Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-25

[LDC]

I read a short piece on the high level of civil activity and engagement ( as high as 80%) amongst w/class communities in some parts of Ukraine . Cant remember who wrote it unfortunately.

There's been some interesting stuff about mine workers there and what they're been doing; working, resisting the invasion and organising.

Unions Strive to Keep Ukraine’s Mines Running, Protect Civilians and Appeal for Solidarity - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine

“Ukrainians, including miners, need humanitarian and military aid. Any help would be greatly appreciated.”

internationalviewpoint.org

And there's an old Crowdfunder here:

Union aid: support Ukraine mineworkers' resistance

Help us raise funds to support Ukraine's miners' unions, supporting their members resisting the Russian invasion.

www.crowdfunder.co.uk

Obviously Larry, Topcat etc. should be writing a sternly worded letter to them forthwith about how they're all wrong.

 

[krtek a houby]

It has been at least a week since Russia started talking about throwing nukes about

Ach, it's just talk. Like how they said they weren't going to invade, how it's special operations not a war and how the Wagner guy will be punished.

With all that in mind,Russian leadership seems quite balanced and not at all warmongering like the US/Ukraine clearly are.

 

[kebabking]

Cluster bombs is fucking horrendous and an unpleasant move by the US. Just imagine the outrage if one side were arming up with nukes, FFS.

I don't wish to be overly sarky, but were you this exercised about Russia using sub-munitions with a failure rate of between 5 and 12 times the failure rate of US sub-munitions in Syria for the last 8 years, or in Ukraine every day for the last 18 months, or indeed Ukraine using them in Ukraine, or is actually not really the sub-munitions that are the problem for you, but the US?

 

[The39thStep]

Just spent 2 days with someone back from Ukraine (after 8 months there in civilian society) and they (while much more skeptical than I about things) said the level of support and engagement for the war felt almost universal. I mean anecdata but still.

I’m more interested in the civil side than the name that tank sort of posts on here tbh

 

[Spymaster]

With all that in mind,Russian leadership seems quite balanced and not at all warmongering like the US/Ukraine clearly are.

Are you fucking pissed?

 

[Artaxerxes]

Ach, it's just talk. Like how they said they weren't going to invade, how it's special operations not a war and how the Wagner guy will be punished.

With all that in mind,Russian leadership seems quite balanced and not at all warmongering like the US/Ukraine clearly are.

I’ve been reading this thread to long I can’t work out if this is a joke or not

 

[teqniq]

I don't wish to be overly sarky, but were you this exercised about Russia using sub-munitions with a failure rate of between 5 and 12 times the failure rate of US sub-munitions in Syria for the last 8 years, or in Ukraine every day for the last 18 months, or indeed Ukraine using them in Ukraine, or is actually not really the sub-munitions that are the problem for you, but the US?

Obviously only speaking for myself and repeating what I have said much earlier in this thread. Russia should have been countered and stopped in Syria or even before that in Chechnya then perhaps none of this would have happened. They are still bombing unarmed civilians in Idlib province now.

 

[krtek a houby]

I’ve been reading this thread to long I can’t work out if this is a joke or not

It's a stupid joke. It's bad taste.

Am disappointed with some otherwise sound posters here, hence the sarcasm.

But it's mild compared to outside urban.

Was told elsewhere, in all seriousness,that the war is a woke/ Ukrainian/liberal/Marxist/Jewish/Nazi plot to replace Christian beliefs.

It's brain melting stuff and sometimes feel that we've well passed through the looking glass.

Had to duck out of the internet for a wee bit because of the crazy. Not specifically here, just to be clear.

 

[TopCat]

Well if your definition of winning is to take Moscow and fly the flag over the Kremlin, you’re probably right. But they’re more likely to consider kicking Russia out of Ukraine, and ultimately joining NATO to make sure this doesn’t happen again, a win. And that’s achievable.

How do you see that objective achieved? What sort of scenarios do you envisage?

 

[cupid_stunt]

The Ukrainians are throwing old men at the fight now. Ffs. Fuck their leadership.

It's always fuck Ukraine's leadership with you, never fuck Russia's leadership, you know, the ones that actually started this illegal war against a peaceful neigbour, and inflicting endless war crimes on the Ukrainians.

The Ukrainian forces are unlikely to punch through the Russian defences. Dream on about a coup or Putins ill health or Russian ammunition deficits.

With you being such an expert on this war, I am sure I am not the only one that welcomes your insight into what is likely to happen going forward.

The war will likely be settled in ten days with a ceasefire agreement and settlement on Russian terms.

 

[Flavour]

Obviously only speaking for myself and repeating what I have said much earlier in this thread. Russia should have been countered and stopped in Syria or even before that in Chechnya then perhaps none of this would have happened. They are still bombing unarmed civilians in Idlib province now.

by who?

 

[kebabking]

Obviously only speaking for myself and repeating what I have said much earlier in this thread. Russia should have been countered and stopped in Syria or even before that in Chechnya then perhaps none of this would have happened. They are still bombing unarmed civilians in Idlib province now.

