Russia invades Ukraine

[Gloster]

How long before Putin has However, a revelation posted last night has now been picked up and quoted by some MPs and former FT editor Lionel Barber saying it should receive more attention (Nick also states Private Eye and the Guardian have reported on it before).

The revelation is that The Telegraph is estimated to have received millions of pounds since 2007 from the Russian State News Agency RIA Novosti:

Indeed. The Eye has mentioned this quite frequently over the years, together with examples of The Telegraph pulling its punches or being less than impartial when dealing with Russia. (Private Eyes ad nauseam.)

 

[Scotrail314209]

Russia appears to have asked China for military help. I wonder if China will send over, they've been pretty neutral in the war so far...

I don't think China will personally, doesn't their foreign policy dictate on things like this?

As it happened: Zelenskiy urges Nato to implement no-fly zone

This live blog has now closed. Follow the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine war here.

www.theguardian.com

Russia has asked China for military equipment since the start of the invasion​

US officials say Russia has requested military equipment from China since the start of the invasion, according to the Financial Times. This has sparked fears in the White House that China may decide to help Russia and undermine western efforts to aid Ukraine.
Another person told the FT that the US was “preparing to warn allies about the situation amid some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia”.
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said.

 

[birchesgreen]

Modern warfare with smart munitions and highly complicated platforms will tend to be short as you simply can't build (or restore) weapon stocks as in the past.

 

[yorksrob]

Russia appears to have asked China for military help. I wonder if China will send over, they've been pretty neutral in the war so far...

I don't think China will personally, doesn't their foreign policy dictate on things like this?

As it happened: Zelenskiy urges Nato to implement no-fly zone

This live blog has now closed. Follow the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine war here.

www.theguardian.com

There's no doubt that China has more sympathy for Russia but directly arming them feels like it would be too much of an entanglement for them. I would be surprised.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well there are some interesting things here.

https://twitter.com/WriterJackWhite/status/1480249429525516290

Interesting in that they are very far fetched.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Mar 2022 ==

Russia appears to have asked China for military help. I wonder if China will send over, they've been pretty neutral in the war so far...

I don't think China will personally, doesn't their foreign policy dictate on things like this?

As it happened: Zelenskiy urges Nato to implement no-fly zone

This live blog has now closed. Follow the latest updates on the Russia-Ukraine war here.

www.theguardian.com

China, I think, are unlikely to help with military assistance. China thinks war is bad for business. Rightly too.

 

[TheEdge]

Russia appears to have asked China for military help. I wonder if China will send over, they've been pretty neutral in the war so far...

I don't think China will personally, doesn't their foreign policy dictate on things like this?

My understanding of China on the world stage is they really consider war the final option. They far far prefer soft diplomacy in its various forms. You've even got the unique Panda Diplomacy where they loan pandas to national zoos as a diplomatic act.

 

[Peterthegreat]

My understanding of China on the world stage is they really consider war the final option. They far far prefer soft diplomacy in its various forms. You've even got the unique Panda Diplomacy where they loan pandas to national zoos as a diplomatic act.

I would tend to agree. However it is possible they will do something minor to keep their options open.

 

[tommy2215]

China may be close ideologically with Russia, but when it comes to trade, China's trade with the EU and USA is worth far more than its trade with Russia. Ukraine is a huge part of the Belt and Road Initiative as well. So while publicly they support Russia, in private they know that aiding Russia would be very bad economically and its far better just to stay on the sidelines and try and broker peace. I can imagine Xi Jinping is pretty frustrated with Putin right now, considering how long the war has been going on.

 

[Chingy]

I can imagine Xi Jinping is pretty frustrated with Putin right now, considering how long the war has been going on.

The war has only been actively going on for nearly 3 weeks. That's nothing in terms of war durations.

Many wars last years, unfortunately, I can see this one being no different.

 

[Busaholic]

Professor Michael Clarke, who was Director of the Royal United Services Institute from 2007-15, told a radio audience this morning that, in his view, for Putin to retain Ukraine in the event of its sacking would require a minimum of 800,000 to a maximum of 16,000,000 troops stationed there, the latter figure based on the situation in Chechnya.

