Russia invades Ukraine

[Falcon1200]

To be honest, if an adjacent country are attacking your country, why wouldn’t you try to attack their fuel facilities or logistics infrastructure?

Absolutely, given what Russia has done to their country the Ukrainians have every right to attack their enemy. And the outrage from Moscow, 'set an unfavourable tone for peace talks' is utterly laughable, considering their own ongoing actions (not that the war is a laughing matter, of course).

 

[JKF]

I've just read an article discussing mutiny and desertion among the Russian soldiers. The regulars are relatively poorly paid, and the conscripts are on a pittance.

Ukraine: are reports of Russian troops mutinying and deserting true? It’s happened before

There are reports of very low morale among Russian troops in Ukraine.

theconversation.com

I'm guessing that the situation in Russia is not much different to here, in that it's often young people from poorer backgrounds who join up in the hope of more stable job prospects. Even for those who choose to sign up, is it actually that much of a choice? I do have sympathy for those who found themselves in this situation with no clear reason why. No wonder they're turning on their commanding officers.

The troops retreating from the north of the country are supplementing their meagre income by looting Ukrainian homes on the way out and taking anything they can carry. There’s a large street market set up by Russian troops in Belarus selling everything from TVs, dishwashers to carpets. Smaller goods are being posted back to Russia. A disorganised rabble the lot of them.

 

[dakta]

If this is the case it really is a poor shoddy affair isn't it.

Whilst the completely senseless loss of life is serious to the most extreme degree, maybe some form of kickback would be evidencing, documenting and showcasing the embarrassing state of russian military as it seems being considered intimidating is such a core element of Putin's values. I know this is being raised already but maybe it wants the focus - there were plenty of songs back in the day mocking Hitler and maybe this is the new candidate.

I almost choked on my coffee when they said the other day on the news that the kremlin considered the fuel depot attack in Russia a stalling point for peace talks, this is a nation that has bigged itself up and loves to give it out but cries the most when hit

 

[Trackman]

The troops retreating from the north of the country are supplementing their meagre income by looting Ukrainian homes on the way out and taking anything they can carry. There’s a large street market set up by Russian troops in Belarus selling everything from TVs, dishwashers to carpets. Smaller goods are being posted back to Russia. A disorganised rabble the lot of them.

There was a report a few days ago about Russian troops selling fuel for Vodka.

 

[yorksrob]

In the longer term, I think that Western countries perhaps need to refuse to engage with Moscow until they undertake a significant disarmament of their nuclear arms.

Ukraine voluntarily have up its nukes, why shouldn't Russia. And if it decides against it - just continue not to engage indefinitely.

 

[ainsworth74]

As the Russians are driven back from Kyiv, including being cleared entirely from Kyiv Oblast (Oblast roughly analogous with county in the UK), it seems that some extremely harrowing reports of war crimes are coming to light. Bucha especially where it's being reported that large numbers of civilians have been executed. There is video footage/photos of civilians shot with their hands tied behind their backs. The local administration has apparently had to bury the victims in mass graves. Apparently most males between the ages of 18 and 60 have simply been killed out of hand by the Russians.

War in Ukraine: Street in Bucha found strewn with dead bodies​

Journalists entering a Ukrainian town which saw fierce fighting with Russian forces have found dead bodies of men in civilian clothes strewn on a street.

An AFP news agency reporter in Bucha, near Kyiv, counted at least 20 bodies. At least one man had his hands tied.

Ukrainian forces regained control of the town this week and photos show widespread devastation.

BBC journalists in another part of Ukraine found the bodies of two civilians killed by Russian forces.

Warning: Some readers may find content in this story distressing including a photo lower down.

Earlier this week the BBC's Jeremy Bowen and his team counted a total of 13 bodies, some of whom may have been Ukrainian soldiers, along a stretch of road between the villages of Mria and Myla.

Ukraine says Russian forces have made a "rapid retreat" from around Kyiv, with one official saying the whole region around the capital has been retaken since the invasion began on 24 February.

