UKC

This is probably way too specific for even the hive mine of UKC - but as the question asks - why can't some part of Ukrainian forces attack the encircling Russian forces from the North? The refugees getting out are going to Zaporizhzhia, which Google Maps tells me is 226 kms from Mariupol and clearly still in Ukrainian hands and seemingly not being attacked yet. Dnipro (4th largest city - about a million inhabitants) is another 100 k north.

My vague understanding is that a lot of the Ukr regular army was already in the Donbas region fighting against the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk - where Russia and separatists have made advances but seem to be stalled as well. Is it safe to presume there is enough of a stalemate there, that no forces can go south to try and attack the encirclement of Mariupol from the north? Are the Ukrainian forces incapable of serious manoeuvrers - i.e. moving a significant force several hundred kms? This https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/russian-offensive-campaign-assessm... (the BBC is using as one of the sources for their mapping of the conflicts) suggests that significant Rus forces are bogged down sieging Mariupol - and they losing a lot of them - and that means they can't attack Zaporizhzhia or further north. But at the same time one of the refugees who left Mariupol yesterday spoke about going through 15 Russian checkpoints going out of the city which suggests they have some degree of control quite some way to the north. 

The reports coming out of Mariupol are just hellish - such those from the AP team who got out yesterday - believed to be the last international journalists there, and it just makes me very angry and depressed. I saw drone footage earlier supposedly from Azov fighters in Mariupol attack a Russian tank. After some explosions at least one crew member gets out but seems to get knocked down by a further blast and is visibly squirming on the ground to get off the road. Pretty certain that was some Russian kid dying, but having read earlier an account of someone in theatre when it was hit, it just left me cold.

In reply to TobyA:

I don’t have any specific knowledge here but I understand that the transition from successful defence to attack can be difficult. 

In reply to TobyA:

The simplest answer maybe, as you’ve already said, that Ukrainian forces are just holding on and incapable of major offensive actions, especially given the situation in Kyiv. Factor in barely trained soldiers are much more effective in static defence.

The cynical answer would be leaving a major city to be levelled, with attendant mass civilian casualties, would increase Global revulsion, sanctions, aid for Ukraine and clamour for a no fly zone.

*I’m not an armchair strategist, I barely rate “reclining on the sofa strategist” and I was of the opinion Ukraine would fold in a week.

In reply to TobyA:

Armchair analyst #42 here: isn't mud an issue with regard to manoeuvring, and part of the reason the Russians are bogged down?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputitsa

In reply to Stichtplate:

As a beach chair strategist (I would point out the sea is closed currently)  I think another factor would be that the equipment provided, as has been loudly shouted by all the relevant countries supplying them, has been "defensive" aka infantry weapons.

In reply to TobyA:

I suspect they don’t have the resources for a successful counterattack as they need to keep forces back to cover Odesa, the Belarus border, whatever reserves they feel they need and obviously other areas of active warfare. That said, they’ve had some success in counterattacking around Mikolaiv. And who knows what else they might have planned.

The reports about Ukrainian forces potentially running out of ammo / missiles in about a week are worrying but obviously that’s an evolving situation. It could be another factor though - just like logistical issues curtailing the Russian advance.

Whatever the reasons, I’m sure if they could launch a successful counterattack, they would have done that by now.

In reply to Misha:

Yes, completely agree. If you read through the Critical Threats briefing I linked above it suggests why stalemate is ultimately awful for Ukraine - and satellite images of Russians digging trenches outside of Kyiv suggests they are accepting stalemate. 

In reply to TobyA:

Seems pretty clear the Ukrainians are getting supplied from Poland so their logistics and availability of weapons and ammunition are going to be better in the west of the country.  They've been fighting a stalemate in the east with trench lines and artillery against Russian backed rebels for years. 

Mariupol is on the coast so the Russians can use naval artillery and it has Crimea on one side and Russia on the other side of it.  In the context of a negotiated settlement Mariupol is something that may need to be traded away so Russia can get all the coast to Crimea and consolidate its grab the south east corner of Ukraine. 

On the other hand ending the Russian offensive towards Kiev prevents Russia installing a puppet government and sets the scene to gradually move east while maintaining supply from Poland.

It seems logical that the Ukrainians are choosing to counter attack around Kiev where their supplies are best and where they get most leverage by establishing control before peace negotiations start.

In reply to TobyA:

If you have good defensive positions you do not always need as many defenders as the attacking force.  

But to attack with success and drive back you do need a larger force than the one you are attacking.  You need to be able to move quick enough and with enough weapons suitable/capable of defeating the well armed army which was attacking you.   

Also you don't need to be very mobile to defend, but if you want to counter attack you need mobility.

In reply to TobyA:

Camping chair grade analysis, if that, from me [1].

Somewhere between Stichplate's simplest and cynical answers is a pragmatic one - Ukraine only has so many forces compared to the invader, and they are prioritising.  Somewhere has to end up on the tragic end of that priorities list, and then that gets a lot of news coverage.  

The Ukrainian forces can move, but they are needed and effective where they are, and to start trying to rout the Russians from around Mariupol would displace sufficient capacity to limit other key work, particularly the breaking of northern supply lines and isolating the troops beneath them.

Seems to me like the Ukrainians are increasingly prioritising Russian logistics - such as they are - as they can tip this over into a cascading failure mode where the increased demand on what's left wears out men and machine faster.  Once the logistics collapse, the situation could pivot very rapidly.

I think the shaded maps like the one you liked are a bit misleading - seems to me that the Russians  have good control of the road networks in those areas but not of the spaces between, which is leaving them very vulnerable to partisan tactics even in "Russian controlled" areas.  Movement of heavy military equipment off-road is very hard for everyone right now, so the Ukrainians can attack supply lines far more easily than the dug-in artillery half-encircling and bombarding Mariupol; but once they can't get supplies, they become easier pickings for the partisan approach.

Their forces are far more effective on the defensive in places where they have good control of the roads, and in agile attacks on logistics and heavy vehicles where they don't.  Moving to attack the units half-encircling Mariupol (before they are starved of food, fuel and munitions) would consume far more of their forces to the detriment of all else.  

Even if the Ukrainians successfully tip Russian logistics over in to a death spiral soon, Mariupol remains vulnerable to shelling at sea.  Not clear how the Ukrainians can stop this militarily right now.

[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/4awp9p/its-a-golden-age-for-armchair-genera...

In reply to TobyA:

Mariupol is going to be expensive to rebuild-- perhaps Ukraine/we in the West are better letting the Russians pay the cost of that.

Marriupol most be absorbing alot of Russias military capabilities as they seem driven by success there . Russia is clearly having supply chain issues- there was a report yesterday that their only tank factory in Russia is running out of Western made parts due to sanctions. Europe /USA has certianly the industrial capacity to out muscle Russia in the medium/long term.So whilst there might be supply glitches, compared with Russian issues- they are small beer.Especially with the USA behind it..USA military really has a good grasp on logistics.

I find the whole thing gim and depressing, and it looks as though its going to get worse.Putin seems to have turned into a modern day Hitler.

