Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

For those grumbling about Ukraine being given cluster munitions to use against attacking troop formations, here’s a video from today of a Russian ballistic missile with cluster munitions being used to strike a built-up area of Odesa in broad daylight. Two civilians and a dog were killed (will warn that the thread beneath the post contains graphic footage). Russia has used cluster munitions against civilian areas since the start of the war, yet claimed moral outrage when the US offloaded old stock for Ukraine to use for defence in the east.


Horrendous incident which deserves a far better news source than a tweet from the former leader of the far right Right Sector in Odessa who has faced charges of kidnapping, murder and robbery.

 
It looks to be true. Will it up the ante in the tit for tat lob missiles stakes?
I think Russia has already escalated the missile war. But one thing they are doing is building new airstrips inside their own country, because Ukraine isn’t allowed to use western weapons to strike those. That way they can keep bombing frontline towns to rubble even after the Crimean airbases are taken out of action.

Rumours that F16s may appear soon, but I’m not expecting much, in the same way all the fuss about western-supplied tanks didn’t amount to anything noticeable (though Bradley fighting vehicles have been well received and made some difference - more on the way).
 
There is no truth in the rumour that Russia are using chemical weapons. They have signed the convention weapons convention don't you know!
It’s not a rumour is it? Reports of CS gas grenades being dropped on Ukrainian trenches being confirmed. It was surreal yesterday watching ticker tape condemnation of the same from the US whilst watching US police attack students with great plumes of CS gas.
 
Macron sets a line and suggests foreign troops if the Ukrainian defensive lines are broken and adds also if Ukrainians ask for them.
  • Emmanuel Macron has said the question of sending western troops to Ukraine would “legitimately” arise if Russia broke through Ukrainian frontlines and Kyiv made such a request. In an interview with the Economist, the French president maintained his stance of strategic ambiguity, saying: “I’m not ruling anything out, because we are facing someone who is not ruling anything out.”
 
Macron sets a line and suggests foreign troops if the Ukrainian defensive lines are broken and adds also if Ukrainians ask for them.
  • Emmanuel Macron has said the question of sending western troops to Ukraine would “legitimately” arise if Russia broke through Ukrainian frontlines and Kyiv made such a request. In an interview with the Economist, the French president maintained his stance of strategic ambiguity, saying: “I’m not ruling anything out, because we are facing someone who is not ruling anything out.”
it would be nice to think this is bluster "strategic ambiguity" but now he has said it out loud if the situation really deteriorates and Zelensky does ask for foreign troops Macron and co cant really say No (well, they can, and probably will tbf).

Thing is what is the strategy here of Russia and Ukraine's allies (leaving Zelensky's maximalist pronouncements out of it) - I'm still certain that ultimately both side wants nothing more than maintaining the new status quo: Russia wants as much of its declared annexed territories as possible, and Macron+ will want to sure up that new border and make sure it stays there - a prelude to the future new hard border.

The notion that EU troops could push for an expulsion of all Russian troops from what was Ukrainian territory is nonsense. Even to really push them back at all seems far fetched and too costly in non-Ukrainian lives...holding the line, I can just about imagine, but even that is a potential massive escelation in this war... a dangerous game that could yet spiral out of control. What a disaster
 
It’s not a rumour is it? Reports of CS gas grenades being dropped on Ukrainian trenches being confirmed. It was surreal yesterday watching ticker tape condemnation of the same from the US whilst watching US police attack students with great plumes of CS gas.
yeah meanwhile on the moral highground israel is melting palestinians with white phosphorus from the USofA
 
Rumours that F16s may appear soon, but I’m not expecting much
Russian air defence is to strong for them to be any kind of wonder weapon. AIUI, the point is to a)Start moving their air force to NATO vehicles and b)Allow them to fire NATO missiles without having to duct tape them onto an ancient Sukhoi. So they'll carry on doing the same limited ground support missions while also being able to launch more Storm Shadow etc. more reliably. But so long as they're prevented from using those weapons against targets in Russia, it's kind of pointless. Get above the ridgeline, a Russian radar miles away pings you for death and you're not allowed to shoot back.
 
Though in the absence of positive news from the eastern front I would expect Crimea to get repeatedly targeted with NATO missiles in the next weeks. Taking out the bridge will catch the people’s attention and could improve morale.
 
I wouldn't say that there is any doubt - Putin [and his mouthpieces] constantly reiterate that they want all of Ukraine's land and to destroy Ukrainian identity.
I was under the impression the claimed objectives were these as per this BBC piece from the end of last year:
BBC said:
Mr Putin said that "there will be peace [in Ukraine] when we achieve our objectives". Those "objectives do not change", he said, listing "denazification, demilitarisation and its neutral status". These are themes he has highlighted from the start of the war.
Obviously the claimed objectives aren't necessarily the real ones, but installing a friendly regime or forcing a compliant one seems to be more in keeping with their approach to the war instead of aiming for full territorial conquest.
 
I was under the impression the claimed objectives were these as per this BBC piece from the end of last year:

Obviously the claimed objectives aren't necessarily the real ones, but installing a friendly regime or forcing a compliant one seems to be more in keeping with their approach to the war instead of aiming for full territorial conquest.
Full territorial conquest would come at considerable expense. What benefits would justify this? A compliant regime headed by those who depose Zelensky could satisfy.
 
Full territorial conquest would come at considerable expense. What benefits would justify this? A compliant regime headed by those who depose Zelensky could satisfy.
They already had a Russophile regime once, and the Ukrainian public got sick of them and voted someone else in.
 
Back
Top Bottom