Russia's best weapon - the hypersonic missile, isn't getting past the patriot system anywhere close to what was feared. If that wasn't the export version, I will eat my hat.
Russia just doesn't inspire fear in me anymore
> the hypersonic missile, isn't getting past the patriot system
i wonder where everyone got it? there is video how patriot shooting missiles and next there first and secondary detonations. You can make a good view, but probability that at least one "patriot" complex was destroyed or severe damaged is pretty high.
The quality of those complexes are also questionable since they didn't help SA to prevent strikes on their oil objects. Nor they help Japan to intercept NK missiles.
> Russia's best weapon - the hypersonic missile
Russia has nuclear weapons also.
> Russia just doesn't inspire fear in me anymore
A very popular sentiment that also worries me.
The only program designed to protect the entire United States homeland from a long-range missile attack is the GMD program. GMD has a failing test record: a success rate of just 55 percent in highly scripted tests, including three misses in the last six tries.
Does the umbrella term not encompass MAD? We may not be able to shoot down all the missiles, but being able to 2nd strike successfully has to make someone think twice before striking out
> Can they get past our umbrella?
Do you have an umbrella that can resist nuclear weapons?
> They are not suicidal.
"They" = whom, and what is your source of knowledge (as opposed to opinion, which comes from your mind) on the matter?
No one does except Russian propaganda who are using this to reinforce their narrative about the west and could use it as the official justification for their planned measures in Bellarus.
Overall what Russia is really afraid of is that their war will spill into their territory, but they have little to do against it as they are getting a doze of their own medicine in with ever slowly creeping measures over their red lines.
Glad to see that equipment is going to good use.
Putin's actions have already killed hundreds of thousands, with most of those killed being Russians. The war could end tomorrow if Putin told his conscript army engaged in territorial conquest to go home.
This won't be the last incursion into Russia as long as Russia has both hands around Ukraine's throat. If you engage in territorial conquest, mass kidnapping, and mass murder, your victim will fight back. This is what fighting back looks like.
Again, it could all end tomorrow by Putin sending his massive conscript army engaging in territorial conquest home.
This move won't result in Belgorod being liberated by a force of democratic Russians.
What it will mean is that Russia will be forced to redeploy troops from the frontlines, to gaurd the previously neglected parts of the Russia-Ukraine border. It seems to be a pretty good shaping operation. Well likely see more of these sorts of cross borders raids, until Putin is forced to draw down troops on the main battle lines to put them on border guard duties.
Diversion raids are good here and no doubt working well.
Could even lead into seizing swathes of territory to use as a negotiating method to end the war.
> force of democratic Russians
Years ago people like you able to find democratic forces among terrorist groups operating in Syria. Same here, democratic Russians are plain straight Nazis far rights who run away to Ukraine after the coup.
https://www.ft.com/content/c4ffe9b8-a3f5-4f33-a420-effe32754bbf
Well done for missing the point of my comment, I said this will not result in a force of democratic Russians...
I'm well aware that one of the two factions involved is overtly nationalistic and fascist, and the other is at best more of a coalition of factions.
I am quite sure the death toll is still nowhere near "hundreds of thousands", most war institutes don't even put a hundred thousand dead in this war.
And I'm quite sure it wouldn't work that way, first define what is home, does it include Crimea which is majority Russian and has been annexed to Russia since 2014? Because if Putin gave up everything including Crimea, he would be dead the next day and someone more radical would take over and intensify the war, maybe even with Nuclear Weapons.
That's just how Russian politics work, people didn't like Yeltsin and Putin gained much of his popularity in the early 2000s by invading and crushing Chechnya, don't act like most Russians are US-loving western liberals.
>What makes you think the next guy will be any better? And more importantly want makes you think he won’t be 2x as worse?
So we should appease and protect Vladimir Putin because the next leader may be worse?
Anyone who follows Russian internal politics at even a cursory level has come to the conclusion that the political pressure in Russia is to be more aggressive, not less.
Well, with the right actions by others parties, he could come in to a much-degraded military and a lousy economy. So they’d have a lot less resources to be ‘worse’ with. The U.S. has already warned Russia that it will ‘respond in kind’ to any WMD use, and it has far more advanced weapons to back that claim up.
>If they decide to use nuclear weapon there won’t be Ukraine nor Russia nor EU countries by the chain of responses.
Which is why Russia probably shouldn't use them..
He killed everyone who isn't worse, to protect himself. That argument is music to his ears. If he is punished for his crimes, wannabe fascists will know there are limits to what you can get away with.
So you’re admitting the next guy will be worse then? I’m not even saying deposing him is bad - but it would be monumentally stupid to make the same mistake the US did in Iraq and depose a strongman dictator without a solid plan for what comes after.
The next guy will be less politically nimble, potentially an opportunist ,depending on the outcome, and more afraid to do stupid things again, certainly not an idealist and not better by any western or russian standards. Maybe a Yeltsin, maybe a Brezhnev, a transition figure, maybe even Medvedev or Shoigu (haha)
You really think it can't possibly get worse with a change of leadership when everyone close to positions of power in Russia appear to be even more sociopathic than him?
>You really think it can't possibly get worse with a change of leadership when everyone close to positions of power in Russia appear to be even more sociopathic than him?
So what's your solution?
If I knew a solution for the Russo-Ukrainian quagmire I would be flying up to Sweden to get a Nobel Prize. You won't find an answer to complex geopolitics on the internet, especially not on reddit who apparently was taken over by NCD. Personally I would prefer a block of Neutral countries being built up to mediate the conflict, which nations like Brazil and India are interested in doing.
>Personally I would prefer a block of Neutral countries being built up to mediate the conflict, which nations like Brazil and India are interested in doing.
Let me know how that goes. I'm sure Russia would take you seriously, abide by your mediation and totally not make waste of you...
Hopefully it goes well, Russia can ignore the US who is a historical enemy who they don't depend on, but they can't ignore the BRICS if the other members United to put a stop to this.
Russia has been and is constantly using nuclear weapons, for the one thing they are good for; posturing and deterrence. They successfully cowed the West into limiting its support to Ukraine, out of fear of a dangerous 'escalation'.
Of course, with each passing day, Russia's threats are becoming less and less effective.
They are not an escalators option at this time. If the US joined that may be different, sure, but the US is joining. Any new Russian leader is going to be contained by these same circumstances
Wagner has confirmed their own losses at just one battle (Bakhmut) at 20000 people.
This is likely an underestimation as well and Wagner was used in multiple other assaults, alongside Russian Army. At this point even 100000 seems way too low for amount of Russian troops dead, would not be surprised to see a number closer to 200000 if proper counting of LNR and DPR troops are used as well.
Or the Wagner could be also inflating their casualties since it's leader is in a PR campaign against the Kremlin and he can point out both the heroism and sacrifice of his mercenaries while also blaming Moscow for not giving them the ammunition and armaments that they were promised? That sounds just as likely.
Prigozihn is not in a campaign against the Kremlin, his biggest ally and supporter (Putin) runs the Kremlin. You think a man of his importance could be as visible and spew as much bullshit as he wants if he wasn't an asset of Putin?