That report form the last journalists in Mariupol was frightening reading. The Ukranian military must be making sure from reading it that  they get certain key individuals out. I hope the Mayor and his tema survives.

This I am afraid to say is going to last some time.I do not hold out much hope that the majority of Russian public is going to wake up and realise what is going on in there name... or even that they care.

In reply to wintertree:

Its a very USA based strategy to go after the logistics and makes alot common sense when you step back and think about it.

In reply to neilh:

The British and US militaries spent 8 years training with Ukrainian forces from 2014 until just before the Russian invasion in 2022.  I think several other nations including Canada, Denmark and Sweden have contributed over that period as well.

Belarus on the other hand...  A very different situation, and some reports suggest routine civilian surgery is now being deferred to allow the Belarus medical system to process wounded Russian troops out-of-sight and out-of-mind to the Russian public.  If Lukashenko is deposed and Belarus flips...?   

In reply to wintertree:

There is a suggestion that Lukashenko will not help the Russians in Ukraine as that weakens his powerbase at home. Unforeseen conseqeunces.

I also think we underestimate Nato's capability to increase pressure on Russia in other areas just by increasing forces say in Estonia. It ties them up . All Finland has to do is make more suggestions of joining Nato and it also will be of concern in Russa. and keep forces out of Ukraine.Probably why there are not more Russian aircraft in Ukraine.

I do wonder how long the Russian media/state can keep a lid on what is really going on.

Geopolitics at it's most horrifying.

In reply to mondite:

Classic.

We've used the words "defence industry" for decades to pretend the end result isn't as bad in some way, because no one would argue with self defence.

In reply to TobyA:

I haven't got in to any of these threads yet but I'm not quite on the armchair and may have a few pairs of boots in the cupboard.

There are lots of reasons but there is one overriding root: the force disparity.

In short, defence is easier (more complex to plan and execute but requiring of fewer resources) than offence. A smaller force, properly equipped and supplied can stop a larger force. A rule of thumb is that you'll need 3:1 in open terrain, and between 6:1 and 10:1 in close cities. 

In reply to TobyA:

the Russian shelling and bombing is carried out from a distance, thd Ukrainians can't and shouldn't be drawn out from their city defences to attack, as horrific as it is, they stand more chance of winning by holding their ground. 

It's better to attack artillery positions with remote teams on the ground, that's why the Russians have been mining lots of approaches to their positions. If you visualise a 15km ring around say kiev, for the Ukrainians to try and take, plus hold a 25km ring would risk spreading themselves to thinly, leaving gaps and being out flanked. 

As the Ukrainians win more on the ground, their ex civilians, now military, will gain experience and skills, the west should be pushing more and more weapons through to them, more technical and varied weapons, more drones and uavs would help. 

In reply to neilh:

You must have read exactly the same article as me - I noted exactly the same thing, that getting the journalists out so that they could bear witness and expose the Russian attempts at denying the horribly obvious, was more important than keeping them there to witness the city's continuing agony. But must have been terrifying for the journalists to have soldiers turn up shouting for them and not really know which side they were from.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Obviously with almost no air power, the Ukrainians can't try to attack the artillery that way, but I did wonder how much protection the Russians have behind their artillery, to protect them from ground attacks from the north. Or even what range would the Ukrainians need to be within to use their artillery to attack the Russian artillery? 

In reply to TobyA:

In the earlier stages of the war the Russians stayed roughly 20-30 km outside of the cities and built up forces there. This gives you a rough idea of the max range of Ukrainian artillery.

I think the delivery of those kamikaze drones the US is sending to the front could be interesting in this regard. 

In reply to VictorM:

indeed, the artillery will be deep within their lines, hence why they can only hit 10-15km from the centre of kiev.

I have read that much of the promised military hardware from europe has yet to be delivered, hopefully countries will honour their public pledges. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Difficult one as deliveries will be secret anyway for obvious tactical reasons on both sides.

Not helped by stuff like Germany promised delivery of their stock of ex-DDR anti-tank missiles but a lot of them are being found to be unsafe to transport and use, quite why they haven't already been disposed of (they were supposed to have been years ago) is another matter. Then there's the problem most countries just don't have loads of stuff lying around so can't strip their own defences just like that.

Doesn't help that the Ukrainian ambassador is complaining Germany hasn't delivered outstanding weapons when he is talking about a wish-list  including attack helicopters, multi-role fighters, battle tanks, submarines, frigates and everything else except ICBM's as far as one can see.

In reply to jimtitt:

Granted the Russians will be using satellites and spies in all countries to monitor weapon donations, i wouldn't expect public announcements of deliveries. Perhaps that's what boris imagined, a grip and grin, handing over a shiny new gun to the Ukrainian PM. 

You can't blame Ukraine for aiming high with their wish list. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

some submarines to sink the Black Sea Fleet would indeed be good, however it might be very hard making the "delivery"

In reply to jimtitt:

Has the German army been so deprived of resources over the years that it has got that bad? It must have come as a real shock to the powers that be over the last few weeks.

There is alot of NATO forward planning about resources and where to store them etc. There have been exercises over the past few years to test them out from what i recall.

It will be like Covid resource and contingency planning

But the overall situation will be considerably better than Russia's.

Bet that factory that makes the NLAWs in Northern Ireland is a bit busy at the moment.

In reply to neilh:

What, that Germany hasn't got a few spare submarines and frigates lying around?

Whether NATO commitment stocks are used hasn't been discussed as far as I know, most of it would be useless anyway without the training and infrastructure to use it which is why the deliveries are already mustered-out weapons like Singer missiles which are no longer in service in Germany and replaced by Milan. The Ukraine wants multi-role aircraft, who's going to fly the Tornado's Germany uses? Or the German attack helicopter.

Whether the German public (and the rest of NATO) would countenance stripping their eastern flank to support a non-NATO conflict is another bridge to cross, NATO does not and never has guaranteed the sovereignty of the Ukraine. The UK did so time for Boris to step up to the plate.

In reply to jimtitt:

There were agreements made in return for Ukraine decommissioning nuclear weapons though, weren't they made collectively, not just the uk. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

The UK and USA the primary treaty, China and France the other.

In reply to neilh:

In a time of reduced spending you can still have an effective army and yet lose track of assets you have, or their location or state of maintenance.  Britain is a good example.  OK we reduced our peer-warfighting capability in favour of peacekeeping or counter insurgency operations and invested a lot in special vehicles for such that you couldn't wage a war with.  But no one would say that the teeth of the army are ineffective.

However, in a time of defence reduction I know for a fact that when units are axed stuff and information is lost - literally with no handover there is no one left who has the records.  I suspect that might be one reason why weapons thought to be available were found to be in an unserviceable state.

Compare that with Germany still having the records for a bomber that crashed on Teeside during WW2 so that the British bomb disposal team could be told what they were dealing with only a few years ago!

In reply to jimtitt:

Only talking alking about resources that you mentioned earlier on. It was after all only a few years ago that Germany only had a few Eurofighters that were combat ready due to spares shortages.

There was an interesting piece about Germanys defence spending in the Economist this weekend as they are worried that it will all go on pensions and plush offices for the Defence ministry and not into hardware etc.Worth looking up.