The invasion has seen thousands killed in ferocious fighting and has made refugees of at least four million Ukrainians. Western states have responded with tough sanctions against Russia and military supplies for Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to justify his attack by arguing that Ukraine, a former Soviet state with Nato and EU ambitions, was a constant threat and Russia could not feel "safe, develop and exist".

In Bucha, where a photographer for Reuters news agency also recorded dead bodies, holes gaped from apartment blocks hit by shelling and crushed cars littered the streets.

Sixteen of the 20 bodies seen by AFP lay either on the pavement or by the verge. Three were sprawled in the middle of the road, and another lay on his side in the courtyard of a destroyed house.

An open Ukrainian passport lay on the ground next to the person who had his hands tied behind his back with a piece of white cloth. Two other people had white cloth tied around their upper arms.

A Ukrainian official told AFP the dead men could have been killed in a bombardment or shot by Russian soldiers, and police would investigate.

But the town's mayor, Anatoly Fedoruk, told AFP by phone that all of the 20 dead had been shot in the back of the head. He added that other bodies still lay inside the wrecks of cars destroyed by shelling.

The town, he said, had buried 280 people in mass graves as a result of the Russian invasion.

War in Ukraine: Street in Bucha found strewn with dead bodies

A reporter entering Bucha, near Kyiv, counts at least 20 bodies of men, one with his hands tied.

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC article has some images but you can find more on social media (with the warning that they are obviously extremely distressing). I fear that we're going to see more things like this as Ukraine liberates more territory from Russian control.

There are also widespread reports of rape by Russian soldiers against Ukrainian women and girls which have been gathering momentum over the last week which considering we've now got incontrovertible evidence from Bucha of systemic murder of civilians such reports must have to gain more and more credence as time goes on.

 

[ainsworth74]

In the longer term, I think that Western countries perhaps need to refuse to engage with Moscow until they undertake a significant disarmament of their nuclear arms.

Ukraine voluntarily have up its nukes, why shouldn't Russia. And if it decides against it - just continue not to engage indefinitely.

That would only work as quid pro quo and, to be honest, I wouldn't blame them for insisting on NATO giving up it's nukes in exchange. Nuclear disarmament is a good thing. But it can't and won't be unilateral on one side so I'm not sure should play any significant role in our response to this crisis.

 

[najaB]

There are reports that there is a draft peace treaty at an advanced enough stage to allow talks between Putin and Zelenskyy:

 

[Bantamzen]

In the longer term, I think that Western countries perhaps need to refuse to engage with Moscow until they undertake a significant disarmament of their nuclear arms.

Ukraine voluntarily have up its nukes, why shouldn't Russia. And if it decides against it - just continue not to engage indefinitely.

Sadly this will never happen. There is simply no way Russia would just give up it's nuclear arsenal, especially with Putin in the seat. The best we can hope for is that having been given a bloody nose by Ukraine, Russia will retreat back within her borders and stay there.

 

[daodao]

A different and realistic assessment (as ever) from Peter Hitchens:

PETER HITCHENS: The USA wants this war... so it can drive Russia back to the Stone Age​

This is not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the USA and Russia, in which both sides are cynically using Ukraine as a battering ram. The people of Ukraine will gain nothing and lose much from being treated in this way. They fight and die or lose their homes and flee. We pour in more weapons and shout encouragement from a safe distance. Russia wrecks the joint. What Ukraine actually needs is action to cure its festering, universal corruption. It would also benefit from the pushing to the margins of the ultra-nationalist fanatics who have far too much influence in its government and armed forces. The war will make these problems worse, not better.
........
Since the American neo-conservative politician Paul Wolfowitz set out his ‘doctrine’ in 1992, Washington has wanted to crush any revival of Russian power. The flaw with this scheme is that it was, in fact, China that was the threat, not Russia.
........
the events of 2014, in which the USA openly backed a mob putsch which overthrew Ukraine’s legitimate President Viktor Yanukovych.
........
This putsch was the true beginning of the war now raging, the initial act of violence which triggered everything else.
........

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

The cynical offer by the USA to provide (at a high price) oil and gas to Europe in lieu of Russian supplies is part of this strategy.

