Ukrainian Invasion Thread II: Sunrise on the Dnieper

[Diarcesia]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/fitch-cuts-russias-rating-says-debt-default-imminent-2022-03-08/

Fitch cuts Russia's rating further into junk, says debt default imminent

Goodbye Russia, it was nice knowing you. Hopefully your death brings freedom, prosperity and peace to the region.

I'm not too optimistic. Something like a warring states period between oligarchs is very possible.

[Sorci]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/fitch-cuts-russias-rating-says-debt-default-imminent-2022-03-08/

Fitch cuts Russia's rating further into junk, says debt default imminent

Goodbye Russia, it was nice knowing you. Hopefully your death brings freedom, prosperity and peace to the region.

Unfortunately for the russian population, economic scares and collapses don't tend to bring any of those

[Rusozak]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/fitch-cuts-russias-rating-says-debt-default-imminent-2022-03-08/

Fitch cuts Russia's rating further into junk, says debt default imminent

Goodbye Russia, it was nice knowing you. Hopefully your death brings freedom, prosperity and peace to the region.

Anywhere west of the Russian border might breath a sigh of relief but unfortunately it would just be the beginning for the Russian people as it probably breaks down into warlordism.

[Deblar]

Goodbye Russia, it was nice knowing you. Hopefully your death brings freedom, prosperity and peace to the region.

Anywhere west of the Russian border might breath a sigh of relief but unfortunately it would just be the beginning for the Russian people as it probably breaks down into warlordism.

IRL HOI4 TNO Russia when?

[El Lazaro]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/fitch-cuts-russias-rating-says-debt-default-imminent-2022-03-08/

Fitch cuts Russia's rating further into junk, says debt default imminent

Pffft, dodging government debt is as easy as dodging personal debt: all you have to do is fake your death. It'll be like Octavia from America's only trustworthy news source. Get ready for the Union State Sans Russia to mysteriously crop up with a leader that looks suspiciously like Putin with a mustache.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Is it just me that doesn’t want to see warlords fighting over that country with several thousand nuclear warheads? Like, does nobody else here see why that might be an outcome that we do not want happening?

I do not consider this likely, but if at some point in the future it looks like the outcome of sanctions is going to be “Russia collapses into civil war”, the sanctions ought to be relaxed. Immediately.

---

The Americans designed their system of government to be incapable of quick, decisive action, and blames the government when it doesn’t take quick, decisive action. Classic.

Is parliamentary sovereignty looking a little more appealing to y’all folks over there now, hmm?

[El Lazaro]

Goodbye Russia, it was nice knowing you. Hopefully your death brings freedom, prosperity and peace to the region.

I'm not too optimistic. Something like a warring states period between oligarchs is very possible.

Does this mean we get a new Mongol conquest? I'm looking forward to Golden Horde 2: Electric Boogaloo.

[Deblar]

Is it just me that doesn’t want to see warlords fighting over that country with several thousand nuclear warheads? Like, does nobody else here see why that might be an outcome that we do not want happening?

I do not consider this likely, but if at some point in the future it looks like the outcome of sanctions is going to be “Russia collapses into civil war”, the sanctions ought to be relaxed. Immediately.

---

The Americans designed their system of government to be incapable of quick, decisive action, and blames the government when it doesn’t take quick, decisive action. Classic.

Is parliamentary sovereignty looking a little more appealing to y’all folks over there now, hmm?

"Parliament" implies that it's British, and I'd rather be dead than be a Brit.

[Luminesa]

The Russian ship that was told to go fuck itself may have gotten itself fucked.

And thus the Snake Boys’ word was made immortal, if it wasn’t already.

[Big Bad Blue]

Apparently we now has an image of how Russia will be this spring: Venezuela-style economic collapse.

...Actually, like, how bad is that really? In anyy case, I don't think neither Putin nor his regime will be gone anytime soon. The focus should thus be to as much as possible completely annihilate Russian military, economic, and governmental capacity to conduct operations in Ukraine, in the short and long term. Mass protests won't stop the invasion, but a dire shortage of military equipment, collapse of the logistics and arms manufacturing industry, and the running out of funds to pay for government and military employee's wages surely can. Through sanctions, the tanks should be physically prevented from rolling.

Obviously the military support should also continue. Ideally Ukraine should have abundantly more anti-tank weapons than the Russian military have vehicles.

With each day it becomes more and more clear:

1. That Russia cannnot win the war it started. Even if it displaces the current Ukrainian government, an outcome that is more unlikely with each passing day, it will never install a replacement. If it devastates Ukraine and withdraws a la Chechnya, the sanction -- not to mention the precipitous withdrawal of every non-Russian corporation from its economy -- stay in place indefinitely; in fact they stay in place indefinitely as long as Putin is outside of a jail cell in The Hague.

2. That expanding the war to NATO is also a losing gambit. Outgunned, outmanned, absolutely and completely alone as it is, the Ukrainian Army is taking Russian names and kicking Russian ass. NATO would go through the Russians like crap through a tinhorn.

3. Exploding a nuke ends in one of two ways: the world is obliterated or Russia is stripped of its nuclear weapons as well as its conventional forces and what might remain of its economy.

If I can figure this out sitting in my living room watching CNN certainly Russians in Moscow and commanding military forces in the field can figure this out. I would not be at all surprised if the Ukrainian endgame plays out in a matter of months rather than years. And it does not end well for Putin or his enablers.

[Tarsonis]

Apparently we now has an image of how Russia will be this spring: Venezuela-style economic collapse.

...Actually, like, how bad is that really? In anyy case, I don't think neither Putin nor his regime will be gone anytime soon. The focus should thus be to as much as possible completely annihilate Russian military, economic, and governmental capacity to conduct operations in Ukraine, in the short and long term. Mass protests won't stop the invasion, but a dire shortage of military equipment, collapse of the logistics and arms manufacturing industry, and the running out of funds to pay for government and military employee's wages surely can. Through sanctions, the tanks should be physically prevented from rolling.

Obviously the military support should also continue. Ideally Ukraine should have abundantly more anti-tank weapons than the Russian military have vehicles.

With each day it becomes more and more clear:

1. That Russia cannnot win the war it started. Even if it displaces the current Ukrainian government, an outcome that is more unlikely with each passing day, it will never install a replacement. If it devastates Ukraine and withdraws a la Chechnya, the sanction -- not to mention the precipitous withdrawal of every non-Russian corporation from its economy -- stay in place indefinitely; in fact they stay in place indefinitely as long as Putin is outside of a jail cell in The Hague.

2. That expanding the war to NATO is also a losing gambit. Outgunned, outmanned, absolutely and completely alone as it is, the Ukrainian Army is taking Russian names and kicking Russian ass. NATO would go through the Russians like crap through a tinhorn.

3. Exploding a nuke ends in one of two ways: the world is obliterated or Russia is stripped of its nuclear weapons as well as its conventional forces and what might remain of its economy.

If I can figure this out sitting in my living room watching CNN certainly Russians in Moscow and commanding military forces in the field can figure this out. I would not be at all surprised if the Ukrainian endgame plays out in a matter of months rather than years. And it does not end well for Putin or his enablers.

I'm thinking much faster than that. They're suspending trading on a day to day basis, but they can't do that forever. The second they open the market, it's gonna crater in a manner that will make Black Tuesday look like a mild dip. When that happens it's gonna break the country's back

[Adamede]

Russia must be broken up into its medieval principalities for stability in the region.

Self-determination for everyone, except for Russians? Hmmm
Not really lol. Such an arrangement will be unlikely to be stable in the long run, depending on how entrenched is regionalism in the area.

I don’t actually think that, it’s an example of the logic taken to the other extreme however.

Anyway the medioeval principalities only occupied at best an eighth of Russia’s present territories.

[Tarsonis]

Poland and Lithuania must join forces again. For stability or something

[Adamede]

Goodbye Russia, it was nice knowing you. Hopefully your death brings freedom, prosperity and peace to the region.

Anywhere west of the Russian border might breath a sigh of relief but unfortunately it would just be the beginning for the Russian people as it probably breaks down into warlordism.

I wouldnt go that far but we’re probably not going to see a functioning democracy be born from it.

[Adamede]

Poland and Lithuania must join forces again. For stability or something

Nah, because I’m an EU4 player and think it’d be cool.

[Adamede]

Is it just me that doesn’t want to see warlords fighting over that country with several thousand nuclear warheads? Like, does nobody else here see why that might be an outcome that we do not want happening?

I do not consider this likely, but if at some point in the future it looks like the outcome of sanctions is going to be “Russia collapses into civil war”, the sanctions ought to be relaxed. Immediately.

---

The Americans designed their system of government to be incapable of quick, decisive action, and blames the government when it doesn’t take quick, decisive action. Classic.

Is parliamentary sovereignty looking a little more appealing to y’all folks over there now, hmm?

We won’t.

And even if we did the warlord with the outskirts of the nuclear forces would effectively be the new Czar anyway.

On second thought maybe reinstalling the Czars wouldn’t be a bad idea.

E: Also no on the parliamentary stuff. The nimwits una Congress already try to pass through enough bullshit as is. Wounding want them to actually get most of that stuff passed.

[Krasny-Volny]

- Only Russian contractors are fighting in Ukraine, volunteers and reserve officers in military enlistment offices are turned back with the words "we will cope without you." There is a very simple way to understand which country is losing - the one that mobilizes or at least brings reserves. Russia, according to American intelligence (which we obviously believe), is not bringing new troops to Ukraine. At the same time, there is an offensive, and every day the rings around cities are compressed, settlements are taken, armies pass from several kilometers to dozens. Ukraine announced mobilization immediately after the start of the conflict, but as soon as it became clear that it was impossible to conduct it normally in a mess, weapons began to be issued to everyone, which of course provoked looting and shootings among their own. The combat capability of these units also raises questions - I wonder who will win, civilians with machine guns or special forces, with the support of artillery, military equipment and from the air, which Ukraine does not control already in their own words? This tactic is called throwing meat at the front, but it can't help, it will only prolong the agony of the nation.

With respect, I don't think the underlined is true. There are verified cases of Russian conscripts and so on fighting in Ukraine. It may be that Russia is not necessarily accepting new volunteers, but it is not only their contractors who are fighting but the regular military also.

- The Russian army daily conducts an offensive in the south and east, where the most combat-ready units of the Ukrainian army are concentrated, especially the echeloned defense in the Donbas. But this defense is now simply being flanked and the two armies want to close the cauldron, which they will most likely succeed in the next week. If these Ukrainian armies are defeated or surrender, the eastern units will rush to the west to fight with the people's militia and the remnants of the Ukrainian army. If Ukraine could have prevented this, it would have counterattacked, but there are no counterattacks, the initiative is in the hands of the Russian army. They are only heroically fighting off our attacks, it is true, but as a rule this happens in the western and northern directions, where full-scale offensives are not conducted. In addition, if Mariupol and Kharkiv fall in the coming days, this will free up even more Russian troops to close the ring around the armies in the Donbas. In both cities, battles are already taking place within the city.

There is an interesting point to be made here about military tactics because this was something that has concerned me about the Ukrainian defense as well.

The Russian invasion has had all the fingerprints o the old Soviet głubokaja opieracija (I believe 'Deep Battle' is the English translation) theory. This theory aims to disorient and cripple the enemy by striking at logistical checkpoints using combined aerial and ground assaults and attacking on all fronts; this can be seen in the earliest hours of the invasion where Russia conducted airstrikes on nearly every major city, invaded from 3 directions, and attempted to disrupt any Ukrainian front with tactics such as paratrooper assault. Since the end of the Cold War, this strategy has been used effectively on several occasions; most notably by Rwanda against Congo in 1998 and by Russia against Georgia in 2008; it is to be contrasted with the US strategy in Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003 where the focus was on prolonged aerial bombardment initially only followed up by ground forces moving along a single large front (in spite of having allies in Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan in 2003, the US forces pushed up the Tigris and Euphrates, only entering from the north in a limited capacity after the bulk of the conventional warfare was over) once bombing had suppressed any significant opposition.

The Russian strategy works very effectively against armies attempting to defend large fronts but the Ukrainian strategy so far has been to defend cities rather than attempt pitched open warfare. It seems the Russians had planned for their initial invasion to draw out the Ukrainian army into battles where they'd be defeated. Instead, the Ukrainian strategy has seemed to be to fall back into fortified cities that were already previously well-supplied. Rather than coordinated action to cover the whole countryside, it seems that Ukrainian military's intent is to have each city capable of defending itself. Russia may encircle the eastern units, but then it either has to engage in urban warfare to capture them or starve them out; neither is a militarily pleasant option. Additionally, now this means that if Russia's supply lines aren't well-defended, Ukrainian forces based in the cities can come briefly out and strike at them (we've already seen this in the north).

I suspect that, since Ukraine was also part of the USSR, they are also familiar with the old głubokaja opieracija; after the disaster of 2014 they invested significant money into military reform, and I suspect both stockpiling the cities and planning attempts to neutralize the Russian strategy were part of this.

I thought this post was especially relevant as it discusses the presence of conscripts, or lack thereof, among Russian troops in Ukraine. It seems this is part of the binary narrative which has developed with the war; the Russian government, its broadcasters, and those who consume those sources, flatly state there are no conscripts in Ukraine. Western and Ukrainian news sources, on the other hand, make consistent references to Russian conscripts being there.

In a recently posted address, Vladimir Putin says no conscripts are being deployed to Ukraine, and all the troops involved are career soldiers.

[Diarcesia]

With respect, I don't think the underlined is true. There are verified cases of Russian conscripts and so on fighting in Ukraine. It may be that Russia is not necessarily accepting new volunteers, but it is not only their contractors who are fighting but the regular military also.


There is an interesting point to be made here about military tactics because this was something that has concerned me about the Ukrainian defense as well.

The Russian invasion has had all the fingerprints o the old Soviet głubokaja opieracija (I believe 'Deep Battle' is the English translation) theory. This theory aims to disorient and cripple the enemy by striking at logistical checkpoints using combined aerial and ground assaults and attacking on all fronts; this can be seen in the earliest hours of the invasion where Russia conducted airstrikes on nearly every major city, invaded from 3 directions, and attempted to disrupt any Ukrainian front with tactics such as paratrooper assault. Since the end of the Cold War, this strategy has been used effectively on several occasions; most notably by Rwanda against Congo in 1998 and by Russia against Georgia in 2008; it is to be contrasted with the US strategy in Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003 where the focus was on prolonged aerial bombardment initially only followed up by ground forces moving along a single large front (in spite of having allies in Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan in 2003, the US forces pushed up the Tigris and Euphrates, only entering from the north in a limited capacity after the bulk of the conventional warfare was over) once bombing had suppressed any significant opposition.

The Russian strategy works very effectively against armies attempting to defend large fronts but the Ukrainian strategy so far has been to defend cities rather than attempt pitched open warfare. It seems the Russians had planned for their initial invasion to draw out the Ukrainian army into battles where they'd be defeated. Instead, the Ukrainian strategy has seemed to be to fall back into fortified cities that were already previously well-supplied. Rather than coordinated action to cover the whole countryside, it seems that Ukrainian military's intent is to have each city capable of defending itself. Russia may encircle the eastern units, but then it either has to engage in urban warfare to capture them or starve them out; neither is a militarily pleasant option. Additionally, now this means that if Russia's supply lines aren't well-defended, Ukrainian forces based in the cities can come briefly out and strike at them (we've already seen this in the north).

I suspect that, since Ukraine was also part of the USSR, they are also familiar with the old głubokaja opieracija; after the disaster of 2014 they invested significant money into military reform, and I suspect both stockpiling the cities and planning attempts to neutralize the Russian strategy were part of this.

I thought this post was especially relevant as it discusses the presence of conscripts, or lack thereof, among Russian troops in Ukraine. It seems this is part of the binary narrative which has developed with the war; the Russian government, its broadcasters, and those who consume those sources, flatly state there are no conscripts in Ukraine. Western and Ukrainian news sources, on the other hand, make consistent references to Russian conscripts being there.

In a recently posted address, Vladimir Putin says no conscripts are being deployed to Ukraine, and all the troops involved are career soldiers.

As has been mentioned before, if the Russian soldiers in Ukraine are honest-to-goodness contractual/professional soldiers, the show of the army's abilities is rather damning on the way they execute their mission.

[Tarsonis]

With respect, I don't think the underlined is true. There are verified cases of Russian conscripts and so on fighting in Ukraine. It may be that Russia is not necessarily accepting new volunteers, but it is not only their contractors who are fighting but the regular military also.


There is an interesting point to be made here about military tactics because this was something that has concerned me about the Ukrainian defense as well.

The Russian invasion has had all the fingerprints o the old Soviet głubokaja opieracija (I believe 'Deep Battle' is the English translation) theory. This theory aims to disorient and cripple the enemy by striking at logistical checkpoints using combined aerial and ground assaults and attacking on all fronts; this can be seen in the earliest hours of the invasion where Russia conducted airstrikes on nearly every major city, invaded from 3 directions, and attempted to disrupt any Ukrainian front with tactics such as paratrooper assault. Since the end of the Cold War, this strategy has been used effectively on several occasions; most notably by Rwanda against Congo in 1998 and by Russia against Georgia in 2008; it is to be contrasted with the US strategy in Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003 where the focus was on prolonged aerial bombardment initially only followed up by ground forces moving along a single large front (in spite of having allies in Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan in 2003, the US forces pushed up the Tigris and Euphrates, only entering from the north in a limited capacity after the bulk of the conventional warfare was over) once bombing had suppressed any significant opposition.

