[RD] Ukraine War Speculation Thread

Verbose

Deity
Joined
May 17, 2004
Messages
12,268
Location
Sweden / France
Yep, i know that guys, the real threat is for Putin regime and Putin himself, I think most of the posters here know it with some pretended exceptions. I wonder not about reality which is pretty evident but about Russian narrative (usually oposed things). What is Russian reasoning to claim this war (started by Russia itself) is a struggle for the survival of 'the motherland'?
I know it' a pet peeve of mine but...:
Nasty human logic of tribalism and circular reasoning – IF we have taken this momentous plunge, and IF we are in fact doing terrible things as a consequence, well, it then stands to reason that we only did so because we absolutely had to. We were so compelled against our own wishes, and the proof of how we are free of guilt of our own actions is precisely that we do them. Because given how ominous and terrible they are, obviously as The Good Guys we would never engage in this unless it was absolutely necessary. Necessity overtakes morality. And when it does, that Outer Force of Our Implacable Enemies are responsible.

(It's part of the general problem that people tend to think thar bad acts stem from a lack of morals – when in reality most bad actors can be perfectly moral, even acting only out of stark necessity, in their own eyes – because what is decisive is not whether there is a moral consciousness there, but what quality the premises behind their morality is. The Nazis in WWII were perfectly moral people to themselves, according to the premises underlying the Nazi world-view – what was in those premises otoh...)

It's not that uncommon historically. Anything can be rationalized by humans after all – slavery, geneocide – bit of hamfisted imperialistic warfare (if that was all it was) is not so hard to deal with then.
 
Most interseting part wss the sound track to the opening montage. Rossia1 apparently REALLY want their viwers to feel scared now. I've seen most of the clips used with original audio, and it's nothing like it. Loads if sound editing to make it all seem ominous and scary as eff all...

It certainly is nothing like standard news reporting. And it is telling since the visceral effects of sound are clear and apparent. They want to scare the viewers now. For whatever purpose we shall have to see.
Depends on the country. Ask @r16 ^^
Though one does expect differences between how militaristic news reporting is when in major war, vs when not.
Re existential threat, I think Russia is at obvious risk of losing major power status for good, if it doesn't win the war. That's pretty existential itself, for those few countries (2-3) that are major powers.
 
Going into a war economy usually ends up in war. Has to do with greed of those selling the weapons. They are extremely pleased with what is happening; no need any longer to sell minor US invasions to sustain their industry, this and a new cold war are a goldmine.

Maybe. Not the primary cause of war. Russia coukd have sanctioned Ukraine or declared war aims to change government (similar to US Iraq shambles).

But it's not their war wins are grab what they xan and a load of ever changing garbage.
 
Depends on the country. Ask @r16 ^^
Though one does expect differences between how militaristic news reporting is when in major war, vs when not.
Re existential threat, I think Russia is at obvious risk of losing major power status for good, if it doesn't win the war. That's pretty existential itself, for those few countries (2-3) that are major powers.
That is not an existential threat, first because it is not a menace to the existence of Russia, second because Russia is not a major power and third because it is a 'threat' brought to Russia by itself by trying to invade a neighbor sovereign country and failing misserably making even more evident it is not a major power (something evident since decades ago knowing the size of Russian economy and its industrial and technological power compared to real major powers) so it is doesn't work at any level.
 
That is not an existential threat, first because it is not a menace to the existence of Russia, second because Russia is not a major power and third because it is a 'threat' brought to Russia by itself by trying to invade a neighbor sovereign country and failing misserably making even more evident it is not a major power (something evident since decades ago knowing the size of Russian economy and its industrial and technological power compares to real major powers) so it is doesn't work at any level.
That is not how Russia sees itself. Afaik they always refer to themselves as a major power.
 
That is not how Russia sees itself. Afaik they always refer to themselves as a major power.
Fair enough. So we are arriving to something now.

There is this concept of the 'motherland ' too. May it be they think the motherland includes Ukraine and Ukraine going west is some kind of sacrilege against the integrity of the Russian motherland?
 
It's not to be played down just how much ammo/weapons are sent to Ukraine. Having ammo shortages in Europe is very telling, let alone sending old and some newer tanks (Leopard I, some II etc) there, in large number.
The shortages are there because – aside from Greece (looking at Turkey) and Finland (always looking at Russia) – everyone expected our military engagements to be expeditionary, quick, and not involving all that much fighting in far-flung corners of the world. They were all set up for that. (It has always been one of the aspects of the situation that made Russian alleged feelings of being "threatened" by NATO ridiculous. What with really? The unspoken idea of Russian EMPIRE might have been, but not the Russian federation as it were.)

