Russia invades Ukraine

[DynamicSpirit]

Apparently 20 out of 28 cruise missiles have been shot down today. If this is true, then it looks like we'll see the same thing as we've seen throughout this war: Russia will throw everything at Ukraine, Ukraine will learn to deal with it, and then they'll strike back.

If that is true, then combined with yesterday's missile attacks, that slightly worries me because of the implication that Russia must still have considerable stockpiles of cruise missiles that they've - up until yesterday - chosen not to use.

 

[DustyBin]

I think they want to force them to draw Ukranian troops away from the Eastern front in order to protect Kyiv.

I thought the same as soon as Lukashenko started beating his chest over the weekend.

 

[Cloud Strife]

If that is true, then combined with yesterday's missile attacks, that slightly worries me because of the implication that Russia must still have considerable stockpiles of cruise missiles that they've - up until yesterday - chosen not to use.

On the other side, if they had substantial reserves, then they would have tried to overwhelm the Ukrainian defences. I was expected them to fling missile after missile, but instead it's already going quiet.

 

[Pete_uk]

Oh how I wish the eastern European countries would get together and go in with Ukraine and flush the Russians out.

It's almost like being part of NATO is being counter productive.

 

[najaB]

It's almost like being part of NATO is being counter productive.

Which eastern European NATO-member countries are currently being invaded by Russia?

Seems like it's rather doing what it's supposed to do.

 

[Russel]

Oh how I wish the eastern European countries would get together and go in with Ukraine and flush the Russians out.

It's almost like being part of NATO is being counter productive.

Would this not be counter-productive though?

Say Poland and Romania decide to flush the Russians out of Ukraine independent of Nato, would this not encourage Putin to start throwing missiles at Warsaw, which could then lead to Nato involvement?

 

[DustyBin]

Would this not be counter-productive though?

Say Poland and Romania decide to flush the Russians out of Ukraine independent of Nato, would this not encourage Putin to start throwing missiles at Warsaw, which could then lead to Nato involvement?

If a country entered the conflict in Ukraine and was then attacked on home soil would they be able to trigger Article 5? Is the fact that they’re not attacking Russia itself the significant factor?

I did a fair bit of reading around this at the start of the war, but I can’t remember what exactly the “rules” are, or whether this scenario would actually be a grey area.

 

[Yew]

There are some more reports of explosions near the Kerch Bridge today. If something definitive comes up I'll add another link.

 

[Giugiaro]

Maybe the reports can be attributed to engineers' heads exploding with stress and anxiety as they assess the damage to the bridge and report it to be safe while knowing damn well it isn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a country entered the conflict in Ukraine and was then attacked on home soil would they be able to trigger Article 5? Is the fact that they’re not attacking Russia itself the significant factor?

I did a fair bit of reading around this at the start of the war, but I can’t remember what exactly the “rules” are, or whether this scenario would actually be a grey area.

I don't think it would force NATO to join the war, simply to deal with the attacks on e.g. Poland itself. It is a wholly defensive alliance, not an escalatory one.

 

[ainsworth74]

It looks like Belarus has been handing over supplies to Russia today, including tanks and ammo. Is Russia really in such a poor state that they need to rely on Belarusian equipment because they haven't got anything else left?

Well allegedly they've been sourcing artillery rounds from North Korea so...

If that is true, then combined with yesterday's missile attacks, that slightly worries me because of the implication that Russia must still have considerable stockpiles of cruise missiles that they've - up until yesterday - chosen not to use.

I take a slightly different view that its a sign of Russian desperation. Since the first few weeks of the war they've mostly resorted to using either S-300s (which is air defence missile so completely unsuited to anything but launching a missile and hitting something in the vague area we're aiming) or Soviet era anti-ship missiles (which are more accurate but can only really be aimed at big things that give a large radar return for their targeting). Only a smattering of their more sophisticated missiles have still been being used compared to the early weeks.

The likely reason being that they a) couldn't replace their stocks at anything like the rate they were using them, especially after sanctions and b) had to hold some back for any potential conflict with NATO (no matter how small the chance of that might be).

So, considering that nothing has fundamentally changed with points a) and b), my conclusion would be that Russia are desperate to inflict damage on Ukraine now using precious stocks of missiles that they cannot easily replace because the situation is so dire for them that they're approaching the point either they use them now or it won't matter in the long run because they'll have lost anyway.

 

[DustyBin]

I don't think it would force NATO to join the war, simply to deal with the attacks on e.g. Poland itself. It is a wholly defensive alliance, not an escalatory one.

The question is whether the provisions of Article 5 allow NATO intervention in these circumstances, i.e. a member state attacking a non-member state's forces in a third-party country, and then being attacked itself.

NATO is indeed a defensive alliance, and my understanding is that Article 5 simply allows NATO to respond militarily under international law. It's a bit more nuanced than it first appears. In reality however there's a very real risk of escalation as Russia may retaliate against individual NATO countries.

 

[najaB]

If a country entered the conflict in Ukraine and was then attacked on home soil would they be able to trigger Article 5? Is the fact that they’re not attacking Russia itself the significant factor?

