Russia invades Ukraine

[Bodiddly]

On a personal level, I'm fuming that this little madman tyrant has his finger on the capability to start a nuclear conflict, wipe out large populated areas and effectively hold a whole planet to ransom.
I only pray that one of his "inner circle" has learned enough to slip him some Polonium Tea or better still, put a bullet in the bastards head.

 

[TheEdge]

And how many Peacekeepers would be required to keep the peace in a country the size of Ukraine? 25,000 Peacekeepers were deployed in Bosnia. Ukraine is about twelve times the size of Bosnia, so you would need somewhere in the region of 300,000 Peacekeepers which automatically rules out Israel, Japan & South Korea who don't even have that number of active military.

I'm not saying only that country, but led by them rather than a NATO led operation

 

[DarloRich]

I think they held off the air force either because they didn't intend to use them en masse (going in relatively softly, imagining that they'd keep the Ukrainian public onside/less hostile) and/or because they didn't want to show their hand to the West in using them.

The article I quoted makes some interesting points about the availability of precision bombs/missiles, training, and worries about friendly fire. I suspect they thought it would be over quickly!

In any event social media posts suggest the Russian air force has started attacking.

 

[DustyBin]

I think they held off the air force either because they didn't intend to use them en masse (going in relatively softly, imagining that they'd keep the Ukrainian public onside/less hostile) and/or because they didn't want to show their hand to the West in using them.

Both are quite possible, although I still question how combat ready the air force is, especially in terms of being able to arm the aircraft with "smart" weapons.

Problem is I can think of one that isn't very US aligned (Korea, Japan, Israel), less US aligned but still very Anglosphere (Australia), stable enough at home to run a multinational military operation (Brasil, South Africa, Mexico, maybe African Union?) or willing to work with others that would probably include NATO forces (China). India maybe is the best of the bunch.

It is difficult for the reasons you've stated. It would need to be a neutral force one way or another.

And how many Peacekeepers would be required to keep the peace in a country the size of Ukraine? 25,000 Peacekeepers were deployed in Bosnia. Ukraine is about twelve times the size of Bosnia, so you would need somewhere in the region of 300,000 Peacekeepers which automatically rules out Israel, Japan & South Korea who don't even have that number of active military.

It would be an international force though, led by one of those countries. The idea is that as a neutral peacekeeping force they'd not be required to fight so whilst you'd need a large number of troops and a lot of equipment you wouldn't need hundreds of thousands, presuming everybody behaves themselves.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The article I quoted makes some interesting points about the availability of precision bombs/missiles, training, and worries about friendly fire. I suspect they thought it would be over quickly!

In any event social media posts suggest the Russian air force has started attacking.

Seems to mostly be in the south for now, where today they seem to have made a fair bit of progress towards the remaining port cities.

 

[DarloRich]

Seems to mostly be in the south for now, where today they seem to have made a fair bit of progress towards the remaining port cities.

However there are reports/pictures of a Russian warship on fire off Odessa so it isn't all one way!

 

[Giugiaro]

What makes you think, off the back off this, he’d have any appetite to take on a NATO country, and by default NATO itself?

Moldova is probably next in line after Putin gobbles up Ukraine.

If Putin dares to have troops step in any EU or NATO countries, it's game over.
Moldova is in the same position as Ukraine. No military alliances and no EU membership means they can just invade with NATO barking like a dog on the other side of the fence. NATO can't do anything.

 

[najaB]

The idea is that as a neutral peacekeeping force they'd not be required to fight so whilst you'd need a large number of troops and a lot of equipment you wouldn't need hundreds of thousands, presuming everybody behaves themselves.

If everybody could be trusted to behave themselves you wouldn't need peacekeepers in the first place!

 

[Ediswan]

However there are reports/pictures of a Russian warship on fire off Odessa so it isn't all one way!

