EPTEuropean deployments actually make things safer because they make it clearer that Putin can’t win. Putin keeps doubling down with pocket Jacks in the hope that Europe is bluffing and Europe, by maintaining ambiguity, allow him to donk away his stack. He’s not going to fold to anything short of the absolute nuts because he’s pot committed at this point. Only by showing the nuts can we make folding the optimal play for him.
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread - Page 661
| 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. | ||
KwarK
United States41471 Posts
European deployments actually make things safer because they make it clearer that Putin can’t win. Putin keeps doubling down with pocket Jacks in the hope that Europe is bluffing and Europe, by maintaining ambiguity, allow him to donk away his stack. He’s not going to fold to anything short of the absolute nuts because he’s pot committed at this point. Only by showing the nuts can we make folding the optimal play for him. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ZeroByte13
725 Posts
On March 05 2024 01:36 KwarK wrote: What do you mean what happens? Nothing happens. France is allowed to engage in military operations outside of NATO. On March 05 2024 02:03 Gorsameth wrote: Regarding this, I often wonder - how does this work in case of escalation?Yeah a French soldier being killing on a French (non-NATO) deployment in Ukraine is not an attack on France, the country. Say, France pursues its own interests in country X and sends a deployment to this country, without NATO support. If a French soldier was killed on this deployment, NATO has nothing to do with this - makes sense. But what if this country X overpowers that French deployment and decides to relatiate in a big way, striking France itself - isn't this what NATO would trigger Article 5 for? If yes - it means French deployments are probably always discussed and agreed on with other NATO members, no? You can't really say - "I don't need agreement/confirmation, I'm on my own" - unless you're really on your own to the end, even if it's a really bitter end. Or do NATO agreements say - if you started it, we don't help you, period? Otherwise isn't it like saying - "our members can attack anyone without our support... and no, nobody can attack our members back, sorry". I'm pretty sure it's not like this. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7870 Posts
On March 05 2024 06:10 ZeroByte13 wrote: Regarding this, I often wonder - how does this work in case of escalation? Say, France pursues its own interests in country X and sends a deployment to this country, without NATO support. If a French soldier was killed on this deployment, NATO has nothing to do with this - makes sense. But what if this country X overpowers that French deployment and decides to relatiate in a big way, striking France itself - isn't this what NATO would trigger Article 5 for? If yes - it means French deployments are probably always discussed and agreed on with other NATO members, no? You can't really say - "I don't need agreement/confirmation, I'm on my own" - unless you're really on your own to the end, even if it's a really bitter end. Or do NATO agreements say - if you started it, we don't help you, period? To answer the first question: Yes, it could trigger article 5, but it's not necessarily. There's no automaticy in it. "Art. 5 is a collective self-defense provision that is only triggered by a NATO member’s individual right of self-defense". The key words being "right to self-defense". If, for instance, the rest of NATO deems actions of one country as unlawful, a retaliation strike will not trigger it. All that said, politics is very complicated and I am not a lawyer or a politician. I'd think it overwhelmingly likely the rest of NATO would intervene if Russia attacked France, even if France put soldiers on the ground in Ukraine first. NATO does not have a "You started it" clause, only that it needs to be lawful actions. NATO doesn't care about being fair to their opponents, it cares about everyone staying alive, even if they did something dumb first. As for the second: I am not privy to what is discussed behind closed NATO doors, but I imagine I would get incredibly annoyed if a country you are supposedly in a mutual defence pact with, and a close military ally, did something like that without notifying their allies first. So probably, yes | ||
|
ZeroByte13
725 Posts
On March 05 2024 06:25 Excludos wrote: This is because of the last two years.I'd think it overwhelmingly likely the rest of NATO would intervene if Russia attacked France, even if France put soldiers on the ground in Ukraine first. I doubt that if France would say for some reason in 2021 - fook it, we're attacking Russia! - NATO would allow it, or if it did - that NATO would defend France after that. A super hypothetical situation, of course. All I am saying is - I think France most probably cannot just attack whoever they want, even someone everyone considers to be jerks, without NATO approval. Maybe only someone who cannot retaliate in a big way. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States41471 Posts
On March 05 2024 06:10 ZeroByte13 wrote: Regarding this, I often wonder - how does this work in case of escalation? Say, France pursues its own interests in country X and sends a deployment to this country, without NATO support. If a French soldier was killed on this deployment, NATO has nothing to do with this - makes sense. But what if this country X overpowers that French deployment and decides to relatiate in a big way, striking France itself - isn't this what NATO would trigger Article 5 for? If yes - it means French deployments are probably always discussed and agreed on with other NATO members, no? You can't really say - "I don't need agreement/confirmation, I'm on my own" - unless you're really on your own to the end, even if it's a really bitter end. Or do NATO agreements say - if you started it, we don't help you, period? Otherwise isn't it like saying - "our members can attack anyone without our support... and no, nobody can attack our members back, sorry". I'm pretty sure it's not like this. It’s a big old “it