|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On April 30 2022 00:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2022 23:22 JimmiC wrote:
Unless you are a megalomaniac the math does not work now a days for this kind of shit anyways. It makes everyone poorer. At this point if Russia loses they gained nothing and huge costs, if they "win" they have gained territory and have to rebuild a shit ton of infrastructure with less money because of all the costs of the war and sanctions. This is why actual democracies basically never invade people for territorial gains. Even when the US rolled over Iraq they did not make it part of the US and it was the polar opposite of profitable. Things are too damn expensive and weapons do way to much damage to make this sort of thing profitable. The payback if there ever is one will be long after those in charge are dead and dynastic rule does not really happen anymore and certainly will not if you spread yourself to thin. You don’t need an activity to be overall value creating for it to create value for specific people. It’s the classic example of the broken window. The glazier will rationally pay a child to go through the town throwing rocks at windows. The town gets poorer but the glazier and child do well. That does not mean that in this case the war is enriching Putin but it absolutely means that capitalist democracies can and do routinely enter conflicts with a profit motive. Conflict makes one group of people very rich while making the general population poorer. If anything the problem is worse in capitalist democracies where the power is diluted between dozens of monied interests. In an autocracy the autocrat generally suffers the impact of the externalities because he’s already stolen everything, there’s less cost that he can externalize.
I think that does not completely apply to cases where a nation acts in national interest. What you described rarely pays off in the short term, but in the long term... the civil war for example definitely was worth it for the USA in the end. And when it comes to war of conquest, they don't pay off if you end up getting kicked out, but otherwise, if you can get a hold of land for a couple of hundred years the situation might be different. And I feel moderately confident that if I were to spend a day or 2 on research, I would find examples where military conquest did pay off within a reasonable timeframe, within the last 100years or so.
Plus there is more to the interests of a state than just a monetary bottom line. Maybe not the best example for this, but afaik the golan heights are of importance to israel because of water, which makes it an interest of national security I guess. Crimea is of strategic importance to russia, worth the sanctions... And good old human error, it does not have to be profitable or worth it, all you need is the people in charge believing that it will be worth it / that it is worth it.
Not every price tag that has a number on it.
|
Ultimately, we don't know the true motives of those in charge of Russia. From what we can see from Putins rambling speech the invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with monetary interest (despite what people may read from the usual dumb twitter stuff about Ukraine's exports and resources in the early days of the invasion), and everything to do with a resurgent nationalistic, imperialist and fascist belief in the natural greatness of the apparently to be newly forged Russian Empire.
If the idea is simply to have a conflict to buoy up popularity for example, no amount of monetary calculation matters as it is simply not a factor at all. It is not always about money.
|
On April 29 2022 21:17 Ardias wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2022 20:27 Ghanburighan wrote:On April 29 2022 19:09 Sent. wrote:
Poland sent Ukraine 200 T-72 tanks. Sure, it's old Soviet junk, but that's still a looooot of junk. They are not junk. They're still RU's main battle tank. And Poland's are better thanks to both modernization and better maintenance. Those 200 tanks will matter. There are ton of variants of T-72s. Military Balance for 2021 listed 329 T-72A/T-72M1 in Polish stockpile, and I think it's those tanks that are sent into Ukraine (since PT-91 Twardy is still in active service in Polish formations, though it's being steadily replaced by Leopard 2A4/2A5 variants). Counting Polish tank battalions and comparing them to a number of Leopards, PT-91s and old T-72s I believe the latter ones are all held in reserve (Edit: actually not, found info that some battalions still equiped with T-72M1s). And for a good reason, because T-72A/T-72M1 (actually T-72M1 is an export version of T-72A) is, well, junk by modern standarts. While PT-91 is more or less similar to T-72B3 (which is current most used T-72 modification of Russian Army), T-72M1 is way less efficent. While they all feature basically the same gun (though T-72B3 loading mechanism was adjusted to use longer rounds, thus improving the penetration of sabot rounds), PT-91 and T-72B3 both have much more capable fire control systems, reactive armor, new engines and, most importantly - new sights, including thermal ones. T-72M1 is much more lacking in terms of visibility, especially during night combat. Still, they will be able to provide fire support during the day (and it's summer, so days are getting longer). And at least Ukraine has capabilities to maintain, supply and repair such vehicles. Which will be much harder with the proposed delieveries of Marders, Leopards 1A5 and Weasels.