See, there's an entirely legitimate debate about sub-munitions/cluster bombs which can be had - use, location, acceptable failure rates, nature etc.. the failure rate that leaves cokecan-sized lumps of explosives over the countryside for some kids to play football with, or some farmer to hit with his plough makes their use deeply problematic - the problem with what passes for debate is that it fixes on 'cluster bomb bad', not 'and what are they better or worse than'.

Ukraine takes the view that given the shortage of 155mm unitarity warhead artillery ammunition, it either fires what is available - which is DPICM's - or it fires nothing.

Ukraine is very aware of the long term problems with sub-munitions, having lived with it since 2014 - however they see such things as a problem that can be fixed in the future, whereas the Russian Army is a problem (that flattens cities, deports children, and steals hundreds of thousands of tons of grain) is a problem that cannot wait until tomorrow to be addressed.

It eventually comes down to mathematics: DPICM has a failure rate of between 2% and 6%, that then, labouriously and expensively, has to be cleared - but they also have a good success rate of destroying/depleting/degrading Russian forces. 155mm unitary warhead shells - which don't exist because production never remotely matched projected use - have a failure rate of zero, but also have a zero effectiveness rate against the Army that is shattering their country, and promises to shatter it further.

If they had more standard shells, they'd use less sub-munitions - recognising that sub-munitions weren't invented for the badness of it, they are an extremely useful weapon if used against the right target - but they don't. They either use something that works, that has a downside, or they use nothing.

(Sorry teqniq, 90-odd % of that isn't at you, I know you know this stuff...)

 

[teqniq]

by who?

There was a vote here in the UK which Labour at the time would not back. This imo was a mistake. Had a no fly zone been implemented by the US and UK many lives would likely have been saved and the refugee crisis would not be on the same scale as it currently is, and to repeat, look where we are now. Please don't get me wrong, I'm no gung-ho armchair general by any means but sometimes something needs to be done.

 

[TopCat]

There was a vote here in the UK which Labour at the time would not back. This imo was a mistake. Had a no fly zone been implemented by the US and UK many lives would likely have been saved and the refugee crisis would not be on the same scale as it currently is, and to repeat, look where we are now. Please don't get me wrong, I'm no gung-ho armchair general by any means but sometimes something needs to be done.

My local mp voted for bombing. We had a big row as she didn’t know who was to be bombed.

 

[TopCat]

There was a vote here in the UK which Labour at the time would not back. This imo was a mistake. Had a no fly zone been implemented by the US and UK many lives would likely have been saved and the refugee crisis would not be on the same scale as it currently is, and to repeat, look where we are now. Please don't get me wrong, I'm no gung-ho armchair general by any means but sometimes something needs to be done.

So you think the Russians should have been attacked in Syria. So war with Russia. You are a fucking head case.

 

[krtek a houby]

Nobody wants war with Russia.

Do they?

 

[Chz]

They don't expect the Spanish Inquisition either, but I don't hold it against Nobody.

 

[The39thStep]

It's a stupid joke. It's bad taste.

Am disappointed with some otherwise sound posters here, hence the sarcasm.

But it's mild compared to outside urban.

Was told elsewhere, in all seriousness,that the war is a woke/ Ukrainian/liberal/Marxist/Jewish/Nazi plot to replace Christian beliefs.

It's brain melting stuff and sometimes feel that we've well passed through the looking glass.

Had to duck out of the internet for a wee bit because of the crazy. Not specifically here, just to be clear.

Where on earth were you told that ?

 

[The39thStep]

See, there's an entirely legitimate debate about sub-munitions/cluster bombs which can be had - use, location, acceptable failure rates, nature etc.. the failure rate that leaves cokecan-sized lumps of explosives over the countryside for some kids to play football with, or some farmer to hit with his plough makes their use deeply problematic - the problem with what passes for debate is that it fixes on 'cluster bomb bad', not 'and what are they better or worse than'.

Ukraine takes the view that given the shortage of 155mm unitarity warhead artillery ammunition, it either fires what is available - which is DPICM's - or it fires nothing.

Ukraine is very aware of the long term problems with sub-munitions, having lived with it since 2014 - however they see such things as a problem that can be fixed in the future, whereas the Russian Army is a problem (that flattens cities, deports children, and steals hundreds of thousands of tons of grain) is a problem that cannot wait until tomorrow to be addressed.

It eventually comes down to mathematics: DPICM has a failure rate of between 2% and 6%, that then, labouriously and expensively, has to be cleared - but they also have a good success rate of destroying/depleting/degrading Russian forces. 155mm unitary warhead shells - which don't exist because production never remotely matched projected use - have a failure rate of zero, but also have a zero effectiveness rate against the Army that is shattering their country, and promises to shatter it further.

If they had more standard shells, they'd use less sub-munitions - recognising that sub-munitions weren't invented for the badness of it, they are an extremely useful weapon if used against the right target - but they don't. They either use something that works, that has a downside, or they use nothing.

