Russia invades Ukraine

[DelayRepay]

I do see Zelensky's point, but I don't understand where the lack of unity comes from on this as I believe NATO leaders agreed unanimously on not enforcing a no-fly-zone over Ukraine.

I think the risk is too great, and NATO have seen that.

I think he means unity between NATO and Ukraine, rather than unity between NATO member states.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I was thinking about this convoy - it hasn't been the focus really due to the power plant attack, but I can't make my mind up on it - I don't think given they are 10-20 miles away the distance or mud is that much of a problem, so whilst I think logistics/supplies are part of it I have to wonder if half of it is because they're not really fancying getting there that much - but they do risk a lot to attack where they are unless they have some confidence/assurance of cover in that aspect

been reading up on javelin specs (the US has shipped a number over) and i'll be honest I don't fancy driving around in an urban environment full of people around corners who might have one who could pop out of nowhere, fire and vanish into nowhere

Might just be a case of take the time to re-supply whilst the city gets softened by artillery/missile strikes and then go in once confidence rebuilt

In other news, Sky journalists in a car got ambushed, no fatalities thankfully but there was a wounding - lucky escape by the sounds of it - https://uk.yahoo.com/news/british-journalist-shot-wounded-ambush-231124050.html

The Javelins are tearing through the Russian defences, and there's enough footage online showing how 3-4 people with a Javelin can turn up, wreck a piece of armour and then simply vanish. What isn't clear to me is just how many missiles can be supplied and how quickly. If it turns out that NATO can simply keep providing more and more missiles, then Kyiv is virtually impossible to take.

From an urban point of view, the Javelins are 'fire and forget'. If you have 4-person units equipped with several missiles and a launcher, they can eliminate several pieces of armour at little risk to themselves. Meanwhile, you've also got a huge amount of territorial defences who can distract and engage infantry. If the Russians sustain serious losses when trying to fight their way in, you also have to wonder if the Russian conscripts will keep going. It's not inconceivable that Russia will go as far as threatening their families, as they've already started to forcibly conscript people in the Donbas after 'evacuating' the families.

The downside of this is that the only option for Putin is:

Taking it further from the above two posts. If the main option open to Putin is of levelling a modern famous European city in front of the eyes of the world.
Would he actually do that?

Yes. Russian doctrine essentially says "if a city doesn't surrender, flatten it". Grozny in 2000 is the blueprint: citizens flee, and you then flatten the city until the defenders are exhausted. However, there is one big difference: the Chechens had far fewer people to defend with. If Kyiv has 50,000 people to defend with, then military wisdom says that you need 250,000 to occupy and hold the city.

The key question is just how much equipment NATO can provide.

As for that convoy, I think there's a simple answer for it: Russia doesn't want to move it, and Ukraine doesn't see the need to attack it.

 

[dgl]

Repoted that as well as the recent BBC World Service SW broadcasts to Ukraine they will also be broadcasting now to Russia to break through the blocking of the BBC in Russia and allowing the truth to still get through.
Agin I would expect this will all be coming from Wooferton so is not something Russia can easily take out, though they potentially could jam it.

Supposedly BBC have registered 7370Mhz 0400-0600, 9745Mhz 0600-0700, 15730Mhz 0700-1900, 7370 & 15730Mhz: 300kW, 9745hz: 250kW with the ITU for brodcasting the World Service, along side the transmissions that haev already started.

You can block internet/TV services all you like but Short Wave transmissions are not so easy, by hook or by crook Russians with a no Kremlin influenced news source.

 

[Shrop]

Taking it further from the above two posts. If the main option open to Putin is of levelling a modern famous European city in front of the eyes of the world.
Would he actually do that?

Most Western leaders would see the folly of such action and they would take note of the eyes of the world. But that assumes that a despot thinks like people who care think ...

 

[squizzler]

Repoted that as well as the recent BBC World Service SW broadcasts to Ukraine they will also be broadcasting now to Russia to break through the blocking of the BBC in Russia and allowing the truth to still get through.

Off topic, but this shows the need to have an alternative to landline or mobile internet for outside information. Part of me is glad to see a revival of good old fashioned shortwave.

One promising technology is “Digital Radio Mondiale” (DRM). This is a best of blend of robust old frequencies used by AM radio with the latest internet audio (and to some extent video) codecs. It might be worth making sure your next radio receiver has this technology inside.

 

[yorksrob]

Garry Kasparov now calling out Russian influence in the UK in relation sanctions:

https://twitter.com/Kasparov63/status/1499795079397052416

The image, as posted earlier upthread, is in the tweet Kasparov has quoted.

We should be sanctioning similar organisations to other Western countries. Perhaps a time to remove Russian influence from the economy.

The are certainly questions to be asked if Britain isn't pulling it's weight in terms of sanctions.

Probably this wishy-washy targeting of individuals nonsense. The Russian state as a whole needs to be sanctioned.

 

[dgl]

We should be sanctioning similar organisations to other Western countries. Perhaps a time to remove Russian influence from the economy.

The are certainly questions to be asked if Britain isn't pulling it's weight in terms of sanctions.

Probably this wishy-washy targeting of individuals nonsense. The Russian state as a whole needs to be sanctioned.

But where will the Conservatives/ERG get their money from? Can't be sanctioning your best mate.

 

[yorksrob]

But where will the Conservatives/ERG get their money from? Can't be sanctioning your best mate.

They didn't need the Russians when they had Mrs Thatcher, they don't need them now.

 

[najaB]

They didn't need the Russians when they had Mrs Thatcher, they don't need them now.

You think today's Conservative Party is anything it was under Thatcher? Aww, that's sweet.

 

[yorksrob]

You think today's Conservative Party is anything it was under Thatcher? Aww, that's sweet.

Whatever.

The country doesn't need Russia. The sooner that's realised, the better.

 

[GS250]

Whatever.

The country doesn't need Russia. The sooner that's realised, the better.

Agree with this.

Sadly though...we ARE dependant on China. As are most other countries. Still think they will ultimately have a big part to play in the outcome of this absolute fiasco.

Another thing. The mainstream and social media has put Mr Zelensky up onto a pedestal. Yet the average person doing so knows absolutely nothing about him. Maybe he's historically played his part in escalating this? I honestly don't know.

 

[yorksrob]

Agree with this.

Sadly though...we ARE dependant on China. As are most other countries. Still think they will ultimately have a big part to play in the outcome of this absolute fiasco.

This is true.

 

[brad465]

Videos and photos circulating on Twitter et al. of protestors in support of Ukraine confronting Russian soldiers in Kherson, which the Russian forces recently captured. This shows how much forces are going to struggle to control the country overall, should they capture most of it and install a puppet regime.

Also seen PayPal have now stopped operating in Russia.

 

[takno]

Another thing. The mainstream and social media has put Mr Zelensky up onto a pedestal. Yet the average person doing so knows absolutely nothing about him. Maybe he's historically played his part in escalating this? I honestly don't know.

It's absolutely okay for you not to know, but the whole serious mainstream media, and probably quite a few of us, have been following Ukraine and Zelensky for a bit longer.

Zelensky was elected pretty recently as an outsider on an anti-corruption ticket. He hasn't been terribly successful up until this point, as much as anything else because he's got no experience in politics, and de-corrupting is probably a 10-20 year project. Nobody is lionising his pre-war leadership, but it was hapless rather than bad.

The only sense in which he could be said to have played his part in escalation is that Putin may have viewed him as weak leader and an easy target.

I think the main reason he's performing so well as a war leader is that his motives aren't suspect, and he's a reasonably good actor

 

[adc82140]

He really does need to stop the calls for a no fly zone. NATO made it abundantly clear why it it won't work. My concern is that the hotheads in Washington will win out on this one. Most if not all military pundits agree it won't work, as well as being dangerous. Yet there are columnists out there saying yes it will cause WW3, and yes it will go nuclear, but we have to do it anyway.

 

[Cowley]

It's absolutely okay for you not to know, but the whole serious mainstream media, and probably quite a few of us, have been following Ukraine and Zelensky for a bit longer.

Zelensky was elected pretty recently as an outsider on an anti-corruption ticket. He hasn't been terribly successful up until this point, as much as anything else because he's got no experience in politics, and de-corrupting is probably a 10-20 year project. Nobody is lionising his pre-war leadership, but it was hapless rather than bad.

The only sense in which he could be said to have played his part in escalation is that Putin may have viewed him as weak leader and an easy target.