I would not assume smoke coming from a Russian warship indicates it is on fire.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/myqyya/giant_column_of_smoke_from_the_engines_of_the/ (Admiral Kuznetsov)

 

[DustyBin]

Moldova is probably next in line after Putin gobbles up Ukraine.

If Putin dares to have troops step in any EU or NATO countries, it's game over.
Moldova is in the same position as Ukraine. No military alliances and no EU membership means they can just invade with NATO barking like a dog on the other side of the fence. NATO can't do anything.

We can only hope that the experience in Ukraine will put him off, but I agree that Moldova looks vulnerable. It's worth remembering though that he believed the invasion would be widely welcomed in Ukraine and would be over very quickly; I'm not sure he'd think the same in regard to Moldova?

If everybody could be trusted to behave themselves you wouldn't need peacekeepers in the first place!

True but in the presence of an international peacekeeping force I'd like to think there's at least some chance!

 

[DarloRich]

I would not assume smoke coming from a Russian warship indicates it is on fire.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/myqyya/giant_column_of_smoke_from_the_engines_of_the/ (Admiral Kuznetsov)

agreed - however the smoke seemed to be coming out of the side not the top.

(What the hell is that ship burning? )

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2022 ==

We can only hope that the experience in Ukraine will put him off, but I agree that Moldova looks vulnerable. It's worth remembering though that he believed the invasion would be widely welcomed in Ukraine and would be over very quickly; I'm not sure he'd think the same in regard to Moldova?

it is Transnistria they are after.

 

[najaB]

Marjorie Taylor-Greene spoke at a parallel conference to CPAC where they both praised the "untapped secret power of the White Male", and chanted "Putin, Putin".... Make of that what you like.

To correct the record, I mis-quoted the leader of the group organising the conference. His actual words start around 1:10 into this video:

 

[the sniper]

The article I quoted makes some interesting points about the availability of precision bombs/missiles, training, and worries about friendly fire. I suspect they thought it would be over quickly!

Both are quite possible, although I still question how combat ready the air force is, especially in terms of being able to arm the aircraft with "smart" weapons.

Indeed. They are still behind the West in terms of precision weaponry.

 

[ainsworth74]

Sure, and I totally get that if we did something like enforce a no-fly zone or something similar (assuming doing so is helpful to the Ukrainians, and I'm aware there are questions about that), that may involve shooting down Russian aircraft, and that may lead to them shooting back. But I'm pretty confident that in such a conflict, we would easily win, and Russian aircraft would then no longer be able to operate over Ukraine.

A conventional conflict sure. If anything has been shown by the Russian invasion of Ukraine it's that they've got serious issues which NATO would be able to exploit and punish severely.

But the fear people are expressing is that that will somehow lead to a (nuclear?) conflict in NATO countries, outside Ukraine. How could that happen? Well if we went in on the request of the Ukrainian Government, on the strict basis that we are defending Ukraine, and we are not doing anything other than defend Ukraine against invading forces that are actually inside the country, then clearly that means we would not be shooting at anything that isn't already illegally in Ukraine. So any escalation outside Ukraine would be entirely Russia's doing. If we have made our inside-Ukraine-only rules of engagement clear from the start, then it would be a huge and dramatic escalation by Russia to attack any NATO forces outside Ukraine. Would Russia do that? Obviously there are no certainties, but one very strong pattern in Putin's behaviour seems to be that he never escalates to anything that he doesn't believe he will win, so on that basis an escalation outside Ukraine seems extremely unlikely. I get that we are dealing with risks of extremely unpleasant things, but that's the case whatever we do or don't do. And ultimately we have to ask, are we willing to defend the free World or aren't we?

(Bit in bold)

Exactly! That's the problem! We could establish a no-fly zone with all the clear explanations that rules of engagement apply only to aircraft within the borders of Ukraine and maybe Russia will back down or maybe they'll engage in combat over Ukraine. And maybe Russia will stick to combat within Ukraine only but when they start to lose the temptation will be there to use their other systems such as short range ballistic missiles to begin hammering NATO airfields, that will require us to respond in kind and so the spiral goes on. That lack of certainly is precisely why it's a massive danger. And whilst it's unlikely that Putin (or us) would pull the nuclear trigger @DarloRich provided this excellent summary via Yes Prime Minister:

Sir Humphrey : With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.

