Russia invades Ukraine

[AM9]

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?

Maybe they've shipped somebody in from Fox!

 

[DustyBin]

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.

It's very real but it's also very very small.

I can't actually think of a single reason why he would use nuclear weapons at this point, there's simply nothing to be gained by doing so. Unless of course he is indeed mad (he isn't) and decides he wants to go out with a bang and take the Northern Hemisphere (at least) with him. Persuading the people who would actually carry out the order that it's a good idea may prove to be a "hard sell" however!

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?

They really have lost the plot. It appears very deliberate; spread hysteria and fear during the day, then have an "expert" on each evening answering terrified viewers questions. It's totally irresponsible.

 

[Cdd89]

I can't actually think of a single reason why he would use nuclear weapons at this point, there's simply nothing to be gained by doing so. Unless of course he is indeed mad (he isn't) and decides he wants to go out with a bang and take the Northern Hemisphere (at least) with him

I disagree; at this stage I think there’s a risk asymmetry, i.e. the risks to Putin of a nuclear strike are lower than the risks to Western nations of them retaliating, because he has little to lose whereas we do.

In other words, Putin launches a nuclear strike on Ukraine, with a warning to Western nations that any retaliation from them will result in direct strikes on them.

Sounds extreme but because he’s been cornered into a weakened position with no viable exit strategy, I am concerned that it could be “worth the gamble” to him.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I disagree; at this stage I think there’s a risk asymmetry, i.e. the risks to Putin of a nuclear strike are lower than the risks to Western nations of them retaliating, because he has little to lose whereas we do.

In other words, Putin launches a nuclear strike on Ukraine, with a warning to Western nations that any retaliation from them will result in direct strikes on them.

Sounds extreme but because he’s been cornered into a weakened position with no viable exit strategy, I am concerned that it could be “worth the gamble” to him.

He might have nothing to lose, but a lot of people have a lot to lose. These are the people who will tell the military commanders "no".

Yes, Putin has been cornered, but as far as the Russian mentality goes, he's just another Czar in a long line of Czars who can meet a grisly end. The second he tries to order a nuclear strike is the likely moment that he's arrested and escorted into the Lubyanka. He knows fine well that this is the outcome of such a first strike order, and this is why it's not going to happen.

I'm much, much more worried about Russia simply going full idiot and ordering a mass mobilisation of every single man aged 18-60 to battle, where they'll be issued with a gun and ammunition and told to proceed into Ukraine with their own vehicles. No matter what we think about the meat grinder, Ukraine would have huge problems if 5-10m Russian men were to invade in waves.

 

[najaB]

I disagree; at this stage I think there’s a risk asymmetry, i.e. the risks to Putin of a nuclear strike are lower than the risks to Western nations of them retaliating, because he has little to lose whereas we do.

In other words, Putin launches a nuclear strike on Ukraine, with a warning to Western nations that any retaliation from them will result in direct strikes on them.

Except, even if NATO didn't respond with nuclear weapons, all the Russian forces in Ukraine would be wiped off the map by conventional strikes within hours.

 

[DustyBin]

I disagree; at this stage I think there’s a risk asymmetry, i.e. the risks to Putin of a nuclear strike are lower than the risks to Western nations of them retaliating, because he has little to lose whereas we do.

In other words, Putin launches a nuclear strike on Ukraine, with a warning to Western nations that any retaliation from them will result in direct strikes on them.

Sounds extreme but because he’s been cornered into a weakened position with no viable exit strategy, I am concerned that it could be “worth the gamble” to him.

I get the "cornered animal" argument, but he actually has a lot to lose, as do the people he'd be relying upon to carry out his order.

A tactical nuclear strike won't change anything on the ground militarily, won't break Ukraine's will to fight, will make Russia a total pariah on the world stage, will almost certainly see China et al openly condemn Russia, and will probably result in a military response from the West. None of which is good if you're Putin.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that Putin knows he's playing a dangerous game here. If he looks to be preparing to deploy a nuclear weapon it's quite possible that the West steps in at that point (a commentator on BBC News suggested this was likely and will have been communicated to Putin). That's got to be the absolute last resort, but we've had 8 months to plan our response and I wouldn't rule it out if it came to it.

 

[brad465]

I'm much, much more worried about Russia simply going full idiot and ordering a mass mobilisation of every single man aged 18-60 to battle, where they'll be issued with a gun and ammunition and told to proceed into Ukraine with their own vehicles. No matter what we think about the meat grinder, Ukraine would have huge problems if 5-10m Russian men were to invade in waves.

This is where we'd hope there is enough of a rebellion to stop it actually happening. After the partial mobilisation, around 200,000 fled Russia and some protests flared up. We have to hope that a full mobilisation sees potential conscripts realise they have nothing to lose protesting, as the worst that would happen is they get sent to the front anyway. We might see many more attempt to flee, but recent border closures combined with limited capacity generally means I don't see that being any higher.

