Nobody interested in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Post Reply New Topic

A bridge between Melitopol and Konstantinivka has been blown up and Russian sources claim Ukrainians are amassing forces around Hulaipole.

What I think the plan is: Ukrainians are preparing for a big strike (probably also waiting for the ground to freeze well, so heavy equipment can move off-road) in an area between Tokmak-Melitopol-Berdiansk-Hulaipole, to reach the shores of Black Sea and secure the frontlines both East and West of it, likely using rivers (so it's unlikely they would reach e.g. Mariupol, they'll probably stop just East of Berdiansk). It will be a difficult, costly operation, so I think they will take their time to prepare and wait for the perfect weather.

Then, between Dnipro River and Crimea, there will come a situation very similar to what was in Kherson - a big group of Russian army connected to any supplies by just one bridge and one road (mainland-Crimea connection). And, just like around Kherson, they will hold the frontlines while waiting until Russians run out of ammo and retreat.

My husband asked me if I believe Russians don't know what I know. I believe there are Russians who know all I do (I make my predictions only based on publicly available data) and much more but they struggle to be heard in the Russian chain-of-command.
It's not a problem with lack od smart people (doing science, I've met plenty of smart Russians), it's a problem with smart people not influencing the decision-making process enough.

So I expect Russians to prepare some half-hearted defenses against the scenario I'm describing but to keep their main forces storming Bakhmut and destroying the power grid because propaganda-driven goals take priority.

There`s an interesting video :

Douglas Magcregor and Michael Vlahos are independent western experts. They seem to have a contrarian view of Ukrainian victory. I have no idea if what they are saying is true, but maybe we`ll soon find out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhA1yofpkMg

^ Again blaming USA for "agressive" expansion of NATO and ignoring the states actually involved. Do these guys know what the word "agression" means?
Again ignoring that East Eurpean states don't want their destinies decided above their heads and against their will.

More comments when I hear more.

Nope, sorry, I just can't. "Why NATO failed?" - wut? NATO is here right now, protecting me from being the next target! It is working and working hard at the moment, or else the Suwałki Gap would have been attacked long ago!

This polite conversation is all based on some alternative reality, first 5 minutes was enough. They keep taking false statements for granted from the very start.

Using the term "special military operation" for this invasion? "Putin's efforts to talk us to understanding have failed"? To talk whom to understand what? What about efforts to talk Putin to understand and respect Ukrainian souvereignty? Or even understand Ukrainians are a nation?

Man. That video is pure Russian propaganda in very elegant English.
The center of it: completely ignoring that Ukrainian war is all about Ukraine and Ukrainian people.

You can’t blame Ukraine for using “all means necessary” to defend itself.

Russian bombs are depriving millions of electricity. What does one want Ukraine to do? Just turn the other cheek?

I recently saw an analysis on initial plans of both Russians and Ukrainians, what succeeded, what didn't go according to the plan, what we don't know.
Russians seem to have genuinely believed in what they talked about a "failed state" and "not a nation", predicting a collapse and disintegration of Ukrainian state and society, so they could enter the vacuum with their puppet "leaders".
It didn't happen.
There were at least three major treasons that allowed Russian army to proceed without fights, but everywhere else defenses - some planned, some organized ad-hoc - did their best. Sure, there was plenty of chaos, but the state survived, Zelensky choosing to stay in Kyiv likely greatly contributing to it. The society did not disintegrate, to the contrary, with some sadly inevitable exceptions, it consolidated a lot under a common threat.

I believe it does prove something.
I believe it proves how Putin does not understand what Ukraine is.

Don't forget about the "Cossack spirit." Talk about "intergenerational" sorts of situations. Of course, there were Russian Cossacks and Ukrainian Cossacks-----but all were independent in spirit, and scornful of the Russian state.

The first thing to bear in mind is these are Americans talking from their perspective as being at the top of the command structure looking down. The observation is going to be different from a UK or Polish point of view in terms of how they see things and what they want.

He`s clearly referring to the "broken promise" not to expand NATO east in 1990 whether true or not but this allegation has kind of taken a life of its own.



If your referring to NATO membership its inconceivable that any membership will be granted without US approval so destinies will be decided regardless of what East Europeans want. The same is probably true about NATO action.

Its probably likely that NATO article 5 from US perspective would be slightly above what we have now in Ukraine with military assistance given to any member state so Ukraine is already a defacto member in this regard.

I've said before its unlikely the US will destroy itself by pressing the red button to save a Baltic state 3000 miles away, which would lead to mutually assured destruction of itself, but would for Florida.

So in any game of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) its a question of who needs it most and if doing nothing is an option, US or Russia.

Maybe we`ll see a EU army in the future because of this. From what i can see going into MAD is only viable if your own territory is at risk.

