Ukraine

[wmw999 2,122]

47 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Is any of this back and forth going to change the outcome?

Of the Second World War? 

Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 911]

15 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Of the Second World War? 

Wendy P. 

What can I say two old history buffs like to debate. Back to the topic at hand.

More good news and even better than burning Russian armor. "Ukraine Recaptures City of Chuhuiv, Kills Top Russian Commanders: Officials"

"Ukraine's armed forces claimed overnight to have recaptured the city of Chuhuiv in the Kharkiv region, as part of their ongoing counter-offensive in the area.

"In the course of hostilities, the city of Chuhuiv was liberated. The occupiers suffered heavy losses in personnel and equipment," the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine said in an operational update on Facebook.

The Ukrainian army also claimed to have killed two high-ranking Russian military commanders: Lt. Col. Dmitry Safronov, commander of the 61st Separate Marine Brigade of the Russian Armed Forces, and Lt. Col. Denis Glebov, deputy commander of the 11th Separate Airborne Assault Brigade."

Edited March 8, 2022 by Phil1111

[brenthutch 383]

As this drags on, I am starting to think the Russian conventional military is a bit of a paper tiger.  The much reported “40 mile convoy” is stalled and likely to remain so as it runs out of fuel, food, water, maintenance… all the while being harried by Ukrainian forces.  In the south they simply don’t have the manpower to occupy a belligerent populous.  Personal and weapons continue to flood into Ukraine while the Russian forces continue to be attrited by a motivated and increasingly well supplied insurgency.

 

Edited March 8, 2022 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

As this drags on, I am starting to think the Russian conventional military is a bit of a paper tiger.  The much reported “40 mile convoy” is stalled and likely to remain so as it runs out of fuel, food, water, maintenance… all the while being harried by Ukrainian forces.  In the south they simply don’t have the manpower to occupy a belligerent populous.  Personal and weapons continue to flood into Ukraine while the Russian forces continue to be attrited by a motivated and increasingly well supplied insurgency.

 

Sure seems that way. Let's keep them contained. 

[kallend 1,623]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

Is any of this back and forth going to change the outcome?

Is someone forcing you to read it?

[BIGUN 1,053]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I feel for Keith who believes strongly that military action by the US, followed by NATO, is what is needed now to save Ukrainian lives. I simply believe that is not true. I believe that containing the war in Ukraine is the current best plan. 

US with NATO or more explicitly; with those NATO allies that will join us. I do believe that military action, hard, swift, overpowering is what's needed to save lives and to get an immediate ceasefire + discussions.    

[olofscience 421]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I am starting to think the Russian conventional military is a bit of a paper tiger.

It's been known for a while in the aviation community that while Russia's air assets seem impressive in air shows, their actual combat record isn't.

But the million dollar question is, does the same hold for their nuclear forces?

[BIGUN 1,053]

7 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Let's keep them contained

Morning, Joe. 

Earlier you posed the question of - "By what authority?" 

Does this count? 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear breach of an agreement that was signed in the mid-1990s. Following the Cold War and Ukraine's separation from the Soviet Union, the country was the world's third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons. But in 1994, they decided to hand over their nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded. This happened when Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan signed The Budapest Memorandum, which brought Ukraine into the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Russia, the US and Britain also signed this document which promised none of these countries would invade Ukraine and respect its sovereignties and existing borders while also giving them political independence.

The Memorandum stated: “Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

The document added that Russia, the US and Britain also wouldn’t use economic coercion tactics against Ukraine either.

Before Ukraine handed over their nuclear arsenal to Russia, Arms Control Association of the US estimated the country possessed 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and 44 strategic bombers.

SOURCE: https://www.ladbible.com/news/ukraine-gave-russia-nuclear-weapons-in-1996-to-never-be-invaded-20220302

WIKI version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Actual MoU: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Joe. 

Earlier you posed the question of - "By what authority?" 

Does this count? 

No. Did you read it? We promised not to hurt Ukraine. We didn’t promise to help it unless it was nuked.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Joe. 

Earlier you posed the question of - "By what authority?" 

Does this count? 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear breach of an agreement that was signed in the mid-1990s. Following the Cold War and Ukraine's separation from the Soviet Union, the country was the world's third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons. But in 1994, they decided to hand over their nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded. This happened when Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan signed The Budapest Memorandum, which brought Ukraine into the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Russia, the US and Britain also signed this document which promised none of these countries would invade Ukraine and respect its sovereignties and existing borders while also giving them political independence.

