Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[NicolaSacco]

I think we are more so in the latter phases of this conflict than the earlier ones, mainly because the Russian side is rapidly running out of troops, weapons, morale, and domestic support. And that's before we even get to the the economic damage sanctions are doing to the economy. At some not too distant point, something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Ukrainian side that eventually collapses.

I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?

 

[sport2793]

Unless the Crimean population actively desires to return under Ukrainian control, the region is gone for Ukraine. They'd lose international goodwill and spur new local resistance movements in Crimea that will drain on Ukraine's military, if Ukraine occupies Crimea.

I wouldn't go as far as saying they would lose international goodwill, that's a bit absurd considering the war crimes committed in Ukraine by Russia. The countries who support them now would likely continue to support them if they decide to attempt to retake Crimea.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?

I cannot speak to the second sentence about what specifically they’ll run out of first, but a common thought seems to be this push in the eastern-most part of the front will represent the culmination of their offensive force in the coming weeks. This would be followed by a complete exhaustion of strength by the end of summer.

This is just me aggregating sources I have not referenced here, so please take it with many grains of salt/don’t take my word for it/etc etc.

 

[MoskvaRed]

I tend to agree that Ukraine will struggle to get Crimea back. However, if they offer to concede it as part of a treaty and the West is still behind them, they should demand demilitarisation as the price of peace and the lifting of sanctions. That way they reduce the strategic prize to a holiday resort.

 

[TMDaines]

I think people underestimate the importance of geography. How is Ukraine supposed to retake Crimea without aviation & fleet when its only connected to the continent by a narrow strip of land.

Not to mention that Crimea was never really Ukrainian from a cultural and historical perspective — unlike Donbas regions that were close to Russia culturally & linguistically but were still Ukrainian by any relevant metric.

I’m not a supporter of the annexation by the way & I would’ve preferred for Crimea to remain a Ukrainian territory even without knowing the consequences of the whole 2014 conflict.

What a middle paragraph. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore Ukrainian. That’s the only relevant metric.

Ukraine was entirely responsible (both as a Soviet Republic and then as an independent nation) for the development of its infrastructure to make it a liveable and arable land. Russia could never previously get it a fresh water supply, prior it to becoming part of the Ukrainian SSR, nor once it did to invade and occupy it.

Where we go from here though with the occupation and annexation of Crimea, I don’t know. Hopefully the bridge gets blown, the fresh water supply gets cut off again, and then we can start from there.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[NicolaSacco]

Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.

 

[frostbite]

I think we are more so in the latter phases of this conflict than the earlier ones, mainly because the Russian side is rapidly running out of troops, weapons, morale, and domestic support. And that's before we even get to the the economic damage sanctions are doing to the economy. At some not too distant point, something will have to give, and I don't think it will be the Ukrainian side that eventually collapses.

I really hope you are right. I don't have much information on the state of the Russian military at this point, so I myself ... well I can't really say or predict anything. Obviously, the longer the war the more people will die, so we all wish that Ukrainians win soon.

 

[Raoul]

Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.

This is why I am confident the Ukrainians will soon gain the upper hand. They will have the morale, financial resources, and very high tech military hardware at a time when the Russians are sorely lacking in all three categories. The Ukrainians already have a massive stash of new weapons which now include smart bomb howitzers to compliment all the javelins and other man pads they been using. This is before the current 40b from the US is even factored in.

Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, we are likely to see a tipping point moment where the Ukrainians gain the upper hand in this conflict. This is of course assuming Putin doesn’t use WMDs or thermobaric weapons, which imo would be game changers that trigger nato involvement.

 

[NicolaSacco]

This is why I am confident the Ukrainians will soon gain the upper hand. They will have the morale, financial resources, and very high tech military hardware at a time when the Russians are sorely lacking in all three categories. The Ukrainians already have a massive stash of new weapons which now include smart bomb howitzers to compliment all the javelins and other man pads they been using. This is before the current 40b from the US is even factored in.