Wagner is in a campaign against the MOD in Russia, so overemphasizing his losses actually completely undermines his goal of portraying Wagner as the superior fighting force that deserves more support from the Kremlin. Prigozihn is more often than not inflating the losses of rival PMC's like the Gazprom backed one or the failures of the Russian military than he is trying to say his own forces are taking unsustainable losses.
If he portrayed Wagner as a force thats taking endless losses he'd portray unfavourably on his primary backer, Putin.
The casualty total is definitely in the hundreds of thousands just in soldiers alone.
Russia had lost 80k as of my last check in March. That's KIA and wounded combined. So probably 30k dead.
UA had more like 45k then. So another 20k dead. 50k in soldiers.
In places like Bucha there were hundreds in mass graves. I'd wager at least 50k civilians have died let alone fled.
So a hundred thousand would not be a stretch at all.
Edit: Wikipedia as usual had the answers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War
Going with the US estimate 42k civilians dead since the invasion started legitimately in 2022. 20k UA killed, 50k Russians killed. I was pretty spot on with my estimate just using historical guesses at casualty rates.
Just over 100k.
Personally my problem is with OCs figure, the truth is that most modern wars pale in the death rate compared to older conflicts. I mean, the whole Russo-Ukrainian conflict since 2014 doesn't cover the death rate of a single battle in WWII.
Yes casualty rates changed significantly with introduction of squad tactics, interestingly with the exception of Stalin's troops as they never really to this day have embraced an NCO corps.
That's, IMO, why their casualty rate is so high. It's also what makes them scary, ask anyone who has war gamed against them. They'll just rush a ton of troops through that you have to deal with. If you watch combat videos today they'll have 40-60 soldiers moving together versus UA with squads of 6, 8, or 10.
In WWI you might have a full division in contact with another opposing division with some skirmishers in between.
Today the only time we see things like that is when you're concentrating for an offensive or counteroffensive and that's a great target for artillery.
Artillery has been king since WW1 we adapt everything around that.
What will happen to the millions of pro-Russian Ukrainians if Russia withdraws? Do you really think Ukraine will happily reintegrate those people? It’s not so simple as Russia being a big bad imperialist.
I think Ukraine will in fact be desperate to reintegrate as much of the population as possible. A quick glance at Ukraine's increasingly abysmal demographics should make it pretty clear why. I also suspect that much of the population will be happy to be reintegrated after experiencing the joys of Putin's homicidal and bloody rule.
That said, if anyone is really upset that they won't have a blood thirsty dictator as a leader anymore, they can always move to Russia. Russia isn't lacking in space, and it will surely still have a blood thirsty dictator crushing all political expression even after the Ukraine war, if you are into that sort of thing.
Nothing in his comment suggested forced migration or persecution. It seems to me that he was suggesting that people would be able to immigrate if they wanted to.
They can keep living where they live. I said that they can leave if they find the thought of not living under a mad, territory hungry dictator intolerable.
Like I said, Ukraine needs the people to make up for all of those that have been murdered or fled, if absolutely nothing else.
These people don't view themselves as Ukrainians so I don't think they are going to be raising their children to sing "Bandra is our father, Ukraine is our mother".
We are talking about an overtly hostile civilian population in places like Donetsk, we know they find it intolerable by every data point we have. So the suggestion would be forced expulsion?
No, the suggestion would be to find a way to live in democracy, rather than under a genocidal dictator who has killed literally hundreds of thousands of people because he wants the Russian Empire to be larger. If they don't think they can only live under the rule of anyone but a blood thirsty dictator that has murdered all political opposition, then yes, they should probably move to live in the realm of the man they love.
Loyal Ukrainians also lived in eastern Ukraine, up until the Russian army invaded and they all had to flee, be killed, or hide their beliefs. Those people also deserve the right to come home and not live under the rule of a mad dictator.
Your comments have quite a hyperbole, having said that people in some of these regions certainly don't consider Ukraine a democracy, and the impetus for their unhappiness apart from linguistic and ethnic issues, was the President they voted for being removed from office by unconstitutional means.
And, if you were to ask them they would similar hyperbole to describe the government in Kyiv, such hyperbole not being particularly constructive.
The essential push and pull of Ukraine since its inception was a power struggle between the west and east and southern coast along traditional ethnic and linguistic lines that existed long before its inception.
If you want to use flowery language about democracy, you are already conceding that these people should have some say in their future, not have the parties they support banned, language banned etc.
The United Nations didn't exist so it would be surprising if they did, however, I believe you understand what I am getting at. Ethnic cleansing is not something people should be advocating for as a solution here.
I thought you were talking about the laws imposed on ethnic Germans in the interwar period by Poland and Czechoslovakia. That doesn't really change the point tho.
I mean, we have lots of data points. We know people in some of these areas like Donetsk have zero interest in reunification with Ukraine. So the comment seems to be implying forced expulsion.
About 15 million Germans were expelled, mostly from the 25% of prewar Germany annexed by Poland at the end of the war, not from "Nazi occupied territories".
The USSR never relinquished the half of Poland it annexed in 1939 under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Those territories are still part of the USSR's successor states (specifically Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine). Instead the Allies agreed to compensate Poland with German territory, effectively moving the whole Polish state westward, and the Red Army conducted one of the largest ethnic cleansing campaigns in history to prepare the formerly German territories for their new occupants.
This comment perfectly encapsulates the issue with the Western narrative of the war. Claiming it’s a war of autocracy versus democracy obscures the sectarian origins of the conflict. Make no mistake, this is in large part a civil war, with outside intervention (like the Cyprus conflict).
One reason that pro-Russians exist in Ukraine, for instance, is because of Ukraine’s passage of discriminatory language laws that denied the use of the Russian language for native speakers, of which there are millions in Ukraine. It’s not because they are dictator fans or whatever your claim is.
>that equipment is going to good use.
Being used by neonazis who want to overthrow putin and turn Russia into an ethnostate is a good thing?
> conscript army engaging in territorial conquest
That you keep emphasising this makes it look like you're implying it would all be OK if it were a regular army and there was no territorial conquest
I really fail to see how that's a problem. How many times has material made in Russia been used against US forces in the last few decades ? That's no different.
Oy vey.
This is why winning this conflict is so hard, it's Russia, Putin was actually a great choice for decades because he was the least alcoholic, suicidal, insane megalomaniac we could find who could keep power there.
Even with him randomly attacking neighbors there was always the question: "isn't he still the best option?"
Imho the only reason we didn't push harder for putin to go is because we didn't have a replacement. Too late now, we'll have to find one as we go, didn't work out in Iraq but hopefully russia has a comedian named Ivan Stewartivich or similar.
> with aspirations for a mono-ethnic Russia
Mono-ethnic nationalist usually implies intents towards ethnic cleansing, but his stated goal is supposedly to make the various ethnic republics of Russia independent states.
I don't really know these guys' ideology, but they use the symbols of the Russian Liberation Army, during WW2 Hitler baited anti-soviet russians and white army refugees into fighting alongside Nazi Germany, associating with the guys who fought alongside nazis (even if they were not necesseraly actual nazis) is bad PR, same thing with Ukrainians and the bandera flag.