 

[Gostav]

China may be close ideologically with Russia, but when it comes to trade, China's trade with the EU and USA is worth far more than its trade with Russia. Ukraine is a huge part of the Belt and Road Initiative as well. So while publicly they support Russia, in private they know that aiding Russia would be very bad economically and its far better just to stay on the sidelines and try and broker peace. I can imagine Xi Jinping is pretty frustrated with Putin right now, considering how long the war has been going on.

I don't think there is such optimism. This is a question of productivity issue. It is difficult for a de-industrialized Europe to rebuild a complete industrial chain for the production of necessities. China knows this well, the bargaining chips are in China's hands, not Western countries.
If West countries really at odds with China, China will suffer some economically but Europe will face catastrophic shortages of essential goods.

 

[Cloud Strife]

China won't get involved. They've just watched Russia throw their soft power in the bin, and if Russia starts to struggle for hard power, then they've got Putin by the proverbial testicles when it comes to negotiating a long term energy deal on Chinese terms.

The war has only been actively going on for nearly 3 weeks. That's nothing in terms of war durations.

It may be nothing, but there are serious questions over exactly what is happening in Mariupol. There are also some suggestions that up to 40,000 Russian troops are out of the war already for various reasons, hence the apparent desperation on the part of Russia to find people in Syria, Serbia, etc to come and fight.

From what I've read, it seems that the Russians are discovering first hand in Mariupol that it takes a huge amount of troops to take a city if it's defended. One suggestion is that they're being allowed to enter a district of Mariupol, then the UAF is appearing out of nowhere and taking them apart. If - and it's a big if - this is true, then Russia simply won't have the numbers to take Ukraine as a whole. They will need to start conscripting troops, and if they do that, the war will be lost.

And it's worth remembering that Mariupol is very difficult to defend in comparison to cities such as Dnipro or Kharkiv.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And it's worth remembering that Mariupol is very difficult to defend in comparison to cities such as Dnipro or Kharkiv.

Out of interest, why?

 

[brad465]

The war has only been actively going on for nearly 3 weeks. That's nothing in terms of war durations.

Many wars last years, unfortunately, I can see this one being no different.

Yes, in the sense that this war has in one form or another been going on for 8 years, it just happens to have had a major escalation start 3 weeks ago. While no 2 wars are the same, they have multiple military offensives that can be preceded by months of relative inaction.

As for the current offensive's duration so far, while 3 weeks almost is a relatively short duration, it's considerably longer than what was believed to have been planned for, hence a large convoy being stuck/stationery for a week or more, and Putin resorting to indiscriminate attacks/levelling of major cities.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Mar 2022 ==

China won't get involved. They've just watched Russia throw their soft power in the bin, and if Russia starts to struggle for hard power, then they've got Putin by the proverbial testicles when it comes to negotiating a long term energy deal on Chinese terms.

I do expect China will use this to try and make Russia a vassal state to it. The only question is who will be running Russia when this happens.

 

[tommy2215]

I don't think there is such optimism. This is a question of productivity issue. It is difficult for a de-industrialized Europe to rebuild a complete industrial chain for the production of necessities. China knows this well, the bargaining chips are in China's hands, not Western countries.
If West countries really at odds with China, China will suffer some economically but Europe will face catastrophic shortages of essential goods.

Untrue. But I'd expect this from someone who has repeatedly posted pro-Russian stuff.

The war has only been actively going on for nearly 3 weeks. That's nothing in terms of war durations.

Many wars last years, unfortunately, I can see this one being no different.

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said. China wants this war over.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Zelensky reiterating calls for a no-fly zone. I know he’s trying to get what he can but he needs to give that up as NATO seem to have really made their minds up about if.

He says that it’ll cause missiles to fall on NATO homes, but won’t a no fly zone bring an even higher risk of that?

 

[adc82140]

He won't get a no fly zone, and he knows that. It's playing to a domestic audience. NATO has been abundantly clear that it won't get involved militarily unless it's own territory is attacked.

 

[AM9]

He won't get a no fly zone, and he knows that. It's playing to a domestic audience. NATO has been abundantly clear that it won't get involved militarily unless it's own territory is attacked.

But if the effect of attacking targets close to the polish border continue, there may be some measures to deter approaching aerial deliveries.

 

[takno]

Zelensky reiterating calls for a no-fly zone. I know he’s trying to get what he can but he needs to give that up as NATO seem to have really made their minds up about if.