depends” but it’s much easier to play that game if you can handle your own shit, as France can. Classic example is closing the skies. You can’t really do that without using assets outside the conflict zone and striking at assets outside the conflict zone which makes it very dangerous from an escalation perspective. With tanks you can say “I’ll shoot anything that crosses this line”. With anti air you’ve got to hit missile launchers and radar stations in their country and that opens them to do the same to yours. If you kept to shooting stuff within Ukraine using assets within Ukraine and they directly responded at your homeland then it would depend on the response. Small attack you’d just return fire in a proportionate way. Large attack you’d article 5 it and the boys would respond in a proportionate conventional way to let Russia know not to cross that line again. But if you shot stuff in Ukraine using out of Ukraine assets they’d probably be allowed to hit those (but only those). There really aren’t specific rules for this because specific rules don’t work, someone would just game them. “Technically that missile was fired by a separatist rogue element of our armed forces and so really we’re just as offended as you are” wouldn’t fly for example. There’s an understanding of approximately where too far is and what kind of response you’d get for different kinds of too far but it’s not exact. Russia launching a chemical weapon attack on Salisbury didn’t get an article 5, but it did eventually lead to weather of “cloudy with a chance of storm shadows” across occupied Crimea Russian navy bases. There is no rule book. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6251 Posts
KYIV — Even as he promises international partners that Ukraine will handle the fighting if given needed weapons and other support, President Volodymyr Zelensky and his top military commanders have failed so far to come up with a clear plan to conscript or recruit many thousands of new soldiers critically needed to defend against Russia’s continuing attacks. Zelensky’s inability to forge a political consensus on a mobilization strategy — despite months of warnings about a severe shortage of qualified troops on the front — has fueled deep divisions in Ukraine’s parliament and more broadly in Ukrainian society. It has left the military relying on a hodgepodge of recruiting efforts and sown panic among fighting-age men, some of whom have gone into hiding, worried that they will be drafted into an ill-equipped army and sent to certain death given that aid for Ukraine remains stalled in Washington. The quandary over how to fill the ranks has confronted Zelensky with perhaps the greatest challenge to his leadership since the start of the February 2022 invasion. The lack of a clear mobilization strategy — or even agreement on how many more troops Ukraine needs — factored into Zelensky’s dismissal of his top general in February, but the new commander in chief, Oleksandr Syrsky, so far has brought no new clarity. Syrsky has been tasked with auditing the existing armed forces to find more combat-eligible troops, after Zelensky’s office recently announced that of the 1 million people who have been mobilized, only about 300,000 have fought at the front lines. But nearly a month after his promotion, no one in the military leadership or the presidential administration has explained where those 700,000 are — or what they have been doing. Ukrainian lawmakers say the lack of a unified message from the president and the military has added confusion over next steps. “I don’t know why Zelensky or his team still try to convince society that everything is always fine,” said Solomiia Bobrovska, a lawmaker from Holos, a liberal opposition party. “It’s not — especially with the army.” Ukraine’s dwindling number of battle-ready troops is now a strategic crisis that was at least partially to blame for its recent retreat from the eastern city of Avdiivka and surrounding villages, where Ukrainian forces were far outnumbered. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Zelensky has long tried to control public messaging about the state of the war to preserve public morale. He publicly announced a death toll for Ukrainian troops for the first time last weekend, saying that 31,000 have been killed since February 2022 — a number that could not be independently confirmed. Zelensky is also facing mounting pessimism at home and abroad about Ukraine’s chances of holding off the Russian onslaught without more help from the United States. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has refused to take up legislation that includes some $60 billion in aid for Ukraine. “It’s time for serious talks with society — serious and honest talks and to explain what we have to do without any artificial bravery,” said Volodymyr Aryev, a lawmaker from the opposition European Solidarity party. Bobrovska is backing proposed changes to the bill that would ensure the demobilization of troops who have already served lengthy stints in front-line positions. As it stands, she said, “the only way to be back is injured or killed.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One 31-year-old man, whose parents are living under Russian occupation in eastern Ukraine, said he is hiding in an apartment in Kyiv, fearful that he will be drafted and sent to the front unprepared and ill-equipped. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because of concerns for his safety. In December, while visiting the central Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia, soldiers stopped him on the street and handed him a draft notice. He left without visiting the recruitment office there, hoping his case would disappear into a disorganized bureaucratic system. But a month later, police in Kyiv stopped him for a random check. When they searched his name in their database, he saw the word WANTED pop up in big red letters. Officials in Vinnytsia had registered his failure to appear. He was ordered to appear at a recruitment office the next morning, but had a panic attack and did not go. He has no military experience. “You cannot imagine a person who is further from the army or military stuff,” he said. “It just doesn’t really make sense to me to hunt me like that.” source Very interesting read from the Washington Post, I recommend reading the whole article. We know there were a million people under arms after the full scale mobilizations in 2022 and their million man army claims Its a bit jarring to hear statements from Zelensky about 31.000 killed yet he goes on to state that there are 700.000 less people in the armed forces, how do they not have an answer to tht question? | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7053 Posts