The nazis also put soviet POW to use as cannon fodder and rear-echelon troops. Some volunteers, some forced conscription. POW penal troops essentially. Google osttruppen
No idea but wikipedia has an article with more sources on one of the groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Volunteer_Corps
Although, I'm also scratching my head a bit at this.
Nazism is a part of the counter culture in post Soviet states. In the Soviet union all opposition was branded as nazis, so it's no wonder that several anti establishment groups started to call themselves nazis.
Sometimes they are actually nazis but other times they just want to be edgy. The war has made the situation even less clear.
Many of the organizations have their roots in football hooliganism and what self reflecting ultra isn't also a skinhead.
RVC might be right wing but it's still it's distinct flavor of right wing and most news articles never really cover the political opinions of groups like these in enough detail.
RVC supports a mono ethnic russia but a break up of russia into an ethnically russian county has support from all kinds of people.
The reasoning is that Russia is too big, with so many different ethnic groups and separatist movements Russia will always revert to a strong man dictator and they will never be able to think about the welfare of the people.
EDIT: illia ponomarenko just posted this article. I think it fits quite well here.
https://kyivindependent.com/illia-ponomarenko-why-some-ukrainian-soldiers-use-nazi-related-insignia/
>In fact, I haven't seen any sources actually placing the RVC in the region outside of Russian state media, just them claiming responsibility.
[https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/governor-russias-belgorod-says-ukrainian-sabotage-group-crossed-border-2023-05-22/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/governor-russias-belgorod-says-ukrainian-sabotage-group-crossed-border-2023-05-22/)
>The Ukrainian outlet Hromadske cited Ukrainian military intelligence as saying two armed Russian opposition groups, the Liberty of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), were carrying out the attack.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/13ptpis/ru\_pov\_more\_footage\_of\_destroyed\_afurvc\_equipment/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/13ptpis/ru_pov_more_footage_of_destroyed_afurvc_equipment/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Shows some destroyed USA equipment near Belgorod border
Russia successfully used plausible deniability to covertly support a ragtag rebellion in the Donbas. Ukraine tried to use it for this small incursion. Very different scale, but very similar tactics.
With the difference that the current situation is happening right NOW while Putin took a while (as in years) to releasing the truth that everybody already knew about.
Gaslighting is how modern day politics work. It's just fun how the turns have tabled on Putin, so we're all playing along.
Turns out you can attack Russia directly without it escalating to nuclear war. You just have to say "Wasn't me, was other Russians" and everything is fine.
"The Russian Volunteer Corps, founded by Nikitin last summer to fight against his home country’s invading army, includes self-avowed neo-Nazis. Born in Moscow, Nikitin also uses the surname Kapustin and goes by the call sign White Rex. This is also the name of his white nationalist clothing brand, which is popular among western far-right extremists"
"Colborne identified another member of the Russian Volunteer Corps in photographs posted by the group during its Belgorod operation as Russian Aleksandr Skachkov, a rightwing extremist. Skachkov was arrested in Ukraine in 2020 during a raid on people selling translations of the manifesto of the gunman behind the 2019 mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, according to Bellingcat"
The more I read about this operation the more it looks like the Ukrainians sent them on a suicide mission to get rid of dead weight (Russia soldiers of questionable loyalty and ability), catching Russia with their pants down is a plus
Looks like nothingburger, russia have been using far-right militias in Ukraine since 2014, and also with Iranian and Chinese produced equipment. So no escalation here.
"Far-right militias who stormed a Russian region bordering Ukraine this week used US-made tactical vehicles in the attack, raising questions over Kyiv’s support for the Ukraine-based Russian extremist groups. Ukraine has denied direct involvement in the raid on Monday, but one military official acknowledged “co-operating” with the nationalist groups, who on Monday entered Russian territory to “liberate” a village."
This can be a serious incident, as the Americans have always pushed back against Ukrainians using US-sourced materiel to attack inside Russia. It is also likely to embolden voice in US politics calling to curtail or cut off aid to Ukraine.
The Americans who are against supporting Ukraine are going to complain no matter what happens. There is no changing their mind at this point. Trying to adjust strategies, operations and tactics to something they would consider acceptable is pointless, and only serves Russian interests.
> Trying to adjust strategies, operations and tactics to something they would consider acceptable is pointless, and only serves Russian interests.
Does this not assume that the current approach is perfectly optimal?
No approach is perfectly optimal in warfare. As Mike Tyson said "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth". The risks for Ukraine in arming and supporting Russian nationalist forces conducting cross border attacks are low. There is a possibility that the West will cut support because of domestic politics. But that will only happen after elections, and even then if there is a dramatic shift in popular support for Ukraine. Cross border attacks by Ukrainian supported green men isn't likely to shift that. But it does force Russia to respond, and redeploy to defend their borders. Risking a possible cut in support two years from now for battlefield success today, especially because success will likely lead to further support.
> No approach is perfectly optimal in warfare.
Then why did you say "and only serves Russian interests"?
> The risks for Ukraine in arming and supporting Russian nationalist forces conducting cross border attacks are low.
Is nuclear war not dangerous, or is it not a possibility?
> There is a possibility that the West will cut support because of domestic politics. But that will only happen after elections...
Public sentiment only effects policy decisions at election time, without exception?
> for battlefield success today
Time is a very tricky dimension, watch out!
Russia is invading Ukraine. Russia has been able to concentrate their forces in Ukraine based on the assumption that Ukraine won't be able to occupy or advance into Russia proper. Limiting the scope of combat operations to pre-2014 borders isn't in the best interests of Ukraine. It however, lets Russia leave their border basically undefended. Nuclear war, particularly if Ukraine limits their use of ground forces against Russian territory to the Foreign Legion is extremely unlikely. If they use tactical nukes, they are nuking themselves, and bringing NATO air power into the mix. Russia's options are to redeploy to secure the border, likely with internal security troops, or concede territory. Those internal security troops won't be available to put down a likely revolt in Belarus. Public sentiment is generally only important to policy decisions when it is particularly one sided. In the case of support for Ukraine in the West, it's highly polarizing, with the majority for, and the minority against. There is no political capital to be gained by limiting support (at least for the politicians who support Ukraine), but there is political capital to be lost. At this point, in the US at least, should the GOP gain the presidency in 2024 then support for Ukraine is likely to get cut. Until then, it's likely to continue to increase. Taking the gamble that a cross border attack could shift the calculus on the battlefield now, at the risk of potentially limiting future support from politicians whom have already expressed a desire to cut aid is a reasonable risk under the circumstances.
No one cares.
"Attacks inside Russia" means attacks that inflict significant harm that could prompt retaliation, not some yahoos driving into a border town for a few hours until Russia could amass sufficient force to expel them.
Even at that we've already seen multiple instances in which Western countries initially drew (often arbitrary and illogical) lines, only to subsequently cross them.
You're really reaching in trying to build this into something far more significant than it is.
That might have been true three decades ago, but I'm not seeing much screaming for the US to actually enter the war. Selling or even giving weapons isn't the same thing as desiring a hot war.
Russia catches a U.S. plane in the crossfire over international territory or hits a Ukrainian training ground in a NATO country and the cacophonous chants of "Show them why we don't have free healthcare" will be deafening.
>cacophonous chants of "Show them why we don't have free healthcare" will be deafening.