I think the main reason he's performing so well as a war leader is that his motives aren't suspect, and he's a reasonably good actor

That’s a good assessment @takno and pretty much my reading of him too.

He really does need to stop the calls for a no fly zone. NATO made it abundantly clear why it it won't work. My concern is that the hotheads in Washington will win out on this one. Most if not all military pundits agree it won't work, as well as being dangerous. Yet there are columnists out there saying yes it will cause WW3, and yes it will go nuclear, but we have to do it anyway.

Anyone suggesting that this is a good option at the moment is clearly not in touch with reality.
There’s other ways of dealing with this without shouting for escalation.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Zelensky does need to cease the calls as it may make NATO want to do less to help, especially since some of his statements did make it seem like he was ungrateful for the help being given by the NATO states that have already sent weapons over.

I think weaponry is the most NATO can do without it escalating into WW3.

I do think Zelensky is rattled and stressed hence his bold and emotional comments, but a no-fly zone really isn’t the way to go.

 

[squizzler]

He really does need to stop the calls for a no fly zone. NATO made it abundantly clear why it it won't work. My concern is that the hotheads in Washington will win out on this one. Most if not all military pundits agree it won't work, as well as being dangerous. Yet there are columnists out there saying yes it will cause WW3, and yes it will go nuclear, but we have to do it anyway.

Anyone suggesting that this is a good option at the moment is clearly not in touch with reality.
There’s other ways of dealing with this without shouting for escalation.

Not necessarily so, and whilst I remain confident that a no fly zone is the right thing to do, the argument is actually more nuanced.

See this article in the Guardian by someone apparently qualified to speak in the matter. I give it stock because it does not conclude one way or the other, or descend into emotional language, but certainly says it should not be completely taken off the table so as to maintain a strong range of options.

No-fly zones would escalate the Ukraine war – but they shouldn’t be off the table​

If the west rejects all proactive options, then we are destined to react only, creating the ‘escalation paradox’

In saying that only the Russians are escalating, the UK government is implying that doing anything other than reacting to events is too aggressive. This feels like boxing ourselves into a corner. If we can’t take the initiative because that’s also “escalating”, we are supporting the Ukrainians with one hand tied behind our back.

 

[GS250]

Unbelievable if certain press articles are calling for escalation to nuclear level. Presume they have a nice cosy bunker and enough resources for 50 odd years?

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Unbelievable if certain press articles are calling for escalation to nuclear level. Presume they have a nice cosy bunker and enough resources for 50 odd years?

Anyone - journalist or otherwise - calling for such should be locked up.

 

[GB]

Anyone - journalist or otherwise - calling for such should be locked up.

We don't live in Russia do we?

 

[squizzler]

Unbelievable if certain press articles are calling for escalation to nuclear level. Presume they have a nice cosy bunker and enough resources for 50 odd years?

Where in the article does the author suggest we should use nuclear weapons?

A better excerpt I should have used from the same article follows.

The UK government, along with the US and other nations, has been emphatic in its rejection of any attempt to enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. It has argued that this could result in escalation and would not, in any case, protect the people of Ukraine from the horrific bombardment they are suffering from ground-based artillery.

Critics would say that setting this red line so early in the conflict might be perceived as weakness by Vladimir Putin. By taking options off the table, the nations rallying for Ukraine put themselves in an inherently disadvantageous position, creating an “escalation paradox” – if any action from the west that isn’t solely reactive to Russia’s activities is ruled out, then we are destined to remain reactive in perpetuity.

The article sets out both sides of the argument and avoids the sort of hysteric language we see from some posters here. Surely worth discussing rather than dismissing out of hand.

 

[Howardh]

Repoted that as well as the recent BBC World Service SW broadcasts to Ukraine they will also be broadcasting now to Russia to break through the blocking of the BBC in Russia and allowing the truth to still get through.
Agin I would expect this will all be coming from Wooferton so is not something Russia can easily take out, though they potentially could jam it.

Supposedly BBC have registered 7370Mhz 0400-0600, 9745Mhz 0600-0700, 15730Mhz 0700-1900, 7370 & 15730Mhz: 300kW, 9745hz: 250kW with the ITU for brodcasting the World Service, along side the transmissions that haev already started.

