It just has clearly stated that it wants large chunks of Ukraine to itself — ssu

How on earth are you reading...

they need to recognise that Donetsk and Lugansk are independent states.

...as "large chunks of Ukraine to itself"?

Destroyed columns say something else. — ssu

The first phase of the war was to just take as much territory unopposed (or minimal resistance) as possible and take undefended settlements. This involved small mechanized units without any sort of battalion formation, so if they did meet resistance they'd just get blown up and run away back to a battalion formation. In parallel Russian's blew up some things with cruise missiles.

I.e. take as much territory as possible with minimal civilian casualties. The reason the Eastern front didn't move is because Ukrainian army had a front setup there ... so why attack the hardest point. In particular, had Ukraine sued for peace (accepted it would not join NATO ... which NATO isn't offering as a possibility anyways) then this was a compromise between military and PR objectives (an amicable resolution could have been reached at this point with minimal trauma, deaths and bad blood; it was not "incompetent" Russian military, but common sense politics).

There's a lot of small settlements everywhere to go anywhere that the Russians do have to deal with. So there is this sort of small scale urban combat.

However, as soon as the Russians meet heavy resistance approaching a city they setup a siege and start encircling the city by demolishing the suburbs and satellite towns with artillery as they make their way around.

There's only one exception--of an urban combat operation to take a city without laying siege or demolishing large parts of it--is Kershon, which has an obvious strategic importance of being the major crossing of the Dnieper in the south, so critical if you want to then just go North to cut Ukraine in half, East of the Dnieper and East of Kiev.

All Russia has to do is simply link up in the middle of Ukraine. No one is even proposing that Ukrainian army is able to offer effective opposition in flat open spaces to major Russian battalion formations. Sure, always possible to harass supply lines as salients are pushed forward (before fanning out) and also ambush some smaller advanced units. However, I do not see how Ukrainians are going to stop the Russians simply linking up in the middle of Ukraine and just avoiding Urban combat as much as possible.

In any case, if the Russians can't beat the Ukrainians, they sure can't beat NATO. They would not have lasted very long against any serious western armed force. So this whole thing is quite the humiliation so far.

That's why they have some thousands of nuclear weapons in the event NATO attacks them.

Russians don't hold themselves to American military standards and just "give up the country" in shame if they aren't able to match a military that spends literally 10 times more.

Russians maybe appreciate their country and free health care the best they can without setting unrealistic expectations.

That's why they have some thousands of nuclear weapons in the event NATO attacks them. — boethius

Nato is a defensive alliance. It has never attacked anyone.

I don't know at this point if any amount of NLAWs in the hands of Ukranians would stop the Russians from rushing at objectives. Their command seems incapable of competence.

For example, moving up troops next to a giant warehouse you could hide in, and then instead parking your vehicles all of 2 meters apart... in the open.

[/url]



Yeah, the Ukranians air force is being saved and isn't doing much, but small surveillance drones can still see you, civilians can still report your location, satalites can see you, and while the Ukranians might not have aircraft up above, they have plenty artillery around Kiev...

The other trucks got shelled right after this. I do feel for all the Russians dragged into this insanity. I would be absolutely livid knowing this is how losses were occuring, parking lumped together in artillery range.

Nato is a defensive alliance. It has never attacked anyone. — Olivier5

Then why does the comment I was responding to matter?

Sure, NATO could defeat Russia in conventional warfare.

How does that help Ukrainians to know?

Or then why does it matter to Russians if NATO isn't going to attack them as you say? And obviously conventional warfare doesn't matter in that scenario anyways.

Then why does the comment I was responding to matter? — boethius

Because the Baltic states and Poland, for instance, can now rest assured they can beat the Russians in a conventional war, in case the Russians would feel carried away and try to take over other countries. It deflates the threat.

Oh yes... do notice Putins intelligence chief stumbled in his words. Or that when they celebrated Putins admission, the stage fireworks show showed people celebrating with the Russian flag, not their own flag. What truly independence yearning country would do that? And many are there already have the Russian passport. Again the same question.