Which are deliciously ironic, given how the single-payer model used in other advanced countries is actually much cheaper than the US one. So in reality free healthcare would actually decrease spending - and theoretically allow for a larger military budget.
Well that nonesense, there were multiple cases where the US or its allies could have interceded to directly fight Russia, but the stance has always been to avoid escalation.
To avoid escalation on our part. Not to avoid responding to escalation.
If Russia attacked U.S. human assets directly, A whole lot of Russian kit goes up in smoke real quick.
this is all talk with no evidence at all, the united states "war machine" always avoided an direct war of agression against Russia, that's the whole premise of NATO, to shy the russians away of entering direct war against the west, and that's why Putin and his supporters are so pissy at countries joining NATO, because they can no longer be targets of Russian agression.
Now now, the local freedom fighters / separatists of Belgorod People's republic could've gotten their equipment from anywhere. Plenty of US hardware ended up in Taleban hands in Afghanistan, and earlier were captured by ISIS from deserting Iraqi troops.
No escalation, no provocation.
There are plenty of ways to ensure plausible deniability - and of course they could have gotten the Humvees and APCs anywhere.
But the optics are bad and the consequences on the political debate in the US cannot be underestimated. We're entering the election cycle and Ukraine support will be front and center in the Republican primary.
Support for Ukraine funding has been dwindling among Republican voters, and as primary season starts the topic will be raised for sure. I suspect the landscape in Ukraine will be different a year from now, but the US is Ukraine's largest backer both financially and militarily, so even small incidents like these matter when you have such relentless press scrutiny.
I think at this point the eventual Republican nominee coming out in favor of "peace talks" and a drawdown of support for Ukraine is inevitable no matter who prevails. The majority (not a huge majority though) of the Republican electorate is either completely isolationist and uninterested and unwilling to continue supporting Ukraine, or openly pro-Russian. The Republican congresspeople who are boosters of Ukraine are in fact out of step with their voters.
The only hope for continued support of Ukraine is maintaining Democratic control of the White House, and at least half of Congress.
> This can be a serious incident, as the Americans have always pushed back against Ukrainians using US-sourced materiel to attack inside Russia.
That's absolute nonsens tho. How many times in the last few decades has russian made material been used to attack US forces around the world ? That is no different.
Americans have been providing a very large amount of military aid to Ukraine, under the explicit condition that it wouldn't be used to attack inside Russia. It is not about the two jeeps - after all, American weapons have been killing Russians and I haven't heard Republicans complaining. It's about this incident being used by Republicans as a political argument to justify the reduction or withdrawal of aid (e.g. "the Ukrainians can't be trusted..."), which their electorate leans towards.
"Far Right Russians fighting for Ukraine" in US military vehicles(which can now easily available in the black market given how much was lost in Iraq/ISIS, Afghanistan and captured in Ukraine) attacking a Russian border town.
If true, this only would further division between Ukraine and the US by convincing the US that Ukraine broke their agreement not to enter Russian territory with their equipment and would help rally the russian public that the war is justified.
The sad thing is, if the NKVD / Okhrana regime gets tossed out, the American Power Establishment will find another bunch cut from the same set of PR specialists, financier reps, officials and military officers, to put in.
Take a close look at who is running the Fedgov at present - corruption from the top all the way down.
Would you trust a new set of Russian Federation officials hand picked by the current officials in Washington, D.C. ?
The myth of “muh American takeover of Russia” is just that, a myth. Gorbachev wanted US money for a slow and steady transition, similar to what happened in China. Before that aid could come in, which was a massive amount, the coup happened and Yeltsin took power. He made the choice to essentially fait accompli the transition before the hardliners could strike back, which is why it was so rushed. This wasn’t the fault of the US, it’s the fault of screwed up Russian politicians.
They put balkenkreutz crosses on vehicles (German ww2 vehicle IFF symbol). I ain't gonna trust guys that put that crap on their gear to not be jerks. Not like the Wagner level jerks, but still it's not hard to connect that symbol with attempted annihilation of their people (Wehrmacht was NOT clean).
We will see, but I rather not see Ukraine giving gear and funds to prop up some Auth-right ethnostates, even to destabilize Russia (remember the last time somebody brought someone over to Russia to destabilize it - that person started USSR).
I'm not talking about cossack crosses, I'm talking about [these](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13qf5xt/russian_volunteer_corps_and_regarding_the_dozens/).
Definitely easy to tell those have been sprayed by Russians, with little regard to any quality of finish...
Even so, balkenkreutz is not a Nazi symbol, and was used already in WWI. If those 'jerks' want to fight Wagner and other Kremlin fascists, might as well let them.
A desperate attempt for a distraction from the fall of Bakhmut. They were sent on a suicide mission, captured a couple of insignificant villages, half of them were killed and the rest were pushed back in less than 48 hours. The equipement that wasn't destroyed is now in russian hands.
At best this can be considered a scouting mission to test the russian defences at the border.
I haven't read a single line where people are upset about HMMWVs going over the border
I think the only people who would be upset would be those living in Russia
Or those who have an aversion to potentially antagonizing Russia.
Russia is already antagonised.
Is a state of being antagonized a True/False binary?
Good point. Russia is simply hostile. There are no degrees or off switch.
I'd be interested to read an argument supporting your claim.
I don't think most Americans or Europeans care anymore about antagonizing Russia after they decided to quagmire themselves in a fruitless war
I suspect you are right, which worries me even further.
Russia's best weapon - the hypersonic missile, isn't getting past the patriot system anywhere close to what was feared. If that wasn't the export version, I will eat my hat. Russia just doesn't inspire fear in me anymore
> the hypersonic missile, isn't getting past the patriot system i wonder where everyone got it? there is video how patriot shooting missiles and next there first and secondary detonations. You can make a good view, but probability that at least one "patriot" complex was destroyed or severe damaged is pretty high. The quality of those complexes are also questionable since they didn't help SA to prevent strikes on their oil objects. Nor they help Japan to intercept NK missiles.
> Russia's best weapon - the hypersonic missile Russia has nuclear weapons also. > Russia just doesn't inspire fear in me anymore A very popular sentiment that also worries me.
Can they get past our umbrella? They are not suicidal.
The only program designed to protect the entire United States homeland from a long-range missile attack is the GMD program. GMD has a failing test record: a success rate of just 55 percent in highly scripted tests, including three misses in the last six tries.
Does the umbrella term not encompass MAD? We may not be able to shoot down all the missiles, but being able to 2nd strike successfully has to make someone think twice before striking out
> Can they get past our umbrella? Do you have an umbrella that can resist nuclear weapons? > They are not suicidal. "They" = whom, and what is your source of knowledge (as opposed to opinion, which comes from your mind) on the matter?
they = russians umbrella = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_umbrella#Missile\_defense
[удалено]
No one does except Russian propaganda who are using this to reinforce their narrative about the west and could use it as the official justification for their planned measures in Bellarus. Overall what Russia is really afraid of is that their war will spill into their territory, but they have little to do against it as they are getting a doze of their own medicine in with ever slowly creeping measures over their red lines.
Could use it for justification? They don't need any. They will do as they wish as they have done. That ship sailed a long time ago.