On March 05 2024 17:24 zeo wrote: Zelensky in bind over how to draft more troops as Russian forces advance source Its a bit jarring to hear statements from Zelensky about 31.000 killed yet he goes on to state that there are 700.000 less people in the armed forces, how do they not have an answer to tht question? Killed doesnt take into account wounded or MIA. Edit: For brighter news, Russia managed to lose another ship to a country with no navy. Well done! | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7870 Posts
On March 05 2024 17:24 zeo wrote: Zelensky in bind over how to draft more troops as Russian forces advance source Very interesting read from the Washington Post, I recommend reading the whole article. We know there were a million people under arms after the full scale mobilizations in 2022 and their million man army claims Its a bit jarring to hear statements from Zelensky about 31.000 killed yet he goes on to state that there are 700.000 less people in the armed forces, how do they not have an answer to tht question? This is somewhere in the ballpark the 10th time you've failed to understand the difference between casualties and KIA. At this point, I'm pretty certain it's purposeful | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5327 Posts
On March 05 2024 17:24 zeo wrote: Zelensky in bind over how to draft more troops as Russian forces advance source Very interesting read from the Washington Post, I recommend reading the whole article. We know there were a million people under arms after the full scale mobilizations in 2022 and their million man army claims Its a bit jarring to hear statements from Zelensky about 31.000 killed yet he goes on to state that there are 700.000 less people in the armed forces, how do they not have an answer to tht question? Where are you getting the "700,000 less people"? Have you heard of the tooth-to-tail ratio? Out of 2M Americans drafted for the Vietnam War, some 10-20% fought at the frontline. The rest worked in logistics, administration, field hospitals, etc. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6251 Posts
On March 05 2024 19:46 Luolis wrote: Killed doesnt take into account wounded or MIA. Edit: For brighter news, Russia managed to lose another ship to a country with no navy. Well done! Zelensky didn't give numbers on overall casualties though if we were to take a 4 or 5:1 ratio between wounded and dead that would bring us to around the 120.000-180.000 mark with overall casualties. I doubt the POW and MIA numbers make up the difference, which is the whole point, there is a 700k hole. Maybe the problem talked about in this article assumes that we know the background to these comments. Take this quote from a late Feburary article on CNN: Zaluzhnyi was dismissed earlier this month. In an Op-Ed for CNN, published two days before he was replaced, the top general made clear his ongoing frustrations, calling out “the inability of state institutions in Ukraine to improve the manpower levels of our armed forces without the use of unpopular measures.” Former Defense Minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk believes that further mobilization is essential. “Maybe not half a million, but still hundreds of thousands,” he said, adding that it should be “strategy-based - what we are going to do, rather than, ‘Oh, we need more people.’” ------------------------------- The President’s Office believes it is as much about changes inside the armed forces as it is about increasing overall numbers. According to a Zelensky aide, of the almost 1 million Ukrainians mobilized, only 200,000 to 300,000 have served on the front line. The rest, he said pointedly, “are very far from the war,” adding it is up to the new army chief to change that before coming to Zelensky and asking for an increase in the draft. A popular nafo dog interpretation going around would be that these are the truck drivers, logistics, cooks ect. but from the WP article and this one its clear that either the army or the civil administration have no idea where these people are or what they are doing. If the big brain plan is to send the support staff to the front line then who is going to take over for the support staff? Wouldn't that need another mobilization too? So the back and forth though the media goes something like this: Military: we need to mobilize 500k more men or we are screwed Government: but we mobilized one million people and *checks notes* only 200 to 300k have been to the front line, why not just rotate those 700k in? Military: I repeat, we are screwed. There are no people left, we don't have enough manpower to hold on much longer. Send help please Take this article from 2022: “I tried to explain that after eight years of hybrid war we have more than 400,000 veterans plus their relatives in different parts of the world,” he told The Times. “Workers from Poland to Portugal decided to return to Ukraine to defend their country.” “We have approximately 700,000 in the armed forces and when you add the national guard, police, border guard, we are around a million strong,” added Mr Reznikov, a former soldier in the Soviet airborne forces who assumed his current post last November. These numbers were great back in 2022, but now its an alarming shortage with apparently only 120-180k men out of action over all the added intakes during 2023. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2447 Posts