This is the simply the Russian playbook. They use these puppet regimes. If you want to believe the puppetry, I don't care.

And oh...don't forget Crimea. That's Russia isn't it, Isaac?

The other trucks got shelled right after this. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Are you there?

I agree with your concern.

That said, executing spies and sabateurs in civilian clothes or other nation's military uniforms is not a war crime. It has always been allowed under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

Soldiers who are wearing uniforms of the opposing army after the start of combat are one of the only groups where it is legal to engage in summary execution.

I'm not aware of any treaties where the execution of spies isn't allowed on any conditions. It's why it's such a dangerous job.

Dressing your soldiers and operatives in the opposing forces' uniforms during military operations is, however, a war crime. It is in the Gauge, Geneva, and ICC conventions. It is a war crime for precisely the reason that it leads to civilians being targeted as potential spies, which makes it even more frustrating that Russia tried it to some degree at all.

Nato is a defensive alliance. It has never attacked anyone. — Olivier5

What a daft thing to say. NATO has attacked loads of people. Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan... It's attacked them under the auspices of peacekeeping goals but it still attacked them, so Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. The fact that you personally trust their judgement of what counts as 'peacekeeping' is irrelevant in international relations.

Because the Baltic states and Poland, for instance, can now rest assured they can beat the Russians in a conventional war, in case the Russians would feel carried away and try to take over other countries. — Olivier5

They're all in NATO ... Russia has nuclear deterrence.

Unless you can actually stop Russian conventional battalions crossing the country North-South in mostly flat open terrain, then Russia is going to "win". That they didn't win "good enough" isn't going to be a very powerful argument for long, nor is hypothetical losses in scenarios that won't happen.

At best, it's going to be a Pyrrhic victory. Basically, they are humiliating themselves right now, and wasting all their resources for nothing.

That said, executing spies and sabateurs in civilian clothes or other nations military uniforms is not a war crime. It has always been allowed under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Dude, I already addressed this, you still need to have some process and some evidence they are saboteurs.

Just calling someone a saboteur and executing a prisoner of war isn't "a clever hack".

I'm not aware of any treaties where the execution of spies isn't allowed. It's why it's such a dangerous job. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, you'd need some sort of legal process to establish they are spies.

Pointing at someone, calling them a spy, and executing them is a war crime. Since I imagine most of these people are just ethnic Russian Ukrainians that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess it could be argued (later) that no, no, we were just murdering our own citizens based on just your regular guy paranoid vigilantism, nothing to see here.

Now, if they are spies, and they're held as prisoners, and there's some process to establish they're spies and execute them, that's another matter.

However, generally speaking, actual professionals don't execute spies so as to trade them back for your own spies.

This is the simply the Russian playbook. They use these puppet regimes. If you want to believe the puppetry, I don't care. — ssu

I don't have to believe or not believe anything, it's irrelevant to me personally. The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics.

It's somewhat difficult to find accurate info amid this mess. I assume that the reason Kiev is not yet taken has to do with its resistance, but, what whatever happened to that long Russian convoy that was supposed to arrive?

It's unclear how long Kiev will last, any info on this topic would be appreciated.

For this whole executing people thing.

Imagine if there was video of American soldiers just pointing at people, calling them "saboteurs" and executing them on the spot.

The rules don't change just because we think Russians are being executed surreptitiously.

The whole legal framework of "war crimes," isn't relevant in what you're describing. Civilians killing civilians isn't a war crime.

If the people involved were actually Russian spies, if they were dressed in civilian clothes or Ukrainian military uniforms, and if military forces saw them engaging in sabatoge or combat within the battle space (e.g., actively destroying AA equipment during an air raid, firing on civilians or soldiers, attempting to disable military vehicles during ongoing shelling / air strikes, etc.), then, legally, you are not correct. They are not entitled to a trial in those circumstances, hence "it is one of the few areas where summary execution is allowed."