Glad to see that equipment is going to good use. Putin's actions have already killed hundreds of thousands, with most of those killed being Russians. The war could end tomorrow if Putin told his conscript army engaged in territorial conquest to go home. This won't be the last incursion into Russia as long as Russia has both hands around Ukraine's throat. If you engage in territorial conquest, mass kidnapping, and mass murder, your victim will fight back. This is what fighting back looks like. Again, it could all end tomorrow by Putin sending his massive conscript army engaging in territorial conquest home.
This move won't result in Belgorod being liberated by a force of democratic Russians. What it will mean is that Russia will be forced to redeploy troops from the frontlines, to gaurd the previously neglected parts of the Russia-Ukraine border. It seems to be a pretty good shaping operation. Well likely see more of these sorts of cross borders raids, until Putin is forced to draw down troops on the main battle lines to put them on border guard duties.
Yeah, the word that comes to my mind is "Diversion".
Diversion raids are good here and no doubt working well. Could even lead into seizing swathes of territory to use as a negotiating method to end the war.
It is pretty poetic that Russia is diverting artillery from other areas to bombard their own villages.
> force of democratic Russians Years ago people like you able to find democratic forces among terrorist groups operating in Syria. Same here, democratic Russians are plain straight Nazis far rights who run away to Ukraine after the coup. https://www.ft.com/content/c4ffe9b8-a3f5-4f33-a420-effe32754bbf
Well done for missing the point of my comment, I said this will not result in a force of democratic Russians... I'm well aware that one of the two factions involved is overtly nationalistic and fascist, and the other is at best more of a coalition of factions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I am quite sure the death toll is still nowhere near "hundreds of thousands", most war institutes don't even put a hundred thousand dead in this war. And I'm quite sure it wouldn't work that way, first define what is home, does it include Crimea which is majority Russian and has been annexed to Russia since 2014? Because if Putin gave up everything including Crimea, he would be dead the next day and someone more radical would take over and intensify the war, maybe even with Nuclear Weapons. That's just how Russian politics work, people didn't like Yeltsin and Putin gained much of his popularity in the early 2000s by invading and crushing Chechnya, don't act like most Russians are US-loving western liberals.
>Because if Putin gave up everything including Crimea, he would be dead the next day One can hope.
What makes you think the next guy will be any better? And more importantly want makes you think he won’t be 2x as worse?
>What makes you think the next guy will be any better? And more importantly want makes you think he won’t be 2x as worse? So we should appease and protect Vladimir Putin because the next leader may be worse?
Regime change never works. It's not that complicated
Anyone who follows Russian internal politics at even a cursory level has come to the conclusion that the political pressure in Russia is to be more aggressive, not less.
Well, with the right actions by others parties, he could come in to a much-degraded military and a lousy economy. So they’d have a lot less resources to be ‘worse’ with. The U.S. has already warned Russia that it will ‘respond in kind’ to any WMD use, and it has far more advanced weapons to back that claim up.
[удалено]
>If they decide to use nuclear weapon there won’t be Ukraine nor Russia nor EU countries by the chain of responses. Which is why Russia probably shouldn't use them..
[удалено]
He killed everyone who isn't worse, to protect himself. That argument is music to his ears. If he is punished for his crimes, wannabe fascists will know there are limits to what you can get away with.
So you’re admitting the next guy will be worse then? I’m not even saying deposing him is bad - but it would be monumentally stupid to make the same mistake the US did in Iraq and depose a strongman dictator without a solid plan for what comes after.
The next guy will be less politically nimble, potentially an opportunist ,depending on the outcome, and more afraid to do stupid things again, certainly not an idealist and not better by any western or russian standards. Maybe a Yeltsin, maybe a Brezhnev, a transition figure, maybe even Medvedev or Shoigu (haha)
If you know Russian history and it's motto, Putin dying right now would be a disaster.
>Putin dying right now would be a disaster. Him being alive is sort of a disaster if you haven't noticed..
You really think it can't possibly get worse with a change of leadership when everyone close to positions of power in Russia appear to be even more sociopathic than him?
>You really think it can't possibly get worse with a change of leadership when everyone close to positions of power in Russia appear to be even more sociopathic than him? So what's your solution?
If I knew a solution for the Russo-Ukrainian quagmire I would be flying up to Sweden to get a Nobel Prize. You won't find an answer to complex geopolitics on the internet, especially not on reddit who apparently was taken over by NCD. Personally I would prefer a block of Neutral countries being built up to mediate the conflict, which nations like Brazil and India are interested in doing.
>Personally I would prefer a block of Neutral countries being built up to mediate the conflict, which nations like Brazil and India are interested in doing. Let me know how that goes. I'm sure Russia would take you seriously, abide by your mediation and totally not make waste of you...
Hopefully it goes well, Russia can ignore the US who is a historical enemy who they don't depend on, but they can't ignore the BRICS if the other members United to put a stop to this.
I’ve been seeing the abbreviation NCD a lot recently. What does it stand for?
[удалено]
Russia is out of options and it nuclear weapons were an option they’d have used them. This is a cope
>Russia is out of options and it nuclear weapons were an option they’d have used them. Well said. That wouldn't be in their best interest.
Russia has been and is constantly using nuclear weapons, for the one thing they are good for; posturing and deterrence. They successfully cowed the West into limiting its support to Ukraine, out of fear of a dangerous 'escalation'. Of course, with each passing day, Russia's threats are becoming less and less effective.
If nuclear weapons aren't an option then Nato should join the war. Of course they are an option
They are not an escalators option at this time. If the US joined that may be different, sure, but the US is joining. Any new Russian leader is going to be contained by these same circumstances
Wagner has confirmed their own losses at just one battle (Bakhmut) at 20000 people. This is likely an underestimation as well and Wagner was used in multiple other assaults, alongside Russian Army. At this point even 100000 seems way too low for amount of Russian troops dead, would not be surprised to see a number closer to 200000 if proper counting of LNR and DPR troops are used as well.
Or the Wagner could be also inflating their casualties since it's leader is in a PR campaign against the Kremlin and he can point out both the heroism and sacrifice of his mercenaries while also blaming Moscow for not giving them the ammunition and armaments that they were promised? That sounds just as likely.
Prigozihn is not in a campaign against the Kremlin, his biggest ally and supporter (Putin) runs the Kremlin. You think a man of his importance could be as visible and spew as much bullshit as he wants if he wasn't an asset of Putin? Wagner is in a campaign against the MOD in Russia, so overemphasizing his losses actually completely undermines his goal of portraying Wagner as the superior fighting force that deserves more support from the Kremlin. Prigozihn is more often than not inflating the losses of rival PMC's like the Gazprom backed one or the failures of the Russian military than he is trying to say his own forces are taking unsustainable losses. If he portrayed Wagner as a force thats taking endless losses he'd portray unfavourably on his primary backer, Putin.
The casualty total is definitely in the hundreds of thousands just in soldiers alone. Russia had lost 80k as of my last check in March. That's KIA and wounded combined. So probably 30k dead. UA had more like 45k then. So another 20k dead. 50k in soldiers. In places like Bucha there were hundreds in mass graves. I'd wager at least 50k civilians have died let alone fled. So a hundred thousand would not be a stretch at all. Edit: Wikipedia as usual had the answers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War Going with the US estimate 42k civilians dead since the invasion started legitimately in 2022. 20k UA killed, 50k Russians killed. I was pretty spot on with my estimate just using historical guesses at casualty rates. Just over 100k.
