Russia invades Ukraine

[Cloud Strife]

Or rather a Jewish immigrant from somewhere in Eastern Europe, possibly the Russian Empire.

Certainly the name Maliński suggests that he could have been from anywhere. Malin means raspberry, and when Jewish people were forced to adopt last names, they tended to pick descriptive names.

Even today, in Poland, you often see people with names which suggest Jewish ancestry.

 

[Yew]

My worry is that Ukraine's spectacular success is that it is losing at possibly even less than 1% of the rate it was expected to, which nevertheless ultimately represents losing (particularly in a world where destroying things is quicker than rebuilding them). How long can Ukraine last before it is a country with no power supply, for example?

My understanding is that Ukraine is now on the EU electricity grid.

 

[Cloud Strife]

My understanding is that Ukraine is now on the EU electricity grid.

Yes, as of March 16th. They're not completely linked (for instance, they can buy, but not sell power), but they're disconnected from the old Soviet grid.

 

[coppercapped]

If I understand the above correctly, you’re suggesting that ultimately Russian losses (both military and economic) will weaken their negotiating position and put Ukraine in the driving seat (to an extent at least)? You may be correct based on what we’re seeing, however it will take an enormous amount of death and destruction for Putin to walk away with nothing.

Does anybody know what is actually being discussed in the negotiations? There seems to be very little in the public domain. As you correctly point out, I made reference to Putin’s (original) key war aims, simply on the basis that there’s nothing else to go on.

Yes. The two sides are much more equally balanced in manpower terms than the headline numbers would suggest and it would appear that the Ukrainian forces are much better designed and led for the type of fighting now occurring than the Russian military. There are reports of explosions being heard from military bases and fuel depots around Belgorod - 40km from the Russian-Ukrainian border - which suggests that the Ukrainian forces are able to operate within Russia unopposed, at least at the moment.

In any event the Russians will now have to withdraw some forces from the fighting to protect their rear and supply lines within Russia. This was hardly part of the game plan. The border with Ukraine runs for some 800km from the Belorussian border to even Luhansk; a huge number of troops will be required to police such a vast area against hit and run attacks.

Putin may have to call for a general mobilisation to ensure the military has sufficient manpower to protect the rear areas, even if they are 2nd rate troops and reservists. He might have some difficulty in explaining this to the population at large even though he controls the media as until now the 'special military operation' was going swimmingly. 'Mobilisation' implies 'war', not a 'special military operation'.

One of his other war aims was to stop NATO's expansion eastward. By attacking a neighbour he has awoken memories in other countries of being invaded by the Soviets. Stalin attacked Finland in 1940 in order to deepen the defensive belt around Leningrad and in the peace agreement after the war Finland had to cede some 10% of its territory to the USSR. Finland is now reconsidering its position and, I predict, by Christmas both Sweden and Finland will be NATO members.

This presents Putin with an expensive dilemma. Russia will now have another 1000km border directly with NATO which will also put NATO within spitting distance of the Russian navy's ports around Murmansk. This border will now have to be patrolled and defended against a very efficient Finnish army which gave the Soviet forces a very bloody nose in 1940, so much so that it encouraged Hitler to believe that the USSR would quickly collapse when attacked.

Another masterful achievement.

Maybe he should walk away with nothing. That doesn't mean he won't stay in post as he effectively controls the narrative given to the Russians in general and can control the way the story is released and explained.

But the economic cost to Russia will be enormous.

Finally I have not seen any public disclosure of any discussions between the two sides apart from humanitarian corridors out of Mariupol. No discussions about possible peace agreements are likely to occur until after the next phase in the fighting.

 

[bspahh]

There is an interesting story by Peter Pomerantsev in The Atlantic about a Ukrainian family which shared a cellar with some Russian army mechanics.

The soldiers all said they had debt—mortgages, loans, medical bills—and needed their army salaries. Even those wages weren’t enough. Their job as mechanics was to repair tanks, but their skill set meant they were also proficient at taking them apart. During breaks in the shelling, they would find damaged or destroyed Russian vehicles and smelt down plates with gold wiring. One plate would get them 15,000 rubles, or about $200, back home.

Repairing vehicles is going to be tough if the electronics are going to be melted down for the gold.

 

[DustyBin]

Yes. The two sides are much more equally balanced in manpower terms than the headline numbers would suggest and it would appear that the Ukrainian forces are much better designed and led for the type of fighting now occurring than the Russian military. There are reports of explosions being heard from military bases and fuel depots around Belgorod - 40km from the Russian-Ukrainian border - which suggests that the Ukrainian forces are able to operate within Russia unopposed, at least at the moment.