NATO presumably needs to beef up Poland.

What a mess.

As I said probably no where near as bad as Russia's and that is what will count in the end.

In reply to wercat:

Record keeping for WW2 is not surprising though.....!

In reply to neilh:

It's politically difficult in Germany, the occupying powers insistance that Germany could only defend it's borders has rather embedded neutrality in the public thinking, having a Green as defense minister didn't help and then a political shooting star that volounteered cutting the defence budget finished things off. He was the dickhead that decided that keeping spare parts in stock was a bad idea and returned them to the manufacturer who promptly sold them to Israel so Germany ended up with only one operational submarine.

On the other hand one has to look at what the military call combat ready and the rest of us think, will that tyre last the next scheduled mission OR can that plane go and kill a Russian are two different questions when the shit hits the fan.

In reply to TobyA:

I think there are probably a number considerations the Ukraine armed forces have to make before committing resources or troops.

a) Limited resources, so make the most damage with the least risk.  Hence prioritise defence of locations you cannot lose over ones that you probably will.  Use western doctrines of ambush and killing zones to maximise destructive effect on advancing columns or lines of supply.

b) Take account of one probable or even certain essential of Russian strategy and objectives - seizure of the Crimean land bridge, as it cripples Ukraine's access to the sea and correspondingly increases Russia's stranglehold (and represents a demonstrable victory which may not easily be reversible, like Crimea).  Hence the Russians are likely to expend almost limitless resources on this, backed up by their naval dominance and any counter attack would have to be very carefully assessed for risk of losses against any possible effect on the outcome.  Control of the sea also gives much greater control over Ukraine's exports in favour of Russia.

c) Russians are able to observe any significant scale movements (see the video of  the vehicles allegedly detected under the shopping centre) and thus it will be difficult for Ukraine to move forces round without risk of high casualties or even total loss given Russian access to cruise missiles, massive artillery superiority and greater number of combat aircraft, some of whom can launch attacks without even leaving Russian airspace.  This means that Ukraine's forces and weapons may not be mobile outside the areas where they are now holding or being held in hardened shelters.

All of this does not preclude counter attacking but might mean it has to very carefully considered and might take time to put into operation.

that's my tuppence worth

I really hope that NATO is thinking of making cruise missiles into Ukraine hands to shift the balance a bit.  Non nuclear obviously, in the first instance.  I do not believe in Putin's threats representing a risk of strategic nuclear weapons but there has always been a risk of tactical nuclear weapons irrespective of anything Putin says because they represent no great escalation in the Russian doctrine.

(more of a historyist than a strategist, I'll leave that for the beach chairs, armchairs and sun lounger equipped folk)

In reply to TobyA:

ps, If I were a Russian General I'd be trying to pre-empt Putin labelling me as responsible for mass casualties and failure and start plotting to put the blame on him publicly or remove him altogether before he puts me in front of a firing squad

In reply to jimtitt:

Some of Germany’s decisions  almost look as bad as the Brexit mess here for U.K.  Tying up oil and gas with Russia, closing nuclear power , paltry defence spending. 
 

Do not buy the excuse about Germany’s past. For the past decade with Merkel thishas been the German mantra and yet you are a strong thriving democratic country with strong Western values. Perhaps Germany just wanted to spend it’s peace dividend on other things. 
Tump  -heaven forbid- was at least blunt on this subject about the only thing he might have ever got right  in his stupid Presidency

Just  hope that Germany’s industrial muscle is used to support Ukraine and help it defeat Putin .

whats the latest on Schroder… has he repented or resigned from his Russian boards. Or his he still taking Putins gold?

In reply to neilh:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-...

A very sobering old article about Germany, ukraine and crimea.... whilst urusla von eu leader was defence minister. Lessons not learnt.

In reply to ExiledScot:

Not just Germany. For a couple of years back in the mid-noughties I actually got paid to do I think a monthly contribution for the Janes group following Sweden. I felt a bit fake as my knowledge of Swedish defence policy and industry was pretty much just what I picked up on the side while I was really studying Finland - but anyway, the editor was always happy enough.

Along with a couple of ongoing and never resolving, or so it felt, corruption scandals from the arms industry (I think it was that they bribed lots of South Africans to buy Saab Gripens for the SAAF), the other ongoing theme was lack of funding across the military. I remember one article that was headlined something along the lines of "If you want to invade Sweden, please don't come at weekend." about how the Navy didn't go out from Friday to Monday because they didn't have enough fuel for their ships to sale everyday! I think it was after the Georgia War that the Swedes picked up their defence spending again.

In reply to TobyA:

Wednesday pm would be best time in the uk, sports afternoon! 

Edit. But I get your point. This is a big wake up call for most countries in different ways, policy, spending, trade, energy, money laundering and more.

In reply to neilh:

Don't know, I don't follow the careers of socialist ex-politicians that closely. How's Chelsea FC doing these days?

In reply to TobyA:

We've got a piece on the 128th Mountain Assault Brigade coming out soon (they have a very friendly and informative Major/press officer). They've been busy in the major hotspots and have recovered a lot of Russian tanks/artillery/other weapons. They captured a lieutenant colonel the other day.

Might be of interest to followers of this thread. 

In reply to jimtitt:

It's about time the west started seizing rather than freezing the Russian state and sanctioned individual assets and putting in place laws that let them cut through nonsense like trusts.  They could easily pick up tens of billions of dollars and probably a lot more.  With that kind of money the Ukrainians could buy a ton of weapons and have some funds to rebuild. 

Let the Russians pay for the weapons and let the rich Russians know that every time a shell hits someone's house that's some of their money in the west going to pay for the damage.

In reply to neilh:

Re aircraft. I saw an article somewhere (can’t remember!) suggesting the Russian airforce simply isn’t trained to operate in large formations (unlike NATO). Hence the sorties are single jets or pairs. 

In reply to wercat:

Send in submarines, sink the fleet, deny all knowledge. That’s what Putin would do. I think NATO has some catching up to do…

In reply to jimtitt:

It’s not exactly a non-NATO conflict though, is it? It’s a kind of proxy war against NATO’s main enemy (I’m not in any way suggesting NATO is responsible for this war; just that it was turned into a proxy war). ‘Stripping’ the Eastern flank to use the resources in Ukraine isn’t stripping, it’s putting resources to good use. Russia isn’t able to fight another conflict right now, so what else are those NATO missile stockpiles for? I’m also a bit concerned that NATO doesn’t seem to have large stockpiles. Surely they need enough to fight an actual wave with Russia?

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

That’s an interesting one. Crimea has mountains on its south side and large cliffs. Seem to recall there was an outdoor climbing comp there in the 70s or 80s where bizarrely they stuck rock holds onto existing crags. Possibly mentioned in Ron Fawcett’s book. There are also the Carpathian Mountains but not that much of them are in Ukraine. In between, a lot of steppe, plus forest in the northern parts. Not really a mountainous place for the most part.