The question is whether the provisions of Article 5 allow NATO intervention in these circumstances, i.e. a member state attacking a non-member state's forces in a third-party country, and then being attacked itself.

To quote from the treaty:

Article 5

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 and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Note that there is no obligation to any specific course of action - military action is listed as an "including" - so the reaction from other NATO nations could be limited to providing assistance away from the frontline, additional sanctions, etc. They aren't committed to the active defence of the member state which was under attack.

 

[DustyBin]

To quote from the treaty:

Note that there is no obligation to any specific course of action - military action is listed as an "including" - so the reaction from other NATO nations could be limited to providing assistance away from the frontline, additional sanctions, etc. They aren't committed to the active defence of the member state which was under attack.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Poland (for example) attacked Russia (for example) and Russia retaliated, Poland would be the aggressor and it's not entirely clear how NATO could/would respond. It's made more complicated in this instance as Poland would (presumably) be attacking Russian forces in a third-party non-NATO country i.e. Ukraine. In reality I think NATO would look favourably on Poland in the current situation, but the treaty is "silent" or at least not entirely clear about what could/would happen.

I'm not trying to be contrary/pedantic for sake of it here, and I think that in reality we know the likely outcome, but it's a point of interest. There are certainly grey areas in the treaty (perhaps deliberately so?).

 

[najaB]

The point I'm trying to make is that if Poland (for example) attacked Russia (for example) and Russia retaliated, Poland would be the aggressor and it's not entirely clear how NATO could/would respond.

That one is pretty clear, NATO wouldn't intervene as it isn't an attack on Poland but a legitimate reaction to Poland's action.

It's made more complicated in this instance as Poland would (presumably) be attacking Russian forces in a third-party non-NATO country i.e. Ukraine. In reality I think NATO would look favourably on Poland in the current situation, but the treaty is "silent" or at least not entirely clear about what could/would happen.

That is pretty straightforward actually. If Russian troops engaged Polish forces in Ukraine then NATO would remain silent. If, however, Russia was to attack Poland in reaction to events in Ukraine then that would be seen as an attack on Poland and the mutual defence clause would apply.

NATO doesn't exist to protect civilians from misfortune brought on by their own government's actions - any country that starts a war is on its own.

 

[DustyBin]

That one is pretty clear, NATO wouldn't intervene as it isn't an attack on Poland but a legitimate reaction to Poland's action.

Agreed.

That is pretty straightforward actually. If Russian troops engaged Polish forces in Ukraine then NATO would remain silent. If, however, Russia was to attack Poland in reaction to events in Ukraine then that would be seen as an attack on Poland and the mutual defence clause would apply.

Quite possibly. However, could Poland be deemed to have pursued a course of action that led to this retaliation? I'd be seeking clarification and assurances if I were the Polish government, as I'm not convinced attacking Russian forces in Ukraine would be classed as self-defence.

NATO doesn't exist to protect civilians from misfortune brought on by their own government's actions - any country that starts a war is on its own.

Again, who would actually have started this hypothetical conflict? Poland would have chosen to enter the war. As far as I can tell it's a grey area and a judgement call would have to made.

 

[najaB]

Again, who would actually have started this hypothetical conflict? Poland would have chosen to enter the war. As far as I can tell it's a grey area and a judgement call would have to made.

Ah, okay. I was considering the situation where Poland entered Ukraine on a peacekeeping/protection role (for example to free up Ukrainian troops to fight in the east) and then came under attack by the Russians.

If they entered with the specific intention of engaging Russian troops then it would be basically the same as if they attacked Russian territory directly. I believe that Russia has the same principle as the USA - that an attack on their troops anywhere in the world will be treated as a direct attack on the country.

 

[DustyBin]

Ah, okay. I was considering the situation where Poland entered Ukraine on a peacekeeping/protection role (for example to free up Ukrainian troops to fight in the east) and then came under attack by the Russians.

If they entered with the specific intention of engaging Russian troops then it would be basically the same as if they attacked Russian territory directly. I believe that Russia has the same principle as the USA - that an attack on their troops anywhere in the world will be treated as a direct attack on the country.

To be fair I hadn't considered the situation you've described either.

 

[Russel]

Putin to meet Erdogan, likely to look at Ukraine peace options - Kremlin

This could be interesting to follow, given Turkey was a key player in the grain deal earlier this year.

MOSCOW, Oct 12 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan for talks in Kazakhstan on Thursday, a meeting at which the Turks are likely to raise ideas for peace in Ukraine, Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters.

"Now many say that the Turks are ready to come up with other initiatives in the context of the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict," Ushakov said.

"There are reports in the press that the Turkish side is putting forward specific considerations in this regard, I do not exclude that Erdogan will actively touch on this topic during the Astana contact. So a very interesting and, I hope, useful discussion awaits us."

 

[Giugiaro]

Ah, okay. I was considering the situation where Poland entered Ukraine on a peacekeeping/protection role (for example to free up Ukrainian troops to fight in the east) and then came under attack by the Russians.