 

[najaB]

In the longer term, I think that Western countries perhaps need to refuse to engage with Moscow until they undertake a significant disarmament of their nuclear arms.

Sadly this will never happen. There is simply no way Russia would just give up it's nuclear arsenal, especially with Putin in the seat.

Why haven't we unilaterally disarmed? Because our adversaries still have nukes.

It's unreasonable to expect Russia to give up their arsenal while NATO (and others) still keep ours.

 

[yorksrob]

A different and realistic assessment (as ever) from Peter Hitchens:

Mail Online - Peter Hitchens blog

The cynical offer by the USA to provide (at a high price) oil and gas to Europe in lieu of Russian supplies is part of this strategy.

The part you've quoted is so full of clap-trap it's difficult to comprehend. Here's a go:

"This is not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It is a war between the USA and Russia, in which both sides are cynically using Ukraine as a battering ram."

It clearly is a war between Russia and Ukraine. It's funny how even when Russia invades, it's still the West that is somehow the main protagonist.

"What Ukraine actually needs is action to cure its festering, universal corruption. It would also benefit from the pushing to the margins of the ultra-nationalist fanatics who have far too much influence in its government and armed forces. The war will make these problems worse, not better."

Perhaps Mr Hitchens thinks that a Russian military invasion and coup would have helped those things ? Given the levels of nationalism and corruption in Russia, I somehow doubt that that country would be the best entity to achieve this.

Yes, the war will make these problems worse, not better. But there is no call for Russia to withdraw. As usual, the West is expected to bend over and accommodate every half-witted dictatorship.

"Since the American neo-conservative politician Paul Wolfowitz set out his ‘doctrine’ in 1992, Washington has wanted to crush any revival of Russian power. The flaw with this scheme is that it was, in fact, China that was the threat, not Russia"

I'm not going to downplay the challenge posed by Communist China, however, in case Hitchens hasn't noticed, it's Russian tanks that are rolling across Europe, not Chinese ones. I would say that that is a significant threat to be countered.

If Hitchens can make a career out of publishing this sort of drivel, there's hope for all of us !

 

[Annetts key]

Why haven't we unilaterally disarmed? Because our adversaries still have nukes.

It's unreasonable to expect Russia to give up their arsenal while NATO (and others) still keep ours.

Absolutely no chance any country is even going to be thinking about nuclear disarmament after seeing what’s happened to Ukraine. Who at one time did have nuclear weapons remember.

Putin knows that Russia having nuclear weapons is a disincentive to any country that may think about attacking Russia. Especially as the Western countries that may have helped Ukraine by using their airforces have not done so. Russia/Putin will therefore see the nuclear weapons as having done their job.

Heck, as long as no one ever finds out, they don’t even need to work, as no one would want to risk that some of them may work…

Even before this war started, my opinion on our U.K. nuclear weapons was that we should continue to maintain the same capability.

 

[yorksrob]

That would only work as quid pro quo and, to be honest, I wouldn't blame them for insisting on NATO giving up it's nukes in exchange. Nuclear disarmament is a good thing. But it can't and won't be unilateral on one side so I'm not sure should play any significant role in our response to this crisis.

Yes, put it down to my unrealistic ramblings.

That said, if it's true that Russia has battlefield nuclear armaments that the West doesn't, we could realistically insist that these are given up, particularly as these seem to represent one of the most likely risks of escalation in the context of a hot war.

 

[Yew]

Yes, put it down to my unrealistic ramblings.

That said, if it's true that Russia has battlefield nuclear armaments that the West doesn't, we could realistically insist that these are given up, particularly as these seem to represent one of the most likely risks of escalation in the context of a hot war.

Would you be considering the so-called "tactical" nuclear devices?

 

[yorksrob]

Would you be considering the so-called "tactical" nuclear devices?

Yes, that sort of thing. If the west has them, we could consider it multilaterally.

 

[JamesT]

Yes, that sort of thing. If the west has them, we could consider it multilaterally.

We mostly did that already at the end of the Cold War. Both sides had thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, now the US has a few hundred (mostly bombs for aircraft) and the Russians have at most a couple of thousand non-strategic weapons.