I stand corrected. Kinda'. That's an awesome amount of detail.
|
On April 29 2022 22:41 PoulsenB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2022 22:00 Ardias wrote:
Actually, seeing that there are a lot of Polish people here, I've got couple of questions:
1) Are there any grounds for rumors about proposed Polish-Ukrainian alliance (or even union)? Saw couple of such posts in Telegram, but don't know how serious they are.
2) Is it possible that Polish military could enter Western Ukraine as peacekeeping/buffer/whatever force, either with invitation from Ukrainian government, or without it (especially if things on the Eastern front will go badly for Ukraine)? I have seen some reports of russian officials saying something that Poland is getting ready to take over the Lviv region or sth, as far as I am concerned this is a made up story aimed at driving a wedge between Poland and Ukraine. Not only there is no political will in Poland to do this, our people would not stand for this if our government tried it (which they won't). Also I don't think Poland is militarily capable of capturing and holding this much territory. A political union is also extremely unlikely seeing Ukraine's stance on sovereignty and territorial integrity. Such rumors are also propaganda or an invention of some fringe groups.
Found a source in English.
Sergei Naryshkin, the chief of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), cited unpublished intelligence that he said showed the United States and Poland, NATO allies, were plotting to restore Polish control over part of western Ukraine. "According to the intelligence received by Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, Washington and Warsaw are working on plans to establish Poland's tight military and political control over its historical possessions in Ukraine," Naryshkin said in a rare statement released by the SVR. The SVR said the United States was discussing with Poland a plan under which Polish "peacekeeping" forces without a NATO mandate would enter parts of western Ukraine where the chance of a confrontation with Russian forces was low. Poland denied the claim and said it was disinformation spread by Moscow. https://www.reuters.com/world/russian-spy-chief-says-us-poland-plotting-division-ukraine-2022-04-28/
Lukashenko also regularly claims that Poland is plotting to take back parts of Western Belarus. Sometimes it feels like everything they do is based on some textbook written in Stalin's times that no one ever bothered to update.
|
So it appears there is fighting between Russian units about loot and combat positions.
Between the invaders, the Buryats and the Chechens, there was a massive shootout near Chornobaivka (Kherson region).
This is stated in the message of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense on Facebook, Ukrainian News Agency reports.
"The shootout between the Buryats and the Chechens - the invaders cannot divide the prey and do not want to go on the offensive," it says.
It is noted that in occupied Kyselivka (Chornobaivka rural community of Kherson region) there was a shootout between the military of the Russian Federation - the Buryats and the Chechens.
The night shootout involved more than 50 participants on each side.
The exact number of wounded and killed is still unknown.
"The reasons for the interethnic conflict are the unwillingness of the Buryats to conduct offensive hostilities and the "inequality" of conditions with the Chechens. The latter are not at the front line at all, remaining in the rear solely as "barrage units." Their task is to encourage the units of the invaders to take active action. That is, to open fire on someone who is trying to retreat," the message says.
Another reason for what happened is the uneven distribution of loot.
The Chechens receive the main benefit from looting.
Besides, intelligence reports that due to unwillingness to participate in offensive actions, a conflict arose between commanders and personnel of units of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in occupied Fedorivka (Zaporizhzhia region).
The Russians complain to local residents about deception when signing contracts and obtaining consent to participate in hostilities.
It turned out that the Russian contractors were promised an operation according to the "Crimean scenario."
That is, the lack of resistance from Ukraine, the allocation of housing in occupied territories and calm service.
Seeing the real picture, many Russians refused to conduct further service.
This entailed a conflict, for the investigation of which representatives of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation arrived.
After interrogations, some of the servicemen were taken away in an unknown direction.
They did not return to the place of service.
As Ukrainian News Agency earlier reported, intelligence reported that prisoners from Chechnya, including convicted relatives of Chechen oppositionists, were sent to the war in Ukraine.
Source
|
I love how Russians insist on our obsesion on Lviv.
Poles: We have no territorial claims towards Ukraine, Lviv is Ukrainian now.
Russians: Poland is going to annex Lviv!
My "dear" Russians, we lernt our lessons from history and we don't pick up poisoned fruits. Take notes.
|
On April 29 2022 18:12 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2022 17:51 Ardias wrote:On April 29 2022 09:07 raynpelikoneet wrote:On April 29 2022 04:55 SC-Shield wrote:
Either distraction or Russia is all-in on this one by forcing others to help them against Ukraine. The latter doesn't add up as Belarus is not fighting yet. Belarus has been fighting "all along". If you can't see it then you're probably watching the propaganda shit.. Technically you are both right. Belarus acted as our ally by providing transportation, bases, supplies, intel and acting as "force in being" over Western Ukraine during offensive on Kiev-Chernigov area. But they didn't commit their forces over Ukrainian territory. The opposition is still strong in Belarus, and they actively monitor Belarus troop movements and report them to Ukrainians. If even one Belarusian BTG crossed the border, there would have been a tremendous outrage. There was a moment (in mid-March IIRC) when Belarusian troops in Brest area started to put red squares on their vehicles and reportedly moved south. This went all over Telegram channels, Belarusian MoD reported that these were exercises and nobody saw such markings again. Thanks for clarification. This is what I meant as well. Russia-Belarus exercises before invasion don't count. Belarussian forces are not currently in Ukraine as far as I know, at least it's not reported by western media as far as I know.
By fighting all along i meant just what Ardias said. Just because Belarus is not sending any concrete military but is allowing -- or allowed (the western parts of Ukraine) invasion tryouts doesnt imo mean they are not a part of the war, in a sense that they are enabling it for the attacking party.
What would you think, if there was a country attacking yours, and they would attack you let's say from the Romanian border? (About Romania in this scenario)
|
Russian Federation20 Posts
Putin has saved Lukashenko during 2020 civil riots in Minsk, and currently Russian forces are freely stationed in Belarus. There is an opinion that the army could have attacked Belarus instead of Ukraine first, if the riot was successful. And at the same time, belarussians clearly do not want to be involved in this war, or rather be on the Ukraine's side. So I think everything Lukashenko speaks now is intended only for one listener - to keep himself safe between two hostile forces
|
So basically Belarus is a part of Russia as we speak, since their actions have quite shown that for some time already.
|
On April 30 2022 09:07 raynpelikoneet wrote:
So basically Belarus is a part of Russia as we speak, since their actions have quite shown that for some time already.
But not 100%, because then there were belarussian troops as part of the invasion.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On April 30 2022 09:07 raynpelikoneet wrote:
So basically Belarus is a part of Russia as we speak, since their actions have quite shown that for some time already.
Russia and Belarus have already form a union since 1999, called "Allied State of Russia and Belarus" or simply "Allied State". Both our states have always had tight economic and social cooperation. Like if you are citizen of Russia or Belarus, you don't need your international passport to cross the border between countries, you can use your internal one. Half of the Belarusian export is into Russia (food, chemicals, machinery). There was always a heavy discount on Russian gas for Belarus. And when there were sanctions for Crimea in 2014, many sanctioned products were transited through Belarus (there was even an internal Russian meme about "Belarusian shrimps").
But politically before 2020 Belarus often acted independently from Russia. Over the years Lukashenko talked a lot about "national sovereignity" and that close economic and social ties do not mean that Belarus is politically dependant on Russia. But after the elections of 2020 and support that Russia gave him despite the protests, this political dependance grew quite a lot. In 2021 a decree about increased cooperation and integration between Russia and Belarus was signed. Its provisions included harmonization of legislation of both countries in different spheres (taxation, customs, labor, agriculture, etc.), integration of information systems (payment, traffic control, health control), creation of unified market for energy resources (gas, oil, electricity, etc.). We'll see how it will turn out, but since Belarus provided us with military assistance in the conflict, getting hit by the sanctions themselves, you are probably right, and Belarus will be furter integrated into Russia later on.
|
Important thread on the state of the war. The crucial insight is that UA cannot resume its food supplies to the world without breaking RU naval blockade, which is very difficult. Rail cannot substitute any time soon. Exports used to be 40% of UA GDP.
Also, RU is racing to make gains in Donbas before western heavy weapons can be transported there. Any delays are costly.
|
|
|
|
|
Reports coming in of another Russian General killed.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On April 30 2022 20:06 Ghanburighan wrote:Important thread on the state of the war. The crucial insight is that UA cannot resume its food supplies to the world without breaking RU naval blockade, which is very difficult. Rail cannot substitute any time soon. Exports used to be 40% of UA GDP. Also, RU is racing to make gains in Donbas before western heavy weapons can be transported there. Any delays are costly. https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1520333220964933632
Besides the issues you mentioned about moving food out of Ukraine, there is a ton of them regarding its production.
1) Land. Ukraine is notorious for its production of grains and ingridients for vegetable oils (especially sunflower and rapeseed). It's already time to start planting this stuff. Problem is, that main areas of its production are in central, southern and eastern Ukraine (there are mostly steppes with rich soils that are good for large fields(though not in Donbass, where soil erosion and industrialisation caused drop in farming efficency), while north and west are more hilly and forested, and are mostly used for production of animal products and vegetables).
And well, this is the area where most of the fighting takes place. Large areas of Kherson, Kharkov and Zaporozhie regions are under Russian control, and nothing from there will go into Ukraine. Other areas of those regions are actual frontlines, so no field cultivation there as well. And deeper into Ukrainian territory there are also risks involved with Ukrainan forces putting up defensive lines, which also include minefields. I've read reports from Odessa where people got blown up on the beaches, since Ukrainan military deployed minefield there in fear of Russian landing in the city.
2) Fuel. Ukraine needs it desperately. First of all, before 24th February, despite all the stuff in Donbass and Crimea, Ukraine was still heavy reliant on Russian (65% of diesel import) and Belarusian (40% of gasoline import) fuel. And import of fuel in Ukraine is much greater than import of crude oil (which Ukraine imported mainly from Azerbaijan), because Ukraine has very limited capabilities of refining oil into fuel.
One of the reasons why I didn't believe in the possibility of open conflict was the fact. that in January Russia increased supply of diesel fuel into Ukraine. But of course UA isn't getting any now. A lot of oil and fuel supply depots and the the only working Ukrainian oil refinery in Kremenchug were, as it is now said here, "kalibrated". And remaining fuel, of course, is a priority for the army. So nothing to fuel the vehicles to work in the field with.
3) Labor force. With some people being on Russian-controlled territory, some leaving the country and some conscripted into army and territorial defence forces there would be shortage of hands in all areas, in agriculture also.
As for issues with transportation - the first issue you mentioned is intertwingled with second. I'm not sure what is taken our High Command so long to start attacking UA transport infrastructure, but they have started to do so lately, especially focusing on the substations providing electricity to the railroads, since around 80% or trains in Ukraine run on electricity. If they finally start to target bridges over Dniepr, issue will only get worse. So if Kalibrs will further fly into the infrastrucure targets, it would be problematic to export something from Ukraine even via railroad.
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On April 30 2022 03:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ultimately, we don't know the true motives of those in charge of Russia. From what we can see from Putins rambling speech the invasion of Ukraine has nothing to do with monetary interest (despite what people may read from the usual dumb twitter stuff about Ukraine's exports and resources in the early days of the invasion), and everything to do with a resurgent nationalistic, imperialist and fascist belief in the natural greatness of the apparently to be newly forged Russian Empire.
If the idea is simply to have a conflict to buoy up popularity for example, no amount of monetary calculation matters as it is simply not a factor at all. It is not always about money.
This is still a hot topic around here, but everyone agrees that it has nothing to do with making our lives better and our pockets richer. Actually, the reason why very few people in Russia believed that there was a possibility of an open war was not because everyone thought that Putin and his goverment are pink flying ponies, but because there was a widespread opinion in society that our political elite is incapable of direct confrontation with the West exactly for the aforementioned reason - money. With children of our top brass living and studying abroad, with all the yachts and villas of our oligarchs and officials in Italy, France, Spain etc. few could believe that somebody would risk to lose it all. That's why 24th of February was shock for everyone not only abroad, but here as well.
As for the local opinions on the reasons of it - they vastly differ. Pro-western people generally believe that Putin went mad and wants to turn Russia into the besieged fortress and rule here as Sun, That Shines From Mount Elbrus. Patriotic ones think that it's proper retribution for the Donbass and anti-Russian actions by Ukraine after 2014.
To elaborate on the latter (and i'm probably going a bit offtopic here) and why the idea of supporting ethnic Russians abroad is quite popular around here, despite sanctions an all that - after the fall of Soviet Union a lot of Russians were left in the newly formed indepenent states. States that were already pre-created in Soviet Union as republics of some dominant nation (Armenians, Georgians, Kazakhs, Tajiks etc.). Rapid fall of the Soviet Union, combined with economic troubles, growing nationalism in these new states, especially in regions with low education and cultural levels and strong systems of clan and kindred ties (Caucasus and Central Asia) led to massive repressions against ethnic Russians. Not on state level (authorities simply ignored that, or were silently supportive), but on a common level between people. A lot of Russians were forced out of their homes, left without a job, physically assaulted. Epithome of that was Chechnya in 1990-1994, since Chechens, being, well, Chechens, and in addition to that, being angry for Stalins deportation in 1944, went loose on Russian population as soon as there was no government control, killing, raping, beating up and forcing out Russians en masse (in 1989 there were 270 thousand Russians in Chechnya, in 2002 - 40 thousand, and this number includes troops that were stationed there during 2nd Chechen war). All these events are still sensitive for Russian society and that's one of the main reasons why Putins' rating went up so high after Crimea, as people saw it as national leadership protecting Russian-speaking people abroad from the repetition of events in the 90's.
As for my opinion on this - of course Putin definelty has strenghtening his political position in mind, but I doubt he would need such radical measures to simply stay in power. While the ruling party (United Russia) is not very popular (every parlamentary election reports ton of falcifications), presidential race is another thing, since there are no really strong popular candidates in it. But I think that Putin's visit on the Chinese Olympics right before the start of the war is no coincidence. The main benefactor of this conflict is China. It's a perfect opportunity for them to study, what would be Western reaction and what measures US and allies would take if large country with nukes will cross the red line and start the open war not against some random rogue state in Caucasus or Middle East, but against country, directly supported by the US. Perfect model to study different Taiwan scenarios, all potential risks and possible events. Plus China would definetly profit from weakened European economy and potentially getting whole Russian market for themselves (if political situation will somewhat change in the future).
Also if Russia, despite everything, will emerge victorious in Ukraine (on the battlefield at least) - it could be a green flag to different countries in Asia and Africa that war is a viable method of resolving diplomatical conflicts once again, after 30 years of basically the US monopoly on warfare. So this thing in Ukraine, I believe, is much bigger that just some dictator going crazy, and we are looking for a possible reshaping of the world order in near future. And the main chance for the West to preserve status quo is to help Ukrainians to defeat our army in the field, because I highly doubt that some internall collapse will happen here soon enough.
|
Is it so that in those areas Russia has claimed to be liberating, the majority of people are pro-rus?
Because if so, then i could somehow even understand the measures Putin is taking in any way (and even there i disagree, it's the wrong way)
If not, why?
|
Russian Federation605 Posts
On May 01 2022 09:28 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Is it so that in those areas Russia has claimed to be liberating, the majority of people are pro-rus?
Because if so, then i could somehow even understand the measures Putin is taking in any way (and even there i disagree, it's the wrong way)
If not, why?
You are correct. Not sure how many are "pro-rus" now, but historically eastern and southern Ukraine (from Kharkov to Odessa) was always in favor of Russia, and most ethnic Russians in Ukraine live there.
Below is a picture of a 2nd tour of 2010 presidential elections where pro-russian candidate Yanukovich was up agains pro-Western Timoshenko (and Yanukovich won those).
![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png/1280px-%D0%94%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80_2010_%D0%BF%D0%BE_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%85-en.png)
|
Idk if the picture you posted means much. Like people can be pro-anything in a sense, but what i was talking about is; I was wondering if there is actually support to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine?
E: Just because people would support Russian friendly government doesnt mean they want to be a part of Russia instead of Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