When you say he needs to give it up, what benefit would giving it up be to him? At the very least it keeps up the pressure for NATO to keep sending him large expensive anti-aircraft missiles, which is the next best thing.

I can see why people in NATO countries would rather he didn't give them a daily reminder of how many Ukrainians they're letting die, but I doubt he's very inclined to pander to their sensitivities tbh.

 

[Annetts key]

Zelensky reiterating calls for a no-fly zone. I know he’s trying to get what he can but he needs to give that up as NATO seem to have really made their minds up about if.

He says that it’ll cause missiles to fall on NATO homes, but won’t a no fly zone bring an even higher risk of that?

This war is a absolutely terrible situation, but some things amuse me. One moment the Ukrainians are being praised for how well they are doing, then comments are made about how Russian forces are suffering from huge losses and that they may now be desperately seeking help from elsewhere, then a western operation to control the air space over Ukrainian territory is continuously rejected because it may lead to conflict between western forces and Russian forces, which may widen the war.

If Russian forces have been significantly weakened, and assuming that 75% of Russia ground forces/army have been committed to operate in Ukraine, do the western military really think the Russia wants to, or has the capacity to try to take the fight to NATO counties?

A horrible saying, but the best time to kick someone is when they are down.

Or look at it from a Russian perspective (yes this assumes that someone in their forces has an element control and does not just follow Putin’s every questionable command), would you send your aircraft into Ukraine airspace if the west were patrolling that area? Would you fire surface to air missiles at western aircraft and risk being blown to pieces?

If this war is going sufficiently badly for the Russian ground forces/army, you would expect the advance to slow even further, then stop. If western countries threaten military action, you then put a huge amount of pressure on Russia, as it then has to decide what is more important, the war in Ukraine or defending the Russian motherland.

From my point of view, I think it is worth the risk of escalating the war on our terms rather than letting Putin set the narrative. But this will only work if the west starts using aggressive language to Russia by threatening to take military action against Russia unless it agrees to stop fighting in Ukraine and withdraws all its forces back to Russian territory. And if Putin ignores this, for western forces to escalate by sending western airforces to control Ukrainian airspace.

If Putin is already asking China for help, do you really think he will want to directly fight western forces? Our political leaders have gone out of their way to avoid direct military conflict with Russian forces. But Russian forces have also gone out of their way to avoid direct military conflict with western forces. What does that last sentence tell you? It tells you that Russia is afraid of getting badly hurt if it did attack western forces. We should take advantage of this.

Please note this is all about threats. I don’t really want more fighting. I want the fighting to stop. But if the west continue on this ‘don’t get involved’ policy, the fighting may continue for some unknown time and more and more civilians as well as military on both sides will die or be seriously injured.

Yes, if Putin/Russia does not back down, then an escalation may result in more deaths and injuries in the short term. Hence, as is every decision that involves warfare, it’s a gamble.

 

[DarloRich]

Talks have recommended between Ukraine & Russia to try and negotiate a ceasefire.

Of course, during those talks the Russians bombarded a block of flats in Kiev. Must have bene loads of Nazi there.................

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This war is a absolutely terrible situation, but some things amuse me. One moment the Ukrainians are being praised for how well they are doing, then comments are made about how Russian forces are suffering from huge losses and that they may now be desperately seeking help from elsewhere, then a western operation to control the air space over Ukrainian territory is continuously rejected because it may lead to conflict between western forces and Russian forces, which may widen the war.

If Russian forces have been significantly weakened, and assuming that 75% of Russia ground forces/army have been committed to operate in Ukraine, do the western military really think the Russia wants to, or has the capacity to try to take the fight to NATO counties?

A horrible saying, but the best time to kick someone is when they are down.

Or look at it from a Russian perspective (yes this assumes that someone in their forces has an element control and does not just follow Putin’s every questionable command), would you send your aircraft into Ukraine airspace if the west were patrolling that area? Would you fire surface to air missiles at western aircraft and risk being blown to pieces?

If this war is going sufficiently badly for the Russian ground forces/army, you would expect the advance to slow even further, then stop. If western countries threaten military action, you then put a huge amount of pressure on Russia, as it then has to decide what is more important, the war in Ukraine or defending the Russian motherland.