Therefore at some point in the not too distant future, we are likely to see a tipping point moment where the Ukrainians gain the upper hand in this conflict. This is of course assuming Putin doesn’t use WMDs or thermobaric weapons, which imo would be game changers that trigger nato involvement.

I agree with you, I guess I just struggle to see what a decisive Ukrainian victory in Donbass looks like. And that’s probably the thing that’s holding me back from predicting a total victory. We shall see, it’s surely true that even if Putin himself refuses to ‘allow’ Russian troops to withdraw in eastern Ukraine like they did around Kiev, that this could still happen regardless. Hitler refused to allow any retreats on the eastern front and yet they happened anyway.

 

[The United]

I’d really like to see some accurate information regarding how long Russia can keep fighting with this intensity. To put it differently, what equipment do people think they will run out of first, and when? Could be anything from manpower to missiles, tanks to ammunition etc. I’m sure the Americans have a pretty good idea and will be advising Ukraine as to what weak links there are in the system, but they’re not being particularly specific. Anyone hazard a guess?

I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.

 

[Raoul]

I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.

Morale is a massive factor, as is general Russian incompetence in being able to successfully prosecute the basics of warfare. When both factors are combined it makes for a very destabilizing situation that will eventually make them crumble from within.

 

[calodo2003]

I read somewhere on CNN that some officials from the US stated that Russia still had a lot of combat capacity. Obviously, the morale of the troops would be the main deciding factor.

They deployed roughly 75% of their BTGs for the invasion / war. I would gather 40 to 50% of them are degraded to a substantial degree. They don’t have that many fresh BTGs to throw into the fight.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.

In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.

 

[calodo2003]

I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.

In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.

Sounds like my country.

 

[The United]

They deployed roughly 75% of their BTGs for the invasion / war. I would gather 40 to 50% of them are degraded to a substantial degree. They don’t have that many fresh BTGs to throw into the fight.

Well, I am just repeating what I saw on CNN. They could just be cautious and conservative with their assessment.

 

[calodo2003]

Well, I am just repeating what I saw on CNN. They could just be cautious and conservative with their assessment.

Yep, they are probably being conservative.

 

[utdalltheway]

I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.

 

[ColoRed]

I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.

I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / ressources.

 

[nickm]

Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.

Even more astonishing when the entire Russian military budget for 2021 was $65billion (although we now know large chunks of that were being siphoned off).

 

[Red Rash]

I would imagine this has something to do with the fact that it's mainly men from the less and least affluent sections of Russian society who get either conscripted into the military or else join because there are not that many other options job-wise.

In other words, it's a lot easier to support war when it's not you or your sons that might well get killed or maimed.

Yea I agree this is probably part of the reason. The other reason is since the war, the sanctions have probably hit the poorer people the most. Even if the rich have been hit, they are still living comfortable lives.

Imagine being in a position where your country goes to war and suddenly you can't afford food, rent, and you lose your job. This would explain why a lot of the poorer population would be opposed to the war in my opinion

 

[harms]

What a middle paragraph. Crimea was part of Ukraine and therefore Ukrainian. That’s the only relevant metric.

Ukraine was entirely responsible (both as a Soviet Republic and then as an independent nation) for the development of its infrastructure to make it a liveable and arable land. Russia could never previously get it a fresh water supply, prior it to becoming part of the Ukrainian SSR, nor once it did to invade and occupy it.

Where we go from here though with the occupation and annexation of Crimea, I don’t know. Hopefully the bridge gets blown, the fresh water supply gets cut off again, and then we can start from there.

There’s this line between my opinion and me trying to explain the intricacies of the situation… Crimea was Ukrainian and the annexation & the referendum were unlawful etc. So yeah, all the cultural things that I’m talking about do not in any way excuse what Putin did in 2014, nor do they legitimize the “referendum”.