Jim Hacker : I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.

Sir Humphrey : It's a deterrent.

Jim Hacker : It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.

Sir Humphrey : Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.

Jim Hacker : They probably do.

Sir Humphrey : Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.

Jim Hacker : They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.

Sir Humphrey : Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

We know that he probably wouldn't be we cannot certainly know that he wouldn't and the risk if we're wrong is extreme.

The reality is that we all have our own tolerance for accepting the risk of nuclear war. For me the red line is a NATO state. If Russia attacks a NATO state then we respond in kind and damn the consequences. I would hope that they wouldn't use nuclear weapons in such a conflict and instead we "just" have a conventional war ("just" because the loss of life and damage would make the current war look like a children's play). If others risk appetite for nuclear war includes Ukraine then that's fair enough and your (in the general sense not trying to single you out specifically!!) desire to protect freedom no matter the cost up to and including nuclear war is, in my view admirable. I wish to protect freedom and our way of life also. I would love nothing more than for NATO to ride to Ukraine's rescue. But my risk appetite for nuclear war does not extend that far.

Those who advocate for a no-fly zone need to be honest though that that is what they're willing to risk. Yes, we cannot know for certain that a Russian response would lead to war, including a potential nuclear war, but that is absolutely what that plan is risking. I've seen to many people on Twitter that seem to think that a no-fly zone is a something that comes with no cost. It wouldn't be.

 

[GS250]

Whilst we all assume NATO would act decisively if one of its member states was attacked....there are plenty of nations on the right hand side that should maybe feel fortunate to benefit from this arrangement. Spain, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Denmark, Czech and Germany should quite rightly be feeling a little sheepish at the moment.

 

[squizzler]

The chart shows that the lower spending countries have all gone upwards - in the right direction now as things happen. There is something to be said for having taken advantage of the post cold war peace dividend and I rather regret the USA did not do so. If that money had been more wisely spent we could have been further down the road of fighting climate change. Also if the USA had reduced funding for the military at the end of the cold war they would not have felt the need to use it in pointless colonial wars like the Iraq and Iraq campaign.

The post-cold war spending did not even leave a good legacy of equipment as far as the US military is concerned. The F22 fighter, the Seawolf submarine and Zumwalt class destroyer have been epic white elephants and in many cases are to be superseded by new builds of the older designs they were supposed to replace. I understand the USA is now building more Arleigh Burke destroyers and F15s. The EU probably did well to largely skip the immediate post cold war equipment and are at liberty to go straight to digitised, decarbonised alternatives.

 

[DarloRich]

I would love nothing more than for NATO to ride to Ukraine's rescue. But my risk appetite for nuclear war does not extend that far.

Neither does mine. As you say, attacking a NATO country is a different situation. No less worrying but different. We HAVE to respond

Those who advocate for a no-fly zone need to be honest though that that is what they're willing to risk. Yes, we cannot know for certain that a Russian response would lead to war, including a potential nuclear war, but that is absolutely what that plan is risking. I've seen to many people on Twitter that seem to think that a no-fly zone is a something that comes with no cost. It wouldn't be.

I think our (western) responses to military issues involving less militarily developed nations has led to a kind of complacent naivety. People think we as the west can just declare and enforce no fly zones without consequence. Often we can, except when the opposing is an owner of nuclear weapons! The situation in Ukraine is not the same as Bosnia

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but RT on Freeview channel 234 now has a screen saying "This service is currently unavailable"

 

[najaB]

The F22 fighter, the Seawolf submarine and Zumwalt class destroyer have been epic white elephants and in many cases are to be superseded by new builds of the older designs they were supposed to replace.