From my point of view, I think it is worth the risk of escalating the war on our terms rather than letting Putin set the narrative. But this will only work if the west starts using aggressive language to Russia by threatening to take military action against Russia unless it agrees to stop fighting in Ukraine and withdraws all its forces back to Russian territory. And if Putin ignores this, for western forces to escalate by sending western airforces to control Ukrainian airspace.

If Putin is already asking China for help, do you really think he will want to directly fight western forces? Our political leaders have gone out of their way to avoid direct military conflict with Russian forces. But Russian forces have also gone out of their way to avoid direct military conflict with western forces. What does that last sentence tell you? It tells you that Russia is afraid of getting badly hurt if it did attack western forces. We should take advantage of this.

Please note this is all about threats. I don’t really want more fighting. I want the fighting to stop. But if the west continue on this ‘don’t get involved’ policy, the fighting may continue for some unknown time and more and more civilians as well as military on both sides will die or be seriously injured.

Yes, if Putin/Russia does not back down, then an escalation may result in more deaths and injuries in the short term. Hence, as is every decision that involves warfare, it’s a gamble.

It would certainly seem entirely sensible for NATO to say they want a 100 mile no fly buffer along the border and will enforce if Russian planes or air based weapons are used.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would certainly seem entirely sensible for NATO to say they want a 100 mile no fly buffer along the border and will enforce if Russian planes or air based weapons are used.

Seems a bit half cooked. The Ukrainians want the sky “closed” entirely. Incidentally I am intrigued at how some commentators (in the news) don’t accept shooting down planes of an opposing side is an act of war, but probably would think firing a rocket at a tank or shooting a solider was.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Incidentally I am intrigued at how some commentators (in the news) don’t accept shooting down planes of an opposing side is an act of war, but probably would think firing a rocket at a tank or shooting a solider was.

But then I could say something similar about those on the 'other side' of that particular argument. Whether you call it an act of war or not, to me it seems obvious that if you've agreed with the Government of Ukraine and with their permission to help patrol their skies and enforce a ban on any aircraft entering their skies that do not have Ukraine's permission to be there, then that is a totally different proposition from - say - going and attacking Russia, involving sending your forces into Russian territory without Russia's permission. To me, it seems that those who dismiss a no-fly-zone are failing to make the distinction between those very different scenarios.

After all, we are supplying arms to Ukraine knowing that they will almost immediately get used to destroy Russian forces; indeed, we are supplying them with the specific intention that they will be used to destroy Russian forces. Is that not also an act of war? It looks to me like it's at the very least bordering on it. (Along the same lines, I believe Russia has described the economic sanctions as an act of war, although that one seems a bit ridiculous to me)

It's not as simple as, 'we get involved = act of war, we crush Russia's economy and let Ukraine do the military stuff with the weapons we're supplying = peaceful and not an act of war at all' in reality there's a gradation of hostile things we can do and we are somewhere along that path.

 

[the sniper]

But then I could say something similar about those on the 'other side' of that particular argument. Whether you call it an act of war or not, to me it seems obvious that if you've agreed with the Government of Ukraine and with their permission to help patrol their skies and enforce a ban on any aircraft entering their skies that do not have Ukraine's permission to be there, then that is a totally different proposition from - say - going and attacking Russia, involving sending your forces into Russian territory without Russia's permission. To me, it seems that those who dismiss a no-fly-zone are failing to make the distinction between those very different scenarios.

After all, we are supplying arms to Ukraine knowing that they will almost immediately get used to destroy Russian forces; indeed, we are supplying them with the specific intention that they will be used to destroy Russian forces. Is that not also an act of war? It looks to me like it's at the very least bordering on it. (Along the same lines, I believe Russia has described the sanction as an act of war, although that one seems a bit ridiculous to me)

Unless you're going to convince Mr Putin with your argument, it doesn't really matter.

 

[oldman]

Today's Komsomolskaya Pravda has an opinion poll (from a week ago) by a reasonably reputable Russian polling organisation - 68% of Russians support the 'special military action', 15% oppose, 16% don't know.