The Russian strategy works very effectively against armies attempting to defend large fronts but the Ukrainian strategy so far has been to defend cities rather than attempt pitched open warfare. It seems the Russians had planned for their initial invasion to draw out the Ukrainian army into battles where they'd be defeated. Instead, the Ukrainian strategy has seemed to be to fall back into fortified cities that were already previously well-supplied. Rather than coordinated action to cover the whole countryside, it seems that Ukrainian military's intent is to have each city capable of defending itself. Russia may encircle the eastern units, but then it either has to engage in urban warfare to capture them or starve them out; neither is a militarily pleasant option. Additionally, now this means that if Russia's supply lines aren't well-defended, Ukrainian forces based in the cities can come briefly out and strike at them (we've already seen this in the north).

I suspect that, since Ukraine was also part of the USSR, they are also familiar with the old głubokaja opieracija; after the disaster of 2014 they invested significant money into military reform, and I suspect both stockpiling the cities and planning attempts to neutralize the Russian strategy were part of this.

I thought this post was especially relevant as it discusses the presence of conscripts, or lack thereof, among Russian troops in Ukraine. It seems this is part of the binary narrative which has developed with the war; the Russian government, its broadcasters, and those who consume those sources, flatly state there are no conscripts in Ukraine. Western and Ukrainian news sources, on the other hand, make consistent references to Russian conscripts being there.

In a recently posted address, Vladimir Putin says no conscripts are being deployed to Ukraine, and all the troops involved are career soldiers.

If true that's even more embarrassing

[Free Algerstonia]

Please everyone, ignore Free Algerstonia. They are not arguing in good faith and are trying to gaslight everyone. It's not worth responding to them.

thanks boo youre still my bestie

[Washington Resistance Army]

Another VDV commander died earlier, bringing the total up to 7 Russian senior officers in less than 2 weeks.

Totes not a paper tiger guys.

[Free Algerstonia]

NY Post Opinion but actually pretty spot on: (trashing both the many DSA and many MAGA types weirdly united in attacking NATO over Putin)
https://nypost.com/2022/02/28/strange-l ... putin/amp/

“If there’s a salient example of imperialism this week, I’m pretty sure it’s not Ukrainians minding their own business but the guy who is sending columns of tanks to expand the Russian empire westward. Putin isn’t making this hard for anybody: He’s a thug in thug’s clothing, and this is a completely unprovoked war. Nobody who respects liberty and self-determination should be making excuses for him.“

we support liberty and self-determination. no not that anti-western liberty and self-determination in luhansk and donetsk. liberty and self-determination is only good when it is pro-america

[Picairn]

A thread on how Russia's beef is mainly against the EU than NATO.

[Rusozak]

Poland and Lithuania must join forces again. For stability or something

Reverse the partitions of Poland!

[Novus America]

Is it just me that doesn’t want to see warlords fighting over that country with several thousand nuclear warheads? Like, does nobody else here see why that might be an outcome that we do not want happening?

I do not consider this likely, but if at some point in the future it looks like the outcome of sanctions is going to be “Russia collapses into civil war”, the sanctions ought to be relaxed. Immediately.

---

The Americans designed their system of government to be incapable of quick, decisive action, and blames the government when it doesn’t take quick, decisive action. Classic.

Is parliamentary sovereignty looking a little more appealing to y’all folks over there now, hmm?

I do not want to see Russian Civil War 2.0 either. But we will not. Russia is not going to die because just because it defaults. Argentina defaults a lot and it is still around.
Russia defaulted in 1998 and it did not collapse.

Russia is not at any real risk of breaking up.

Anyways…

The point is simply to get them out of the areas they occupied in the past two weeks. Not destroy Russia as a country with a government.

On the last part though that is actually quite off the mark. Actually the US system is extremely capable of quick decisive action on foreign policy. Some people would maybe claim too much so. That the president has too many powers. The president has extremely vast foreign policy powers that can be executed immediately without getting a law passed.

For example Biden could and ultimately did unilaterally ban Russian oil imports without Congress passing a law. It could have done it any time. The delay was because the nature of the Biden security council which likes to sit around and have endless meetings rather than make decisions.

The issue with the Biden Administration (this was not an issue with many other administrations) is not a constitutional issue, it is a problem with the people in the administration.

You can have a weak PM whose administration is afraid to take quick action in a parliamentary system just as much as in the the US system. Actually a parliamentary system is more sometimes more problematic as the government can collapse if it loses a vote of no confidence and such, which cannot happen in a presidential system. A weak and unstable coalition government in a parliamentary system is often more indecisive. Germany has often been slow and weak on foreign policy despite a parliamentary based system.

We do not need a parliamentary system, we just need a a president whose administration picks better people and actually fires the bad ones instead of keeping them around even after they fail. Which we have had before.

We have had plenty of administrations that did make quick and decisive foreign policy actions.
It is not the president lacks the legal power. It is that this administration is being slow to exercise the powers it has on foreign policy here.