Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

MontyB said:
The same could be asked of European countries, why would they destroy a gas pipeline that was unused?
Europe is in for a rough winter without the gas so anything coming through those pipes would help calm the population and maintain political stability and who would benefit from political instability?

Not European governments, not the UK and certainly not the USA, this is Russia's one shot at breaking European political resolve as by next winter no one will care so to me that is their motive.

This is a cut and paste of a friend's email, it seems a little conspiratorial to me but he is a pipeline engineer for a local energy company here.


I think it would be interesting to know the order of the explosions, as I understand it NS2 is pretty much complete just not opened but surely if you are right and it isn't complete then why does it have gas in it?
picture2352.png
Click to expand...

From what I have read,the leaked gas is methane gas .And,could this gas not be gas that remained in the pipelines after the decision was taken in February to stop the import of Russian gas ?
About the US : immediately after the Germans agreed to the construction of Nord Stream , the US objected and threatened the concerned firms with sanctions . The official reason was that Nordstream would make Europe too dependent on Russian gas, but the real reason was that if Europe was buying Russian gas, it would not buy
US gas,what would be bad for the US gas producing companies, and, given the influence of these companies on Capitol Hill...
In January of this year the sanction bill from Ted Cruz (GOP from Texas ) failed to obtain the needed majority in the Senate ( Cruz got only 55 votes ) because of the pressure of the White House on the Democrats .
 
Why the two pipelines have gas in them, the same reason why you have water in your in your lines into your house/apartment.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Why the two pipelines have gas in them, the same reason why you have water in your in your lines into your house/apartment.
Click to expand...

My point was to indicate that the pipeline must have been largely completed to have had gas in it.
 
MontyB said:
No matter how many times I see things like that or the Ukrainian successes on the battlefield I still struggle to buy into it fully, there is still this nagging voice in my head that says the Russians can't be this bad and Ukraine inevitably must collapse when Russia brings its best troops, airpower and armour to bear.
Yet here we are seven months into this thing and nothing but one Russian clusterf**k after another, I struggle to believe a handful of HIMARS and 100 M777's is enough to halt the second largest military on earth.
Click to expand...

War is more than a numbers game. There are several reason for why the Russian performance is rather bad. Corruption, military units must train a lot to perform on the battlefield. Training cost a lot of money, vehicles need fuel. The funding for holding exercises end somewhere else. The fuel being sold to civilian etc. Another possible explanation is the Russian command structure. The Russian/Soviet command structure was/is very strict and not letting lower ranked commanders to make decisions on the fast moving and changing battlefield. The Russian communication doesn't work well. To coordinate between air and ground require safe and robust communication, Russian forces are still using cell phones to communicate and is probably the reason for why so many high ranked officers have been KIA during this war. The Russian MO isn't working at all, the Russian military doctrine is focusing on attacking in waves (echelons) with huge indirect fire support to trash the area in the front of them. They haven't done that either

The morale plays a vital part during armed conflicts. The Russians aren't motivated to be in Ukraine while the Ukrainians are fighting for their homes, families, and love ones.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
War is more than a numbers game. There are several reason for why the Russian performance is rather bad. Corruption, military units must train a lot to perform on the battlefield. Training cost a lot of money, vehicles need fuel. The funding for holding exercises end somewhere else. The fuel being sold to civilian etc. Another possible explanation is the Russian command structure. The Russian/Soviet command structure was/is very strict and not letting lower ranked commanders to make decisions on the fast moving and changing battlefield. The Russian communication doesn't work well. To coordinate between air and ground require safe and robust communication, Russian forces are still using cell phones to communicate and is probably the reason for why so many high ranked officers have been KIA during this war. The Russian MO isn't working at all, the Russian military doctrine is focusing on attacking in waves (echelons) with huge indirect fire support to trash the area in the front of them. They haven't done that either

The morale plays a vital part during armed conflicts. The Russians aren't motivated to be in Ukraine while the Ukrainians are fighting for their homes, families, and love ones.
Click to expand...

We have long known the short comings of the Russian military but can you honestly tell me that you expected them to be this bad?

Most of us expected that this thing would last a few days, week tops, at which point Ukraine would seek a peace agreement, give up the east and Crimea, Russia would go home and plan the take over of next chunk of Ukraine.

At the rate this is going I wouldn't be surprised if Russia isn't defending Moscow by this time next year or that at some point soon some Russian generals don't decide to retire Putin.
 
MontyB said:
We have long known the short comings of the Russian military but can you honestly tell me that you expected them to be this bad?

Most of us expected that this thing would last a few days, week tops, at which point Ukraine would seek a peace agreement, give up the east and Crimea, Russia would go home and plan the take over of next chunk of Ukraine.

At the rate this is going I wouldn't be surprised if Russia isn't defending Moscow by this time next year or that at some point soon some Russian generals don't decide to retire Putin.
Click to expand...

No, you called this war "the war of WTH?" I think the entire world expected a quick win for the Russians. I thought the Russian would take the rest of Donbas and making a land bridge between Crimea and Donbas. The war would be over within a few days, but something happened. I was shocked when I saw how Russian forces just drove into urban areas just like they were on a road trip. They did the same in Chechnya and Georgia. I asked myself from the early days and I still ask "Where is the Russian air force?" They should have achieved air superiority, but they haven't. I have also seen a very little of infantry around their mech units. Similar as how the Russian fought in cities during the Second World War. Using tanks as a support to the infantry and not having tanks as the main fighting component in their units.

Early on, we all began to wonder why the Russians seemed to be incompetent. I think there are several reasons for it. Corruption, command structure, the structure of their forces, and the morale. It is a weird war
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
No, you called this war "the war of WTH?" I think the entire world expected a quick win for the Russians. I thought the Russian would take the rest of Donbas and making a land bridge between Crimea and Donbas. The war would be over within a few days, but something happened. I was shocked when I saw how Russian forces just drove into urban areas just like they were on a road trip. They did the same in Chechnya and Georgia. I asked myself from the early days and I still ask "Where is the Russian air force?" They should have achieved air superiority, but they haven't. I have also seen a very little of infantry around their mech units. Similar as how the Russian fought in cities during the Second World War. Using tanks as a support to the infantry and not having tanks as the main fighting component in their units.

Early on, we all began to wonder why the Russians seemed to be incompetent. I think there are several reasons for it. Corruption, command structure, the structure of their forces, and the morale. It is a weird war
Click to expand...

Strangely the first week of the war I find the easiest to understand, Putin had been convinced there would be no real resistance so there was more planning for the victory parades than the invasion, basically arrogance trumped execution.
However, once that failed I expected Russia to retreat to safer positions and come back with a genuine plan, essentially resort to a professional military action.

My best guess for this mess ending is now Putin carrying out a purge and senior military commanders taking him out, the only question is whether nukes will come into play.

lljadw said:
From what I have read,the leaked gas is methane gas .And,could this gas not be gas that remained in the pipelines after the decision was taken in February to stop the import of Russian gas ?
About the US : immediately after the Germans agreed to the construction of Nord Stream , the US objected and threatened the concerned firms with sanctions . The official reason was that Nordstream would make Europe too dependent on Russian gas, but the real reason was that if Europe was buying Russian gas, it would not buy
US gas,what would be bad for the US gas producing companies, and, given the influence of these companies on Capitol Hill...
In January of this year the sanction bill from Ted Cruz (GOP from Texas ) failed to obtain the needed majority in the Senate ( Cruz got only 55 votes ) because of the pressure of the White House on the Democrats .
Click to expand...

Ok well let's be realistic, there are only two players who could have done this, USA or Russia.
If it was the US then it was a very dangerous act especially if Europe found out as it would have possibly destabilised prowestern governments once winter set in and inevitably be disastrous for Ukraine so I think it is unlikely.
For Russia I don't see a downside as the west wasn't lifting sanctions in the near future and had they damaged the Norway to Poland pipeline in the process all the better.
 
Last edited:
The main reason for the Russian failure is that the Russians were and are too weak : it was maybe possible to defeat the Ukrainian forces that were stationed at the border (the commitment of the air force was not needed ) ,but with 200000 men it was and is out of the question to conquer Ukraine, to occupy Ukraine and to pacify Ukraine .
Even if the Ukrainian forces at the border were defeated, it would the Russians take not weeks,but months to go the the borders with Poland and Hungary .And most tanks would not make it ,and the few men and tanks that would be available could never protect borders of 4000 km .Most people don't know that the OUN continued to fight till 1950,without western help .
The only chance for the Russians was a very fast collaps of the Ukrainian state caused by the elimination of Zelensky, and the replacement of Zelensky by an Ukrainian Lukachenko who would be supported by the majority of the Ukrainians and by the Ukrainian army who would protect the borders with the west,so that the 200000 Russians could leave Ukraine and return to Russia .
The best situation for Russia would still be worse than that of the Germans if they had won in 1941 .
 
lljadw said:
The main reason for the Russian failure is that the Russians were and are too weak : it was maybe possible to defeat the Ukrainian forces that were stationed at the border (the commitment of the air force was not needed ) ,but with 200000 men it was and is out of the question to conquer Ukraine, to occupy Ukraine and to pacify Ukraine .
Even if the Ukrainian forces at the border were defeated, it would the Russians take not weeks,but months to go the the borders with Poland and Hungary .And most tanks would not make it ,and the few men and tanks that would be available could never protect borders of 4000 km .Most people don't know that the OUN continued to fight till 1950,without western help .
The only chance for the Russians was a very fast collaps of the Ukrainian state caused by the elimination of Zelensky, and the replacement of Zelensky by an Ukrainian Lukachenko who would be supported by the majority of the Ukrainians and by the Ukrainian army who would protect the borders with the west,so that the 200000 Russians could leave Ukraine and return to Russia .
The best situation for Russia would still be worse than that of the Germans if they had won in 1941 .
Click to expand...

But how does Putin get to the point where they believe what they planned would work.
The only logical answer is that they did not expect resistance and for some reason chose not to plan a scenario where there was resistance.

My guess is that this entire campaign was planned and is still planned by an incompetent, inexperienced leadership who don't appear to have any military experience what so ever because I cannot believe any professional command could have done this.
 
No : they convinced themselves that it would work,because their motto was : we will win ,because we must win .
While the reasons for their attack are still unclear ( my impression is that they thought that they would be encircled by the West ),they decided that they had to attack and that as the only way to win was a collaps of the Ukrainian state, this would happen .
The comparison with Barbarossa is very striking :the Germans also thought that they had to attack (doing nothing was no option ) and that the only way to win was the collaps of the communist regime .Thus the communist regime would collaps .
Initially ,Halder was jubilating as the standing Soviet forces were destroyed and no reserves were arriving .Very soon the disillusion arrived .
The Kremlin also jubilated in the first week of March 2022 .Very soon the disillusion arrived .
In both cases a purely military solution was impossible as the defender would be very soon stronger than the attacker .
The Germans attacked with 3 million men a country that could mobilize 30 million men .
The Russians attacked with 200000 men a country that could mobilize 2 million men .
In both cases time was decisive,as the longer the war lasted the stronger the defendant would become and the defendant could afford big losses to liberate his country while the attacker could not afford big losses to conquer an other country .
The Russian population will not accept tens of thousands of deaths for the conquest of Ukraine .
 
lljadw said:
No : they convinced themselves that it would work,because their motto was : we will win ,because we must win .
While the reasons for their attack are still unclear ( my impression is that they thought that they would be encircled by the West ),they decided that they had to attack and that as the only way to win was a collaps of the Ukrainian state, this would happen .
The comparison with Barbarossa is very striking :the Germans also thought that they had to attack (doing nothing was no option ) and that the only way to win was the collaps of the communist regime .Thus the communist regime would collaps .
Initially ,Halder was jubilating as the standing Soviet forces were destroyed and no reserves were arriving .Very soon the disillusion arrived .
The Kremlin also jubilated in the first week of March 2022 .Very soon the disillusion arrived .
In both cases a purely military solution was impossible as the defender would be very soon stronger than the attacker .
The Germans attacked with 3 million men a country that could mobilize 30 million men .
The Russians attacked with 200000 men a country that could mobilize 2 million men .
In both cases time was decisive,as the longer the war lasted the stronger the defendant would become and the defendant could afford big losses to liberate his country while the attacker could not afford big losses to conquer an other country .

