Ukraine May 2021

R

Rusty Shackleford

Guest
tl;dr Ukraine really wants into NATO.
They may want in but it doesn’t mean they’ll get in...no matter which way you cut it, Ukraine’s government is deeply corrupt, and if I’m not mistaken, among the prerequisites for joining are you have to eliminate corruption, must be in control of all of your territory, and not have any active conflicts. Ukraine definitely doesn’t abide by any of those. They have a long ways to go if they want to join
 

rudemarine

Power Poster
Senior Defense Department officials said that close to 80,000 Russian troops remained near various strips of the country’s border with Ukraine, still the biggest force Russia has amassed there since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.​
The Russian military did order some units back to their barracks by May 1 — and they did move from the border — the officials said. But many of the units left their trucks and armored vehicles behind, a signal that they could go back if President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia decided to deploy them again.​
President Biden said on Tuesday that it was his “hope and expectation” that he would meet with Mr. Putin during a trip to Europe in June that includes attending a NATO summit in Brussels. The administration has paired the offer of a meeting, an important symbol of Moscow’s continuing influence on the world stage, with a toughening of sanctions on Russia for its cyberattacks, election meddling, threats against Ukraine and poisoning of Aleksei A. Navalny, the opposition leader.Administration officials said they were taking the sustained troop presence at the Ukrainian border as a message from Mr. Putin that he could match — and, in fact, dwarf — the number of troops taking part in a NATO military exercise in Europe, which officially began on Tuesday. That exercise, called Defender Europe, will include about 28,000 troops from the United States and European allies participating in maneuvers over the next two months across Albania and other parts of Eastern Europe on Mr. Putin’s doorstep.

The Russians have always thought bigger was better. Their exercises kind of need to be for what Russia needs to train for on their own soil. We would as well if we were worried about defending our northern border from the Canadian invasion lol.

Russia needs to keep their people on their toes so they retain the ability to move so much equipment back and forth over its vast rail lines. If they sat out even a couple years they would lose that ability through lack of maintenance and know-how to get the job done fast enough.
Gone are the days they can have large forces stationed wherever they need them. Their reliance on the rail line makes them an easy target to cripple though.

Three Ukrainian troops killed in the last two days of shelling. Not good as they might be trying to probe them, see where they fall back to and soften them up a little.
 
R

Rusty Shackleford

Guest
This thread has been kinda dead for awhile, and I guess that’s a good thing however I found this article which I figured was worth pointing out. The byline states “despite expert assumptions regarding September, he is sure "such a powerful escalation cannot occur."’ however I’m a bit confused on a few things: 1). What is the significance of September? 2). Who are these “experts?” and 3)., who’s “he?,” Zelensky? The only thing I can figure for September is either an invasion after the signing of the Crimea Platform on August 23rd or under the cover of their next big exercise, and who are these “experts?” Military? Geopolitical? Sources would be nice. Also, the way the articles headline is written, it sounds like he (Zelensky) isn’t ruling out the chance of a world war, but yet the byline says the opposite. Regardless, this is probably the most frightening headline I’ve seen regarding the Ukraine crisis so far.....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.un...-scale-escalation-by-russia-amp-11416255.html

 

MichaelH

Member
This thread has been kinda dead for awhile, and I guess that’s a good thing however I found this article which I figured was worth pointing out. The byline states “despite expert assumptions regarding September, he is sure "such a powerful escalation cannot occur."’ however I’m a bit confused on a few things: 1). What is the significance of September? 2). Who are these “experts?” and 3)., who’s “he?,” Zelensky? The only thing I can figure for September is either an invasion after the signing of the Crimea Platform on August 23rd or under the cover of their next big exercise, and who are these “experts?” Military? Geopolitical? Sources would be nice. Also, the way the articles headline is written, it sounds like he (Zelensky) isn’t ruling out the chance of a world war, but yet the byline says the opposite. Regardless, this is probably the most frightening headline I’ve seen regarding the Ukraine crisis so far.....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.un...-scale-escalation-by-russia-amp-11416255.html

It feels like something was missing in the translation there. From what I can gather Zelensky is just trying to rally support both internationally and in his country. But talking about "fighting to the last" if there isn't any help coming, it doesn't seem like he's got many illusions about how it would go if something crazy happened.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
I still maintain NATO or no NATO if a future boarder incursion occurs Ukraine will get military support in form of supplies and specialized SOF and air support targeting drones etc.
deniability being the code word.
the intent being to maybe not stop Russia if they chose this route but to make it cost too much.

Im sure there are some on the forum who have much better insight on this but it has been my assumption that most Russians believe it would be fairly easy for them to deal with Ukraine.
I’m also sure I’m ignorant on my assumption most Russians might feel this way. Thus I throw it out there for comment.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
Administration officials said they were taking the sustained troop presence at the Ukrainian border as a message from Mr. Putin that he could match — and, in fact, dwarf — the number of troops
Don't you love it when countries do dick messuring contest? All that money and pollution to move troops and equipment just to show off who is bigger and better smh...
 