 

[Annetts key]

If you exclude for the sake of argument, the ‘mobilised’ people that Russia is calling up, would the Russian military really allow Putin to put absolutely everything they have (of the Russian army and airforce) into trying to keep the occupied area of Ukraine that they have, or to try to take all of the Ukrainian territory?

Would the military stop this before Russia becomes almost defenceless against any other country?

Because if what Putin does (such as attempt to use a so called tactical nuclear weapon, which is really just a small nuclear weapon), prompts western military forces to get involved, and these forces wipe out all, or nearly all of the Russian forces in Ukraine using conventional weapons, what Russia is afraid of gets very, very real.

As a military leadership, would you want to take the risk that what is left of your forces will no longer be able to effectively defend the Russian homeland against other countries?

 

[Killingworth]

Meanwhile the ordinary citizens of Ukraine are being bombarded almost at will. It's true that large numbers are being intercepted but many are getting through. So far Putin seems to have been very restrained in not taking out all possible electricity, gas and oil assets. The railways seem to continue functioning with most bridges intact. Pipelines still operate across Ukraine, although that surely can't continue for much longer.

Further attacks on civilians are likely to harden opposition in the west of Ukraine, but to the east many would probably settle for being red rather than dead. However it ends there's a lot of reconstruction to come, and that's going to apply to political structures too. Zelensky faces major challenges as well as Putin. A clear cut peace treaty with easily accepted borders is hard to foresee.

Whoever wins militarily is going to have a lot of territory to restore to habitable and economically viable condition. That should make Putin ponder whether pulverising Ukraine is such a good idea. Except he sees this as a war against NATO which is worth any price! His people need to know it's not their war, just his personal re-run of the WW2 siege of Leningrad from which he can't escape. They can.

 

[gingerheid]

Well, even to this day we can see in Poland whether this post war reconstruction will be better under an soviet or democratic government...

On another note:

Russia to help evacuate civilians from occupied Kherson as Ukraine makes gains

I think you'll find that's called deportations, something at which Russia has historically excelled...

 

[Cloud Strife]

This is where we'd hope there is enough of a rebellion to stop it actually happening. After the partial mobilisation, around 200,000 fled Russia and some protests flared up. We have to hope that a full mobilisation sees potential conscripts realise they have nothing to lose protesting, as the worst that would happen is they get sent to the front anyway. We might see many more attempt to flee, but recent border closures combined with limited capacity generally means I don't see that being any higher.

It is an interesting question. Russia historically has viewed human life as being worth very little, and it's a major cultural difference between them and even their fellow East Slavs. A full mobilisation could result in protests, but I'd still expect most of them to meekly go without protest.

As a military leadership, would you want to take the risk that what is left of your forces will no longer be able to effectively defend the Russian homeland against other countries?

This is why I believe that if the partial mobilisation fails, then Putin is toast. He will have gutted the Russian forces of a substantial amount of men, and it will leave the country open to an attack from either NATO or Asia. They've already wasted large amounts of missiles that didn't do any significant damage,

Meanwhile the ordinary citizens of Ukraine are being bombarded almost at will. It's true that large numbers are being intercepted but many are getting through.

They've already come to a practical end. Russia is still throwing kamikaze drones, but Ukraine will quickly develop tools for countering them.

For Russia, watching Ukraine quickly repair the damage caused by missiles will be immensely demoralising.

Further attacks on civilians are likely to harden opposition in the west of Ukraine, but to the east many would probably settle for being red rather than dead. However it ends there's a lot of reconstruction to come, and that's going to apply to political structures too. Zelensky faces major challenges as well as Putin. A clear cut peace treaty with easily accepted borders is hard to foresee.

It may actually not be that difficult. If Ukraine succeeds in liberating the "LDPR", then most people who collaborated with the authorities there will flee anyway, so it's more likely to resemble Croatia after Operation Storm: large empty areas, which can be resettled with refugees.

Zelensky will have huge challenges ahead, and we can see from Bosnia that huge amounts of money doesn't always mean successful reconstruction.

 

[Yew]

This is why I believe that if the partial mobilisation fails, then Putin is toast. He will have gutted the Russian forces of a substantial amount of men, and it will leave the country open to an attack from either NATO or Asia. They've already wasted large amounts of missiles that didn't do any significant damage,

In the buildup to the first world war, Tirpitz posited the "risk fleet" theory; that the German Navy didn't need to be big enough to beat Britain, merely strong enough to make it vulnerable to others. I do wonder if the Russians could provide a reasonable counter point to say, Nato Operations in Finland, or Chinese Drills on their southern border at the moment.