The Memorandum stated: “Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

The document added that Russia, the US and Britain also wouldn’t use economic coercion tactics against Ukraine either.

Before Ukraine handed over their nuclear arsenal to Russia, Arms Control Association of the US estimated the country possessed 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and 44 strategic bombers.

SOURCE: https://www.ladbible.com/news/ukraine-gave-russia-nuclear-weapons-in-1996-to-never-be-invaded-20220302

WIKI version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Actual MoU: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

I just read the material in each of the three links. I suppose if I really wanted to escalate the war in Ukraine the Memorandum might be used as a part of the pretense. However, I do not. The problems with using the Memorandum for the purpose are many; it's not explicit and we've already ignored it as inconvenient are just two of those problems.

So far no ones time table for the war has proved accurate. I still think that as long as it's the war in Ukraine we leave it in Ukraine. There are reasons to believe the Russian frog is boiling.

 

[Phil1111 911]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

It's been known for a while in the aviation community that while Russia's air assets seem impressive in air shows, their actual combat record isn't.

But the million dollar question is, does the same hold for their nuclear forces?

The US spends a huge amount of money servicing and upgrading its nuclear weapons. I have no knowledge of the shelf life of some of those components. Be it the warheads, fuel systems, launch systems, or controls.

Russia, who knows. But as others have said Quantity over quality and Russia has the 1800 missiles and warheads.They scammed out of Ukraine and the west.

Edited March 8, 2022 by Phil1111

[olofscience 421]

18 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The US spends a huge amount of money servicing and upgrading its nuclear weapons. I have no knowledge of the shelf life of some of those components. Be it the warheads, fuel systems, launch systems, or controls.

Russia, who knows. But as others have said Quantity over quality and Russia has the 1800 missiles and warheads.They scammed out of Ukraine and the west.

Plutonium in the warheads is extremely unstable - they need to be inspected regularly and completely replaced approximately every 10 years. Otherwise, they'll 'fizzle' instead of detonate.

Tritium in boosted weapons also needs to be replaced every few years.

Nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to build and maintain - the US spends that much on its arsenal, and the Russian arsenal is bigger so they should be spending more if they're maintaining them to the same standard. But who knows if they are? A question you really can't afford to get wrong...

[BIGUN 1,053]

7 minutes ago, olofscience said:

inspected regularly and completely replaced approximately every 10 years

Inspected annually. Replacement is usually 20-30 years.

[Phil1111 911]

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Plutonium in the warheads is extremely unstable - they need to be inspected regularly and completely replaced approximately every 10 years. Otherwise, they'll 'fizzle' instead of detonate.

Tritium in boosted weapons also needs to be replaced every few years.

Nuclear weapons are extremely expensive to build and maintain - the US spends that much on its arsenal, and the Russian arsenal is bigger so they should be spending more if they're maintaining them to the same standard. But who knows if they are? A question you really can't afford to get wrong...

IMO few people understand the true total cost of maintaining a nuclear deterrence. The cost of a nuclear submarine to build, maintain, retire, crew costs, training, weapons costs. From 1940 through 1996, we(US) spent nearly $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs, in constant 1996 dollars.

Russia has consistently shown that maintaining its nuclear subs is patchwork.

 

[gowlerk 1,912]

19 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

No, you're wrong. Current US PEW polling shows that hating each other in the US. Is now secondary to all hating Russians.

Yeah sure, that will last for a few weeks maybe. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

8 hours ago, olofscience said:

It's been known for a while in the aviation community that while Russia's air assets seem impressive in air shows, their actual combat record isn't.

But the million dollar question is, does the same hold for their nuclear forces?

Hi Olof,

See Post #381.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Joe. 

Earlier you posed the question of - "By what authority?" 

Does this count? 

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a clear breach of an agreement that was signed in the mid-1990s. Following the Cold War and Ukraine's separation from the Soviet Union, the country was the world's third largest stockpiler of nuclear weapons. But in 1994, they decided to hand over their nuclear arsenal in exchange for a guarantee never to be threatened or invaded. This happened when Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan signed The Budapest Memorandum, which brought Ukraine into the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

Russia, the US and Britain also signed this document which promised none of these countries would invade Ukraine and respect its sovereignties and existing borders while also giving them political independence.

The Memorandum stated: “Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.”

The document added that Russia, the US and Britain also wouldn’t use economic coercion tactics against Ukraine either.