The other aspect of it is that IF there have been an actually big shooting-war in Europe ever again, everyone east of Russia (except the Ukranians, and to lesser extent the Finns and the Greeks, maybe the Poles too) expected firpower to be mainly delivered by airpower, flying artillery. (Way more speed, range and boom on every metric compared to ground-hugging arty.) So there is a huge amount of fire power just lying around in Europe that simply cannot be shipped to Ukraine and used there. Not yet. That is why there is such a ruckus over "F-16s" (or any other kind of western flying contraption) that could really deliver this kind of ordnance on the heads of the Russian troops. And why the Russian leadership is taking such strident tones about it, since they are in funk over the implications of Russia losing the relative air superiority it actully has over Ukraine. (If the Ukranians could fly effective SEAD, clear a section of the front of Russian AA and airpower, and THEN fly CAS... They are now preparing for an offensive without all that, and even if successful everyone anticipates a blood-bath.)

So the LAST thing if not all but most of the armed forces of Europe, the Big Boys in particular, was set up for was to provide "the sinews of war" for a ground-slogging artillery fest in Ukraine.

Shortages from that combination of factors are absolutely to be expected. (In other news the speed with which the EU production line of 1,2 million arty shells/year for Ukraine geared up so far seems impressive otoh.)
 
The shortages are there because – aside from Greece (looking at Turkey) and Finland (always looking at Russia) – everyone expected our military engagements to be expeditionary, quick, and not involving all that much fighting in far-flung corners of the world. They were all set up for that. (It has always been one of the aspects of the situation that made Russian alleged feelings of being "threatened" by NATO ridiculous. What with really? The unspoken idea of Russian EMPIRE might have been, but not the Russian federation as it were.)

The other aspect of it is that IF there have been an actually big shooting-war in Europe ever again, everyone east of Russia (except the Ukranians, and to lesser extent the Finns and the Greeks, maybe the Poles too) expected firpower to be mainly delivered by airpower, flying artillery. (Way more speed, range and boom on every metric compared to ground-hugging arty.) So there is a huge amount of fire power just lying around in Europe that simply cannot be shipped to Ukraine and used there. Not yet. That is why there is such a ruckus over "F-16s" (or any other kind of western flying contraption) that could really deliver this kind of ordnance on the heads of the Russian troops. And why the Russian leadership is taking such strident tones about it, since they are in funk over the implications of Russia losing the relative air superiority it actully has over Ukraine. (If the Ukranians could fly effective SEAD, clear a section of the front of Russian AA and airpower, and THEN fly CAS... They are now preparing for an offensive without all that, and even if successful everyone anticipates a blood-bath.)

So the LAST thing if not all but most of the armed forces of Europe, the Big Boys in particular, was set up for was to provide "the sinews of war" for a ground-slogging artillery fest in Ukraine.

Shortages from that combination of factors are absolutely to be expected. (In other news the speed with which the EU production line of 1,2 million arty shells/year for Ukraine geared up so far seems impressive otoh.)
I am not arguing that Europe/US can't produce massive amounts of ammunition or even tanks/planes etc if needed. I am saying that getting closer to a war economy will also make war come closer. Like it nor not, there are only so many weapons which can be bought, before they need to somehow be depleted to open the market again.
 
The shortages are there because – aside from Greece (looking at Turkey) and Finland (always looking at Russia) – everyone expected our military engagements to be expeditionary, quick, and not involving all that much fighting in far-flung corners of the world. They were all set up for that. (It has always been one of the aspects of the situation that made Russian alleged feelings of being "threatened" by NATO ridiculous. What with really? The unspoken idea of Russian EMPIRE might have been, but not the Russian federation as it were.)

The other aspect of it is that IF there have been an actually big shooting-war in Europe ever again, everyone east of Russia (except the Ukranians, and to lesser extent the Finns and the Greeks, maybe the Poles too) expected firpower to be mainly delivered by airpower, flying artillery. (Way more speed, range and boom on every metric compared to ground-hugging arty.) So there is a huge amount of fire power just lying around in Europe that simply cannot be shipped to Ukraine and used there. Not yet. That is why there is such a ruckus over "F-16s" (or any other kind of western flying contraption) that could really deliver this kind of ordnance on the heads of the Russian troops. And why the Russian leadership is taking such strident tones about it, since they are in funk over the implications of Russia losing the relative air superiority it actully has over Ukraine. (If the Ukranians could fly effective SEAD, clear a section of the front of Russian AA and airpower, and THEN fly CAS... They are now preparing for an offensive without all that, and even if successful everyone anticipates a blood-bath.)