 

[Annetts key]

A substantially weakened Russian military, may also be seen as an opportunity by countries other than NATO members (we know that these countries would be unlikely to invade Russian territory, but Russia does not see it that way) or China.

There is also the still unsettled/unsolved dispute between Japan and Russia over the Kuril Islands.

And worse, some of the existing Russian ‘federal subjects’ may want to break away from Russia as it currently stands. For example the Chechen Republic.

Putin and the Russian government in Moscow rely on the military and the state security forces to keep a lid on any internal uprisings.

Without an effective military, I see trouble ahead for the government in Moscow.

 

[najaB]

Without an effective military, I see trouble ahead for the government in Moscow.

And that would, ironically, be made even worse if they were to win in Ukraine as a significant proportion of their military would be tied up suppressing the populace maintaining law and order.

 

[brad465]

The Kerch Bridge won't be properly fixed till the middle of next year:

Crimea bridge: Russia 'to repair blast damage by July 2023'

The Russian government says work on the vital blast-hit bridge must be finished by July 2023.

www.bbc.co.uk

Russia's government has ordered contractors to finish repairs to a key bridge linking annexed Crimea to Russia by July 2023.
The bridge was damaged by a blast last Saturday which officials say left at least three people dead.
Russia blamed Ukraine for the attack but Kyiv has not said it was behind it.
The 19km (12-mile) bridge, Europe's longest, is a key supply route for Russian forces in Ukraine, but heavy goods vehicles are unable to use it.
The explosion caused midway sections of two of the four carriageways of the bridge to collapse into the sea and also damaged the railway line.
Currently, lorries are forced to queue for a ferry, in a process which is thought to take several days.
The bridge has, however, been reopened for rail and light road traffic.

 

[Giugiaro]

BTW, this happened:
United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-11/4

 

[Pete_uk]

Media: Satellite images show 11 Russian strategic bombers close to Norwegian border.

Russia has moved strategic bomber planes to the Kola peninsula, 32 kilometers from the Norwegian border, according to satellite imagery obtained by Faktisk, a Norwegian fact-checking website.

 

[najaB]

Russia has moved strategic bomber planes to the Kola peninsula, 32 kilometers from the Norwegian border, according to satellite imagery obtained by Faktisk, a Norwegian fact-checking website.

Worry about the strategic bombers that you can't find, not the ones that you can.

 

[adc82140]

It's not unusual activity. Part of the general rotation of bombers. This is why only the Daily Mail are reporting it

Additionally, these turned up in August and September. Not sure why it's being reported now.

 

[TheEdge]

Media: Satellite images show 11 Russian strategic bombers close to Norwegian border.

Russia has moved strategic bomber planes to the Kola peninsula, 32 kilometers from the Norwegian border, according to satellite imagery obtained by Faktisk, a Norwegian fact-checking website.

And Norway has just gone round and checked all their NASAMS systems are fully loaded with AMRAAMS and AIM-9Xs, which are decades newer than any strategic bombers the Russians can field. In fact if its 32km from the border they would be in range of an AMRAAM the moment they left the tarmac.

I wouldn't worry...

 

[Yew]

Indeed, half the missiles and aircraft in Russia are “nuclear capable” - it makes a good headline but it’s hardly of any real significance.

 

[DerekC]

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.

I can't make the worry go away, but I can sympathise. In 1955, soon after my eighth birthday, the USSR tested its first hydrogen bomb and my teacher saw fit to tell us all about it, including the helpful "facts" that a Russian aircraft might drop one at moment and it would turn everything to radioactive dust. I spent the next many years very, very scared about it - in fact the child's fear is always there somewhere below the surface. I can cope with normal times as long as I am sensible - for instance I have never watched "Threads" and I never will, but I am having to be careful currently. My advice is like everyone else's - be careful what you watch and read, and if you do read something disturbing, read other sources to provide balance. Putin is not insane and he will draw back from the brink, just as Khrushchev did in 1963 - and Biden is hugely experienced and will know how far to push. I am just glad we don't have Trump at the helm in the US. His instability and narcissism would not be helpful just now.

 

[AM9]

Putin has said that there's no need for more heavy bombardment - 'for now'. see here.

Does this mean that they are running out of ammunition?

 

[brad465]

Putin has said that there's no need for more heavy bombardment - 'for now'. see here.

Does this mean that they are running out of ammunition?

The head of GCHQ earlier this week said they were running out, which might also explain remarks from Putin about ending further mobilisation. However, there is a long track record dating back before Ukraine of announcing scaling back operations/withdrawing but then not doing so.

 

[najaB]

Does this mean that they are running out of ammunition?