Complete elimination has come up since , but I suspect the Russians are keen to hang onto theirs as their conventional forces don’t look like much of a deterrent these days.

 

[najaB]

A different and realistic assessment (as ever) from Peter Hitchens...

It's pretty obvious that a Russian loss would be in the US's interest, but this isn't a cold war style proxy war.

That said, if it's true that Russia has battlefield nuclear armaments that the West doesn't...

If by battlefield nuclear armaments you mean things like nuclear artillery shells then yes, the US has withdrawn and dismantled most of them. However, many of their air-dropped weapons have a dial-a-yield feature that allows them to be deployed in tactical role (with a yield in the sub-kiloton range) through to sub-strategic role with yields in the tens to hundreds of kilotons.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's pretty obvious that a Russian loss would be in the US's interest, but this isn't a cold war style proxy war.

It does seem more like a case of "do not manoeuvre while your enemy is making a mistake". The West is not a central protagonist in the Ukraine War, Hitchens gets this wrong while being right - around the edges at least - with much of the rest.

Russia is impoverishing itself economically and militarily in Ukraine and acting contrary to its own interest because of the foibles of its president. The West's strategy since the invasion thus far has been mostly sensible, for once.

The US profited handsomely from World War One and is seeing opportunities to backfill European energy capacity and rebuild Ukraine in the eventual aftermath of this war.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The US profited handsomely from World War One and is seeing opportunities to backfill European energy capacity and rebuild Ukraine in the eventual aftermath of this war.

Given what happened in Iraq I would hope that great care is taken to ensure transparency in the way any such rebuild is financed and organised. Also the extent to which other European countries have been providing both military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine might suggest that European firms should be prioritised in any post-war rebuilding schemes. That would also enhance Ukraine's credentials with respect to potential EU membership. In any case there are many in the US with the same view as existed there in 1914 ie that Europe should solve its own problems without US involvement.

 

[Falcon1200]

If Hitchens can make a career out of publishing this sort of drivel, there's hope for all of us !

Peter Hitchens is always an interesting read, and occasionally I even agree with him, but this article is indeed drivel for the reasons you have explained.

The performance of Russia's forces in Ukraine does make one wonder how the Warsaw Pact would have fared against NATO, had the former invaded western Europe during the Cold War decades ?

 

[takno]

Peter Hitchens is always an interesting read, and occasionally I even agree with him, but this article is indeed drivel for the reasons you have explained.

The performance of Russia's forces in Ukraine does make one wonder how the Warsaw Pact would have fared against NATO, had the former invaded western Europe during the Cold War decades ?

Worth bearing in mind that in a lot of cases Russia have essentially the same equipment now as they did then, only now it's a great deal rustier and 30 years out of date. At the time it wasn't bad

 

[TheEdge]

The performance of Russia's forces in Ukraine does make one wonder how the Warsaw Pact would have fared against NATO, had the former invaded western Europe during the Cold War decades ?

Without going down the military vehicle nerd hole too far, and I could, its worth remembering that in the 1980s these were very good vehicles.

Tiny bit of history, the T-72, T-80 and T-90 all trace their lineage back to the T-64. The T-64 when it first appeared in 1966 (obviously...) was a very advanced tank and had some impressive features and was built to deal with and match NATO equipment, specifically tanks fitted with versions of the British L7 cannon. It was never exported, it was a super tank only for the USSR, however it was very expensive and the advanced technology was temperamental. So the T-72 was developed from it as a cheaper, simpler wartime only design. So of course the Soviets saw rouble signs and built vast numbers of T-72s. The T-80 was a proper advanced development of the T-64, and again, when it appeared it was a very capable vehicle capable of dealing with contemporary NATO kit, it was built in big numbers and much like the T-64, only for the USSR. The T-90 is simply a post Cold War rebranded version of the T-72BU in an attempt to shake off the negative connotations of poor T-72 performances.

