  Just to be clear, I think it's an issue everyone in the U.S. owns, not just one party.  Energy independence is a laudable goal, and that takes many forms.  Initially, it means developing stable, reliable sources for the energy currently needed.  Long term, it means developing future energy sources that are more sustainable and less impactful on the environment. 

Unfortunately this gets reduced to the irresolvable dichotomy of "drill, baby, drill!" and "Green New Deal". 

volvoclearinghouse said:

racerfink said:

So, in the midst of the third largest oil producer being involved in an invasion, sending oil prices sky high, we halt new oil leases? If we get involved, who do you think gets priority for the oil we have on hand?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-halts-oil-gas-leases-as-oil-prices-skyrocket-at-home

We made sure to buy our nearly 600,000 barrels from those invaders today though, along with most European NATO countries buying too.

Near as I can tell, this isn't political.  It's fact.  The link happens to name the current US president by name, though, so I guess that's taboo? 

I have not seen anything contradicting the fact that the US has been importing oil from Russia, thus financing, in a pretty direct way, the Russians' current military actions. 

"Halting Oil Leases" is a bit of a red-herring. Oil companies already have more land under "lease" than they could exploit for the next ten years.  Bigger question is why have the oil companies not used the land they have and yet beg for more?

Not a question we can debate without getting Jimmy Hoffa'd by the Mods.

Lets get back to discussing the murdering  of innocent civilians in the name of powerful populist leaders!

I keep seeing videos on Twitter of barbecued Russian convoys. I'd guess it is hard to move a bunch of slow military trucks without every intelligence agency in the world knowing the exact position.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

Disturbingly, there may not be many body bags going back to Russia. I read somewhere that the Russian Army has mobile crematoriums that could be used to cover up their level of casualties.

Just as a side note, the new Chernobyl containment system is pretty fascinating from an engineering point of view. I caught a doc on TV about it a couple of years ago.

As for the good news we are getting so far, I posted something similar on another forum, but I think we need to be a bit cautious. First off, we and most of the rest of the world are rooting for the Ukrainians to put up a good fight. Confirmation bias causes us to seek out stories where they are, and search engine optimization and news agencies that live on clicks and views make sure we see more of these positive stories. We all have our biases, and the internet is very good at reinforcing them these days.

But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Ukrainian government, to the extent that it can control the messages coming out of the country, has a strong incentive to make it look like things are going well for them. They want the world to help them, but if everyone thinks it's a lost cause, who is going to offer their valuable money, supplies or even people? Remember, in the US revolution, France didn't join the war on the American side until we demonstrated that we could beat the British at Saratoga.

So, while I'm glad that Russians seem to be having a tough time of it, I'm keeping a grain of salt handy, just in case.

93EXCivic said:

Yes Putin has a strong grip on the country but at some point the sharks smell blood in the water.

A couple Russian oligarchs have come out this morning against the war.  Maybe the sanctions and financial restrictions will make a difference.

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Mr_Asa :

Understood.  I didn't click on the article, I figured the title/ link pretty much said all I needed to know. 

I do think this is important in context of understanding the war in Ukraine, though I understand the inherently political nature of it.  Just to be clear, I think it's an issue everyone in the U.S. owns, not just one party.  Energy independence is a laudable goal, and that takes many forms.  Initially, it means developing stable, reliable sources for the energy currently needed.  Long term, it means developing future energy sources that are more sustainable and less impactful on the environment. 

Unfortunately this gets reduced to the irresolvable dichotomy of "drill, baby, drill!" and "Green New Deal". 

I'll agree with that.  It 100% is an issue that should be apolitical as everyone lives here.  In a more rational world we'd follow Germany's lead and use this opportunity to accelerate getting off of non-renewable resources; saw an article today that they are planning on cutting their dependence on fossil fuels from 2040 to 2035.