Slightly off-topic but the F-22 isn't a white elephant (an expensive thing that has little or no utility), it just cost too much to buy enough of them. It's not a sign of failure that the USAF are buying more F-15s as that was always going to be the day-two fighter of choice.

Same goes for the Seawolf submarines. They are technical marvels and far out-class the Los Angeles class, they're just too damned expensive for a post-Cold War world. The Virginia class are basically cheaper versions of the Seawolf - the cost reduction largely being that they are smaller and have a reduced top speed and depth capability.

Zumwalt on the other hand... unmitigated disaster from start to end.

The post-cold war spending did not even leave a good legacy of equipment as far as the US military is concerned.

Don't forget that all of these programs started life before the cold war ended.

 

[Caboose Class]

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but RT on Freeview channel 234 now has a screen saying "This service is currently unavailable"

Has been for 2 days.

 

[Annetts key]

I'm struggling to understand why people don't seem to be able to process that if you establish a no-fly zone you have to enforce it and what that then means. if you enforce it against aircraft which ignore the no-fly zone that will require shooting down aircraft that fail to abide by the requirements of the no-fly zone. Once you do that whoever's aircraft you've shot down will respond in kind and begin trying to shoot down the aircraft of the enforcer of the no-fly zone. At that point you are in a shooting war with the other party. Surely it is not a difficult concept to grasp how that happens? And then further how that could lead to significant escalation?

Or are we honestly suggesting that if NATO starts dropping Russian helicopters and fighter jets that they'll just pack up their things and go home? Really? Is that what we'd do if the position was reversed?

Of course it won't be we shoot down a Russian aircraft and Putin nukes London. But it the escalation that is the threat. Getting into a shooting war with Russia, which is what we'd be doing, is inherently extremely dangerous.

Of course if Russian aircraft refuse to leave Ukrainian airspace, they would be fired on by Western aircraft. No point otherwise.

Exactly, and in addition there's the point made by @adc82140; a no fly zone means just that. No more Ukrainian drone strikes. Given the limited involvement of the Russian Air Force to date (what's going on there I've no idea) it would hurt Ukraine as much as it would Russia. Unless of course people think it's only Russian aircraft that should be prohibited from entering, in which case NATO would to all intents and purposes be joining the war....

“No fly” is just a generic name, if Western airforces were there at the request of Ukraine, then we would not be denying them from flying above their own country! The objective would be for Western airforces to patrol the Ukrainian airspace to prevent Russian aircraft from using it.

If as some have suggested, there are not many Russian aircraft using it, then this should not be a very hard task.

Sure, and I totally get that if we did something like enforce a no-fly zone or something similar (assuming doing so is helpful to the Ukrainians, and I'm aware there are questions about that), that may involve shooting down Russian aircraft, and that may lead to them shooting back. But I'm pretty confident that in such a conflict, we would easily win, and Russian aircraft would then no longer be able to operate over Ukraine.

But the fear people are expressing is that that will somehow lead to a (nuclear?) conflict in NATO countries, outside Ukraine. How could that happen? Well if we went in on the request of the Ukrainian Government, on the strict basis that we are defending Ukraine, and we are not doing anything other than defend Ukraine against invading forces that are actually inside the country, then clearly that means we would not be shooting at anything that isn't already illegally in Ukraine. So any escalation outside Ukraine would be entirely Russia's doing. If we have made our inside-Ukraine-only rules of engagement clear from the start, then it would be a huge and dramatic escalation by Russia to attack any NATO forces outside Ukraine. Would Russia do that? Obviously there are no certainties, but one very strong pattern in Putin's behaviour seems to be that he never escalates to anything that he doesn't believe he will win, so on that basis an escalation outside Ukraine seems extremely unlikely. I get that we are dealing with risks of extremely unpleasant things, but that's the case whatever we do or don't do. And ultimately we have to ask, are we willing to defend the free World or aren't we?

Exactly.