There are an awful lot of fires and explosions at strategically important sites within Russia of late, although nobody is claiming responsibility……

In any event the Russians will now have to withdraw some forces from the fighting to protect their rear and supply lines within Russia. This was hardly part of the game plan. The border with Ukraine runs for some 800km from the Belorussian border to even Luhansk; a huge number of troops will be required to police such a vast area against hit and run attacks.

It’s the same problem they’ve faced throughout really, although not within Russia itself until now (potentially).

Putin may have to call for a general mobilisation to ensure the military has sufficient manpower to protect the rear areas, even if they are 2nd rate troops and reservists. He might have some difficulty in explaining this to the population at large even though he controls the media as until now the 'special military operation' was going swimmingly. 'Mobilisation' implies 'war', not a 'special military operation'.

This would be hugely risky for Putin. As you say it’s effectively an admission that he’s taken Russia to war (I’m not sure if he actually has to declare it as such to enable general mobilisation?). Whilst he controls the narrative at home, it will be difficult to explain to the Russian people, plenty of whom (of fighting age) do not support this war special military operation in the first place. Even if he can conscript the personnel, what’s he going to equip them with? Whilst I certainly wouldn’t rule out him doing it, it’s senseless on so many levels (although that means nothing of course).

One of his other war aims was to stop NATO's expansion eastward. By attacking a neighbour he has awoken memories in other countries of being invaded by the Soviets. Stalin attacked Finland in 1940 in order to deepen the defensive belt around Leningrad and in the peace agreement after the war Finland had to cede some 10% of its territory to the USSR. Finland is now reconsidering its position and, I predict, by Christmas both Sweden and Finland will be NATO members.

This presents Putin with an expensive dilemma. Russia will now have another 1000km border directly with NATO which will also put NATO within spitting distance of the Russian navy's ports around Murmansk. This border will now have to be patrolled and defended against a very efficient Finnish army which gave the Soviet forces a very bloody nose in 1940, so much so that it encouraged Hitler to believe that the USSR would quickly collapse when attacked.

Another masterful achievement.

A strategic disaster basically……

Maybe he should walk away with nothing. That doesn't mean he won't stay in post as he effectively controls the narrative given to the Russians in general and can control the way the story is released and explained.

But the economic cost to Russia will be enormous.

I think the issue he has is within the “establishment” rather the general population. Putin has weakened Russia in every conceivable way; the buck should stop with him.

Finally I have not seen any public disclosure of any discussions between the two sides apart from humanitarian corridors out of Mariupol. No discussions about possible peace agreements are likely to occur until after the next phase in the fighting.

Thanks, I’m not even sure meaningful talks are taking place at present. I maintain what I said previously, and that I think you are alluding to; this phase is predominantly about strengthening positions around the negotiating table.

 

[Shrop]

There are an awful lot of fires and explosions at strategically important sites within Russia of late, although nobody is claiming responsibility……



It’s the same problem they’ve faced throughout really, although not within Russia itself until now (potentially).



This would be hugely risky for Putin. As you say it’s effectively an admission that he’s taken Russia to war (I’m not sure if he actually has to declare it as such to enable general mobilisation?). Whilst he controls the narrative at home, it will be difficult to explain to the Russian people, plenty of whom (of fighting age) do not support this war special military operation in the first place. Even if he can conscript the personnel, what’s he going to equip them with? Whilst I certainly wouldn’t rule out him doing it, it’s senseless on so many levels (although that means nothing of course).



A strategic disaster basically……



I think the issue he has is within the “establishment” rather the general population. Putin has weakened Russia in every conceivable way; the buck should stop with him.



Thanks, I’m not even sure meaningful talks are taking place at present. I maintain what I said previously, and that I think you are alluding to; this phase is predominantly about strengthening positions around the negotiating table.

Your comments all sound very hopeful about Putin being in difficulty. Trouble is, things are nothing like difficult enough for him.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There are an awful lot of fires and explosions at strategically important sites within Russia of late, although nobody is claiming responsibility……

It suits Ukraine to simply say "no comment" on this. By doing this, they encourage copycat actions, while they are starting to frighten ordinary Russians too. If Ukraine can burn and blow up things at will, it will force Russia into imposing martial law throughout the entire country. They've already imposed martial law in Belgorod Oblast, a clear sign that they're not able to cope with these attacks.

Even if he can conscript the personnel, what’s he going to equip them with? Whilst I certainly wouldn’t rule out him doing it, it’s senseless on so many levels (although that means nothing of course).