In reply to TobyA:

The general opinion appears to be that Germany should spend more on defence. I vaguely recall that didn’t work out too well when that happened twice in the last century. The Germans are awfully good at doing stuff when they set their minds to it. 2% of German GDP ($4.2 trillion) could buy a lot of stuff. Johnson & Co. are keen for the UK (GDP $2.7 trillion) to spend more than any other Western European country on defence so look forward to a huge increase in defence spending at a time when money could be best spent elsewhere. Fortunately, most Germans have learnt the lessons of two world wars and wouldn’t dream of going back to the past and follow a more nationalistic and aggressive leader. But ‘Realpolitik’ may see them willing to do what it takes to counter the Russian threat.

I despair. War is a terrible thing. My naive hope is that the current conflict will see people/countries will relearn the lessons of the past to see the futility of war and  come to a better arrangement. It’s a hard lesson and one which the US, after it’s failures in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has yet to come terms with. Russia’s foreign interventions haven’t faired any better.

Spending more on defence doesn’t lead to better security, it breeds insecurity as other countries also spend more on defence. 

In 1949 Costa Rica, despite being in a relatively unstable region, abandoned military spending and hasn’t regretted it. If only every other country could do the same.

Late night rant over!

In reply to JRS:

I don't think it is just a spending thing, it is also what it is spent on and using the defence budget as an industrial subsidy or to employ young people.

A fully professional but smaller military, fewer planes/tanks/ships but all planes fully maintained and with spare parts and most importantly EU nations purchasing common equipment from the best supplier rather than every nation designing and building their own could get a lot more fighting capability per Euro spent.

The UK is just as bad at this with far too many underfunded programs approved for stuff they should have the strength of mind to say they can't afford and everything needing to be a 'special' designed to please a top heavy set of high ranking officers and overpaid civil servants in London and then respecified every few years to please politicians.  If they'd decide what they could afford, buy off the shelf designs useful to several nations instead of specials and sack half the Generals and Admirals the UK military would get more equipment for less money and less half-arsed equipment designed without the budget to do it right.

In reply to Misha:

Whether Nato has sufficient stockpiles to fight a war is one matter, whether they have stockpiles of ancient weapon systems the Ukranians can use is another as their armaments industry was based on post-war Soviet junk and that's what their army uses.

That the NATO eastern flank is guarded by museum pieces in some cases is also cause for concern.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I agree with almost zero of your political posts but this one gets a 1000pc thumbs up. Question for the informed, why isnt Europe/US seizing rathat than freezing? The money available is probably a sizeable chunk.

Seems like pointless political grandstanding if all we'll do is give it back with a loud tut at the end of all this.

And those trusts can feck right off. That ugly bastard who bragged about moving his £ms into these financial vehicles should be forced to show the paperwork. They enjoyed the freedoms and openness of our country when it suited them. The UK should go all Kremlin on their asses and show then what they have helped create back in Russia for ordinary people there. Do you think Putin would would care about offshore trusts if the boot were on the other foot; he'd nationalise the assets regardless.

The UK lawyers who get paid vast sums to facilitate this behaviour too should also be threatened with losing their licences.

If we can't get involved with the actual fighting, its time we got some teeth here on our own shores and made the man-boy and his ass lickers pay dearly.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Twofold.

1) Right of ownership is incredibly deeply ingrained in Western legislation. The only way to actually seize assets is to prove that the owner has committed criminal offence (which is a possible way forward for the seizure of oligarch money and I'm sure lawyers everywhere are working on this).

2) The money trace is not all that clear. Billionaires everywhere and the Russians in particular are really good at setting up shells within shells within shells within trusts within trusts within trusts and so on to make it really hard to trace who the actual owner is, and therefore legally more complicated to actually seize said money. 

Both of these factors are being worked on (I read an article yesterday about a 700 million Dollar yacht in a harbour in Italy which might or might not be owned by Putin) but short of a move into martial law there isn't a lot that can be done at speed and we'll have to be patient. 

In reply to VictorM:

You know, I actually think that patient is the last thing we need to be when cities are getting shelled into oblivion and the other means of doing something about it could lead to nuclear war.

This is an occasion where ramming some special purpose legislation through which tears up property law as regards the Russian government and named individuals on a sanctions list would be by far the lesser of two evils.  Saying we are going to take your money and give it to Ukraine to pay for the damage you are doing and so they can afford weapons and we are going to do it fast and without much due process is exactly the kind of message that needs to be sent and it is less dangerous than alternative escalations.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If all the Russian billionaires thought they'd permanently lose all overseas assets tomorrow Putin wouldn’t be in office long. 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I would wholeheartedly agree but special purpose legislation has a tendency to create unforeseen consequences and because of reason number two it's not especially clear if it would even make it faster at all so I'd rather have legislators take a bit more time to do it right than to do it quick and damn unforeseen downsides.

In reply to VictorM:

True enough,  but the lawyers/accountants are paid vast sums to facilitate this. They know exactly where it is. Compel them under emergency sanctions law to cough up or face losing your licence at best and their homes/proceeds of this activity at worst. Give them no hiding place.

This is far from normal times and these are far from normal people. They have stolen £billions and helped bankroll war crimes. 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

It's estimated that something ridiculous like 50% of all Russian oil and gas revenue in the last 20 years has gone to Putin and his friends, likely trillions.

Even if they seized everything they found, there would still be millions or billions not located, they'll never starve! 

In reply to Misha:

He's already at war with NATO - a chemical attack on one is an attack on all. 

We just didn't repond in kind

I'm trying to imagine what it is like for the Russians to have suffered up to 10% killed from the initial troop numbers - how many wounded if that is true ?  Has this war a higher ratio of dead to wounded than normal or could there be 30000 wounded?  I see NATO is claiming that total troop losses (dead, wounded and missing/surrendered/deserted) could be 40000 out of 150000

There has been a report of an arranged surrender of a Russian tank driven by the commander as the rest of the crew had already set off back for Russia

We are surely reaching a WW1 Russian army mutiny or Battleship Potemkin ?

In reply to ExiledScot:

The more I think and learn about the Putin regime/Russian government, the less I think this is the case sadly.

In reply to TobyA:

Agreed the billionaires are really a side issue, its Putins regime/govt that is the crux.They are just pawns for Putin to play with.

I still do not get certain things though. Mauripol port facilities are intact and have not been targeted or bombed. I gues the Ukraine military is operating form there, so the siege will go on for weeks. It must be one hell of a prized asset for both sides.I expect as a last resort the Ukrainians will just blow it up.

I still do not understand why the gas pipeline through Ukraine has not been targetted by either side. Everybody recieves money from it is the simple answer.

In reply to jimtitt:

Well at least its assets etc are frozen. Are VW,BMW, Porsche and Mercedes still operating in Russia.Will they follow Renault?I wonder how much trade between Russia and Germany has dropped this last month . Just about every industrial supplier I know in Germany has operations or customers in Russia. Whats going on there?Are they ceasing operations..

Would you sell any of your bolts into Russia?

One thing I can suggest  is that if Germany,Fance and UK get their act together and operate as a team instead of infighting it will have greater impact.

In reply to VictorM:

Money trace just takes time and resources and the good old US dollar.The US are pretty good over time in working this out as through SWIFT etc money transactions are traceable.It just takes time.

In reply to neilh:

I think the only impact the oligarches money being frozen has is it denies Putin and co a source of funds they have used in the past.

I would assume the Russians want it as a functioning port and given the Ukranians arent using it either for a naval base or to receive supplies it doesnt make sense to attack it.

In reply to neilh:

All German car companies have suspended operations in Russia.

The list of export goods subject to sanctions is available on the German customs website.

In reply to wintertree:

The usual channels are awash this morning with photos and videos of what is claimed to be a landing ship on fire in the port at Berdyans’k (west of Mariupol).  A couple of days before RT had someone triumphantly showing a lot of Z-branded hardware being offloaded, hopefully that’s all wrecked along with the cargo cranes…  

https://mobile.twitter.com/Furkan38276857/status/1506891600248586242

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Once you've seized (as opposed to frozen) whatever can be identified you lose what leverage you have on the those sanctioned 'oligarchs' and with it what little leverage they still hold over Putin and Russia's politics.

It's literally their job, to work with the law as it exists. Sure where they overstep their bounds stamp on them but the rule of law matters.

Striking at the Russian elite and their offshore wealth is not about punishment, it's about leverage. If you want results you need to keep a cool clear head.

jk

In reply to jimtitt:

If you are an industrial supplier ( and lets not kid ourselves- Germany is a real powerhouse in this area) from Germany into Russia and your goods are not on that sanctions list...what is going on. What are Bosch or Bayer or Siemens doing?Carrying on or closing down or reducing operations.

Fascinated to know.

Interestingly Australia has stopped selling Aluminum to Russia ( supplies 20% of Russian requirements) as they are concerned it ends up in the wrong place.

In reply to mondite:

And yet the Ukranian military will be using it as a safe base in the defence of Mauripol as a result . Clearly really important as part of Russian strategy for the coast and their attempt to cut Ukraine off from the sea.

In reply to jkarran:

Interestingly, unlike most professionals, lawyers' code of conduct makes no mention any responsibility to anything or anyone but their clients.  Most have primary responsibility to clients but also to society, environment etc.  I think this should change.

In reply to jkarran:

Its about both to some degree. Especially since punishment isnt just about punishing the person now but also deterring others in future thinking about the same sort of thing.

In reply to neilh:

True and maybe they will say sod it and just end up flattening it but I can see why they would avoid doing so if at all possible.

In reply to jkarran:

Exactly, at the moment the oligarchs risk losing their money if they continue to support Putin. If their assets are seized then Putin is their best chance of rebuilding their fortunes.

In reply to jimtitt:

As I see it their assets are " frozen" and not seized.So for example dividend payments would still accumulate but they cannot use them, so their "wealth" still rises.if house prices raise then they will still benefit in the long term.

A ceasefire and successful negoitiation is surely the best way for them to unfreeze those assets.They are going to be waiting a long time imho.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

The British offshore dependencies seem to be applying sanctions in line with the UK, so if the money is in trusts there and the oligarchs are beneficial owners they'll be nobbled.  The problem is when the oligarchs aren't the beneficial owners but their family / friends / employees are. Does it matter to Mr Oligarch if his yacht is in his name or his son's as long as he can use it? No.

In reply to Toerag:

Furrymuff, extend the sanctions to family, partners, close business associates etc. Leave no stone unturned. Every snail leaves a trail, follow the stench and sieze it. 

We're pussy footing whilst the bastard and his crim-pals take the piss and kill people. WTAF!

In reply to TobyA:

My 2 cents: Nobody on UKC has the combination of specific knowledge of troop and hardware locations and decades of military planning experience and intimate knowledge of the infrastructure of Ukraine and it's geographical layout sufficient to make a meaningful answer to this question.

This decision would be incredibly complicated and getting it wrong could result in losing a large number of men and much equipment or losing a large area of ground or even just boosting the enemies morale.

But seeing as we are armchair philosophising:

- Could be that grinding to a stalemate is the objective of the Ukraine army, not defeating the Russians.
- Could be that removing forces from the East would tip that battle from a stalemate into an area of Russian progress.

- Could be that the air-defenses are not able to protect units approaching Mariupol from Russian airpower.

- Could be that forces approaching Mariupol would be at risk of being cut off from the rest of the Ukrainian military.

- Could be that potentially driving retreating russians into the city of Mariupol is viewed as a result that would cause to much suffering and loss of life.

In reply to jkarran:

I think we've passed the leverage point and we are getting in the preliminaries of an actual war. If the Russians move to another city and systematically destroy it over a period of weeks like they did Mariupol and then another how long do we have the stomach to sit and watch.

My guess is at some point the electorate are going to demand that heavy weapons are given to Ukraine.  Longer range missiles with larger warheads, maybe anti-ship missiles.  And at some point if their cities are being systematically destroyed the Ukrainians are going to take some of the weapons we have given them and use them inside Russia.  Maybe hit a passenger train or bus with an anti tank rocket, maybe shoot down a passenger jet or blow up a chemical plant.  

It does but you've got to realise when you are getting into a war and you've got to recognise the timescales of war which aren't the timescales that lawyers who get paid by the hour and the more due process the better for their billing like.

If we are going to do something we need to do it before Russia destroys many more cities.  They are destroying a city every three weeks.

It is also about money.  Grab a hundred billion $ in Russian money and oligarch property and that's a hundred billion we don't need to find ourselves and a hell of a lot more arms for Ukraine but it needs to happen fast.

Speed is also part of leverage.  These guys need to see their money disappearing fast if you want them to change direction fast.  The natural reaction of rich people is to string things out over years and fight to a standstill in court.  They need to be shown their stuff will be irretrievably gone in a few weeks if they don't do something.

In reply to TobyA:

Indeed. I think he does face internal danger but from the security / military forces rather than oligarchs. May be not his immediate circle but the second or third tier people. If they feel that their positions are under threat (more from Putin than anything else), they might turn against him. 

In reply to TobyA:

Not sure if posted already but I have been following this American chap on YouTube who has been offering daily analysis on the military situation on the ground. He is a former soldier himself and it is interesting hearing his views on current battle lines, local skirmishes, supply line issues, equipment, leadership, Russian mistakes, Ukrainian advances etc.

youtube.com/watch?v=SrrF5u5z978&

Despite the volume of coverage on main stream media the focus seems to be almost entirely on the human interest side of things rather then the current military status. While the former is of course important one kind of needs the latter as well.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I don't. The war can't end while Putin needs a win he isn't getting conventionally. That leaves a few prospects, none very appealing but the least worst probably is Putin loses support at home and or of his troops. Both of those are going to take significant time and losing the army on the ground does not guarantee an end to Ukraine's pain or Putin's menace.

I'm afraid we will watch, doing what we realistically can without making the situation much worse. There are lots of problems in life that are very bad to which we do not have good solutions, this is one of them.

Probably. Listening on here it's abundantly clear the risks of becoming embroiled are really not very well understood by many.

Why would they go on the attack in Russia, particularly against civilians gifting Putin a massive propaganda win. One thing the Ukranians have absolutely nailed so far is their clear communication of their objectives and motives, that's won them a remarkable amount of admiration and support. You think they'd squander that for petty revenge? Ukraine is fighting for its existence, to remove Russian troops, to maintain its territory and key strategic assets so it can rebuild strong enough to fight off the next wave, it doesn't have capacity to engage in grandstanding vengeance attacks outside its borders, nor is it in their interest. Anyway they appear to be degrading Russia's supply lines pretty damn well with mostly portable simple weapons, cheap drones and big balls. Let's see what happens in Belarus as Putin's war and Lukashenko's subservience impacts directly on the people there.

No, the rule of law matters full-stop, it's the bedrock of a free and functioning society. Subverting it for profit or convenience is how you end up in the mess Russia is now in.

If we 'do something' countless more cities will be destroyed, millions more displaced and killed. That's before the nearly unavoidable nuclear conclusion.

Money isn't the problem with arming Ukraine. Logistics and the crazy fine line between providing significant support and triggering a nuclear-power war with a cornered, isolated Tsar are.

Cut off a route back to normality and there's a real risk some will simply double down on Putin as the best way to rebuild their wealth and power. Some will take the hit, slip into the shadows and fall back on what they didn't yet lose and sure, some may lean against Putin in the hope of better times back out of the cold but they're not going to be swift and decisive in removing him, they're just adding pressure.

jk

In reply to Cú Chullain:

We do need to be mindful that the old adage 'careless talk costs lives' is even more valid today than it was in previous conflicts.

News updates and Twitter feeds giving real time intelligence to the Russians, (and informed speculation on resupply times for ammunition and equipment on UKC) are probably the last things the Ukraine needs.

In reply to Ridge:

This poster doesn't give a methodology but suggests r/volunteersForUkraine on Reddit could be responsible for 300 deaths...  A couple of the groups of American volunteers out there seem particularly keen to share at the moment with no interest in obscuring anyone else's faces.  If the Russian security apparatus doesn't fall, who knows for how many decades they might pursue some of the people fighting against them - particularly those from other Russian occupied areas - and the use of facial recognition is unlikely to fall over the next 20 years.   

https://twitter.com/bloomfilters/status/1506633887069442048

The use of social media is clearly a big part of the propaganda war from Ukraine; but there needs to be control over the time-delay with which stuff is released at the very least...

In reply to jkarran:

I was going to skip right past the other poster's suggestions of going on the civilian attacks in Russia, but at some point if Russia doesn't capitulate and Ukraine builds on their successes hindering logistics and driving troops back, even if they secure their borders they're left with the problem of artillery, SRBMs and air-launched missile attacks coming from the Russian side of the border, and also from inside Belarus.  Absent a negotiated end or an increasingly unlikely Russian conventional victory, it's hard to see how they don't end up having to take the war outside their borders, including using a lot of munitions supplied from western nations

I see a different problem to the one TiE suggested; the Russian troops aren't moving in on more cities, they're - literally - digging in defensively, trying to hold ground as their supply lines are systematically eroded.  If Ukraine can keep this pressure up the question pivots to how Russia gets their troops and equipment out alive without suffering a catastrophic defeat; this as much as the "do something" side of the picture could push Putin over to non-conventional warfare.  It doesn't help that social media is awash with videos of Russian tanks having their turrets fly off, precision artillery strikes on dispersed, camouflaged vehicles, the landing ship exploding,  Chechen, Georgian, American groups celebrating destruction after destruction, and many others.  They can't censor all this, and the number of Russians who aren't coming home is staggering.  

In reply to Ridge:

"We do need to be mindful that the old adage 'careless talk costs lives' is even more valid today than it was in previous conflicts."

Perhaps the Russians need to take heed, it would seem that a few of their generals that were taken out were located by Ukrainian intelligence after using mobile phones to communicate. Russian military comms seem a disaster at the moment and their much vaunted cyber capabilities have been found to be not much use in this conflict.

In reply to wintertree:

I think the west will keep the Ukraine on a very short lead when it comes to taking the war onto Russian territory.

In reply to wintertree:

Have you followed this chap on twitter, Kamil Galeev, who was at the Wilson Center for a bit and is a researcher and journo? He seems to be someone who does know what he is talking about when it comes to Russian state-society relationships. His twitter thread on the role the ethnic minorities in Russian the army was really interesting, and when I've looked at film clips going around showing Russian troops up close (not too many unsurprisingly) it is noticeable that many that you often see non-ethnic Russian troops. Some of the stories of Russian dead identified by the Ukrainians reflect a similar thing which suggests Galeev really is onto something. https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1506479259866394625#

Anyway, when you said:

I thought maybe they don't really need to if loads of the folk dying are coming from small towns and cities in Siberia or the far east that we have never heard of.

In reply to TobyA:

A couple of the other people I'm following have recommended a some pieces from Galeev which I've read;  CNN have also commented at least once on the apparent ethnic makeup of of the lower level Russian troops.

I don't know enough about Russia to grok the consequences of this; you're probably right that this ethnic selection works in their favour.  I imagine it's not good for cohesion in the lower population eastern areas, whose military hardware has been drawn down for this fight.  

But they seem to be going to extraordinary efforts to hide the scale of the deaths from their population, various suggestions that they're doing a lot of the medical treatment of evacuated wounded in Belarus to help segment information out of Russia.  

It seems there is no-one Putin won't visit brutality on in this.  Horrific.

In reply to wintertree:

 That is precisely the point I was making in reply to someone telling people to go and fight earlier this week.  Various people thought it unlikely that intelligence gained from insecure practices might have resulted in some mass casualties.  Unfortunately this very scenario has happened many many times over the decades (British soldiers could be killed after plain VHF signals could be heard on 405 line Band 1 TV sets which shared the same spectrum - The IRA specialised in this, even before scanners came in in the 70s)  To avoid this the army had to use A43 UHF airband ground to air manpacks for ground based comms as on Bloody Sunday even thoughthey weren't suited to the task but were thought to be more secure (plain amplitude modulation).  This is probably why BAOFENG style comms by the Russians make the Ukraine defenders happy.

Unless you have effective combat skills and physique or humanitarian or medical skills you're likely to cost Ukraine food, resources, casualties through poor COMSEC and information leakage and generally a liability.  Someone with current skills and fighting fit plus good knowledge of how to stay out of sight - fine.

Still going to cost Ukraine territorial defence time rations etc and someone to mind you because of lack of local/cultural/language knowledge

In reply to wercat:

+1

In reply to jimtitt:

I think it is obviously trying to do this or it would have happened already.

But I can't think of a country in recent times which has invaded another country at this scale and hasn't had 'terrorist' attacks on its civilians.  Logistically, with long land borders and several percent of Russia's population of Ukrainian descent Ukraine has every chance of taking the war into Russia.

At the moment Zelensky's communications skill and popularity and discipline of the Ukrainians have stopped this happening but tens of millions of people have been hurt by Russia, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of assault rifles and thousands of man launched missiles being supplied and plenty of explosives available.  The chance of small groups eventually taking some of that into Russia, with or without support from the top leaders, is very high.