So if these vehicles came charging through the Fulda Gap in 1982 then they really would have been an equal match for Chieftains, M60s and Leopard 1s and infantry with LAWs and Panzerfausts. But that's because they'd have been fighting contemporary NATO vehicles. Same applies to the air force as well. The Mi-24 Hind was, at the time, a truly terrifying helicopter capable of dropping full squads of infantry then hanging around, heavily armed and armoured supporting them. Those days are also long gone.

Another big thing we've seen here is a big con to the VDV (Russian Paratroops). The VDV is strange among air mobile units in that the USSR and Russia decided to equip them with air mobile vehicles, light tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self propelled guns and so on. The west doesn't do that, NATO doctrine for airbourne forces is highly trained light infantry that isn't encumbered with slow things like vehicles. But to make a vehicle light enough to fit multiple in an Il-76 and hang off a parachute they are very light, and they've just been chewed through by Ukrainian infantry. I've noticed a lot of footage is of BMDs, which is the VDVs main vehicle, they've just been chewed through rendering all these vehicles rather pointless.

Military nerding over.

 

[najaB]

Worth bearing in mind that in a lot of cases Russia have essentially the same equipment now as they did then, only now it's a great deal rustier and 30 years out of date. At the time it wasn't bad

Not to mention that in the 1980s the armed forces had more money (and less corruption) and so as well as maintenance, they also managed to have combined exercises along side the air force. Apparently many VKS pilots are getting as little as three to five flight hours a month. Which is barely enough to maintain take off and landing competency!

 

[Cowley]

Without going down the military vehicle nerd hole too far, and I could, its worth remembering that in the 1980s these were very good vehicles.

Tiny bit of history, the T-72, T-80 and T-90 all trace their lineage back to the T-64. The T-64 when it first appeared in 1966 (obviously...) was a very advanced tank and had some impressive features and was built to deal with and match NATO equipment, specifically tanks fitted with versions of the British L7 cannon. It was never exported, it was a super tank only for the USSR, however it was very expensive and the advanced technology was temperamental. So the T-72 was developed from it as a cheaper, simpler wartime only design. So of course the Soviets saw rouble signs and built vast numbers of T-72s. The T-80 was a proper advanced development of the T-64, and again, when it appeared it was a very capable vehicle capable of dealing with contemporary NATO kit, it was built in big numbers and much like the T-64, only for the USSR. The T-90 is simply a post Cold War rebranded version of the T-72BU in an attempt to shake off the negative connotations of poor T-72 performances.

So if these vehicles came charging through the Fulda Gap in 1982 then they really would have been an equal match for Chieftains, M60s and Leopard 1s and infantry with LAWs and Panzerfausts. But that's because they'd have been fighting contemporary NATO vehicles. Same applies to the air force as well. The Mi-24 Hind was, at the time, a truly terrifying helicopter capable of dropping full squads of infantry then hanging around, heavily armed and armoured supporting them. Those days are also long gone.

Another big thing we've seen here is a big con to the VDV (Russian Paratroops). The VDV is strange among air mobile units in that the USSR and Russia decided to equip them with air mobile vehicles, light tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, self propelled guns and so on. The west doesn't do that, NATO doctrine for airbourne forces is highly trained light infantry that isn't encumbered with slow things like vehicles. But to make a vehicle light enough to fit multiple in an Il-76 and hang off a parachute they are very light, and they've just been chewed through by Ukrainian infantry. I've noticed a lot of footage is of BMDs, which is the VDVs main vehicle, they've just been chewed through rendering all these vehicles rather pointless.

Military nerding over.

Interesting stuff, thanks for that. The nerding was necessary.

 

[najaB]

Apparently at least some of the Russian soldiers who were operating in the Chernobyl area have now got acute radiation sickness:

The Telegraph is reporting that at least one of those soldiers has now died from radiation sickness.

Radiation from the destroyed Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine has reportedly killed one Russian soldier after his unit camped in a toxic area known as the Red Forest.The soldier was part of a team that captured the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, 65 miles north of Kyiv, in the first days of the war....

