In reply to 02Pilot :
[Poland]: Inputs data in to their new Putin Justification Calculator.
"Yup, time to invade northern Ukraine, we must liberate our brethran!!!"
In reply to 02Pilot :
[Poland]: Inputs data in to their new Putin Justification Calculator.
"Yup, time to invade northern Ukraine, we must liberate our brethran!!!"
In reply to 02Pilot :
One thing this thread does quite well is point out how much I absolutely do not know about history.
Which is especially a shame in this case because my Polish Great Grandmother was married to my Lithuanian Great Grandfather. You would think that some of that history would get passed down...
Some updates:
Iran has supplied Russia with over 200 Fath-300 ballistic missiles, with a range of up to 112 km, according to The Times. This significantly enhances Russia's capability to strike Ukraine and may pave the way for supplying missiles with a longer range.
More drones for Russia:
Ukrainian forces conducted a large series of drone strikes in Russia on the night of September 9 to 10. The Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) claimed that Russian forces intercepted 144 Ukrainian drones in total, including 72 drones over Bryansk Oblast, 20 drones over Moscow Oblast, 14 drones over Kursk Oblast, 13 drones over Tula Oblast, eight drones over Belgorod Oblast, seven drones over Kaluga Oblast, five drones over Voronezh Oblast, four drones over Lipetsk Oblast, and one drone over Oryol Oblast.
Russia is counter attacking in Kursk. They appear to have captured at least a few small towns. Not sure if this represents the general halting of the Ukrainian advances in the area.
The situation in Pokrovsk continues to be a big concern for Ukraine. The Russians appear to have slowed a bit at least.
And... seemingly related to the sending of missiles by Iran, which will clearly be used to attack well within Ukraine, the US may be (likely be?) preparing to open up the use of ATACMS and cruise missiles within Russia. Is there, realistically, much of a difference here? If Iranian missiles are allowed to be shot at Kyiv (they are already doing it with Korean missiles), why would US and European missiles not be allowed to attack within Russia. Sadly, this type of escalation might be what is needed to bring Russia to the table. Count down to Russia threatening nuclear war again....
The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, gave his strongest hint yet that the White House is about to lift its restrictions on Ukraine using long-range weapons supplied by the west on key military targets inside Russia, with a decision understood to have already been made in private.
Speaking in Kyiv alongside the UK foreign secretary, David Lammy, Blinken said the US had “from day one” been willing to adapt its policy as the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine changed. “We will continue to do this,” he emphasised.
On the tech front, things are getting worse for the Russians:
Starting tomorrow, September 12, foreign services will cease operating in Russia due to U.S. Treasury sanctions prohibiting the supply of software and IT services to anyone in the country. Russian companies are already preparing their employees for the shutdown of services like Google, Figma, and Zoom. Back to the stone age.
Hungary Bill (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to 02Pilot :
One thing this thread does quite well is point out how much I absolutely do not know about history.
Which is especially a shame in this case because my Polish Great Grandmother was married to my Lithuanian Great Grandfather. You would think that some of that history would get passed down...
I only found out last year that my grandmother was fluent in Polish. She just never had anyone to speak with.
aircooled said:It is pretty amazing how creative humans can be when it comes to figuring out innovative ways to kill each other.
Fig. 2: The AC-47.
"Hey, I got an idea, let's stick some really high firing rate guns on a cargo plane, pointing SIDEWAYS, and we can just circle the area we want to shoot the hell out of"
Sssssssssssshocking!:
Kremlin warns of escalation if US allows Kyiv to hit Russia with long-range missiles
MOSCOW, Sept 11 (Reuters) - The Kremlin told the West on Wednesday that any decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russia with long-range Western missiles would deepen what it called the direct involvement of the U.S. and Europe in the war and would trigger a response from Moscow.
The warning came as senior Ukrainian government officials pressed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and British foreign minister David Lammy, on a joint visit to Kyiv, to allow Ukraine to fire long-range U.S. ATACMS missiles and British Storm Shadow cruise missiles at targets deep inside Russia.....
Let's see. What could be their appropriate response would be:
- Maybe attack Ukraine with long range weapons, including civilian infrastructure... nope, already doing that!