So the LAST thing if not all but most of the armed forces of Europe, the Big Boys in particular, was set up for was to provide "the sinews of war" for a ground-slogging artillery fest in Ukraine.

Shortages from that combination of factors are absolutely to be expected. (In other news the speed with which the EU production line of 1,2 million arty shells/year for Ukraine geared up so far seems impressive otoh.)

This NATO would smash Russia in 3-6 weeks.

Iraq 2.0 in Europe.

That's a super power in action.
 
I am not arguing that Europe/US can't produce massive amounts of ammunition or even tanks/planes etc if needed. I am saying that getting closer to a war economy will also make war come closer. Like it nor not, there are only so many weapons which can be bought, before they need to somehow be depleted to open the market again.
Edit:
You are not wrong. But the actor who built these MASSIVE amounts, and then went to war in Europe was Russia. Sure, we should have seen the writing on the wall (we kinda did, but chose to look away, except the Ukranians who planned for "when", which is then now). Everyone else faffed around with a build up for never-again-open-war-in-Europe. If they are rolling it back, it is because that was just patently wrong, and it is a behind-the-curve-of-events response.

There is ALREADY an active, hot war on, unless you hadn't noticed. We might not be at war, as NATO and the EU are not at war with Russia. We ARE however already in a war-time situation in Europe.

I think that is one of that aspects that the world outside Europe and its "Atlantic community", plus the "extended west" (over in Asia), misses. The Chinese "roadmap" or whatever to "peace" got that wrong by exhortations to everyone to stay clear of a "Cold War mindset". They are already behind the curve and not recognizing the landscape from their map anymore – because things have already progressed to "hot war".

What everyone west of Russia is looking at now is the factors that can deter and contain Russia from spreading its hot war. But unfortunately many of those factors do by necessity involve things that will not make Russia happy, i.e. it will claim to be "provoked". Which is both a problem and the whole damns point – they can say "provoked" if they like since it also implies "detered".

It is already a "hot war" situation, and a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. And NATO and the EU can in fact be thought of as having been quite slow in responding with the aid to Ukraine, detered to this by Russia. (But slow and fast are relative terms and sneaky like that in themselves.)
 
Last edited:
This NATO would smash Russia in 3-6 weeks.

Iraq 2.0 in Europe.

That's a super power in action.
Nah... This NATO would likely totally eff up the Russian armed forces in 3-6 weeks most likely. And THEN there would be Russia itself to contend with. And no one wants that headache. But if forced to somehow (Russian attack on Poland maybe, more likely now than the Balics, since Poland is a key military actor in support of Ukraine, but then again what would Russia attack with at this point?), that would probably be the outcome.
 
Nah... This NATO would likely totally eff up the Russian armed forces in 3-6 weeks most likely. And THEN there would be Russia itself to contend with. And no one wants that headache. But if forced to somehow (Russian attack on Poland maybe, more likely now than the Balics, since Poland is a key military actor in support of Ukraine, but then again what would Russia attack with at this point?), that would probably be the outcome.
In the case of actual war with Russia, you can expect only part of nato to engage. Eu does not have a common army, and it is highly unlikely Russia will attack a nato country while the Ukraine war is ongoing.
Imo if such a war happens (declared by "nato"), those countries that have at least risk-armies will do well to stay out (unless they already hate Russia). It will be the end of many, and of course another world war.
 
Nah... This NATO would likely totally eff up the Russian armed forces in 3-6 weeks most likely. And THEN there would be Russia itself to contend with. And no one wants that headache. But if forced to somehow (Russian attack on Poland maybe, more likely now than the Balics, since Poland is a key military actor in support of Ukraine, but then again what would Russia attack with at this point?), that would probably be the outcome.

That's what I meant. Nato couk rout Russia in a few weeks. The build up would take longer than the shooting.
 
In the case of actual war with Russia, you can expect only part of nato to engage. Eu does not have a common army, and it is highly unlikely Russia will attack a nato country while the Ukraine war is ongoing.