Cretainly, "Kozak Spirit" does contribute to Ukrainian national identity. It's generally worth noting because Kozaks struggled for independence since at least 17th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporozhian_Sich

Ukraine is important because they are proving that Ruthenian nations don't have to identify with Moscow. Historically, it is very true, Rus' is older than Moscow and started as a regular part of Europe, soon becoming very diverse politically and evloving a multitude of different political trajectories.
If Ukraine secures their independence from Moscow, Belarus is likely to follow... and then, who knows, possible further disintegration of Russian Federation can be triggered. That's what is making the stakes so high on Russian side (apart from personal survival of Putin).
Together with Ukrainians fighting for literal survival, it makes this war unlikely to calm down any soon. The stakes are too high on both sides.

Ironically, I learned a lot about Kozaks reading "War and Peace."

It's not exactly the same----but Kozaks and Russians are rather like Native Americans and Europeans in the New World up until the 19th century.

@carlos55
1. Enlargement of NATO has been legitimately re-negotiated with Yeltsin. Why do they keep ignoring it?
2. Americans are not "on the top of command structure" in NATO. While they are the unmatched military power within it, they can't give orders to other members. Look at the negotiations with Turkey about Sweden and Finland. It's not a top-down chain of command.
Someone is confusing the structure of NATO with the structure of the deceased Warsaw Pact, I'm afraid.
3. Why doesn't anyone cry about Finland joining NATO, resulting in over 1000km of direct NATO-Russian border? What's the difference?
4. Tell me more about being afraid of being attacked on your territory, sure. Do you see Poland invading other states?
5. Fear of some possible attack from a country X does not justify attacking country Y, it's completely nonsense.

^All this stuff about NATO "violating some treaty," and the alleged threat of NATO, is squarely Russian propaganda....that, and "getting rid of the Nazis."

Russia thinks Ukrainians are runaway Russians.....and that Ukraine is the "breadbasket" of Russia.

I'm looking at the topography:
https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/map-w ... 991&zoom=8

and based on it, it would make more sense to wait for the steppe to freeze and then strike at Vesele and along the right bank of Molochna river, all the way down to Melitopol, securing the E105 road and the railway parallel to it.
This way, advantage of the high bank of Molochna river could be used, while the highway and the railroad could ensure reasonable logistics.

Then, as in the previous scenario, let the Russian forces between Dnipro and Crimea run out of ammo and retreat. This tactics has worked so why not use it again.

Of course, that's just topography. The final decisions will depend on things I have no right to know, like precise location and condition of Russian forces in different parts of Southern Ukraine. But the idea of reaching to the sea shore once the steppe freezes and letting those West of the breakthrough run out of ammo and retreat seems the most logical plan now.

Again as i said this is looking at things from the US perspective. Things look different from where you are in a hierarchy, normal employees have different conversations to CEO`S for example.

Russia see`s things as a dispute between it & the US. The reasons are simple the US generally controls all the essential aspects of NATO, NATO would be nothing without the US & it has its own agenda that may be different to Poland or Ukraine. The poles & baltics probably want the removal of Russia as a state that can threaten them, but the US may view Russia without Putin as a useful tool to use against China, just as an example.

Policy is defined by where you sit.

How come this "American perspective" is neither common among Americans I know nor present in American administration?

Poland and Balts don't want "removal of Russia", how could removal of a 150 million nation happen? It's impossible. Russia may change or split but it can't be removed.
No, what we want is effective protection against what is being done to Ukraine right now - an invasion. That's how NATO treaties are constructed and, so far, they work.

https://medium.com/@benjamin.abelow/wes ... 402a67f44e

Long interesting essay for open minds.

How the West Brought War to Ukraine

For almost 200 years, starting with the framing of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, the United States has asserted security claims over virtually the whole Western hemisphere. Any foreign power that places military forces near U.S. territory knows it is crossing a red line. U.S. policy thus embodies a conviction that where a potential opponent places its forces is crucially important. In fact, this conviction is the cornerstone of American foreign and military policy, and its violation is considered reason for war.

Yet when it comes to Russia, the United States and its NATO allies have acted for decades in disregard of this same principle. They have progressively advanced the placement of their military forces toward Russia, even to its borders. They have done this with inadequate attention to, and sometimes blithe disregard for, how Russian leaders might perceive this advance. Had Russia taken equivalent actions with respect to U.S. territory — say, placing its military forces in Canada or Mexico — Washington would have gone to war and explained that war as a defensive response to the military encroachment of a foreign power.

When viewed through this lens, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is seen not as the unbridled expansionism of a malevolent Russian leader but as a violent and destructive reaction to misguided Western policies: an attempt to reestablish a zone around Russia’s western border that is free of offensive threats from the United States and its allies. Having misunderstood why Russia invaded Ukraine, the West is now basing existential decisions on false premises. In doing so, it is deepening the crisis and may be sleepwalking toward nuclear war.

...

I'm just not taking the Russian viewpoint on this.....no matter how one slices it.