The Russian population will not accept tens of thousands of deaths for the conquest of Ukraine .
Click to expand...

I can agree with the historic points but I think Putin attacked for very different reasons, my "guess" is that:
A. He thought the west was weak and would not respond in any meaningful way.
B. The take over of Crimea gave him the impression that Ukraine was an easy target.
C. His intelligence lead him to believe Ukrainians were pro-Russia and wanted change (much like Rumsfeld thought Iraq wanted the Americans and would welcome them with open arms).
D. Russia only understands strength and what better way to be a great leader than through conquest.
This is a war of conquest and resource acquisition and nothing else.
 
MontyB said:
I can agree with the historic points but I think Putin attacked for very different reasons, my "guess" is that:
A. He thought the west was weak and would not respond in any meaningful way.
B. The take over of Crimea gave him the impression that Ukraine was an easy target.
C. His intelligence lead him to believe Ukrainians were pro-Russia and wanted change (much like Rumsfeld thought Iraq wanted the Americans and would welcome them with open arms).
D. Russia only understands strength and what better way to be a great leader than through conquest.
This is a war of conquest and resource acquisition and nothing else.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree :Ukraine became independent in 1992, Putin ruled Russia in 2000.
Til 2014 Russia did nothing .After and because of Euromaidan, Russia intervened and than did nothing again
.A The response of the West is very weak : the 200 National Guardsmen who were in Ukraine to train the Ukrainians with Javelins,left Ukraine on 24 February .
The sanctions of the West are hurting mainly the West .
B There is no indication that the easy take over of the Crimea influenced Putin to attack EIGHT years later Ukraine .
C Here also it is the same : the intelligence reports did not influence Putin to attack Ukraine .It is the opposite : the intelligence reports were used to convince Putin, AFTER his decision to attack,that the attack could/would succeed .Otherwise Putin would not have waited 8 years .
D Russia is better without Ukraine.
My impression is that the attack was a defensive move,given the perception in the Kremlin that the West was encircling Russia .
If it was a war of conquest, Putin would have attacked in 2014 .Not in 2022 .
It is the same for Rumsfeld .
 
lljadw said:
I have to disagree :Ukraine became independent in 1992, Putin ruled Russia in 2000.
Til 2014 Russia did nothing .After and because of Euromaidan, Russia intervened and than did nothing again
.A The response of the West is very weak : the 200 National Guardsmen who were in Ukraine to train the Ukrainians with Javelins,left Ukraine on 24 February .
The sanctions of the West are hurting mainly the West .
B There is no indication that the easy take over of the Crimea influenced Putin to attack EIGHT years later Ukraine .
C Here also it is the same : the intelligence reports did not influence Putin to attack Ukraine .It is the opposite : the intelligence reports were used to convince Putin, AFTER his decision to attack,that the attack could/would succeed .Otherwise Putin would not have waited 8 years .
D Russia is better without Ukraine.
My impression is that the attack was a defensive move,given the perception in the Kremlin that the West was encircling Russia .
If it was a war of conquest, Putin would have attacked in 2014 .Not in 2022 .
It is the same for Rumsfeld .
Click to expand...
Speculation: Putin said in '14 that he could have been in Kiev in 6 weeks if he wanted to be, seems to indicate he didn't want to at that time. When taking The Crimea Obama's response was "non-lethal" aide, I E bandages. Then trump took over, nothing from Putin for 4 years. Why was that? Because Putin thought Trump, being a republican might fully support the Ukraine? Or maybe Putin and Trump were actually 'buddies" and Putin didn't want to start anything while he was in Office? When Reagan was in Office the Democrat leadership told the Soviets they would protect them & the Nicaraguan communists from Reagan. So, why are the Democrats suddenly opposing Russian expansion? A change of heart? Or is it because they think Trump and Putin are buddies and by opposing Putin they are opposing Trump?
 