In reply to jimtitt:

Early reports of a stores depot exploding on the Russian side of the border.  We’ll have to wait and see how the reporting develops.

https://mobile.twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1508878067468546049

In reply to wintertree:

I reckon it's more likely to be Russian incompetence than a Ukrainian cross-border, at least one sanctioned by the Govt. Too much to lose that way don't you reckon?

Of course I have no idea, but it just doesn't make political sense 

In reply to TobyA:

Why not? A well aimed strike against a military supply depot is a legitimate target.  Politically there is no reason for them to fight purely within their borders and not attack military targets outside especially given that Russia have been using stand off air launched weapons. If they are going to attack inside their own borders why shouldnt Ukraine return the favour?

Thats said I wouldnt rule out incompetence given the performance to date.

In reply to mondite:

It would feed putins rhetoric that Ukraine was threatening their borders etc.. but there comes a time when needs must. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Putin's rhetoric is purely for domestic consumption, the rest of the world is aware of the true situation.

He's started a war with another nation, including attacking purely civilian targets. Ukraine is well within their rights to halt those attacks by attacking military targets in Russia.

In reply to Ridge:

Of course, but not giving him stuff that he can show to his own population helps them hopefully turn against him quicker. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

It's a fair point, but he's probly showing them pictures of dead Ukrainian civilians and telling them they're Russians killed by Ukrainians.

In reply to Ridge:

I think the logic of the situation is that it is necessary for Ukraine to demonstrate that it can shell or fire rockets into Russia. An end game where Russia shells and fires rockets from its territory or ships into Ukraine at will but Ukraine does not respond in kind is not stable.

   The stalemate situation that you see in several parts of the world where there's a grumbling border dispute and a war that never formally ended requires that both sides have the capability to fire across the static line of control but largely choose not to do so.

In reply to Ridge:

I'm not sure if that's really true. In Finnish expat groups I'm still part of or I still read, I've noticed people from African, Indian and Far Eastern origins who are all very "understanding" of Russia and Putin. Superficially it's seems mainly based on anti-Americanism, mixed with a bit of legacy Soviet third world-ism. So maybe more that they just view the invasion very differently, rather than don't know what is going on.

My understanding is although life isn't easy as a Black person in Russia, still lots of African students study in Russia, just like we've seen lots of overseas students having to escape from the big cities in Ukraine. I heard that Kharkiv university alone had something like 20,000 foreign students - a huge number anyway. So there are still significant links between Russia and various African and Asian countries. The reactions of the South African, Indian and Chinese governments to the invasion point to this.

In reply to Ridge:

I did wonder whether NATO would allow itself to attack identified Libyan/Syrian troops in Ukraine as that is not an attack on Russia in any sense of the word but purely helping a neighbour overcome a terrorist threat.

Will we soon be in the age of Drones/missiles that can target specific linguistic traffic?

They present an intelligence threat to Ukraine as they may not speak Russian or adhere to Russian communication patterns and hence may be less visible and predictable

In reply to mondite:

There are lots of political reasons not to, there might even be some legal reasons not to - although I'll leave that to the international lawyers, it always sounded very much angels on a pinhead stuff to me when they got going.

The political reasons not to are to maintain significant sympathy from the neutral governments and peoples - to give nothing to support Putin's nazi smears. I doubt anyone thinks the Ukrainian forces are going to turn out to act 100% whiter than white (i.e. the UA govt saying they are investigating seriously the video of the possible POWs being shot in the legs, and they will punish perpetrators if it turns out to be true), but it seems the Ukrainians are doing a bloomin' good job of staying on moral (very) high ground in comparison to looting invaders in a clear war of aggression. 

Fighting cross borders has significant risks of losing that high ground. Remember when at the height of the Iraq war, loads of Americans and allies were getting blown to pieces by shaped charge IEDs that there was no doubt were coming over the border from Iran. The US was happy to kill Revolutionary Guard forces in Iraq but didn't attack over the border to stop the weapons coming in. There might have been covert attacks but I'm sure they were done with proxies to maintain deniability.

In 39-40 there was huge sympathy in the UK for Finland fighting Russia, but in 41, once Finland had taken back the lost areas from summer 1940, the Finnish army crossed the old border into what had always been Russia, and Britain declared war on Finland. You can read Churchill's private letter to Mannerheim (they were friendly) pleading with him to stop his forces so this could be avoided here: http://heninen.net/sopimus/kirjecm_e.htm 

In reply to wercat:

Libyan/Syrian troops reckon there is a 10% chance of coming out alive from fighting in Ukraine despite the high wages so not sure that NATO really need to be involved.Ukranians are a tough lot and I just do not reckon those from Syria/Libya will do that well in such a hostile environemnt.

In reply to TobyA:

Your political and historical knowledge of Finland continues to enrich these forums.

I do wonder if Finland will ever join NATO, tough decision.

In reply to neilh:

I certainly hope it turns out that way.  I hope they aren't being used as "code talkers" or to take advantage of terror cell skills

though I suppose the Russian Federation has plenty of languages to choose from

as for the cross border incident, we'd need to know by whom and why the shell/missile was fired before judging whether it is a staged incident or not, or even a sabotage attack by people on the ground

In reply to TobyA:

Not really the same thing since Iran was also keeping some deniability in play and wasnt launching missiles across the border.

Its not the first incident either. There have been at least one reported attack on a Russian air base close to the border.

Attacking civilian targets or launching a ground offensive I would agree would lose the high ground but attacking military targets which are being used either directly to attack you or indirectly by providing supplies is a fair target in my mind.

Possibly the primary counter argument would be it could then have Putin respond by attacking the Polish supply areas on the same principle.

In reply to mondite:

it's not equivalent or the same in any principle to attack Poland as NATO is not in armed conflict with Russia.  Should Ukraine have already, or in future, attack targets in Russia it is no widening of the conflict in progress.

In reply to wercat:

Yes its not a very good counter argument but about the best there is.

In reply to neilh:

My old mate and colleague Charly is counting the probable votes inside the Eduskunta (parliament - 200 MPs)  https://twitter.com/charlyjsp/status/1508692510473863168?t=mJctkTZW02DM8FmF...

For 78, against 11. The other 111 don't know or not saying yet. It's a huge political change for many of the parties to support membership publicly - even if lots of MPs would tell you off the record, over a glass of wine after some seminar or whatever, that they personally supported it. The PM (SDP) is sounding reticent, the President (National Coalition - centre right), that's not massively surprising with their party histories. There is an Atlanticist wing of the SDP, just like there is in Labour, but in the SDP it has been in retreat somewhat since the 90s I think it's fair to say.

In reply to TobyA:

Certainly a leading contender, isn't it...

I think they have a lot more to loose by a cross-border attack into Belarus as so far those troops are staying out of Ukraine.  We'll see if the retreating groups resupply, reform and return to the Kyiv area, or if they move towards the east.  

One thing I learnt from Covid was that my sense for matters political is not good, at all.  I can see the obvious sense in destroying weapons being used to level their cities and kill their civilians, and I can see the risk of Russia escalating.  I also think there's increasing signs of disquiet and disagreement in the levels below Putin, and a few embarrassing military losses in their own territory might push those wavering in either direction.