I suspect they would simply be used as cannon fodder. They can throw them a uniform and rifle, throw them into whatever transport they have, and transport them straight to the front lines. Training can be limited to basic commands, loading and unloading a rifle and that's about it.

The rumours are increasing that Russia may attack Moldova from Transnistria. But if they do that, Romania will get involved. Transnistria itself seems to be very clear that they don't want to be dragged into a war, probably because they know how weak the Transnistrian Army is and how a joint Moldovan-Ukrainian attack will probably end Transnistria's existence. Certainly, this is the biggest threat to Transnistria's existence since it was founded, and they will be desperate to stay out of this.

One other thing that I think is worth mentioning. Ukraine says that they have identified several hundred people that they want to question over what happened in Bucha. If Ukrainian forces can operate freely in Russia, it's a matter of time before bad things start happening to those people.

 

[najaB]

But if they do that, Romania will get involved.

I know Romania will want to get involved, but that'll be NATO troops fighting Russians...

 

[Cloud Strife]

I know Romania will want to get involved, but that'll be NATO troops fighting Russians...

I imagine they could easily wear Moldovan uniforms with Moldovan passports. The average Russian would be none the wiser.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The rumours are increasing that Russia may attack Moldova from Transnistria. But if they do that, Romania will get involved. Transnistria itself seems to be very clear that they don't want to be dragged into a war, probably because they know how weak the Transnistrian Army is and how a joint Moldovan-Ukrainian attack will probably end Transnistria's existence. Certainly, this is the biggest threat to Transnistria's existence since it was founded, and they will be desperate to stay out of this.

I've also seen those rumours reported. No idea if those rumours are true, but that would seem like a suicidal move by Russia. According to reports, they only have 1500 troops in Transnistria. Basic geography says they currently have no way of getting more troops in without flying them over Ukraine - which right now is just asking to have them shot down (does Transnistria even have an airport?). How much can 1500 troops without reinforcements do?

One other thing that I think is worth mentioning. Ukraine says that they have identified several hundred people that they want to question over what happened in Bucha. If Ukrainian forces can operate freely in Russia, it's a matter of time before bad things start happening to those people.

I've been wondering for a while how Ukraine is managing to pull off these attacks. I'm glad they are able to but - does Russia really not have any internal security on the ground?

 

[birchesgreen]

When Russia makes these threats about nuking us it all feels like when the big mouth bully at school gets humiliated and he says he's going to get his Dad to batter ya.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I've also seen those rumours reported. No idea if those rumours are true, but that would seem like a suicidal move by Russia. According to reports, they only have 1500 troops in Transnistria. Basic geography says they currently have no way of getting more troops in without flying them over Ukraine - which right now is just asking to have them shot down (does Transnistria even have an airport?). How much can 1500 troops without reinforcements do?

Next to nothing, I'd say. They can't possibly leave Transnistria unguarded, as it would mean an easy attack by Ukraine. Both Ukraine and Moldova want Transnistria gone, and I agree, it would be a suicidal move.

There is an airfield in Tiraspol, although it seems that Moldova controls the airspace. It is actually not clear how the Russian forces there are supplied, as the airport appears to be out of use.

I've been wondering for a while how Ukraine is managing to pull off these attacks. I'm glad they are able to but - does Russia really not have any internal security on the ground?

Well, language is the major one. If a Ukrainian who speaks Russian as their first language is stopped, then as long as they have papers, they won't be bothered as it is unlikely that the regular police will be able to tell the difference between a local and another Russian speaker.

You don't need a huge amount of explosives to start a good fire, you just make sure that you start it in the right place.

Of course, it's possible that their internal security is simply incompetent.

 

[DustyBin]

When Russia makes these threats about nuking us it all feels like when the big mouth bully at school gets humiliated and he says he's going to get his Dad to batter ya.

I commented previously that somebody on another forum I use had compiled a list of all the times the Putin regime has made nuclear threats, some of which were over fairly minor diplomatic disputes. It’s absolutely incredible really. It’s wearing thin at this stage and is failing to intimidate the majority of people, especially when the threat is against another nuclear-armed country.

In regard to the situation in Transnistria, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a desperate attempt by Russia to create a distraction. To actually kick something off there would be absolutely stupid at this stage.

 

[gysev]

I know Romania will want to get involved, but that'll be NATO troops fighting Russians...

Not necessarily. Any country can support a neighboring country if it so chooses. Turkey also carries out military actions in Syria without this being a NATO action.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not necessarily. Any country can support a neighboring country if it so chooses. Turkey also carries out military actions in Syria without this being a NATO action.