Kharkiv counteroffensive and the Russian collapse in the east was because that area was severely under strength. I imagine that both sides have learned that you need more than token amount of troops just not in the area your currently fighting but along the entire front line. For Ukraine that also includes the northern border which Russia doesn't really need to care about. No doubt there has also been casualties but it's logical that Ukraine also simply needs more men now than they did before. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17678 Posts
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/he-had-no-idea-he-was-being-sent-to-a-war-zone-the-indian-and-nepalese-men-on-frontlines-in-ukraine Mangukiya’s death has shed light on the fate of dozens – by some estimates, hundreds – of Indians who have ended up on the frontlines of the Russia-Ukraine war against their will, after signing up for roles described as military helpers or security guards. In some cases, families say the men thought they were flying out for jobs in Dubai but then were sent on to Russia by agents. In an ideal world, the Indian government would care enough about this for it to be a major diplomatic incident. For many countries this would be a casus belli. In the world we live in, Mohdi will probably sign off on a major arms shipment to Russia tomorrow so his citizens have better supplies as they are tricked into fighting on the front lines of someone else's war. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
Sure, it would be great if this would cause an incident between India and Russia, but other than that the trash just took itself out as far as I'm concerned. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway7870 Posts
On March 07 2024 16:52 Mikau wrote: I have very little sympathy for people who thought they were contributing to the killing of Ukranians in a non-combat capacity getting killed if I'm honest. Sure, it would be great if this would cause an incident between India and Russia, but other than that the trash just took itself out as far as I'm concerned. My sympathy is also zero, however objectively we can still say that this is a fucked up thing to do | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11695 Posts
On March 07 2024 15:28 Acrofales wrote: Chalk it up to yet another fucjed up thing Russia is doing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/he-had-no-idea-he-was-being-sent-to-a-war-zone-the-indian-and-nepalese-men-on-frontlines-in-ukraine In an ideal world, the Indian government would care enough about this for it to be a major diplomatic incident. For many countries this would be a casus belli. In the world we live in, Mohdi will probably sign off on a major arms shipment to Russia tomorrow so his citizens have better supplies as they are tricked into fighting on the front lines of someone else's war. This is so fucked up, Jesus | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17165 Posts
On March 07 2024 15:28 Acrofales wrote: Chalk it up to yet another fucjed up thing Russia is doing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/07/he-had-no-idea-he-was-being-sent-to-a-war-zone-the-indian-and-nepalese-men-on-frontlines-in-ukraine In an ideal world, the Indian government would care enough about this for it to be a major diplomatic incident. For many countries this would be a casus belli. In the world we live in, Mohdi will probably sign off on a major arms shipment to Russia tomorrow so his citizens have better supplies as they are tricked into fighting on the front lines of someone else's war. I don't know about India but in Poland (and I assume other European countries) you could get in a serious trouble for that. Citizens aren't allowed to serve in foreign armies, upon return back home you could face court martial for treason (people from Poland who joined French Foreign Legion for example have had issues like that, some of them are serving in our army but it's a taboo topic, most joined the legion under false names, as Ukrainians etc.). | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6251 Posts
On February 09 2024 05:17 zeo wrote: Even this article from yesterday has opinion polls of Zelensky at 64, and Zaluzny at 88%, and Zelensky doesn't like not having undisputed power or anyone endangering his clique. Zaluzny for his part is doing the smart thing by going to retire to London to live out his days in luxury because pulling a Prigozhin cuts your life expectancy by a lot. A lot. On February 09 2024 06:00 Falling wrote: Why in the world is the alternative to living in London is an attempted coup?. Aaaaand called it: March 7 (Reuters) - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has approved the candidacy of former army chief Valeriy Zaluzhnyi as ambassador to Great Britain, the foreign ministry said in a statement. "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine sent a request to the British side for an agrement," the foreign ministry said. Zaluzhnyi, widely seen as a national hero for overseeing Ukraine's war effort throughout Russia's full-scale invasion, was replaced by ground forces commander Oleksandr Syrskyi in February. Ukraine has not had an ambassador in Britain since Zelenskiy dismissed former , opens new tab envoy Vadym Prystaiko in July 2023 after he publicly criticised the president. reuters Hes canceled elections in any case for the next six months but he has been very active lately removing any kind of opposition before his term as president 'officially' ends in May Edit: up to the brits now to protect and have him ready to take over after the war. Want him publicly and accountably as far away as possible from what comes next. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11695 Posts
On March 08 2024 03:11 Manit0u wrote: I don't know about India but in Poland (and I assume other European countries) you could get in a serious trouble for that. Citizens aren't allowed to serve in foreign armies, upon return back home you could face court martial for treason (people from Poland who joined French Foreign Legion for example have had issues like that, some of them are serving in our army but it's a taboo topic, most joined the legion under false names, as Ukrainians etc.). They're very unlikely to come home anyway, if you're going to create a scheme like this it won't be so that you can give them the safe jobs, you'll send them to die in risky missions and keep your men. | ||
| ||