Under-30s 51% support; over 60s 79%
News from internet 55% support; news from traditional media 80%
Less-educated more likely to support; young people with HE 43% support, 38% oppose

Asked what they thought Russia's goals were :

62% to secure Russia's borders
59 defend the Donbass
39 stop NATO establishing bases.
20 annex Donbass
16 regime change
9 annex Ukraine
3 other
7 don't know

I find it interesting that regime change and full annexation score quite low - I wonder if Putin agrees.

 

[tommy2215]

Today's Komsomolskaya Pravda has an opinion poll (from a week ago) by a reasonably reputable Russian polling organisation - 68% of Russians support the 'special military action', 15% oppose, 16% don't know.

Under-30s 51% support; over 60s 79%
News from internet 55% support; news from traditional media 80%
Less-educated more likely to support; young people with HE 43% support, 38% oppose

Asked what they thought Russia's goals were :

62% to secure Russia's borders
59 defend the Donbass
39 stop NATO establishing bases.
20 annex Donbass
16 regime change
9 annex Ukraine
3 other
7 don't know

I find it interesting that regime change and full annexation score quite low - I wonder if Putin agrees.

I really wouldn't trust any Russian polling organisation right now. And even if these results were genuine answers, a large proportion of Russians would be too scared to go with an answer that is critical of Putin.

 

[AlterEgo]

Unless you're going to convince Mr Putin with your argument, it doesn't really matter.

Realpolitik strikes again.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Unless you're going to convince Mr Putin with your argument, it doesn't really matter.

What matters in this regard is that Putin has a long and very consistent history of doing what he thinks is in his best interest, and of escalating as far as he believes he can get away with. He obviously miscalculated in Ukraine and didn't realise how opposed to his rule the people of Ukraine would be, but that doesn't change that he consistently does what (he believes) he can get away with. There's not really any huge reason to doubt that if we enforced a no-fly zone, he would continue to do what he believes he can get away with. People seem to be assuming that if we imposed a no-fly-zone Putin would suddenly escalate to to a global (nuclear?) war. But that makes no sense in the light of Russia's past behaviour because they would know perfectly well that they could not get away with that - it would end up in their destruction.

On the other hand, if, by continually refusing to get any more involved, we allow Putin to win in Ukraine, the result will almost certainly be a more powerful Russia with enlarged territory, and lots of Russian weapons sitting on the border of Poland and Romania, leading to us in the West being less safe (To say nothing of the fate of the Ukrainians). Personally, I find it astonishing that people seem unable to grasp that

 

[brad465]

Further proof that Putin can only keep the population in the dark for so long:

Ukraine war: Editor interrupts Russian TV news show

The woman held a sign reading "no war" behind a newsreader on Russian state-controlled TV.

www.bbc.co.uk

A woman holding an anti-war sign ran onto the set of a Russian evening news programme on the state-controlled Channel 1 on Monday evening.
The sign, clearly visible behind the presenter, read "no war, stop the war, don't believe the propaganda, they are lying to you here".
The woman has been named as Marina Ovsyannikova, an editor at the channel.
Russian TV news is tightly controlled by the Kremlin and only reflects the Russian version of events in Ukraine.
Ms Ovsyannikova is believed to be in police custody.
Before the protest, which happened live on the nightly news programme, she recorded a video in which she called events in Ukraine a "crime", and said she was ashamed to work for what she called Kremlin propaganda.
"I'm ashamed that I allowed myself to tell lies from the television screen. Ashamed that I allowed Russians to be turned into zombies," she explained.
She called on the Russian people to protest against the war, saying that only they could "stop the madness".
From the moment Ms Ovsyannikova's identity became known, she has received dozens of comments on her Facebook page in Ukrainian, Russian and English, thanking her for her actions.

State-controlled television​

Russian television news has long been controlled by the Kremlin, and independent viewpoints are rare on all the major channels.
But new laws introduced since the invasion of Ukraine have made the media landscape even more draconian. Legislation passed earlier this month made it illegal to call the military action an "invasion" or to disseminate "fake" news about it.
State-controlled Russian media refer to the war as a "special military operation" and paint Ukraine as the aggressor, with a government run by neo-Nazis.
Several of the remaining independent media outlets have stopped broadcasting or publishing after pressure from the authorities, including the radio station Echo of Moscow and TV Rain - an online TV channel.
Others, like newspaper Novaya Gazeta, are attempting to report on the situation without falling foul of the new censorship laws.