That would only make sense if Poland (and probably other countries) entered Ukraine mandated by the UN as UN Peacekeepers. (Blue Berets/Helmets)

If Russia directly attacked UN Peacekeepers I don't believe that would be an attack on NATO. It would be something much worse and more sinister.

 

[najaB]

That would only make sense if Poland (and probably other countries) entered Ukraine mandated by the UN as UN Peacekeepers. (Blue Berets/Helmets)

I agree that would be the best (and most likely) option, but I'm imagining a situation where Ukraine said to Poland "We cannot guarantee the security of the border because we have to take troops to fight in the east" and Poland decided to secure the border regions absent a UN mandate.

Unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[Cloud Strife]

my conclusion would be that Russia are desperate to inflict damage on Ukraine now using precious stocks of missiles that they cannot easily replace because the situation is so dire for them that they're approaching the point either they use them now or it won't matter in the long run because they'll have lost anyway.

That's my reading of the situation too. If Russia had the stocks, they would have used them to terrorise Ukrainian civilians. They didn't, and Ukraine scored a massive PR win by literally repairing the damage in some cases overnight, while laughing at the amount of money Russia spent on making holes in the ground.

While I don't believe that they've run out of missiles, you have to wonder at which point it will become unviable to use any more.

It looks like Russia is sending forces towards Pinsk in SW Belarus. I do wonder at which point will Ukraine choose to tactically blow up Belarusian facilities to send a message, safe in the knowledge that Belarus cannot realistically do anything with their armed forces against them. But again, this shows the inability of the Russian command to understand Ukraine: putting forces into Western Ukraine is asking for trouble from the locals who are much, much more nationalist than those in central/southern Ukraine.

Now Russia appears to be throwing kamikaze drones at places like Chernihiv. Do they really not understand that such small attacks are going to do nothing but annoy the West, who will pledge more and more equipment as a result? Ukraine is heading towards having a fully functioning Western air defence system, which is exactly what Russia doesn't want from a military perspective.

 

[najaB]

Do they really not understand that such small attacks are going to do nothing but annoy the West, who will pledge more and more equipment as a result? Ukraine is heading towards having a fully functioning Western air defence system, which is exactly what Russia doesn't want from a military perspective.

Putin says "Jump", his generals ask "How high?" because if they don't they'll fall out of a window instead.

 

[Gloster]

A new ‘scam’ is that some of those prisoners who were released to fight with the Wagner Group and have been wounded are being given pardons. However, it is being suggested that the pardon is a con, as only the President can grant a pardon and these are just bits of paper. However, it would not surprise me if Putin is canny enough to keep at a distance from such things, as even he might realise that giving pardons to men who have been imprisoned for serious crimes, up to and including murder, might just be the sort of action that could prove a minor tipping point.

Source: The Daily Beast via my yahoo news feed.

 

[brad465]

This video sums up the poor training Russian soldiers appear to be getting:

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1580306517949001728

Video of a Russian MT-LB running over TM-62 anti-tank mines on a road.

The footage shows the soldier survived, although his later fate is unknown.

 

[Giugiaro]

Putin says "Jump", his generals ask "How high?" because if they don't they'll fall out of a window instead.

Stalin appears to Putin in a dream and says:
- "I have two bits of advice for you: kill off all your opponents and paint the Kremlin blue."
Putin asks, "Why blue?"
Stalin: "I knew you would not object to the first one."
Source

 

[Class 33]

Haven't checked the likes of The Sun, The Express, etc all week because of all their scare mongering. Think I'll have to give up checking the Sky News website too due to the constant speculation(a mix of positive and negative) reports on there every day about will Putin use nuclear weapons. Am getting sick of reading about this. I'll have to stick to just the BBC and ITV News websites I think, as they are not as bad as this. The risk of Putin using nuclear weapons though is very real. All still incredibly worrying.

 

[brad465]

Some images of the Kerch Bridge have emerged and show the second carriageway isn't in good shape, yet Russia are allowing light vehicles to use it, and looking at the pictures I wouldn't want to be the workers on the unstable span:

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1580225856504414208

New photos of Crimean bridge were published. It’s visible that the second road is a bit wobbly

 

[adc82140]

Haven't checked the likes of The Sun, The Express, etc all week because of all their scare mongering. Think I'll have to give up checking the Sky News website too due to the constant speculation(a mix of positive and negative) reports on there every day about will Putin use nuclear weapons. Am getting sick of reading about this. I'll have to stick to just the BBC and ITV News websites I think, as they are not as bad as this. The risk of Putin using nuclear weapons though is very real. All still incredibly worrying.

Sky News headline - "Russia threatens WW3"

Actual news- man in Russia who isn't very important speculates about WW3 in the event that something that isn't going to happen (Ukraine joining NATO) happens.

Sky News have somewhat lost the plot this week. New editor?

 

[Cowley]

Sky News headline - "Russia threatens WW3"

Actual news- man in Russia who isn't very important speculates about WW3 in the event that something that isn't going to happen (Ukraine joining NATO) happens.

Sky News have somewhat lost the plot this week. New editor?

Yes I saw that as well. Absolute nonsense.