That is, if they actually were a spy, the ICC wouldn't punish an officer who ordered their immediate execution in those situations. (Note: you can't just go offing spies because they are spies, they have to be actively interfering in the battle space while presenting as part of a different military or as civilians.)

Now, that said, it clearly isn't the right thing to do, or a smart thing to do from a military perspective. It makes far more sense to bring them in for interrogation and to hold them for use in POW exchanges. Spies tend to be especially good currency for such exchanges because they lack so many legal protections, and so the opposing force has more of an incentive to try to get them back quickly.

It's unclear how long Kiev will last, any info on this topic would be appreciated. — Manuel

However, I did see this morning a Western journalist reporting from Kiev that the city is currently being surrounded and the ways out are closing; that the previous day they could go a ways down the road, but now the shelling and fighting is far closer. I was also unsure until seeing this report.

It's somewhat difficult to find accurate info amid this mess. I assume that the reason Kiev is not yet taken has to do with its resistance, but, what whatever happened to that long Russian convoy that was supposed to arrive? — Manuel

Generally speaking, very true that accurate information is sparse, but the major gains are pretty well verified.

Russia's strategy is clearly to simply siege cities and wait them out.

True that Russia would have preferred Ukraine surrender after the first days and taste of war, but their "do it the hard way" is clearly to just shell to the ground suburbs to clear a path to surround cities.

This is a slow process, hence the 30km convoy. I think the narrative that the convoy is stuck is pretty naive, they are just waiting for the front to be setup all around Kiev and also the forces from the East to arrive on that side. It's more just used as a long parking lot.

True, Ukrainian forces could hit it with a lot of air power and drones ... but that's not happening so presumably they don't have the capability.

The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics. — Isaac

No.

Russia has the choice.

It started this, it can surely end it.

The whole legal framework of "war crimes," isn't relevant in what you're describing. Civilians killing civilians isn't a war crime. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's why I say it can be argued later "it was civilians" all along, to make exactly that point.

However, right now the story is these people are Russian special forces just being executed on the spot without any process whatsoever.

However, if you arm civilians they are no longer quite civilians, and them going around murdering people (is maybe just murder for them, as they aren't really soldiers either) but I would still argue is a war crime of the political leaders that armed them.

And murdering your own citizens in a war is also a war crime.

Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. — Isaac

Again. Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it.

That's enough, really.

Ukraine has perfectly legitimate strategic interest not to be attacked by any country.

So shut up with the legitimate strategic interests and move on...

If they take Kiev, either the West escalates even more or it will have to negotiate.

Plans to send war planes to Ukraine from the US are spine chilling.

To be crystal clear, Ukrainian's are more than justified in defending themselves and are doing so very bravely.

It's just hard to say how Russia will interpret such actions - if they are carried out. They obviously simply cannot have a conventional war in Europe, they can't handle Ukraine, so...

They are not entitled to a trial in those circumstances, hence "it is one of the few areas where summary execution is allowed." — Count Timothy von Icarus

These aren't really the stories nor videos of these executions.

The stories are "finding" these people, holding them captive, and executing them, not :

If the people involved were actually Russian spies, of they were dressed in civilian clothes or Ukranians military uniforms, and if military forces saw them engaging in sabatoge or combat within the battle space (e.g., actively destroying AA equipment, firing on civilians or soldiers, attempting to disable military vehicles during ongoing shelling / air strikes, etc.), then, legally, you are not correct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which I have not seen any video nor even any story of someone actually sabotaging anything.

People, whoever they actually are, are just being straight murdered in the streets, but I guess "deputized" civilian soldiers as well as other more formal paramilitary. I would definitely argue these murders are war crimes.

If they take Kiev, either the West escalates even more or it will have to negotiate. — Manuel

Unclear what more the West can really do to escalate; Germany has already clarified it's not going to stop buying Russian natural gas (obviously). And, even if Germany did stop buying Russian gas ... they'll just start buying again after the war. Russia has gold and currency reserves and commodities to sell to China, India ... Germany.

Sanctions are disruptive to normal Russians ... but even then not necessarily even normal Russians.