- Maybe get missiles from some other country, and attack Ukraine with those.... nope, already did that.... TWICE!
- Maybe invade Ukraine and rape a murder indiscriminantly.... crap! did that also!
Oh heck! Just go with nuclear fire again!
In reply to aircooled :
Not to be unduly alarmist, but consider the situation from the Russian perspective. There are a few things to consider. One, they may be trying to genuinely signal an escalation risk, rather than simply making empty threats; if we are not understanding their actual intent, or even considering alternative readings of their statements, there is a real possibility for things to go quickly out of control. Two, as you rightly point out, they have exercised a number of options already, and have a limited number of alternatives still available; again, if they have been conducting increasingly costly strikes against Ukraine as a proxy for a more direct approach to its external supporters, with the intent of demonstrating commitment, this lack of options could become quite dangerous, as Russia is clearly deeply committed to its efforts. Lacking conventional options, however brutal they might be, Russia could be forced into a binary choice between serious escalation and withdrawal - we should not take for granted that they will choose the latter option.
There is some good literature out there on misperception in international relations, and history suggests that leaders very often misunderstand motives and intentions of rival states, particularly in times of crisis. It is problematic to assume that we can know what drives Putin's decision-making, and as such, ensuring that offramps exist to defuse sudden escalation (intended or not) is a critical, but often overlooked, factor in maintaining the security environment.
02Pilot said:In reply to aircooled :
Not to be unduly alarmist, but consider the situation from the Russian perspective. There are a few things to consider. One, they may be trying to genuinely signal an escalation risk, rather than simply making empty threats; if we are not understanding their actual intent, or even considering alternative readings of their statements, there is a real possibility for things to go quickly out of control. Two, as you rightly point out, they have exercised a number of options already, and have a limited number of alternatives still available; again, if they have been conducting increasingly costly strikes against Ukraine as a proxy for a more direct approach to its external supporters, with the intent of demonstrating commitment, this lack of options could become quite dangerous, as Russia is clearly deeply committed to its efforts. Lacking conventional options, however brutal they might be, Russia could be forced into a binary choice between serious escalation and withdrawal - we should not take for granted that they will choose the latter option.
There is some good literature out there on misperception in international relations, and history suggests that leaders very often misunderstand motives and intentions of rival states, particularly in times of crisis. It is problematic to assume that we can know what drives Putin's decision-making, and as such, ensuring that offramps exist to defuse sudden escalation (intended or not) is a critical, but often overlooked, factor in maintaining the security environment.
Valid points. Desperate people do desperate things.
In reply to 02Pilot :
As a small counter point to that. As noted, at this point, Russia seems fully committed into the foreseeable future with the current situation and has not yet seemed to give a realistic negotiating position that might possibly result in an agreement.
Making things worse for them almost seems like the only way to encourage them to a more reasonable (negotiable) position.
As noted of course. Push too far too fast.... bad things could happen. Slowly turn up the heat on the frog though, and you could end up with frog soup, without any splashing....
The difficulty of interpretation seems to be almost entirely on Russia at this point though. The constant blustering and threats has certainly left many nations with little fear they will actually follow through and making actual concerns indistinguishable from the blustering.
How many morons would follow Putin off of the cliff?
Once again I'll preface this with: It's a good thing I don't control any foreign policy.
Russia is lobbing foreign-purchased long ranged missiles into Ukraine, but outraged that Ukraine "may be allowed" to do the same to them? THIS IS WAR, YOU DAFT BASTARDS!!!
If they don't want to be attacked, there is a very, very, VERY simple solution: get the berkeley out of Ukraine and cease all hostilities. Then you can draw any red line you want about being attacked. Until then shut up and sleep in the bed you made.
In reply to 02Pilot :
1. You may not be wrong, but if they want to genuinely signal an escalation risk, it would be a mistake for them to merely package it the same as their typical bluster. Is it possible that there is no 'boy who cried wolf' parable in Russian culture?
2. It sounds like Russia can neither afford to win nor lose the war right now, as it's the only thing preventing their economy from collapsing. At this point, their main option seems to be continuing to drag it out as long as possible.