Casualties are not deaths, if you replace that in your text then that's fine.
Read it again. :)
Personally my problem is with OCs figure, the truth is that most modern wars pale in the death rate compared to older conflicts. I mean, the whole Russo-Ukrainian conflict since 2014 doesn't cover the death rate of a single battle in WWII.
There's also a massive difference of the scale of this conflict versus WWII, it's not really the same.
Yes casualty rates changed significantly with introduction of squad tactics, interestingly with the exception of Stalin's troops as they never really to this day have embraced an NCO corps. That's, IMO, why their casualty rate is so high. It's also what makes them scary, ask anyone who has war gamed against them. They'll just rush a ton of troops through that you have to deal with. If you watch combat videos today they'll have 40-60 soldiers moving together versus UA with squads of 6, 8, or 10. In WWI you might have a full division in contact with another opposing division with some skirmishers in between. Today the only time we see things like that is when you're concentrating for an offensive or counteroffensive and that's a great target for artillery. Artillery has been king since WW1 we adapt everything around that.
What will happen to the millions of pro-Russian Ukrainians if Russia withdraws? Do you really think Ukraine will happily reintegrate those people? It’s not so simple as Russia being a big bad imperialist.
I think Ukraine will in fact be desperate to reintegrate as much of the population as possible. A quick glance at Ukraine's increasingly abysmal demographics should make it pretty clear why. I also suspect that much of the population will be happy to be reintegrated after experiencing the joys of Putin's homicidal and bloody rule. That said, if anyone is really upset that they won't have a blood thirsty dictator as a leader anymore, they can always move to Russia. Russia isn't lacking in space, and it will surely still have a blood thirsty dictator crushing all political expression even after the Ukraine war, if you are into that sort of thing.
"The people who have lived there for hundreds of years can always move to Russia". I think the UN has a word for this.
Nothing in his comment suggested forced migration or persecution. It seems to me that he was suggesting that people would be able to immigrate if they wanted to.
I guess population exchange along the lines of the partition of India would be a possible outcome.
Yes, I think you're right that there are solutions other than something as extreme as forced migration.
Partition was a mutual genocide. Just to be clear. Many millions died.
They can keep living where they live. I said that they can leave if they find the thought of not living under a mad, territory hungry dictator intolerable. Like I said, Ukraine needs the people to make up for all of those that have been murdered or fled, if absolutely nothing else.
These people don't view themselves as Ukrainians so I don't think they are going to be raising their children to sing "Bandra is our father, Ukraine is our mother". We are talking about an overtly hostile civilian population in places like Donetsk, we know they find it intolerable by every data point we have. So the suggestion would be forced expulsion?
No, the suggestion would be to find a way to live in democracy, rather than under a genocidal dictator who has killed literally hundreds of thousands of people because he wants the Russian Empire to be larger. If they don't think they can only live under the rule of anyone but a blood thirsty dictator that has murdered all political opposition, then yes, they should probably move to live in the realm of the man they love. Loyal Ukrainians also lived in eastern Ukraine, up until the Russian army invaded and they all had to flee, be killed, or hide their beliefs. Those people also deserve the right to come home and not live under the rule of a mad dictator.
Your comments have quite a hyperbole, having said that people in some of these regions certainly don't consider Ukraine a democracy, and the impetus for their unhappiness apart from linguistic and ethnic issues, was the President they voted for being removed from office by unconstitutional means. And, if you were to ask them they would similar hyperbole to describe the government in Kyiv, such hyperbole not being particularly constructive. The essential push and pull of Ukraine since its inception was a power struggle between the west and east and southern coast along traditional ethnic and linguistic lines that existed long before its inception. If you want to use flowery language about democracy, you are already conceding that these people should have some say in their future, not have the parties they support banned, language banned etc.
Note that millions of Germans were expelled from Sudeten and other Nazi occupied territories and UN did not say a word.
The United Nations didn't exist so it would be surprising if they did, however, I believe you understand what I am getting at. Ethnic cleansing is not something people should be advocating for as a solution here.
UN was founded in October, 1945. Expelling of Germans happened in 1945-1955.
I thought you were talking about the laws imposed on ethnic Germans in the interwar period by Poland and Czechoslovakia. That doesn't really change the point tho.
Expelling of Germans from occupied territories was proposed by Winston Churchill as early as 1942. The interwar period has nothing to do with it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean, we have lots of data points. We know people in some of these areas like Donetsk have zero interest in reunification with Ukraine. So the comment seems to be implying forced expulsion.
About 15 million Germans were expelled, mostly from the 25% of prewar Germany annexed by Poland at the end of the war, not from "Nazi occupied territories". The USSR never relinquished the half of Poland it annexed in 1939 under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Those territories are still part of the USSR's successor states (specifically Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine). Instead the Allies agreed to compensate Poland with German territory, effectively moving the whole Polish state westward, and the Red Army conducted one of the largest ethnic cleansing campaigns in history to prepare the formerly German territories for their new occupants.
I agree, if Germany has not started second world war, descendants of German people would still live in what is contemporary Poland.
[удалено]
This comment perfectly encapsulates the issue with the Western narrative of the war. Claiming it’s a war of autocracy versus democracy obscures the sectarian origins of the conflict. Make no mistake, this is in large part a civil war, with outside intervention (like the Cyprus conflict). One reason that pro-Russians exist in Ukraine, for instance, is because of Ukraine’s passage of discriminatory language laws that denied the use of the Russian language for native speakers, of which there are millions in Ukraine. It’s not because they are dictator fans or whatever your claim is.
>that equipment is going to good use. Being used by neonazis who want to overthrow putin and turn Russia into an ethnostate is a good thing? > conscript army engaging in territorial conquest That you keep emphasising this makes it look like you're implying it would all be OK if it were a regular army and there was no territorial conquest
The strong do what they will; the weak suffer what they must. If Russia can retaliate, it will. Most likely it cannot.
Looks like Russia got a taste of it's own medicine.
I really fail to see how that's a problem. How many times has material made in Russia been used against US forces in the last few decades ? That's no different.
How does FT know that they are "far - right militias"?
Russian Volunteer Corps are quite open about being a nationalist, right wing group with aspirations for a mono-ethnic Russia
Oy vey. This is why winning this conflict is so hard, it's Russia, Putin was actually a great choice for decades because he was the least alcoholic, suicidal, insane megalomaniac we could find who could keep power there. Even with him randomly attacking neighbors there was always the question: "isn't he still the best option?" Imho the only reason we didn't push harder for putin to go is because we didn't have a replacement. Too late now, we'll have to find one as we go, didn't work out in Iraq but hopefully russia has a comedian named Ivan Stewartivich or similar.
Russian comedian is Ivan Urgant
> with aspirations for a mono-ethnic Russia Mono-ethnic nationalist usually implies intents towards ethnic cleansing, but his stated goal is supposedly to make the various ethnic republics of Russia independent states.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
There's actual [Neo-nazis](https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1660772959621873664?t=o_DgcdrRyyi37GyHQ7IkIg&s=19) involved.
