EPTRusso-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 272
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18179 Posts
On October 10 2022 21:07 Sent. wrote: Probably no even though it would be justified. Russian false flag attack to create an excuse for direct Belarusian involvement is more likely. I don't think Lukashenko wants to get involved, it would be unprofitable for Belarus, but it's not like we have reasons to expect Russia and her mini-me to behave like rational actors. The war escalating with Belarus direct involvement just seems like a desperate mistake. Doesn't this allow NATO to send in a "peacekeeping" mission that en passant removes Lukashenko from power? Russia has nukes, but Belarus is not Russia. If there is any appetite for any EU/NATO mission to involve their own armies, smashing Belarus into submission would be the way to do so. Maybe Putin and Lukashenko estimated that Poland and Lithuania have no interest in that? They may be right but it seems like one hell of a gamble... | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
On October 10 2022 21:29 Acrofales wrote: I think NATO having no interest in joining the war with boots on the ground is a pretty safe bet. If they were to decide to smash Belarus it will be the usual NATO tactic of missile strikes to disable airforce and AA defences and then bomb them until they submit.The war escalating with Belarus direct involvement just seems like a desperate mistake. Doesn't this allow NATO to send in a "peacekeeping" mission that en passant removes Lukashenko from power? Russia has nukes, but Belarus is not Russia. If there is any appetite for any EU/NATO mission to involve their own armies, smashing Belarus into submission would be the way to do so. Maybe Putin and Lukashenko estimated that Poland and Lithuania have no interest in that? They may be right but it seems like one hell of a gamble... | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On October 10 2022 21:34 Gorsameth wrote: I think NATO having no interest in joining the war with boots on the ground is a pretty safe bet. If they were to decide to smash Belarus it will be the usual NATO tactic of missile strikes to disable airforce and AA defences and then bomb them until they submit. It has been a while since NATO did that to a European country, I'm sure they're itching to do it | ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation617 Posts
On October 10 2022 21:29 Acrofales wrote: The war escalating with Belarus direct involvement just seems like a desperate mistake. Doesn't this allow NATO to send in a "peacekeeping" mission that en passant removes Lukashenko from power? Russia has nukes, but Belarus is not Russia. If there is any appetite for any EU/NATO mission to involve their own armies, smashing Belarus into submission would be the way to do so. Maybe Putin and Lukashenko estimated that Poland and Lithuania have no interest in that? They may be right but it seems like one hell of a gamble... You are forgetting that Russia and Belarus are in the union, called "Union state of Russia and Belarus". The updated military doctrine (which was done in late 2021) says the following (Article 20): "The participating States shall consider any action with the use of military force directed against any of the participating States as an encroachment on the Union State as a whole and will take appropriate retaliatory measures using all the forces and means at their disposal." 2nd document from the top, Article 20. https://postkomsg.com/documentation/theme/379/ So basically Russia is obliged to defend Belarus as if it was their own territory, and visa versa. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
On October 10 2022 21:43 Ardias wrote: Right, Just like Russia was supposed to help defend Armenia under Article 4 of the CSTO.You are forgetting that Russia and Belarus are in the union, called "Union state of Russia and Belarus". The updated military doctrine (which was done in late 2021) says the following (Article 20): "The participating States shall consider any action with the use of military force directed against any of the participating States as an encroachment on the Union State as a whole and will take appropriate retaliatory measures using all the forces and means at their disposal." 2nd document from the top, Article 20. https://postkomsg.com/documentation/theme/379/ So basically Russia is obliged to defend Belarus as if it was their own territory, and visa versa. Russia didn't have the forces left to help them there, and they won't have the forces left to help Belarus (not that I expect NATO to actually undertake direct military action). Russia's signed treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on, and everyone knows it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation617 Posts
On October 10 2022 21:48 Gorsameth wrote: Right, Just like Russia was supposed to help defend Armenia under Article 4 of the CSTO. Russia didn't have the forces left to help them there, and they won't have the forces left to help Belarus (not that I expect NATO to actually undertake direct military action). Russia's signed treaties are not worth the paper they are printed on, and everyone knows it. Other CSTO members refrained from any action as well (and at least Kazakhstan certainly had the means to affect Azerbaijan, if necessary). Plus with no direct supply line and pro-Western president Armenia is more of a liability to Russia in a current situation. Belarus, on the other hand, is very valuable, as a point of threat to Ukraine and as a possible source of additional equipment and manpower for the war, Plus they are already forming some kind of combined force, for the reasons unknown though. https://t.me/boris_rozhin/66648 "Presidents of Belarus and Russia Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin agreed to deploy a joint regional group of troops." | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Belarus joining like that would make no sense | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On October 10 2022 22:19 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I'm not seeing this massive belarus tank thing on other sources and this tweet has 12 likes Ukrainian MP source: Other OSINT account: Reporter claims it's just 10 tanks: Looks like a lot of speculation and conflicting reports at the moment. Not really sure who's right but we'll find out soon enough | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On October 10 2022 22:01 Ardias wrote: Other CSTO members refrained from any action as well (and at least Kazakhstan certainly had the means to affect Azerbaijan, if necessary). Plus with no direct supply line and pro-Western president Armenia is more of a liability to Russia in a current situation. Belarus, on the other hand, is very valuable, as a point of threat to Ukraine and as a possible source of additional equipment and manpower for the war, Plus they are already forming some kind of combined force, for the reasons unknown though. https://t.me/boris_rozhin/66648 "Presidents of Belarus and Russia Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin agreed to deploy a joint regional group of troops." That doesn't change they don't have any capacity to support Belarus. A defence treaty is meaningless when you have no capability to enforce it. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
President Emmanuel Macron pledged to increase France’s military support to Ukraine in a phone call with his Ukrainian counterpart on Monday, the French president’s office said, after Russia carried out new strikes killing civilians and destroying power infrastructure. The French government has shared little details about the military support it provides Ukraine for fear of being considered as a co-belligerent by the Kremlin, officials say. On Friday, however, Mr. Macron said France was planning to send six new truck-mounted howitzers to Ukraine, in addition to the 18 it has already sent since the beginning of the war. He also announced plans to create a special fund worth 100 million euros, equivalent to about $97 million, at first to allow Ukraine to buy equipment directly from French industrial companies. French officials say France has already sent Ukraine armored troop carriers, ammunition, bulletproof vests, medical equipment and fuel. France has also trained more than 150 Ukrainian soldiers to use the equipment and weapons it supplied, officials added. Mr. Macron would remain in close contact with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as other European and Group of Seven leaders, according to the French president’s office. Source | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18179 Posts
On October 10 2022 22:01 Ardias wrote: Other CSTO members refrained from any action as well (and at least Kazakhstan certainly had the means to affect Azerbaijan, if necessary). Plus with no direct supply line and pro-Western president Armenia is more of a liability to Russia in a current situation. Belarus, on the other hand, is very valuable, as a point of threat to Ukraine and as a possible source of additional equipment and manpower for the war, Plus they are already forming some kind of combined force, for the reasons unknown though. https://t.me/boris_rozhin/66648 "Presidents of Belarus and Russia Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin agreed to deploy a joint regional group of troops." That doesn't sound like something to be proud of... Gorsameth said "Russia promised to defend Armenia under the CSTO. They didn't. Treaties with Russia aren't worth anything" Your response was "Well, Kazakhstan didn't uphold the CSTO either" Doesn't that just further emphasize the fact that that treaty is absolute garbage? As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus... | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany565 Posts
On October 11 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote: As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus... I see this sentiment thrown around a lot and I think its plain wrong. The reasons for russias failing in ukraine are far more complex than 'russian army bad'. Russias military strength might have been overrated, but given the amount of resources and effort that are poured into intelligence gathering by nato, assuming that they have been *that* wrong in their assessment seems unreasonable to me. You hear that sentiment a lot from retired military personnel that has served on nato posts not too long ago. (for the german speaking posters, there is a great german podcast with erhard bühler, who served as commander of the allied joint force command brunssum. "Was tun herr general", available on youtube and overall very balanced and grounded in reality, though you won't hear any breaking news or insider knowledge there ofc. Great for solid recaps of current events in this war and what they mean for the overall direction of the war) After memeing so much about 'lul, special