There are numerous lines of evidence that support that conclusion:

• WW2 era Howitzers have been seen in use - these use a different type of ammunition than everything from the 1960s onwards so they are likely using up stockpiles that date from the 1950s and haven't been able to use
• The date codes on chips recovered from recent missile strikes are from 2019 - logic dictates that you use the oldest missiles first
• Loaded ammunition trains have been seen heading from Belarus to Russia
• There was the report a while back that Russia was seeking to buy ammunition from DPRK

 

[gingerheid]

Ukrinform (which is by no means at all a neutral source of information, so when they say something unfortunate happened it's likely to be real) says that an ammunition train from Gomel made it to Crimea. This is a shame, as I think they hoped that the attack on the Kerch bridge and the other associated attacks the same day might have prevented this sort of thing

 

[Cloud Strife]

Putin has said that there's no need for more heavy bombardment - 'for now'. see here.

Does this mean that they are running out of ammunition?

I strongly suspect that the military has told Putin that they simply can't agree to using what they have left. From a Russian military point of view, there's an absolute need to keep using heavy bombardment.

The date codes on chips recovered from recent missile strikes are from 2019 - logic dictates that you use the oldest missiles first

This part would leave me very, very worried if I was Russian. While I wouldn't be shocked if the idiots were using the newest missiles first, they've also appeared to deploy positively ancient weaponry on the battlefield.

For what it's worth, Russia is still progressing painfully slowly towards Bakhmut. From what I can work out, these are the convict Wagner troops,, and they're incurring huge losses to simply move forward very slowly there. I cannot make sense of this offensive action: is this solely to demonstrate that they are in fact still moving forward?

Ukrinform (which is by no means at all a neutral source of information, so when they say something unfortunate happened it's likely to be real) says that an ammunition train from Gomel made it to Crimea. This is a shame, as I think they hoped that the attack on the Kerch bridge and the other associated attacks the same day might have prevented this sort of thing

The damage has been done regardless, as it seems that there are huge queues of trucks waiting for the ferries to/from Crimea. I wonder if security controls aren't increasing the wait time as well?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2022 ==

Twitter is alive with reports that Ukraine is attacking in the direction of Kherson with a huge amount of forces. I don't see any confirmation anywhere, but there are videos, as well as a very strong hint from someone in the Ukrainian government who pulled out a watermelon in response to a question. Kherson is famous for their watermelons, and Ukrainian watermelons in general are very high quality.

I once imported a watermelon from Ukraine to Poland, much to the absolute bewilderment of the customs officer on the border. Everyone else was smuggling industrial amounts of cigarettes and alcohol, and we presented this large watermelon.

 

[DustyBin]

I can't make the worry go away, but I can sympathise. In 1955, soon after my eighth birthday, the USSR tested its first hydrogen bomb and my teacher saw fit to tell us all about it, including the helpful "facts" that a Russian aircraft might drop one at moment and it would turn everything to radioactive dust. I spent the next many years very, very scared about it - in fact the child's fear is always there somewhere below the surface. I can cope with normal times as long as I am sensible - for instance I have never watched "Threads" and I never will, but I am having to be careful currently. My advice is like everyone else's - be careful what you watch and read, and if you do read something disturbing, read other sources to provide balance. Putin is not insane and he will draw back from the brink, just as Khrushchev did in 1963 - and Biden is hugely experienced and will know how far to push. I am just glad we don't have Trump at the helm in the US. His instability and narcissism would not be helpful just now.

I watched Threads at school at the age of 13 or 14 during a humanities lesson. This was long after the Cold War had ended but it was/is still terrifying. I can only imagine how people reacted to it when it was released!

I don’t think we’ll get anywhere near the brink in terms of MAD as we did during the Cuban Missile Crisis as this isn’t a direct confrontation between two (or more) nuclear powers. In some respects that increases the risk of a nuclear weapon being used, but only if Putin thinks he’ll get away with it, and I’m absolutely convinced he knows he won’t.

I completely agree in regard to being selective when it comes to what you watch and read; some media outlets absolutely thrive on fear and doom and couldn’t care less about the impact it has on the audience. I normally have a lot to say about the BBC, not much of it complimentary, but their coverage of the war has generally been very good. This thread is also actually very good both as a source of news and balanced, sensible opinion.

 

[takno]

I watched Threads at school at the age of 13 or 14 during a humanities lesson. This was long after the Cold War had ended but it was/is still terrifying. I can only imagine how people reacted to it when it was released

Indifference I would have thought. There was a much wider acceptance that some things were just out of your control, and there was a ready supply of grandparents who could tell you about much more awful things than sudden obliteration

 

[najaB]

Indifference I would have thought.

As the most-watched programme that week, I don't think the reaction was indifference:

Threads was a co-production of the BBC, Nine Network and Western-World Television, Inc. It was first broadcast on BBC Two on 23 September 1984 at 9:30 pm, and achieved the highest ratings on the channel (6.9 million) of the week.

Wikipedia: Threads (1984 film)

There's a reason that the initial broadcast was called "The night the country didn't sleep".