Way I see it escalating is Russia does something monumentally stupid (invades Baltic states, fires missiles at Poland) or other actors join in.

Eg Belarus jumps in Poland launches their SMO and sends troops.

China gets directly involves USA launches a limited SMO with planes etc.
 
Way I see it escalating is Russia does something monumentally stupid (invades Baltic states, fires missiles at Poland) or other actors join in.

Eg Belarus jumps in Poland launches their SMO and sends troops.

China gets directly involves USA launches a limited SMO with planes etc.
I don't see any way that Russia would go to war against a nato country, while it already is at war with Ukraine. And nato doesn't have any clause that forces countries to take part in wars of aggression (eg GermanoFrance didn't in the second invasion of Iraq).

Anyway, so as to post some "news":


What is the intended effect of this statement by Zelensky? (that the offensive is ready, but "a lot of Ukrainian soldiers will die" etc). No one expects just a few ukrainians to die against prepared positions, but why spell it out in a statement?
(maybe @saamohod ?)
 
Last edited:
I don't see any way that Russia would go to war against a nato country, while it already is at war with Ukraine.

Hitler went to war with the Soviet Union while still at war with Great Britain. I agree that it is unlikely and would be a very stupid idea, but who knows what the mad man in the Kremlin comes up with next?
 
I don't see any way that Russia would go to war against a nato country, while it already is at war with Ukraine. And nato doesn't have any clause that forces countries to take part in wars of aggression (eg GermanoFrance didn't in the second invasion of Iraq).
Me neither.

But as for NATO it depends on what you mean by "force" here? It is a defensive alliance. Article 5 clearly states if any member is attacked, the others jump in. But as you say, there is no Big Hammer that compeles them. It is based on the assumption that their word compels them.

(Then again, maybe things start blowing up dramatically in Belorossiya, Moscow clearly fingers Warsaw as the culprit behind these unannounced violent attacks on Belorossiyan soverignity – much as Warsaw denies it – and takes "military counter measures" in the national defence of Belorossiya that unfortunately involves action directly against Poland. What do we all do then?)

And what happened over Iraq was that the US DID invoke Article 5 over the Twin Towers attack. And the alliance DID move in response. And THAT was in itself problematic, because the US then went and made up a war-that-could-not-be-not-really that was "the War on Terror". (And Russia fx happily joined and crushed some more internal opposition because the way the US GWB admin had set up this brain-rot just calling something "terrorist" tended to give you a carte blanche in the eyes of the US at the time).

But then the GWB took the idiocy one step too far, by fabricating the claim of Iraqi WMDs (though most things indicate powerful auto-suggestion here – first the US admin utterly convinced themselves, to the extent that they could be absolved from "lying" since they sincerely believed their own hype to start with). And at that point, when it was moving in the direction of not a response to an attack, but an attack on a third, un-involved party (everyone who wanted to know knew the US claims were bogus, and besides, as the French pointed out: the sanctions were working), various countries just concluded that enough is enough, and this US war of choice a huge mistake.

But you would concede that things have since CHANGED in how the US views the prospect of foreign wars, no?
 
Hitler went to war with the Soviet Union while still at war with Great Britain. I agree that it is unlikely and would be a very stupid idea, but who knows what the mad man in the Kremlin comes up with next?
He also declared war on the US as a folllow up...
 
I am not arguing that Europe/US can't produce massive amounts of ammunition or even tanks/planes etc if needed. I am saying that getting closer to a war economy will also make war come closer. Like it nor not, there are only so many weapons which can be bought, before they need to somehow be depleted to open the market again.
The change in domestic economy is thus far peanuts. Not sure about Europe, but major players there were welching on obligations for ages. One of Biden's Putin's achievements is getting Europeans to think about thier own defense, which was the orange man's stance, a subject of much ridicule and derision. Sometimes it's who says something rather than what gets said. Putin seems highly effective at shifting industries to deathmaking.
 
The change in domestic economy is thus far peanuts. Not sure about Europe, but major players there were welching on obligations for ages. One of Biden's Putin's achievements is getting Europeans to think about thier own defense, which was the orange man's stance, a subject of much ridicule and derision. Sometimes it's who says something rather than what gets said. Putin seems highly effective at shifting industries to deathmaking.
Excpet lots of people the other side of the Atlantic also seem to choke on their peanuts these days, when Macron says what most sorta kinda think on the matter re European politics...
 
Top Bottom