But I’m not sure if it’s as simple as resetting the situation to pre-2014, considering how the majority of Crimeans felt about their identity before all that (and before Putin started the whole “Crimea is ours” propaganda trope) and how they feel about it now.

Basically I just want to highlight that I’m not arguing for Crimea to be Russian — I couldn’t give a damn and the annexation was obviously done in violation of every international law in existence — but highlighting that this dismissing sentiment that Ukraine is going to roll on and retake it without any issues is extremely far from reality. Even taking Donbas is going to be so, so difficult due to the amount of Russian propaganda that those people has been showered in for the past 8 years and Crimea is on a completely different scale compared to them.

 

[berbatrick]

I seem to recall that when the jerries invaded Russia in ‘41 that the Russians did quite poorly so Stalin replaced the head military guy with Zukhov and then tide changed for them. Hopefully nothing like this happens in the UKR.
Plus a major difference is that in ‘41 the Russians were defending their homeland. Not the case this time.

a lot of the initial massive losses were because of stalin's own decisions - his refusal to see the incoming invasion meant the air force was destroyed on the ground, his refusal to allow retreats meant massive encirclement and surrenders. yes, a lot of the generals thought the same way, ordering disastrous frontal assaults, etc. but that is more culpability for stalin - he had massacred most red army officers in his purges, so these officers were in their posts because of his actions. not sure there's anything comparable here.
and of course the difference here is also, as you said, a defensive war where the losing outcome was annihilation, versus a "special military operation" against a hostile population.
finally, based on some of the videos and tweets here, the problem with the russian army seems to be at every level, from common soldiers deserting to incompetent officers to out-of-favour generals. not sure a single change at the top can fix all that (and tbf, it took a lot more than zhukov for the tide to change in ww2 too)

I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / resources.

lend-lease helped massively with trucks and also with food, but the vast majority of tanks, planes, rockets, guns, were all made in the ussr.
a big reason the ussr lasted was because they managed to relocate their factories behind the mountains at insane speed, dismantling entire factories, putting them on trains, and rebuilding them quickly. otherwise they were easy fodder for german bombers and advancing armies.

 

[VorZakone]

Putin May Be Winning the Information War Outside of the U.S. and Europe

https://time.com/6179221/putin-information-war-column/

 

[TwoSheds]

https://time.com/6179221/putin-information-war-column/

Interesting article. Was talking to an Eritrean guy the other day and he seemed to be very much of the opinion that Putin was hard done by in the western media and Russia will eventually win this war. Good thing is, they almost certainly won't so at least some of the facade will come down.

 

[frostbite]

Interesting DW article about what Germany is (still not) doing to help Ukraine. Compare what Germany is (not) doing with what USA is doing.

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-is-germany-losing-its-eu-leadership-role/a-61879431

"The European Union expects strong leadership of Germany. But in the current crisis, the German government has continually acted very late and only in response to external pressure," said Weichsel.

This Friday, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, told the RND media network that he believes "the chancellor doesn't want to deliver" weapons to Ukraine. "One can get the impression that they are waiting for a cease-fire," he said. "Then the pressure will be off Germany, and then there will be no need to make any more courageous decisions."

...

What can Germany do to regain trust? Political scientist Weichsel has three suggestions: "Support Ukraine's swift accession to the EU, provide consistent support for Ukraine's military defense, and complete a rapid and successful energy turnaround."

 

[harms]

I think the tide changed with the Lend-and-lease act. The soviets were pretty much done concerning decisive war materials / ressources.

The first real shift was the battle for Moscow, which was won by throwing tens of thousands of people into a meat grinder basically (which was more or less Stalin’s & Zhukov’s tactics for the entire war).

Lend lease program had played a crucial role in the strategic perspective but it was a bit later on, I wouldn’t say that the signing of that act was the moment when everything changed (especially due to the nature of lend lease — it’s not something that happens instantaneously).