Russian tank plant was/is on fire.
https://defence-blog.com/fire-breaks-out-at-russian-tank-plant-in-omsk/
“During repair work on the roof by a subcontractor, there was a localized fire in the roofing material. Fortunately, the fire did not affect the production process, and no one was injured,” a spokesperson for Omsktransmash reported.
It's true that the Russians are overly fond of bombastic displays. By national standards, Putin is actually fairly subdued, to wit:
But this is precisely my point. There may be issues of cross-cultural communication that result in misunderstandings - when a tourist struggles to order what he wants in a restaurant, it's funny; when leaders struggle to get their point across, it's dangerous. The lack of direct US-Russian communication at the highest levels does not help, and forces both sides to rely of public statements and actions, neither of which is an ideal mechanism for signaling intent.
As far as exerting pressure on Russia, I tend to favor a more asymmetric approach than simply upping the ante on the battlefield. Allowing Ukraine to blow up more stuff in Russia with Western weapons isn't going to win the war in any case, but it could lead to an escalation and/or expansion of the conflict, and it surely binds the US and EU to Ukraine in a way that ties Western hands and allows Ukraine to basically compel continued support indefinitely. Do we really want to give Ukraine the right to continue the war even if the US, EU, and Russia come to terms, or to allow them to prevent such an agreement being made in the first place? No matter how sympathetic one might be to Ukraine, turning over the reigns of policy to a foreign power is never a good idea.
I think the issue I see is what realistic ways do they have to escalate?
Putin has mostly ignored any potential off ramps so far. I think they only times they've tried to "negotiate" are when they were at a disadvantage, and Ukraine would justifiably be unwilling to freeze a conflict when they are taking back territory. Especially given the value of Russian promises lately.
I think he's trying to grab as much as he can before November at this point, and there is no chance of any "goodwill" negotiations until early 2025, and he has a better idea of the political winds coming from the US.
I know there's a lot of concern about the Balkanization of Russia if the invasion fails, but aside from the issue of securing nukes, I'm no longer certain this is as bad as the other potential outcome of a new pariah state almost six times the population of North Korea. I mean, it'd be nice if Putin gets deposed, and the new leadership yanks their troops back and decides to embrace diplomacy, but I kind of have my doubts that will happen.
In reply to eastsideTim :
It was a similar situation - a lack of options in a competition they felt they could not afford to lose or walk away from (Berlin) - that led the Soviets to put missiles in Cuba. Certainly, the Russians have made overtures to Venezuela and Brazil, are active in Africa, and have extensive intel networks around the world that could be mobilized to challenge the US and Europe (the only area that's probably off-limits to an extent is East Asia, where they won't want to step on Chinese toes). While I don't expect to see nuclear weapons deployed out-of-area, I can't rule it out. Aggressive hacking against US energy or communication nodes could be very problematic; I don't know much about European vulnerabilities here, but I'm sure there are exploitable weaknesses. The Russians have hunter-killer satellites shadowing key Western satellites, and are working on new technologies in this area - again, the potential for disruption is considerable. And of course they could shut off the gas taps to Europe this winter.
In reply to eastsideTim :
Part of me wonders if Putin surrounds himself with/encourages people who have even crazier ideas than his (like the guys who were saying that technically Poland and half of Germany are part of Russia, the Alaskan purchase was illegal and that land is still rightly Russia, etc) are a form of Alien face hugger self protection.
You don't dare remove him from power because the next guy might be worse. ("It has a wonderful protection mechanism... you don't dare kill it.")
Of course, this can also backfire spectacularly, if someone takes all that to heart and decides that Putin needs to go because he isn't hardline enough...
There is an entire Wikipedia entry about supposed Red Lines in this conflict:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
EDIT:
From April, after the Moscow terror attacks-Kremlin says Russia and NATO are now in "direct confrontation":
In reply to 02Pilot :
Realistically I would guess if the US does give more permissions inside Russia (strikes in the front line area near Kharkiv are already allowed) it would be with the restriction of only entirely military targets. Probably not allowing strikes on such things refineries. It was stated by the President they were "working on details" or something to that effect, so that may be what they are working out.