Link, though behind a pay wall: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...n-soldier-dies-radiation-poisoning-chernobyl/

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the other thing to consider is also pure mass. In East Germany the Soviet Army alone by the end of the 1980s was somewhere in the region of 350,000 troops that's excluding any Warsaw Pact troops that could be added to those numbers and excluding reserves from the Soviet Union proper (though they'd be of extremely variable quality!). And as @TheEdge points out qualitatively, certainly at the start through to the mid-80s the best Russian kit was close to or as good as NATOs best kit (though, personally, I have a sneaky suspicion that by the mid/end of the 80s NATOs quality had started to pull far enough ahead that I wouldn't have ruled out NATO fighting the Warsaw Pact to a stalemate without needing to resort to nuclear weapons). Whilst the Soviet Army had many of the same problems that plague the Russian Army of 2022 from hazing to corruption it's probably safe to say that all are worse in the Russian Army than they ever were in the Soviet Army. It's also worth noting that Soviet conscripts served for two years whilst Russian conscripts only serve for one year. It's only my opinion but I suspect that after twelve months most conscripts are probably only just getting properly effective in their roles and then are released back to civilian life. Whereas the two year terms in the Soviet Army probably meant that there were more conscripts around who were actually likely to be somewhat effective at their jobs.

But to circle back to my original point, mass. So the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was somewhere around 350,000 excluding their Warsaw Pact allies (I'm struggling to find figures but from what I've been able to shake loose from quick Googles I'd reckon that between Poland, East Germany and Czechoslovakia you're probably talking somewhere in the region of another 300,000 to 400,000 so say somewhere north of half a million men between them and the Soviet Army in Germany). All of that to invade West Germany (and Austria).

Now look at what Russia deployed to fight Ukraine. They've put something like 200,000 troops into Ukraine so less than the Soviet Army had available and far less than the Warsaw Pact would have had available. Is it any wonder that they're struggling to take a country the size of Ukraine when it's being defended tenaciously using a lot of modern equipment? They have enough troops realistically to conduct flashy combat operations they don't really have the troops to conduct those combat operations and to protect their logistics. A lot of those destroyed Russian columns are the unprotected logistics columns because they don't have the troops available to protect them properly. A lot of their tank losses will be because some fella in a wood a few kilometres away with a anti-tank missile was able to pop a tank and then run away deeper into the wood before the Russians knew he was there because they don't have the infantry to go out and screen the tanks from such attacks (presuming that they could persuade the terrified and poorly trained conscripts to get out of their infantry carriers in the first place). We're seeing similar in Mariupol and other cities where tanks unsupported by infantry (because they don't have many of them to begin with) are getting picked apart by Ukrainians.

The reality is that the Russians don't have a large enough army for the kind of operation they're now fighting (one of the many reasons I suspect people discounted it as happening!) only for the sort of operation that they thought they'd be fighting where there would be some token resistance but the Ukrainian's would melt away.

The Warsaw Pact on the other hand had a considerably larger force available and whilst NATO was also considerably larger it was still smaller overall and the qualitative difference (at least until near the end) was never that far apart to give NATO enough of an advantage to overcome that size disparity.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Telegraph is reporting that at least one of those soldiers has now died from radiation sickness.

Link, though behind a pay wall: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...n-soldier-dies-radiation-poisoning-chernobyl/

In war full of bad deaths, that's an especially bad death.

 

[najaB]

In war full of bad deaths, that's an especially bad death.

I just watched an interview with the head of the Ukrainian team at Chernobyl. He said that it appeared that many of the soldiers sent to capture the plant had no idea at all about the 1986 accident. They thought that the respirators were an anti-Covid measure.

I know the role of the soldier is to be sent into harm's way but at least let them know what form that harm is going to take.

 

[ainsworth74]

I just watched an interview with the head of the Ukrainian team at Chernobyl. He said that it appeared that many of the soldiers sent to capture the plant had no idea at all about the 1986 accident. They thought that the respirators were an anti-Covid measure.

I know the role of the soldier is to be sent into harm's way but at least let them know what form that harm is going to take.

Absolutely. The Russian Army has always seemingly treated its soldiers with contempt, often not even thinly disguised. But this feels a like a whole other level even by their low standards.