RiffRaff

Deputy Director
Staff member
This has certainly been the message Russia has been sending to its people.
Strategically, they're correct. Ukraine certainly cannot compete with them in a conventional war, and even with the entirety of NATO backing them up, they would simply delay the inevitable. The threat of nuclear weapons is the only thing that has prevented the USSR/Russia in check from expanding into Europe.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
The way I see it, Ukraine has three choices:

a) Diplomacy. Hasn't worked so far. No reason why it suddenly would. And the world has no appetite for a boycott over Ukraine.

b) Guerilla warfare. Inflict enough casualties on Russia that they give up. This isn't Afghanistan, though. No way Russia is giving up that port.

c) Nuclear blackmail. If Ukraine can sneak enough bombs into Russia, they have a shot. Would Russia really be willing to give up St. Petersberg for Sevastopol?
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
c) Nuclear blackmail. If Ukraine can sneak enough bombs into Russia, they have a shot. Would Russia really be willing to give up St. Petersberg for Sevastopol?
Well
Ukraine has 15 reactors:
Ukraine is heavily dependent on nuclear energy – it has 15 reactors generating about half of its electricity.
So it takes scientist to keep them running or run them period. Can't imagine it would be to hard for them to build a couple nukes quickly. They already have a lot of the resources to do so. Uranium, heavy water, tritium, processing plants, knowledge, and man power all required for nuclear power but also required for nuclear weapons... See where I am going. They have the means.

Question is are they willing to use it, when the time comes are they ready to call on their own bluff and blow up Moscow or St. Petersberg if Russia where to completely take them on entirely.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
Question is are they willing to use it, when the time comes are they ready to call on their own bluff and blow up Moscow or St. Petersberg if Russia where to completely take them on entirely.
I've actually imagined this scenario, though not specifically to Ukraine.

So they sneak a bunch of nukes into various Russian cities plus one out in unpopulated Siberia.

Ukraine jumps on the telly and demands Russia pull out of Ukraine and renounce any claim to Crimea. If Russia doesn't, Ukraine tells them they have planted nukes in a large number of Russia cities and they will detonate one for every day Russia does not surrender. Further, any sign of Russian attack and they will detonate all the nukes. To show they are serious, they blow up the one in Siberia.

Russia has a tough choice. Vapourise Ukraine and lose a ton of heavily populated Russian cities or give up Crimea? Putin may be willing to see a chunk of Russia fry for his pride, but how long will he last before being flayed by the population?
 

MichaelH

Member
I've actually imagined this scenario, though not specifically to Ukraine.

So they sneak a bunch of nukes into various Russian cities plus one out in unpopulated Siberia.

Ukraine jumps on the telly and demands Russia pull out of Ukraine and renounce any claim to Crimea. If Russia doesn't, Ukraine tells them they have planted nukes in a large number of Russia cities and they will detonate one for every day Russia does not surrender. Further, any sign of Russian attack and they will detonate all the nukes. To show they are serious, they blow up the one in Siberia.

Russia has a tough choice. Vapourise Ukraine and lose a ton of heavily populated Russian cities or give up Crimea? Putin may be willing to see a chunk of Russia fry for his pride, but how long will he last
In a scenario like that, you probably see an all out Russian attack. Not only is backing down humiliating, you are now looking at a nuclear armed neighbor with no obvious reason not to challenge you in the future. You also have the reality that Ukraine would have dramatically escalated the conflict, so if you're hanging out in DC or Beijing, the prospect of standing behind them against an enraged Russia is probably not very appealing.
 

DarkNoon

Well-known member
looking at a nuclear armed neighbor with no obvious reason not to challenge you in the future.
The hole point of nuclear weapons or to use them is the sang "I would rather die free than live red ..." Ukraine may just end it all for Russia and themselves if they see their country is going to fall to Russian control. Ukraine wouldn't be a country anymore in a all out attack by Russia even if Russia stays conventional. So why should Ukraine care if Russia nukes them back, all is lost anyways to them in a invasion scenario.
 
Last edited:

DarkNoon

Well-known member
The hole point of nuclear weapons or to use them is the sang "I would rather die free than live red..."
This is why I hope we never get rid of nuclear weapons. I would rather see my country destroyed than to have even a slightest chance of my country falling to Russian/Chinese hands. Again rather die free in America than to live under a foreign invader. As fucked as that sounds, but as soon as I lose my American freedoms and my land I am done, rather not live to see it, so thank god for nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:

MichaelH

Member
The hole point of nuclear weapons or to use them is the sang "I would rather die free than die red red..." Ukraine may just end it all for Russia and themselves if they see their country is going to fall to Russian control. Ukraine wouldn't be a country anymore in a all out attack by Russia even if Russia stays conventional. So why should Ukraine care if Russia nukes them back, all is lost anyways to them in a invasion scenario.
Ukraine's experience in Soviet days would offer strong support to your point.
 
Top