And now there is:
Putin said that the use of Western long-range precision weapons against Russia by Ukraine would signal direct NATO involvement in the war in Ukraine. He added that Ukraine uses data and intelligence from NATO countries to coordinate strikes because they don't have such data themselves.
Alright, who is going to tell him precision US weapons have already been used in Russia?
Per the BBC, Putin's statement in June:
At a meeting with the heads of international news agencies, he was asked: how would Russia react if Ukraine was given the opportunity to hit targets on Russian territory with weapons supplied by Europe?
“First, we will, of course, improve our air defence systems. We will be destroying their missiles,” President Putin replied.
“Second, we believe that if someone is thinking it is possible to supply such weapons to a war zone to strike our territory and create problems for us, why can’t we supply our weapons of the same class to those regions around the world where they will target sensitive facilities of the countries that are doing this to Russia?”
I would think that something of this sort would be likely. Of the states where Russia has influence, Venezuela would be a preferred option, though instability there is problematic, as are some African states that would create a new threat vector for Europe. Iran would be a willing partner, though Russia's relationship with Israel would suffer as a consequence; I'm not sure that is something they're willing to risk at this time.
Supplying weapons to other countries while they are in a war right now seems like a bad idea, so maybe they'd actually do it. Haven't they already delayed sending arms to India, so they could use them instead?
That is a good point. The weapons that would be of most concern would be cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and those are obviously in very short supply in Russia (thus them needing to buy ballistic missiles from Iran and NK).
Now, you could start talking about nukes, but that seems a bit extreme, even for the Russians, and fraught will all sorts of complications. As far as helping Iran with theirs, they clearly have issues with ISIS types and Iran tends to travel in those circles a bit.
To O2's point though, it is very important to make sure the steps are gradual enough to not essentially require a significant response. E.g. if the US went weapons free and the Ukrainians got frustrated and put some Storm Shadows into the Kremlin (it is in range).
If Putin truly believes Russia is at war with NATO, what is he going to do, exactly? Does he send tanks through the gap? Does he launch the nukes as a first strike? Does he fire a tactical nuke at Kiev?
Does Russia win in any of those scenarios?
Saying that Russia is at war with NATO feels like justification for greater domestic control to enable him to hang on to power for longer. I think his winning hand remains a change of administration in the US and portions of Europe...and that is less of a possibility than it was a few months ago.
CrustyRedXpress said:If Putin truly believes Russia is at war with NATO, what is he going to do, exactly? Does he send tanks through the gap? Does he launch the nukes as a first strike? Does he fire a tactical nuke at Kiev?
Does Russia win in any of those scenarios?
Saying that Russia is at war with NATO feels like justification for greater domestic control to enable him to hang on to power for longer. I think his winning hand remains a change of administration in the US and portions of Europe...and that is less of a possibility than it was a few months ago.
Where has Putin said Russia is "at war" with anyone? Ukraine is a "special military operation"; Russia is in a "direct confrontation" with the West.
This is precisely what I mean about misinterpretation. If Putin said explicitly that "action X will result in war between Russia and the West", you can bet that things will go sideways if action X is taken. But his words have been chosen very carefully throughout this situation, leaving possibilities open and as much ambiguity as he can, keeping the West guessing to maintain maximum policy flexibility.
02Pilot said:Where has Putin said Russia is "at war" with anyone? Ukraine is a "special military operation"; Russia is in a "direct confrontation" with the West.
This is precisely what I mean about misinterpretation. [snip]
Totally fair point! However, his latest warning explicitly uses the term war, and says that Russia will be at war with NATO if the restrictions on ranged weapons are lifted.
Link here to English translation via CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/12/europe/putin-warns-nato-missiles-hnk-latam-intl/index.html
So what specifically does Putin do if he wakes up on Monday and those restrictions are lifted? Related question-how do those actions change the balance of power in Ukraine and allow Russia to achieve it's goals?
Thanks as always for entertaining our questions. I really enjoy reading your analysis as A.) This is your profession and your expertise is obvious and B.) You make me reconsider my own opinions
You'll need to log in to post.