You can block internet/TV services all you like but Short Wave transmissions are not so easy, by hook or by crook Russians with a no Kremlin influenced news source.

How many citizens now have access to short wave radios? Since 2000 I haven't used short wave once, and I used to be a regular (especially abroad trying to catch up on the UK news and cricket) but with the internet being so widespread SW has become surplus, and I for one don't have a single reciever now. I would imagine that's the situation in most of the world, so my thoughts are, yes broadcast on SW but just how few will be listening??

Think today it's more important for the Russians to have VPN so they can bypass blocked internet pages.

 

[Cdd89]

While I agree that we should de-escalate and not get involved, the question I’m personally struggling with is whether there is any action Russia could take in Ukraine (that nevertheless didn’t effectively constitute an attack on NATO countries) that would morally compel military involvement.

If there is, what is it?

And if there isn’t, what does that say about us?

 

[Howardh]

While I agree that we should de-escalate and not get involved, the question I’m personally struggling with is whether there is any action Russia could take in Ukraine (that nevertheless didn’t effectively constitute an attack on NATO countries) that would morally compel military involvement.

If there is, what is it?

And if there isn’t, what does that say about us?

Very little...and because we all want to avoid dying in a nuclear conflict.

Maybe Ukraine has to be sacrificed to save the rest of us?? That's how bad the state we are in is. If it WAS sacrificed (ie surrender) a civil war will go on for years taking up putin's time, money and troops no doubt. That might alone keep his hands off other states. Of course Putin will be a wanted man....

 

[dgl]

How many citizens now have access to short wave radios? Since 2000 I haven't used short wave once, and I used to be a regular (especially abroad trying to catch up on the UK news and cricket) but with the internet being so widespread SW has become surplus, and I for one don't have a single reciever now. I would imagine that's the situation in most of the world, so my thoughts are, yes broadcast on SW but just how few will be listening??

Think today it's more important for the Russians to have VPN so they can bypass blocked internet pages.

As I understand SW was never much a thing for domestic broadcasts in the UK as it wasn't necessary but in places like Eastern Europe SW was used much more widely and as such the chance of having a radio with SW is that much higher.
Plus SW needs no infrastructure in the country you are targeting, something that could easily be knocked out

I would also argue that listening to a radio is much more secure/less trackable than using the internet.

 

[DustyBin]

That’s a good assessment @takno and pretty much my reading of him too.

I agree, mine too.

Anyone suggesting that this is a good option at the moment is clearly not in touch with reality.
There’s other ways of dealing with this without shouting for escalation.

I agree with this as well. It’s a fine line, but making a humanitarian disaster into a much bigger humanitarian disaster (which there’s a very real danger of IMO) solves nothing.

 

[ainsworth74]

While I agree that we should de-escalate and not get involved, the question I’m personally struggling with is whether there is any action Russia could take in Ukraine (that nevertheless didn’t effectively constitute an attack on NATO countries) that would morally compel military involvement.

If there is, what is it?

For me it's Russian use of chemical or nuclear weapons. It should have been the red line in Syria. We should have gotten involved directly once Assad started using chemical weapons against his people and it would still be the red line for me in Ukraine.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Zelensky does need to cease the calls as it may make NATO want to do less to help, especially since some of his statements did make it seem like he was ungrateful for the help being given by the NATO states that have already sent weapons over.

I think weaponry is the most NATO can do without it escalating into WW3.

I do think Zelensky is rattled and stressed hence his bold and emotional comments, but a no-fly zone really isn’t the way to go.

Russia is still pumping huge amounts of gas into Europe everyday since this war and you can be sure they are getting paid for it so NATO and its allies could do a lot more. They won't as its would cause prices to rise even more but also would result in shortages in a matter of weeks which would have huge economic consequences and potential civil disorder issues in some countries. The UK are fortunate enough not to have got in deep with Russian gas or oil so we can deal with it at the supply level of course the economic consequences are another matter.

 

[Ediswan]

The UK are fortunate enough not to have got in deep with Russian gas or oil so we can deal with it at the supply level of course the economic consequences are another matter.

It seems oil is/was a two-way trade: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-60541028

The tanker is owned by Sovcomflot (SCF Group), a large shipping company majority-owned by the Russian state.
It is due at Flotta to collect crude oil on Tuesday.

'Tuesday' would have been 1st March.