Although it’s almost impossible to pick one moment or one program as something that won the entire war. Without the lend lease the win wouldn’t have happened, but I can name you multiple equally important factors without either of which happening Germany would’ve won.

 

[VorZakone]

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that today Ukraine is being defended in the war by 700,000 military personnel.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/05/21/7347610/

 

[Raoul]

Interesting DW article about what Germany is (still not) doing to help Ukraine. Compare what Germany is (not) doing with what USA is doing.

https://www.dw.com/en/war-in-ukraine-is-germany-losing-its-eu-leadership-role/a-61879431

"The European Union expects strong leadership of Germany. But in the current crisis, the German government has continually acted very late and only in response to external pressure," said Weichsel.

This Friday, the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany, Andrij Melnyk, told the RND media network that he believes "the chancellor doesn't want to deliver" weapons to Ukraine. "One can get the impression that they are waiting for a cease-fire," he said. "Then the pressure will be off Germany, and then there will be no need to make any more courageous decisions."

...

What can Germany do to regain trust? Political scientist Weichsel has three suggestions: "Support Ukraine's swift accession to the EU, provide consistent support for Ukraine's military defense, and complete a rapid and successful energy turnaround."

Meanwhile……

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[MTF]

Probably been mentioned. It it seems the $40 billion lend-lease bill is ready to be signed off by Biden after that one senator held it up for a week. The numbers are astonishing. Ukraine’s expenditure on its armed forces was approximately $5bn per year before this conflict, though I’m sure it will have risen in 2022. But to allow them to access EIGHT times their entire military budget is an absolute game changer, especially with all the other aid coming from Europe and elsewhere. If this war is a chess game then the message to Putin is a very very strong one. It pretty much rules out (for at least a couple of years I’d think) Russia being able to win through attritional losses of the Ukraine armed forces, which I’d assume was their worst case scenario in planning, and really forces the Russians to find a way to win this. And it just doesn’t seem possible that Russia CAN win this through consistent battlefield victories. If that was going to happen it surely would have happened already. Maybe I’m being over optimistic, I don’t know.

Indeed impressive numbers on the military side, Ukraine won't be running out of equipment, ammo or supplies anytime soon. What does worry me on the other hand is their overall economy and the situation of the civilian population even in the large parts of the country that are untouched by the conflict or the areas liberated like Kyiv and surrounding. I heard somewhere that their GDP estimate for 2022 is now -50%, given the inability to do some of their regular economic activities such as the harvest and export of grains. That loss of income to the population is a number that I don't think the US & other countries will be willing to make up, and could eventually prove a limiting factor in how long Ukraine can prosecute the war.

 

[Cheimoon]

Meanwhile……

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That's all over Europe now. Gasum in Finland is one of the few companies explicitly saying no to this, and Gazprom cut them off now: no more Russian gas to Finland. But that covered only 5% of the Finnish gas anyway, so it's not a big issue. It's not as easy elsewhere.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Krakenzero]

Is there a feasible non violent resolution for Crimea? I ask specially to those who know more about the region's history and their people's point of view, like @harms.

For example, is there a chance that maybe one of the following solutions could appear in an eventual peace treaty?

1. Crimea as a UN sponsored protectorate, followed by a 10 year deferred referendum on the region's future.
2. Draw a soft land border that allows both countries to get their strategic goals (de facto control of their borders, secured water supply, free access to all ports, etc) instead of their military goals.

I'm aware that both scenarios would be rejected by both countries as of now, but I'm curious about the crimeans stance since we don't hear a lot from them.

 

[Beans]

Meanwhile……

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Ultimately, paying in roubles is worth keeping the power on, imho. Of course, Russian blackmail won't end there, but still see I the logic.

They need to reactivate their nuclear reactors, surely.

One must also wonder how long until Ukraine disables the Russian pipes going through their territory.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

This guy is like a Bitcoin bull.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[GlastonSpur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Withnail]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date