I didn't know that. Is that perhaps why Poland was reticent to hand over those MiGs itself, because that would have placed Poland, and not the whole of NATO, at war with Russia?

 

[takno]

I commented previously that somebody on another forum I use had compiled a list of all the times the Putin regime has made nuclear threats, some of which were over fairly minor diplomatic disputes. It’s absolutely incredible really. It’s wearing thin at this stage and is failing to intimidate the majority of people, especially when the threat is against another nuclear-armed country.

In regard to the situation in Transnistria, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a desperate attempt by Russia to create a distraction. To actually kick something off there would be absolutely stupid at this stage.

The attacks in Transdnistria were extremely targeted, simply taking out a transmitter which was transmitting Russian propaganda to Ukraine, and to Russian troops on the ground.

One credible-sounding Twitter thread I read described Transdnistria as broadly a breakaway fiefdom run by a single family, which runs as a pretty integrated part of Moldova but doesn't like to pay tax. Their contention was that the 1500 figure only included a couple of hundred active Russians, plus a few hundred former Russian troops who had settled there and various others.

It's not an area I know anything much about, but I do get the feeling that it's basically an irrelevance in terms of the war to anybody who does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One credible-sounding Twitter thread I read described Transdnistria as broadly a breakaway fiefdom run by a single family, which runs as a pretty integrated part of Moldova but doesn't like to pay tax. Their contention was that the 1500 figure only included a couple of hundred active Russians, plus a few hundred former Russian troops who had settled there and various others.

I've been there, and it feels like Soviet Russia. Not at all like Moldova which feels more like an extension of Romania.

 

[takno]

I've been there, and it feels like Soviet Russia. Not at all like Moldova which feels more like an extension of Romania.

The Soviet theme park aspect was also mentioned. You wouldn't exactly have to be a language expert of course to spot the linguistic difference, so it's never going to be indistinguishable. It was next on my travel plans before Covid got in the way, but I'm thinking perhaps not at this point...

 

[gysev]

I didn't know that. Is that perhaps why Poland was reticent to hand over those MiGs itself, because that would have placed Poland, and not the whole of NATO, at war with Russia?

And why the Czech Republic could decide to send tanks. I don't think it's a problem as long as NATO isn't threatened by the supply of weapons to non-members. In the case of Ukraine, that is clearly not the case.

In the case of Moldova, the government can ask for support from Romania because the Romanian-speaking population is threatened by Russia. It would be very ironic but I fear the irony will be lost on Vladimir...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Soviet theme park aspect was also mentioned.

Yep, that's a very good description. It's incredibly poor, for instance you'll find it very hard to find a restaurant serving food in Tiraspol as the locals can't afford to eat out and there's hardly any tourism.

It's worth going, but I'd agree, not now!

 

[DustyBin]

I didn't know that. Is that perhaps why Poland was reticent to hand over those MiGs itself, because that would have placed Poland, and not the whole of NATO, at war with Russia?

Currently various NATO countries are acting unilaterally to support Ukraine (although there are NATO registered aircraft operating over Eastern Europe). I suspect the Poles thought there was a real chance of Russian retaliation against them, whereas the US would be “off limits” (and as a result there would be no need for NATO involvement).

As a slight aside, one of the reasons the UK has been so proactive in assisting Ukraine is that we are a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum (arguably the key signatory following subsequent events). Again I think this is often overlooked.

Article 5 is a lot more nuanced than many people realise. Whilst the principle is that “an attack on one is an attack on all”, individual members are not obliged to respond in any particular way. They are however enabled to respond with military force under international law. The threat of NATO’s overwhelming military strength acts as a deterrent as much as anything. Equally, if a member is the aggressor it’s quite likely they’d be told to behave themselves and offered no support at all.

I’m not an expert on this incidentally so if anybody wishes to expand upon the above (or tell me I’m talking rubbish!) feel free.

 

[najaB]

Not necessarily. Any country can support a neighboring country if it so chooses. Turkey also carries out military actions in Syria without this being a NATO action.

Which is why I said "NATO troops". Would you depend on Russia to make the distinction?

 

[ainsworth74]

Not necessarily. Any country can support a neighboring country if it so chooses. Turkey also carries out military actions in Syria without this being a NATO action.

They of course can though Turkey's involvement in Syria didn't run much risk of Turkish and Russian troops shooting at each other. Russia's boots on the ground that were actively fighting (rather than support staff back at base) were mostly, if not entirely, "mercenaries" at least officially and they weren't particularly fighting over the same areas that Turkey had troops on the ground in. There was the shootdown of a Russian jet which made things a bit hairy but that was mostly an accident on the Russian's part by being somewhere they shouldn't and perhaps more importantly a one-off.