George said:
Speculation: Putin said in '14 that he could have been in Kiev in 6 weeks if he wanted to be, seems to indicate he didn't want to at that time. When taking The Crimea Obama's response was "non-lethal" aide, I E bandages. Then trump took over, nothing from Putin for 4 years. Why was that? Because Putin thought Trump, being a republican might fully support the Ukraine? Or maybe Putin and Trump were actually 'buddies" and Putin didn't want to start anything while he was in Office? When Reagan was in Office the Democrat leadership told the Soviets they would protect them & the Nicaraguan communists from Reagan. So, why are the Democrats suddenly opposing Russian expansion? A change of heart? Or is it because they think Trump and Putin are buddies and by opposing Putin they are opposing Trump?
Click to expand...

If Putin did not go to Kiev in 2014 ,but did it in 2022 ,what was the reason ?
Democrats were in the WH in 2014 and in 2022 .
The Democrats are interventionists : in 2014 they organized Euromaidan, after 2014 they wanted Ukraine in NATO and Biden sent his son to do (dirty ) business in Ukraine .My guess is that Putin attacked in February because he felt that he was in danger and that February 2022 was the last occasion that a small Russian army could defeat the Ukrainian army .
Putin could also have attacked shortly after 9/11 when US were committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and could not aid Ukraine . He didn't do it,which, in my opinion proves that he did not want the annexation of Ukraine to Russia but would admit the independence of Ukraine,as long if this remained neutral .
After the election of Biden, he was convinced that Ukraine was now becoming a de facto NATO member,something he could not admit and thus,he reluctantly decided to attack .
The attacks of the EU against Belarus fortified his conviction that he had to do something .
If he wanted the annexation of Ukraine ,he could have done it prior February 2022 .
 
lljadw said:
If Putin did not go to Kiev in 2014 ,but did it in 2022 ,what was the reason ?
Democrats were in the WH in 2014 and in 2022 .
The Democrats are interventionists : in 2014 they organized Euromaidan, after 2014 they wanted Ukraine in NATO and Biden sent his son to do (dirty ) business in Ukraine .My guess is that Putin attacked in February because he felt that he was in danger and that February 2022 was the last occasion that a small Russian army could defeat the Ukrainian army .
Putin could also have attacked shortly after 9/11 when US were committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and could not aid Ukraine . He didn't do it,which, in my opinion proves that he did not want the annexation of Ukraine to Russia but would admit the independence of Ukraine,as long if this remained neutral .
After the election of Biden, he was convinced that Ukraine was now becoming a de facto NATO member,something he could not admit and thus,he reluctantly decided to attack .
The attacks of the EU against Belarus fortified his conviction that he had to do something .
If he wanted the annexation of Ukraine ,he could have done it prior February 2022 .
Click to expand...

I suspect that much like Hitler he was trying to get as much territory as he could get without the international community realising what he was up to, to that end he went after Crimea and the Donbas regions, he got away with Crimea but his minions in the Donbas were as inept as his current military.
I would be more inclined to believe that his invasion of Ukraine was only because he was on the verge of failing in the Donbas as Ukraine was growing stronger but the idea that Ukraine was ever a threat to Russia is lunacy, it was only becoming a threat to Putin's plans for Ukraine.

As I recall it was John McCain and Victoria Nuland addressing Ukrainian protesters in 2013 telling them that they were there to support them...

"Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better," he said to crowds protesting against President Viktor Yanukovich's U-turn in trade policy away from Europe towards Russia.

"We are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe," said McCain, a leading Republican voice on US foreign policy.
Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause

Neither of those two were known for their support of the Democratic party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top