For instance, Visa and MasterCard pulled out of Russia, but how many normal Russians even have a credit card to begin with?

Russia is self sufficient in terms of food and energy, so actually making normal Russians suffer economically is likely impossible to achieve through sanctions.

Upper middle class and rich Russians have their lives disrupted, for sure, but don't necessarily "suffer".

Plans to send war planes to Ukraine from the US are spine chilling. — Manuel

I'm not sure how effective these planes are going to be. Russia has plenty of AA defenses and planes of their own.

It's been observed Russia hasn't used much air power ... but you don't really need air power so close to your own borders. The purpose of air power at the end of the day is basically to substitute artillery strikes; which makes sense ... if you don't have any artillery in the area.

If you do have artillery than it would be helicopters that have other uses other than artillery substitute, which we have seen a lot of use of.

I'm pretty sure any plane Ukrainians put up will just be shot down, and certainly Russians are working hard on the counter-drone warfare, and using plenty of drones themselves. The problem with posting everything to social media, is only successes, and not failures, get posted, nor any followup about whether Russian's learned to deal with the tactic.

To be crystal clear, Ukrainian's are more than justified in defending themselves and are doing so very bravely. — Manuel

Certainly are justified. My major criticism of the Ukrainians is arming civilians. Had they kept to professional soldiery, and then lost conventional battles, there would be a lot less civilian deaths and, likely, the exact same chances of successfully defending their country.

It's just hard to say how Russia will interpret such actions - if they are carried out. They obviously simply cannot have a conventional war in Europe, they can't handle Ukraine, so... — Manuel

That's exactly what they are doing now, very conventional warfare tactics to just level everything with artillery wherever they go, lay siege to cities, and (likely in my opinion) just make a trench system North-South cutting the whole country in half, and just wait as long as they need to for Ukrainians to officially surrender.

Great post :up:

I'd only add that, so far Europe has said that they aren't planning to sanction energy coming from Russia, doesn't mean they won't some time down the line. Unlikely, but not impossible.

The issue is one of time: how long can Russia withstand the sanctions before Ukraine surrenders?

Also, this dragging on will kill more and more innocent civilians, which is morally corrupt and also very bad PR for Russia, as if they need any more.

Every single hawk right now is salivating at the prospects of selling more weapons and some in the US are even considering implementing a no-fly zone. Which can't happen, unless they want to die.

A telling tweet from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service roughly translated to English:

It is important that we do not harass or hate the Russians living in Finland. They are not guilty of the war. Internal division of the society and inappropriate treatment of Russian people weakens Finland internally and provides weapons for the Russian propaganda machine to use.

Anticipating perhaps reactions of some people and of Russia in the near future.

The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics. — Isaac

No. — ssu

What do you mean "no"? Are you suggesting they don't have a choice? Why not?

Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it. — ssu

So countries with substantial nuclear arsenals have no legitimate strategic interest in not being attacked? So the missile defense system in Poland to defend against attacks from the middle east is not legitimate? NATO has the best nuclear weapons in the world. Nobody is attacking it.

My major criticism of the Ukrainians is arming civilians. Had they kept to professional soldiery, and then lost conventional battles, there would be a lot less civilian deaths and, likely, the exact same chances of successfully defending their country. — boethius

Ukraine did do two very smart moves. By not only saying that all 18 to 60 year old men have to stay in Ukraine, but that this has been at large obeyed is actually very crucial. It's crucial in that Ukraines neighbors are opening their border to refugees and for instance basically Poland doing a total 180 degree turn on it's refugee policy when we compare it's actions toward the Belarus hybrid operation using refugees at the border just short time ago. You can see from the pictures that it isn't young males that are fleeing Ukraine.

And to just give out weapons the Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country and a people ready to defend it. How much weapons have been given out and how much people actually have joined in the territorial defense forces is another matter. And from a population of 44 million there are simply millions of Ukrainian men that Ukraine simply cannot take into the army.

Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures, but that does have when nations opt to have for example universal conscription.