(Sorry teqniq, 90-odd % of that isn't at you, I know you know this stuff...)

Does anyone know why the States, and anyone else who supplies Ukraine's artillery has failed to produce enough shells ? I saw a clip of Biden cracking 'they ( or we) have run out of ammunition' which I don't think was on script.

 

[TopCat]

Nobody wants war with Russia.

Do they?

Loads do. Planned for it, relish the thought and look for opportunities. Especially if the deaths won’t be their people.

 

[TopCat]

Does anyone know why the States, and anyone else who supplies Ukraine's artillery has failed to produce enough shells ? I saw a clip of Biden cracking 'they ( or we) have run out of ammunition' which I don't think was on script.

Wrong calibre. Like train tracks.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Loads do. Planned for it, relish the thought and look for opportunities. Especially if the deaths won’t be their people.

any evidence for this? Becasue USA and EU foriegn policy - certainly up until 2014 - has been very much about avoiding conflict with Russia - hence the mild tutting and sitting on hands when Russia was happily committing and enabling genoicdal crimes in Syria. Prior to that the west did nothing when Russia had a violent spat with georgia and was rolling out the red carpet for putin whilst he was massarecing the people of Checnhya in their thousands.
Its got so ridiculous that when Litvinenko was poloniumed the british government (and the media) was performing ridculous contortions to avoid the totally obvious conclusions that IT WAS RUSSIA FFS! . I remember a bbc report specualtaing on who on earth could possilby have done this (IT WAS RUSSIA!!) - with options ranging from organised crime to "someone trying to make it look like it was the russian government".
This self interested blindness and policy of "not poking the bear" has led directly to the situation where putin belived he could invade ukraine, wave his nukes around and the weak and decadent west would just role over.

 

[krtek a houby]

Where on earth were you told that ?

Musky, meta and other malign places.

Quite astonishing. Or, perhaps these days, not.

 

[krtek a houby]

Loads do. Planned for it, relish the thought and look for opportunities. Especially if the deaths won’t be their people.

Here? Ukraine? The US?

 

[kebabking]

Does anyone know why the States, and anyone else who supplies Ukraine's artillery has failed to produce enough shells ? I saw a clip of Biden cracking 'they ( or we) have run out of ammunition' which I don't think was on script.

Cash.

If you think WW3 is unlikely to happen, not producing ammunition in the vast quantities/rates it would get used in is an easy win. Ammunition has to be stored correctly, which is more expense, and it has a shelf life, which if it's not used, sees huge quantities of taxpayers cash/electoral bribes turned into razorblades and a nasty whiff by a deconstruction process that is itself hugely costly.

I don't think any western state has produced ammunition at anything approaching WW2 rates since, err... WW2.

In modern times, production quantities have been enought to cover turnover for a laughable war stock - the WW3 supply, probably at less than a week's projected consumption rates - and enough for training and the odd low rate war in the middle east.

In the Falklands war (3 weeks of land fighting) a single artillery regiment (26 105mm guns) used about 80% of the ammunition the MOD had procured for about 140 guns to fight the Red Army for 2 weeks across northern Europe.

Similar thing happened in Libya in 2012(?) - in less than a month the RAF exhausted its stock of Brimstone anti-tank missiles - they were supposed to hold off 3rd Soviet Shock Army...

Its also about grubby politics - in the 2010's the Army asked the defence secretary for a pot of money to increase its war stocks of artillery and tank ammunition. Said illustrious defence secretary (and this is a direct quote) 'i'm not having my photo taken in front of a fucking warehouse...'. politicians like pointy glamourous stuff that gets pulses racing, they tend to be less interested is stuff that sits in warehouses and never gets seen.

 

[cupid_stunt]

any evidence for this?

I don't think TC can provide a link to something that is only in his head.

 

[Spymaster]

How do you see that objective achieved?

Well to some extent they've already achieved it haven't they. The Russian offensive which was supposed to last a few weeks is now in its second year, has achieved few of its aims beyond a couple of staggeringly pyrrhic victories. It's cost them more than they would possibly have imagined economically, politically, and in terms of casualties, and they've been fought to a standstill with a fuckload more cluster bombs about to be dropped on them. In those respects, Russia has lost already and with western help Ukraine will likely at least hold the current lines. Then it becomes about attrition and motivation. The hopes and expectations of most sane people will be that Ukraine's allies will keep them supplied for long enough to consume Russia's political will to continue. Same as they did in Afghanistan.

 

[The39thStep]

I think this a not only correct but brave of Zelensky to acknowledge the OUN war crimes

 

[Pickman's model]

There was a vote here in the UK which Labour at the time would not back. This imo was a mistake. Had a no fly zone been implemented by the US and UK many lives would likely have been saved and the refugee crisis would not be on the same scale as it currently is, and to repeat, look where we are now. Please don't get me wrong, I'm no gung-ho armchair general by any means but sometimes something needs to be done.

Yeh but so often the something turns out to be the wrong thing

 

[two sheds]

This is interesting, and does answer the question about whether the US could supply chemical weapons to Ukraine: