[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: Eight

[Yeekim]

The word here is, that the Biden administration is about to announce an updated Ukraine policy and that greenlighting the use of US supplied weapons for strikes deep within Russia, is only the first change to come.

1) For months we hear how ATACMS absolutely cant be given to Ukraine.
2) Press reports how many Russian planes bombing Ukraine could have been destroyed by said ATACMS.
3) Russia removes 90% of their planes from range.
4)Biden admin asks Ukraine for a friggin' list of targets!
5) Biden admin says little point in ATACMS, since Russian planes already out of range.
6) Iran provides missiles to Russia, Biden admin has a revelation it might be maybe possibly kinda OK to give ATACMS.
7)This immediately leaks to internet several days in advance.
8) Friggin' Kremlin press secretary confirms the decision is about to be formalized (!)
9) Well, maybe the ATACMS will now be provided sometime in the future.

Who needs enemies with idiots like these for friends?? #facepalm

 

[Gedemon]

I think we are past seeing third countries providing weapons to Russia/Ukraine as "escalation".

You're right, but yet, for some people, simply using them is seen as an "escalation".

Putin: Long-range missile approval would put Nato at war with Russia

The Russian president gives a stark warning as President Biden considers letting Ukraine use British Storm Shadows to strike his country

www.thetimes.com

 

[Broken_Erika]

Three Red Cross staff killed in strike in eastern Ukraine​

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) says three of its workers have been killed, and two others injured in a strike in eastern Ukraine.
The ICRC did not identify who was behind the attack but called it "unconscionable" that "shelling would hit an aid distribution site".
Earlier, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said those killed were Ukrainian and blamed Moscow for the shelling, calling it "another Russian war crime".
The agency said its vehicles are clearly marked and operate regularly in the frontline region of Donetsk.

"I condemn attacks on Red Cross personnel in the strongest terms," said the agency's president Mirjana Spoljaric, adding that: "Our hearts are broken today as we mourn the loss of our colleagues and care for the injured."
The ICRC said its team had been preparing to distribute wood and coal briquettes to homes in Viroliubivka village, north of Donetsk city, when it was hit.
The distribution of the goods had not begun yet and no residents were affected by the explosion, the agency said.
It did not confirm any details about the identities of those killed.
Earlier, Ukrainian officials had reported shelling in Viroliubivka and said workers had been unloading supplies when the attack happened.
In a post on social media, Ukraine's leader blamed a Russian strike. Zelensky shared a photo of a white truck in flames branded with the Red Cross logo on its side.
"Today, the occupier attacked the vehicles of the International Committee of the Red Cross humanitarian mission," he said.
The Ukrainian ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets also commented online, urging the Red Cross to publicly attribute the attack to Russia.
"The shelling is already known about, but the ICRC... remain silent!" he wrote.
In its statement, the ICRC had reiterated that it is a "neutral, impartial and independent organisation with an exclusively humanitarian mandate".
It deplored the "sharp rise" in the killings of humanitarians around the world in the past two years.
The United Nations has also made similar warnings. Its humanitarian mission to Ukraine earlier this year said 50 workers had killed or injured in Ukraine in 2023, including 11 killed in the line of duty, reported AFP news agency.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4glgex9przo

 

[Birdjaguar]

More from the Times

What would western long-range missiles mean for Russia-Ukraine war?

The UK believes that the US could allow the use of the weapons against targets in Russia within weeks

www.thetimes.com

 

[Ordnael]

By today 15:00, 10 settlements in Kursk region were liberated from Ukrainian invaders. Pretty good, let's see if Russia can keep that pace.

I wish I could be seeing the full liberation of Ukrainian settlements from Russian invaders...but alas, at least Kyiv wasn't taken in 3 days plus 31 months.

 

[red_elk]

"Demographic catastrophe"
According to Ukrainian MP, there are hundreds of thousands applications to renounce Ukrainian citizenship in embassies abroad.
The reason is refusal to provide consular services to men liable for military service, by order of Foreign Ministry.

Политика Страны

В посольствах лежат сотни тысяч заявлений об отказе от украинского гражданства, заявил нардеп Княжицкий. По его словам, причиной стал отказ посольств по приказу МИДа оказывать консульские услуги военнообязанным мужчинам. Княжицкий сообщил, что сейчас посольства пытаются возобновить...

t.me

So they wanted to force men to return, and the decision backfired in predictable way.

 

[Kyriakos]

By today 15:00, 10 settlements in Kursk region were liberated from Ukrainian invaders. Pretty good, let's see if Russia can keep that pace.

What is the importance of Ukraine keeping some areas in Kursk (assuming they don't include the nuclear plant), considered to be in Russia? Is it taken seriously that those can be leverage in negotiations or is the move to Kursk seen as a strategic diversion? Percentage-wise, it seems that Ukraine currently holds something like 1/17000 of Russia, which isn't typically a counterweight in peace talks.

 

[EvaDK]

The only military value of occupied Kursk for Ukraine, is disrupting Russian logistics and allocation of forces. The land itself has no value. The PR value and humiliation of Putin changes nothing in the overall equation. Ukraine would be wise to simply slowly retreat to the border and apply as many losses to the advancing Russian forces as possible in the process. Because Putin doesn't care how many Russians die carrying out his orders; they are all expendable in the end.

 

[red_elk]

What is the importance of Ukraine keeping some areas in Kursk (assuming they don't include the nuclear plant), considered to be in Russia? Is it taken seriously that those can be leverage in negotiations or is the move to Kursk seen as a strategic diversion? Percentage-wise, it seems that Ukraine currently holds something like 1/17000 of Russia, which isn't typically a counterweight in peace talks.

We don't make much distinction between territories in Kursk, Donbass or Crimea. Territories are important only because of people who live there. As for leverage, I don't see Russia's willing to bargain for it, so it doesn't look like it's negotiable.

 

[Kyriakos]

The only military value of occupied Kursk for Ukraine, is disrupting Russian logistics and allocation of forces. The land itself has no value. The PR value and humiliation of Putin changes nothing in the overall equation. Ukraine would be wise to simply slowly retreat to the border and apply as many losses to the advancing Russian forces as possible in the process. Because Putin doesn't care how many Russians die carrying out his orders; they are all expendable in the end.

I am wondering if the move to Kursk was ever meant to be more than a temporary shock and a type of prestige thing - as Ukraine needs those forces to at least try to avoid more losses in the Donbass front.
But if it retreats from Kursk, likewise it will have a propaganda effect.

 

[Verbose]

Big point is to force Moscow to act and respond to things not anticipated, and not planned for. As long as it gets to define the terms of the conflict – location, extent, escalation – Moscow can deliberately pace itself. Only when it cannot, is there a chance of overloading the Russian war effort, in which case things can start to break down.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Upset Russian who live in the Kursk region benefit Ukraine and put pressure on Putin. They now know what war is all about.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

A number of translated excerpts from Russian milbloggers about the situation in Kursk:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834861277362999629

https://twitter.com/x/status/1835093152987832407

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834978393990852621

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834893791683019190

Summarizing: Russian counter attack has bogged down, while Ukrainians have crossed the Russian border at another point where they can advance without much opposition taking new settlements. Russian soldiers moaning about corruption among Russian officers, drug trafficking and valuable specialized troops as experienced drone operators being launch into hopeless meat assaults to his death and wondering why Ukrainians don't do that.

Meanwhile in the black sea a group of Ukrainian boats with marines assaulted a Russian oil rig, according to Russian officials the attack was unsuccessful and all boats were destroyed blah blah blah...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1835094671036465343

however in the footage released by the Ukrainian marines the rig can be seen burning after being hit by missiles and close range M2 fire from the boats. The Russian Su-30 defending it was also downed (confirmed by Russian milbloggers, pilots died) apparently by MANPADS.

 

[Gedemon]

What is the importance of Ukraine keeping some areas in Kursk (assuming they don't include the nuclear plant), considered to be in Russia? Is it taken seriously that those can be leverage in negotiations or is the move to Kursk seen as a strategic diversion? Percentage-wise, it seems that Ukraine currently holds something like 1/17000 of Russia, which isn't typically a counterweight in peace talks.

It's a diversion, and its political, aimed at Putin, he can't ask anymore to "recognize the new territorial reality" as long as there is a part of Russia under Ukrainian control. You'll note that even if it has no weight, red_elk reported the incursion has stopped the idea of "negotiations" on Russian side.

It's also the size of the Russian gains in Ukraine since January to put things into perspective.

 

[EvaDK]

Russian Black Sea navy vessels left Novorossiysk, perhaps anticipating becoming potential targets for US/UK made missiles? For some reason the page isn't displayed correctly here, so here's a link instead:

Link

 

[Kyriakos]

It's a diversion, and its political, aimed at Putin, he can't ask anymore to "recognize the new territorial reality" as long as there is a part of Russia under Ukrainian control. You'll note that even if it has no weight, red_elk reported the incursion has stopped the idea of "negotiations" on Russian side.

It's also the size of the Russian gains in Ukraine since January to put things into perspective.

Assuming it is around 1/17000 (it likely is closer to 1/20000, but both are too small), it's not comparable to Russia controlling 2/9 of Ukraine. And it does require some well-trained units of Ukraine to be there even for this, when their absence from Donbass is felt despite a very slow advance there by Russia. Russia at some time had lost half a continent (to nazi Germany) and didn't negotiate peace, and at another time lost Moscow.

As for US allowing use of its long-ranged missiles against Russia:

https://www.reuters.com/world/no-change-us-policy-long-range-missiles-ukraine-expected-friday-white-house-says-2024-09-13/

"
WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The United States is not planning to announce any new policy on Ukraine and the use of long-range missiles on Friday, the White House said.
"There is no change to our view on the provision of long range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside of Russia," White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters."I would not expect any major announcement in that regard," from discussions between U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday, Kirby said.
"

While it is certainly in Ukraine's interest if long-range missiles are used and it results in Russia using its own against more than just Ukraine, I doubt the US wants or is ready for that. Because no one needs to spell out what it would mean.

 

[red_elk]

"
WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The United States is not planning to announce any new policy on Ukraine and the use of long-range missiles on Friday, the White House said.
"There is no change to our view on the provision of long range strike capabilities for Ukraine to use inside of Russia," White House national security spokesman John Kirby told reporters."I would not expect any major announcement in that regard," from discussions between U.S. President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday, Kirby said.
"

While it is certainly in Ukraine's interest if long-range missiles are used and it results in Russia using its own against more than just Ukraine, I doubt the US wants or is ready for that. Because no one needs to spell out what it would mean.

It's a major headache for them.
Escalation with direct NATO involvement is something US wants to avoid, but Ukraine would benefit from it.

 

[Ordnael]

We don't make much distinction between territories in Kursk, Donbass or Crimea. Territories are important only because of people who live there.

Miss universe speech right here!

 

[Verbose]

Assuming it is around 1/17000 (it likely is closer to 1/20000, but both are too small), it's not comparable to Russia controlling 2/9 of Ukraine. And it does require some well-trained units of Ukraine to be there even for this, when their absence from Donbass is felt despite a very slow advance there by Russia.

Ukraine no longer controls all its internationally recognized territory.

Neither does Russia.

 

[Verbose]

Miss universe speech right here!

It's also why people all around Russia are ditching the Russia language at record speed – lest Moscow take them hostage.