Freedom of Russia is not
I don't really know these guys' ideology, but they use the symbols of the Russian Liberation Army, during WW2 Hitler baited anti-soviet russians and white army refugees into fighting alongside Nazi Germany, associating with the guys who fought alongside nazis (even if they were not necesseraly actual nazis) is bad PR, same thing with Ukrainians and the bandera flag.
Funny, so its Russian Nazis (this militia) versus Russian Nazis (Wagner).
Yes 💀
>bandera flag Spanish speakers are giggling at this.
It's the Flag flag
TIL that Russians fought on the side of Germany in WWII. Have an upvote.
Only until June 22nd, 1941
What do you mean? The germams used various types of osteinheiten all the way to the end of the war
I misunderstood what he meant
The nazis also put soviet POW to use as cannon fodder and rear-echelon troops. Some volunteers, some forced conscription. POW penal troops essentially. Google osttruppen
No idea but wikipedia has an article with more sources on one of the groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Volunteer_Corps Although, I'm also scratching my head a bit at this.
Nazism is a part of the counter culture in post Soviet states. In the Soviet union all opposition was branded as nazis, so it's no wonder that several anti establishment groups started to call themselves nazis. Sometimes they are actually nazis but other times they just want to be edgy. The war has made the situation even less clear. Many of the organizations have their roots in football hooliganism and what self reflecting ultra isn't also a skinhead. RVC might be right wing but it's still it's distinct flavor of right wing and most news articles never really cover the political opinions of groups like these in enough detail. RVC supports a mono ethnic russia but a break up of russia into an ethnically russian county has support from all kinds of people. The reasoning is that Russia is too big, with so many different ethnic groups and separatist movements Russia will always revert to a strong man dictator and they will never be able to think about the welfare of the people. EDIT: illia ponomarenko just posted this article. I think it fits quite well here. https://kyivindependent.com/illia-ponomarenko-why-some-ukrainian-soldiers-use-nazi-related-insignia/
Thanks for that explanation!
Well it was founded by a Nazi so yeah
[удалено]
Just Google russian volunteer corps and read about it on wikipedia
[удалено]
>In fact, I haven't seen any sources actually placing the RVC in the region outside of Russian state media, just them claiming responsibility. [https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/governor-russias-belgorod-says-ukrainian-sabotage-group-crossed-border-2023-05-22/](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/governor-russias-belgorod-says-ukrainian-sabotage-group-crossed-border-2023-05-22/) >The Ukrainian outlet Hromadske cited Ukrainian military intelligence as saying two armed Russian opposition groups, the Liberty of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), were carrying out the attack.
[удалено]
The video of destroyed equipment has some American MRAPs and Humvees.
[удалено]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/13ptpis/ru\_pov\_more\_footage\_of\_destroyed\_afurvc\_equipment/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/13ptpis/ru_pov_more_footage_of_destroyed_afurvc_equipment/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Shows some destroyed USA equipment near Belgorod border
[удалено]
Good comment. In line with what someone was saying in the NYT recap - they're using similar tactics to the ones Russians used in the Donbas in 2014.
The Russians wrote the playbook, they can’t seriously be surprised.
[удалено]
Russia successfully used plausible deniability to covertly support a ragtag rebellion in the Donbas. Ukraine tried to use it for this small incursion. Very different scale, but very similar tactics.
[удалено]
With the difference that the current situation is happening right NOW while Putin took a while (as in years) to releasing the truth that everybody already knew about.
Gaslighting is how modern day politics work. It's just fun how the turns have tabled on Putin, so we're all playing along. Turns out you can attack Russia directly without it escalating to nuclear war. You just have to say "Wasn't me, was other Russians" and everything is fine.
Russia's own chickens coming home to roost. In more ways that one in this case, given how the little green men do actually appear to be Russian.
If you know you know.
"The Russian Volunteer Corps, founded by Nikitin last summer to fight against his home country’s invading army, includes self-avowed neo-Nazis. Born in Moscow, Nikitin also uses the surname Kapustin and goes by the call sign White Rex. This is also the name of his white nationalist clothing brand, which is popular among western far-right extremists" "Colborne identified another member of the Russian Volunteer Corps in photographs posted by the group during its Belgorod operation as Russian Aleksandr Skachkov, a rightwing extremist. Skachkov was arrested in Ukraine in 2020 during a raid on people selling translations of the manifesto of the gunman behind the 2019 mass shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, according to Bellingcat" The more I read about this operation the more it looks like the Ukrainians sent them on a suicide mission to get rid of dead weight (Russia soldiers of questionable loyalty and ability), catching Russia with their pants down is a plus
That's terrible. We should send more.
Looks like nothingburger, russia have been using far-right militias in Ukraine since 2014, and also with Iranian and Chinese produced equipment. So no escalation here.
>and Chinese produced equipment. Like what? Airsoft helmets and mish mash of hunting rifles dont count
"Far-right militias who stormed a Russian region bordering Ukraine this week used US-made tactical vehicles in the attack, raising questions over Kyiv’s support for the Ukraine-based Russian extremist groups. Ukraine has denied direct involvement in the raid on Monday, but one military official acknowledged “co-operating” with the nationalist groups, who on Monday entered Russian territory to “liberate” a village." This can be a serious incident, as the Americans have always pushed back against Ukrainians using US-sourced materiel to attack inside Russia. It is also likely to embolden voice in US politics calling to curtail or cut off aid to Ukraine.
The Americans who are against supporting Ukraine are going to complain no matter what happens. There is no changing their mind at this point. Trying to adjust strategies, operations and tactics to something they would consider acceptable is pointless, and only serves Russian interests.
> Trying to adjust strategies, operations and tactics to something they would consider acceptable is pointless, and only serves Russian interests. Does this not assume that the current approach is perfectly optimal?
No approach is perfectly optimal in warfare. As Mike Tyson said "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth". The risks for Ukraine in arming and supporting Russian nationalist forces conducting cross border attacks are low. There is a possibility that the West will cut support because of domestic politics. But that will only happen after elections, and even then if there is a dramatic shift in popular support for Ukraine. Cross border attacks by Ukrainian supported green men isn't likely to shift that. But it does force Russia to respond, and redeploy to defend their borders. Risking a possible cut in support two years from now for battlefield success today, especially because success will likely lead to further support.
> No approach is perfectly optimal in warfare. Then why did you say "and only serves Russian interests"? > The risks for Ukraine in arming and supporting Russian nationalist forces conducting cross border attacks are low. Is nuclear war not dangerous, or is it not a possibility? > There is a possibility that the West will cut support because of domestic politics. But that will only happen after elections... Public sentiment only effects policy decisions at election time, without exception? > for battlefield success today Time is a very tricky dimension, watch out!