I think a Romanian intervention on behalf of Moldova in response to a Russian invasion of Moldova would be a very different kettle of fish as it would bring a NATO state into direct sustained conflict with, presumably, Romanian troops and aircraft deliberately operating against Russian forces in Moldova. None of that is to say that Romanian is restrained from acting by the NATO alliance, they aren't, just as Turkey wasn't. But it feels very different to the Turkish involvement in Syria.

Is that perhaps why Poland was reticent to hand over those MiGs itself, because that would have placed Poland, and not the whole of NATO, at war with Russia?

Probably, though they're quite happily supplying tanks to Ukraine now though perhaps with more time having elapsed (the MiG farce was early in proceedings after all) the relevant states have had time to agree courses of action. I suspect that Poland probably feels more assured that if it is on the receiving end of a Russian response it won't be hung out to dry and even if NATO dithers (the Atlantic Treaty doesn't instantly mean that an attack on one leads to a declaration of war by all against the aggressor, its a coordination mechanism more than anything) on how exactly to respond.

 

[najaB]

I suspect that Poland probably feels more assured that if it is on the receiving end of a Russian response it won't be hung out to dry and even if NATO dithers (the Atlantic Treaty doesn't instantly mean that an attack on one leads to a declaration of war by all against the aggressor, its a coordination mechanism more than anything) on how exactly to respond.

Not to mention that there are several thousand more NATO troops on the ground in Poland now than there were back in March.

 

[Cloud Strife]

One credible-sounding Twitter thread I read described Transdnistria as broadly a breakaway fiefdom run by a single family, which runs as a pretty integrated part of Moldova but doesn't like to pay tax. Their contention was that the 1500 figure only included a couple of hundred active Russians, plus a few hundred former Russian troops who had settled there and various others.

It's not an area I know anything much about, but I do get the feeling that it's basically an irrelevance in terms of the war to anybody who does.

Yes, it's a very strange mafia state. They have played a very delicate balancing act for years with Moldova and Ukraine, although Moldova has been applying a lot of pressure since President Sandu came to power.

One interesting thing is that Transnistria does have a fairly legitimate claim to independence, as Transnistrian local governments (pre Moldovan independence) were controlled by the "OSTK", which was a kind of political trade union which took their legitimacy and power from the factories in Transnistria. The Popular Front, which won the 1990 elections in Moldova as a whole (and which aimed to unite Moldova with Romania) didn't do very well in the Transnistrian cities, although the OSTK didn't have the majority in some rural communes.

The other thing is that the new Moldovan government actively stopped areas in Transnistria from holding referenda on remaining part of the Soviet Union.

But still, it's hard to see the forces in Transnistria posing any real threat to anyone. Moldova is far more organised than it was in 1991/2, the Soviet weapons are likely to be either unusable or difficult to bring into use, and Russian personnel in Transnistria will probably be deeply involved in various wrongdoings like smuggling. A war there doesn't suit anyone, and the Transnistrian leadership has been playing down any sort of war or hostilities. They also accepted Ukrainian refugees, and Russia hasn't done anything to interfere with them there.

I’m not an expert on this incidentally so if anybody wishes to expand upon the above (or tell me I’m talking rubbish!) feel free.

It's exactly as you say. NATO didn't attack Argentina in 1982, for instance.

 

[najaB]

Equally, if a member is the aggressor it’s quite likely they’d be told to behave themselves and offered no support at all.

Oh, definitely. The Washington Treaty specifically says that the organisation's purpose is the defence of member states.

It's exactly as you say. NATO didn't attack Argentina in 1982, for instance.

Such an intervention would not have been justified. The treaty says

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all...

The Falkland Islands are British territory, but are in neither Europe nor North America.

 

[Giugiaro]

The Falkland Islands are British territory, but are in neither Europe nor North America.

So everything above the Panamá-Colômbia border, or everything above the US-Mexico border?

 

[ainsworth74]

Oh, definitely. The Washington Treaty specifically says that the organisation's purpose is the defence of member states.

Such an intervention would not have been justified. The treaty says

The Falkland Islands are British territory, but are in neither Europe nor North America.

Though if their effort to sabotage Royal Navy warships in Gibraltar had come off that would certainly have given us a reason to refer the matter to the Atlantic Council under Article 5!

 

[Roast Veg]

Though if their effort to sabotage Royal Navy warships in Gibraltar had come off that would certainly have given us a reason to refer the matter to the Atlantic Council under Article 5!

Doesn't NATO's area of responsibility only reach as far as the Tropic of Cancer?