Before Ukraine handed over their nuclear arsenal to Russia, Arms Control Association of the US estimated the country possessed 1,900 strategic warheads, 176 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and 44 strategic bombers.

SOURCE: https://www.ladbible.com/news/ukraine-gave-russia-nuclear-weapons-in-1996-to-never-be-invaded-20220302

WIKI version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Actual MoU: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Hi Keith,

See Post #481.

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,384]

Series of tweets from a PolSci professor explaining the relationship between Putin and the toadies who keep him in power. The situation she describes is not what I thought it was.

 

[billvon 2,400]

17 hours ago, airdvr said:

Is any of this back and forth going to change the outcome?

Nothing we do here will change the outcome.  The only reason anyone should post here is because they enjoy doing so.

In terms of outcomes I see a few options:

1) Putin wins, kills Zelensky, takes over the Ukraine government, announces he has rid Ukraine of the Nazi threat and sits back to bask in his victory.  The rest of the world complains but does nothing.  In the US, outrage is the order of the day until Kim Kardashian announces she is marrying Kate McKinnon, and there's a new thing to be outraged about.

2) Putin wins, misses Zelensky, takes over the government, announces victory.  The rebellion grows and continues to be fed by European and US efforts.  Thousands, then tens of thousands of Russian soldiers die.  At home Russian mothers speak via clandestine recordings about how much they hate Putin.  Russian people continue to lose infrastructure as the world's infrastructure providers shut them down.  Putin then (within a few years) announces that he has won, withdraws all his troops, Zelensky retakes power, things return to more or less normal.

3) Putin loses; he cannot maintain the troop levels in the Ukraine against increasing rebel attacks and economic problems at home.  He withdraws.

4) Putin is losing and he decides to make a dramatic move to "end the war and save civilians."  It might be firebombing a city, it might be a low-yield nuclear device in Kiev - but whatever it is it will be an attempt at "shock and awe" to get the Ukranians to stop fighting.  The neighboring countries escalate to open resistance out of fear that he will not stop at Ukraine.

2 is, I think, the most likely.  4 is becoming more likely by the day, which is scary.

[ryoder 1,384]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

In terms of outcomes I see a few options:

1) Putin wins, kills Zelensky, takes over the Ukraine government, announces he has rid Ukraine of the Nazi threat and sits back to bask in his victory.  The rest of the world complains but does nothing.  In the US, outrage is the order of the day until Kim Kardashian announces she is marrying Kate McKinnon, and there's a new thing to be outraged about.

 

You think he would stop at Ukraine?

[billvon 2,400]

4 minutes ago, ryoder said:

You think he would stop at Ukraine?

For a bit, yes.  A lot depends on how the invasion goes.  If it really is quick and easy, then he will be emboldened and start looking at eliminating the Nazi threat in Romania.  

Which is perhaps the best reason to ensure that Ukraine is very, very hard for him.

[Phil1111 911]

18 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Series of tweets from a PolSci professor explaining the relationship between Putin and the toadies who keep him in power. The situation she describes is not what I thought it was.

 

I completely agree, its what I've been saying for a while. The oligarchs all got rich off of Putin's licenses. They had nothing before Putin and they know Putin can and would kill them if they cross him. Besides they are friends and know that even though they are friends. Putin doesn't need political advice from them. So they don't offer it.

[Phil1111 911]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

For a bit, yes.  A lot depends on how the invasion goes.  If it really is quick and easy, then he will be emboldened and start looking at eliminating the Nazi threat in Romania.  

Which is perhaps the best reason to ensure that Ukraine is very, very hard for him.

IMO Putin now realizes that he has misjudged the west. As John Bolton said on Sunday. If trump had be re-elected Russia would have occupied all of Ukraine six months ago.

Putin knows that he has to recalculate the equation. That perhaps, he should have invaded Belarus instead.

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Yeah sure, that will last for a few weeks maybe. 

In US politics a few weeks is a long time. I'd put it at three trips to the gas pumps or an hour on the gun forums.

In other news:

Poland’s government says it's ready to hand over all its MIG-29 fighter jets to a US air base in Germany

Edited March 8, 2022 by Phil1111

[ryoder 1,384]

It’s a Deal: U.S. Brokers Agreement Where Polish Fighter Jets Will Fly For Ukraine

Alright!

Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland in connection with the statement by the US Secretary of State on providing airplanes to Ukraine

Edited March 8, 2022 by ryoder