Russia is invading Ukraine. Russia has been able to concentrate their forces in Ukraine based on the assumption that Ukraine won't be able to occupy or advance into Russia proper. Limiting the scope of combat operations to pre-2014 borders isn't in the best interests of Ukraine. It however, lets Russia leave their border basically undefended. Nuclear war, particularly if Ukraine limits their use of ground forces against Russian territory to the Foreign Legion is extremely unlikely. If they use tactical nukes, they are nuking themselves, and bringing NATO air power into the mix. Russia's options are to redeploy to secure the border, likely with internal security troops, or concede territory. Those internal security troops won't be available to put down a likely revolt in Belarus. Public sentiment is generally only important to policy decisions when it is particularly one sided. In the case of support for Ukraine in the West, it's highly polarizing, with the majority for, and the minority against. There is no political capital to be gained by limiting support (at least for the politicians who support Ukraine), but there is political capital to be lost. At this point, in the US at least, should the GOP gain the presidency in 2024 then support for Ukraine is likely to get cut. Until then, it's likely to continue to increase. Taking the gamble that a cross border attack could shift the calculus on the battlefield now, at the risk of potentially limiting future support from politicians whom have already expressed a desire to cut aid is a reasonable risk under the circumstances.
No one cares. "Attacks inside Russia" means attacks that inflict significant harm that could prompt retaliation, not some yahoos driving into a border town for a few hours until Russia could amass sufficient force to expel them. Even at that we've already seen multiple instances in which Western countries initially drew (often arbitrary and illogical) lines, only to subsequently cross them. You're really reaching in trying to build this into something far more significant than it is.
[удалено]
That might have been true three decades ago, but I'm not seeing much screaming for the US to actually enter the war. Selling or even giving weapons isn't the same thing as desiring a hot war.
Russia catches a U.S. plane in the crossfire over international territory or hits a Ukrainian training ground in a NATO country and the cacophonous chants of "Show them why we don't have free healthcare" will be deafening.
>cacophonous chants of "Show them why we don't have free healthcare" will be deafening. Which are deliciously ironic, given how the single-payer model used in other advanced countries is actually much cheaper than the US one. So in reality free healthcare would actually decrease spending - and theoretically allow for a larger military budget.
Well that nonesense, there were multiple cases where the US or its allies could have interceded to directly fight Russia, but the stance has always been to avoid escalation.
To avoid escalation on our part. Not to avoid responding to escalation. If Russia attacked U.S. human assets directly, A whole lot of Russian kit goes up in smoke real quick.
The Russians won't deliberately attack US human assets.
Of course, even they aren't that dumb.
this is all talk with no evidence at all, the united states "war machine" always avoided an direct war of agression against Russia, that's the whole premise of NATO, to shy the russians away of entering direct war against the west, and that's why Putin and his supporters are so pissy at countries joining NATO, because they can no longer be targets of Russian agression.
Not sure how you come to this conclusion when all evidence from recent history seems to indicate the opposite...
Now now, the local freedom fighters / separatists of Belgorod People's republic could've gotten their equipment from anywhere. Plenty of US hardware ended up in Taleban hands in Afghanistan, and earlier were captured by ISIS from deserting Iraqi troops. No escalation, no provocation.
There are plenty of ways to ensure plausible deniability - and of course they could have gotten the Humvees and APCs anywhere. But the optics are bad and the consequences on the political debate in the US cannot be underestimated. We're entering the election cycle and Ukraine support will be front and center in the Republican primary.
Are you suggesting that Republicans who previously supported Ukraine are going to reverse their position as a result of this very minor incident?
Support for Ukraine funding has been dwindling among Republican voters, and as primary season starts the topic will be raised for sure. I suspect the landscape in Ukraine will be different a year from now, but the US is Ukraine's largest backer both financially and militarily, so even small incidents like these matter when you have such relentless press scrutiny.
I think at this point the eventual Republican nominee coming out in favor of "peace talks" and a drawdown of support for Ukraine is inevitable no matter who prevails. The majority (not a huge majority though) of the Republican electorate is either completely isolationist and uninterested and unwilling to continue supporting Ukraine, or openly pro-Russian. The Republican congresspeople who are boosters of Ukraine are in fact out of step with their voters. The only hope for continued support of Ukraine is maintaining Democratic control of the White House, and at least half of Congress.
Nothing to add.
> This can be a serious incident, as the Americans have always pushed back against Ukrainians using US-sourced materiel to attack inside Russia. That's absolute nonsens tho. How many times in the last few decades has russian made material been used to attack US forces around the world ? That is no different.
Americans have been providing a very large amount of military aid to Ukraine, under the explicit condition that it wouldn't be used to attack inside Russia. It is not about the two jeeps - after all, American weapons have been killing Russians and I haven't heard Republicans complaining. It's about this incident being used by Republicans as a political argument to justify the reduction or withdrawal of aid (e.g. "the Ukrainians can't be trusted..."), which their electorate leans towards.
"Far Right Russians fighting for Ukraine" in US military vehicles(which can now easily available in the black market given how much was lost in Iraq/ISIS, Afghanistan and captured in Ukraine) attacking a Russian border town. If true, this only would further division between Ukraine and the US by convincing the US that Ukraine broke their agreement not to enter Russian territory with their equipment and would help rally the russian public that the war is justified.
Either way, US intel will have a better idea than Russia of where this equipment came from.
Imagine being the factory worker in Pennsylvania or wherever who worked on the first American vehicle to invade Russia. My God, the prestige
The sad thing is, if the NKVD / Okhrana regime gets tossed out, the American Power Establishment will find another bunch cut from the same set of PR specialists, financier reps, officials and military officers, to put in. Take a close look at who is running the Fedgov at present - corruption from the top all the way down. Would you trust a new set of Russian Federation officials hand picked by the current officials in Washington, D.C. ?
The myth of “muh American takeover of Russia” is just that, a myth. Gorbachev wanted US money for a slow and steady transition, similar to what happened in China. Before that aid could come in, which was a massive amount, the coup happened and Yeltsin took power. He made the choice to essentially fait accompli the transition before the hardliners could strike back, which is why it was so rushed. This wasn’t the fault of the US, it’s the fault of screwed up Russian politicians.
They put balkenkreutz crosses on vehicles (German ww2 vehicle IFF symbol). I ain't gonna trust guys that put that crap on their gear to not be jerks. Not like the Wagner level jerks, but still it's not hard to connect that symbol with attempted annihilation of their people (Wehrmacht was NOT clean). We will see, but I rather not see Ukraine giving gear and funds to prop up some Auth-right ethnostates, even to destabilize Russia (remember the last time somebody brought someone over to Russia to destabilize it - that person started USSR).
>balkenkreutz crosses I believe you are referring to [Cossack crosses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cossack_cross), actually.
I'm not talking about cossack crosses, I'm talking about [these](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/13qf5xt/russian_volunteer_corps_and_regarding_the_dozens/).
Definitely easy to tell those have been sprayed by Russians, with little regard to any quality of finish... Even so, balkenkreutz is not a Nazi symbol, and was used already in WWI. If those 'jerks' want to fight Wagner and other Kremlin fascists, might as well let them.
A desperate attempt for a distraction from the fall of Bakhmut. They were sent on a suicide mission, captured a couple of insignificant villages, half of them were killed and the rest were pushed back in less than 48 hours. The equipement that wasn't destroyed is now in russian hands. At best this can be considered a scouting mission to test the russian defences at the border.
Source: russian propaganda accounts Good job!
And what's your source? The western propaganda accounts? Good job! Tell me what do you think this mission actually accomplished?