As it’s likely that Western airforces will have sufficient numbers to defend the Ukrainian airspace, it’s entirely possible that the Russian airforce will just avoid the Ukrainian airspace.

To borrow a quote: War doesn't prove who was right, just who is left.

Hence why we should be making sure that it is us that will be left, not him, unless he backs down.

 

[Caboose Class]

Let's suppose for one moment, that instead of Ukraine, Russia had invaded Kazakhstan. What would people's reaction be to that?

 

[Peterthegreat]

Let's suppose for one moment, that instead of Ukraine, Russia had invaded Kazakhstan. What would people's reaction be to that?

Where?

 

[Annetts key]

The only way I see any military intervention happening is if it's a UN Peacekeeping force led by a non-NATO country that is politically acceptable to Russia.

Israel, China, India, Japan, South Korea, maybe.

The trouble is, as a permanent member on the UN, Russia will veto anything it does not like. So on anything that requires the permanent members to vote on, will fail.

 

[Giugiaro]

Let's suppose for one moment, that instead of Ukraine, Russia had invaded Kazakhstan. What would people's reaction be to that?

Borat fans would not allow that to happen.

 

[najaB]

The objective would be for Western airforces to patrol the Ukrainian airspace to prevent Russian aircraft from using it

Merely patrolling doesn't prevent Russian aircraft from using the airspace...

As it’s likely that Western airforces will have sufficient numbers to defend the Ukrainian airspace, it’s entirely possible that the Russian airforce will just avoid the Ukrainian airspace.

That presumes that the Russians don't want a fight...

 

[DarloRich]

If as some have suggested, there are not many Russian aircraft using it, then this should not be a very hard task

there are some 300 + modern aircraft in Belarus. They havent played much part in the conflict. Yet.

if Western airforces were there at the request of Ukraine, then we would not be denying them from flying above their own country

I am not sure the Russians are going to see the difference. They are going to see thier plane shot down by a third party and are going to respond. They aren't going to pooh thier pants and run away. That's the start of an escalation we may not be able to control.

Of course if Russian aircraft refuse to leave Ukrainian airspace, they would be fired on by Western aircraft.

You seem to be, perhaps wilfully, over looking the potential consequences. You are advocating war with Russia. I think the Russians would respond to attacks on thier aircraft. What do you think will happen?

 

[DanNCL]

Whilst a no-fly zone is needed, having it enforced by NATO would be asking for World War 3. The only way I could see a no-fly zone working without causing a larger conflict is if it were enforced by a country not typically aligned with the west, I'm very specifically thinking China here. The reason for that is because Putin is a lot more likely to respect China than the west so less likely to try his luck breaching such a no-fly zone, and even if they were to breach it they’re unlikely to declare war on China, they’re far too dependent on China for survival, especially now that the West has cut them off.

 

[AlterEgo]

Let's suppose for one moment, that instead of Ukraine, Russia had invaded Kazakhstan. What would people's reaction be to that?

It would be quite different because Kazakhstan is of limited geopolitical interest to NATO and the EU.

As it is, Putin has invaded a key geopolitical asset to us, and is engaging in further brinkmanship by amassing even more forces inside Ukraine to try to smash its people into surrender.

 

[squizzler]

Let's suppose for one moment, that instead of Ukraine, Russia had invaded Kazakhstan. What would people's reaction be to that?

Erm, I think you will find that they did in fact invade Kazakhstan only the other month, apparently at the behest of KZ's own dictator.

As for how I felt, my reaction was of grave disappointment that democracy was being stamped out somewhere else.

Russian paratroopers arrive in Kazakhstan as unrest continues​

Russian paratroopers have arrived in Kazakhstan as part of a “peacekeeping” mission by a Moscow-led military alliance to help the president regain control of the country, according to Russian news agencies.

Kazakhstan’s president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, asked for the intervention from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) – an alliance made up of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – late on Wednesday and it was swiftly approved.