military operation' people should remember that indeed russia did not plan this as a war, and a lot of the things we ridicule is a direct result of that. For the past months we have increasingly seen the russian military fall apart due to, amongst other reasons, lack of troop rotation and dedicated structures for manpower replenishment. This war has the potential to cripple russia to a point were its no threat anymore, but thinking their military was no threat before this war or will never be one afterwards to me seems ignorant and short-sighted - and incidentally also what got my country in this position where our stocks and capabilities are so depleted that the military is no longer able to completely fulfil its role of defending the nation. The reason why nato countries are not worried about russia is because of the protection of the US. | ||
|
Ardias
Russian Federation617 Posts
On October 11 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote: That doesn't sound like something to be proud of... Gorsameth said "Russia promised to defend Armenia under the CSTO. They didn't. Treaties with Russia aren't worth anything" Your response was "Well, Kazakhstan didn't uphold the CSTO either" Doesn't that just further emphasize the fact that that treaty is absolute garbage? As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus... Gorsameth pointed out that Russia didn't upheld their end of the bargain, I've pointed out that no other party to the treaty did. Like if Poland invokes Article 5 of the NATO treaty and US won't respond, it won't make it right for Germany to not respond as well, since treaty is multilateral and binds all its members. So in regards to CSTO buisness with Armenia you may say that "deals with Kazakhstan worth nothing" as well. I'll agree on treaty itself being garbage though. NATO offensive towards Belarus will greatly rally the Russians and Belorussians behind the pro-war cause, and turn them away from the West, as much as Russian invasion in Ukraine rallied even a lot of pro-Russian Ukrainians behind their government. I wouldn't expect a lot of flowers on the way if you are coming with airstrikes, even the most democratic ones. As for the capabilities of Russian/Belorussian forces to repel NATO offensive - we could debate a lot about it, but I guarantee that even if it is successful, and doesnt cause nuclear war - it would be much more bloody than both of the Gulf Wars. I believe that people in NATO HQs understand that and I doubt they are willing to risk it just yet. | ||
|
0x64
Finland4601 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On October 11 2022 01:30 Artesimo wrote: I see this sentiment thrown around a lot and I think its plain wrong. The reasons for russias failing in ukraine are far more complex than 'russian army bad'. Russias military strength might have been overrated, but given the amount of resources and effort that are poured into intelligence gathering by nato, assuming that they have been *that* wrong in their assessment seems unreasonable to me.. There is motivation for the military to not downplay russian capabilities. Good chance they had a reasonable idea of the insanely crippling corruption issues that hamstrings russian forces all over the board, but you can't fund a future weapons F-35 program by saying that out loud. Though everyone still underestimated the crippling effect given how almost nobody gave Ukraine a chance first few days besides the UK shipping in last minute anti-tank supplies. | ||
|
Artesimo
Germany565 Posts
On October 11 2022 02:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: There is motivation for the military to not downplay russian capabilities. Good chance they had a reasonable idea of the insanely crippling corruption issues that hamstrings russian forces all over the board, but you can't fund a future weapons F-35 program by saying that out loud. Though everyone still underestimated the crippling effect given how almost nobody gave Ukraine a chance first few days besides the UK shipping in last minute anti-tank supplies. You are mixing up military with defence industry. Especially with the german military, you can be sure they are not moving any product based on their assessments. With the US the ties are a bit closer, but given that it is a sentiment you hear across nato personal of various nationality and position, I feel very confident. Unless ofc you want to go with the alternative where we assume that nato is either as corrupt or incompetent as people make the russian military out to be... Like I said, they might have overestimated russian capabilities, but certainly not enough to explain the discrepancy in assessed and observable performance. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15726 Posts
1) If anything, Ukraine is actively taking back territory right now 2) Russia lacks equipment and proper training to be able to sustain this fight 3) Ukraine has essentially unlimited resources since the entire planet is helping them other than like 4 countries 4) Russia has nukes, but MAD basically means they will get toasted if they use them, so they don't have an actual reason to use them. Add this all together and Russia basically feels like a dead man walking. Every time Russia adds more, the West adds more. The West has an infinite pool of resources, so they will always outlast Russia. What is the Russian path to victory here? Right now it feels like they'd be lucky to hold on to Crimea. What am I missing? | ||
| ||