I can see ways it makes sense politically, and others where it doesn't.  I don't think I have any capability to judge there.

In reply to Ridge:

Much of the English speaking world is; the situation in China gives me the heebie-jeebies as they continue to endorse the Russian perspective in the state sanctioned media, and as their social media goes in to a bit of a "me too" frenzy on endorsing the Russian view.  Closer to home, Serbia rumbles along below the surface.  My very limited experience there is of highly educated professionals needing no excuse to adopt a strong anti-NATO stance.

In reply to TobyA:

How much trade is there betweeen Finland and Russia these days?

I suspect that the Russia army  ithreatening to invade Finland is not viewed as a great concern anymore.

In reply to TobyA: Russia sometimes talks about reasons that would allow them to use nuclear weapons.  The first three would  be to respond to a nuclear threat, the fourth is to counter a conventional attack that threatens Russian territory. So that's one very good reason not to strike Russian territory. On the other hand , while Putin likes to act unpredictably (to be polite) to keep his opponents guessing I'm pretty sure he understands that using a tactical nuclear weapon will have very big consequences, probably not limited to just Ukrainian forces and that Russia likely cannot resist.

In reply to neilh:

Less than before! Sanctions seem to be biting https://yle.fi/news/3-12382671

My impression is that it has been quite significant recently, tourism included, but has obviously fallen off a cliff since the war started. Getting the train to Helsinki was one of the main ways Russians were still getting out to Europe but the last train was last week. Poignant article in Politico on it https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/03/29/last-train-out-of-russia-... (although YLE mentions today there are still bus links interestingly https://yle.fi/news/3-12381622 not sure how it all works with the sanctions).

Stopping that is the very fundamental core of Finnish security policy, and shapes all aspects of it - maintaining universal male conscription, buying F35s, not signing the Ottawa convention on land mines, etc. Georgia 2008 and Crimea 2014 were much bigger events for Finland than say here in the UK.

In reply to wintertree:

Talking of politics I just heard a jaw-dropping drama on R4 "4AM Kiev is bombed".  Every single good guy Ukrainian (mainly cops)  was voiced by a Scottish actor and anyone remotely Russian linked or sympathising by an English voiced actor (eg Russian mafia black marketeer etc).  A depressing and upsetting stunt by someone for the BBC

Let's Name the guilty:

"One story from Ukraine. In Jonathan Myerson’s quick-response drama we meet some of the police officers in Kyiv who are dealing with the shocking events currently taking place.

Like so many in Ukraine they must consider how to fight for their country and what it is to be Ukrainian.

This is a fiction, informed by real events, written and recorded as the invasion has been taking place.

Oleksiy Gordon Peaston
Polina Pearl Appleby
Super Sandy Grierson
Marichka Alyth Ross
Holub Nabil Eluahabi
Denysenko Noof Ousellam
Runner Charlie Archer
Titles Inna Bagoli Goncharenko

Other parts played by members of the company

Written by Jonathan Myerson
Sound design by Alisdair McGregor
Produced and Directed by Boz Temple-Morris

A Holy Mountain production for BBC Radio 4."

our SNP Edinburgh correspondent should be orgasmic

In reply to neilh:

They’re certainly expressing “fairly firm” opinions on who Finland chooses to associate with…..

“It is obvious that [if] Finland and Sweden join NATO, which is a military organisation to begin with, there will be serious military and political consequences,” Sergei Belyayev, head of the Russian foreign ministry’s European department, told the Russian news agency Interfax.

 “[It] would require changing the whole palette of relations with these countries and require retaliatory measures,” he added, echoing a threat made by Russia the day after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February.

In reply to AJM:

Class. Well people have at least woken up to what they are dealing with.  

In reply to AJM:

Someone feels threatened by you and looks to join a bigger group for defence.

Do you

a)dial things back so they stopped feeling so threatened.

b)increase the threats?

In reply to wercat:

This is weird? What exactly upsets you so much? If the play was done in Russian it wouldn't have made much sense to most of us, and even fewer would have been able to discern Ukrainian Russian from Russian Russian (although interestingly my old Russian colleague told me they have nothing comparable to regional accents, in Russia at least?). So they use different accents in English to distinguish between characters? It's not like R4 afternoon plays have that big audiences anyway but I doubt it's going to spark a revolution of R4 listeners screaming "OMG! I never realised we were the baddies until I heard this!" and rising up to free Alba.

I'm sure TominEd will just be confused as he thinks the BBC is the mouthpiece of Tory Unionist extreme right propaganda! 

In reply to TobyA:

Well, they could easily have used British accents for the Ukrainians, and Russian accents for the Russians. So there does seem to be a bit of an 'Evil English Empire' spin going on.

In reply to TobyA:

BBC TV news in Scotland and BBC Radio Scotland are absolutely without question Tory Unionist Royalist propaganda.

Radio 4, who the f*ck cares.  It has no influence on Scottish politics.  I have no opinion, I don't listen to radio and if I did it wouldn't be radio 4.

In reply to TobyA:

There are regional accents in Russia but generally less marked and less varied than here. I think the Moscow accent is increasingly taking over, so people increasingly sound the same. There is a Ukrainian Russian accent but not all Ukranians have it. A common distinction which is sometimes referenced in the media (eg in the discussion of the recent prisoner abuse video) is that Ukranians pronounce the letter g more like an h (sort of in between, there isn’t an equivalent sound in English).

In reply to captain paranoia:

British actors doing bad Russian accents? I guess the whole point is huge numbers of Ukrainians speak the same language as Russians, it could have been American actors and British actors, but that would have involved recruiting a bunch of Americans at short notice. 

It's not like there isn't something behind the whole Britain/England and Empire idea is there?

In reply to Misha:

Thanks Misha, I figured you'd be the UKCer most likely to have something useful to say on this! It's fascinating that some from Saint Petersburg and Moscow don't sound that different? Arkady, my old friend, claimed it's hard to tell someone from Vladivostok from someone from Moscow which seemed amazing. Do people from the the republics who have other mother tongues sound very different when speaking Russian? Chechens, Ingush, Dagestanis etc?

In reply to wercat:

I listened to it and didn't read into it anything about Scottish independence.  It's common practice in radio drama to use British regional accents to depict regional French or Russian accents. 

In this case, I guess they could have used Liverpudlian or Geordie for the Russians but maybe there was a point about them having an obviously capital city accent.  I think you are overreacting and, anyway, the dodgy Russian petty criminal turns out to be a good Ukrainian and goes off to fight the invaders doesn't he?

I though it was pretty good.  It has some implausibly articulate and well-informed police officers (especially the woman) but makes some excellent points about Ukrainians facing up to their Nazi collaborator history rather than burying it as happened under Soviet rule. 

In reply to TobyA:

I see Mauripol is militarily hanging on. Those 3,500 soldiers there must be better trained and equiped for this onslaught than the Russians thought.Putins call to surrender agian last night does not seem to be working, and I am not surpprised.

I wonder how long they can hold out for.Another couple of weeks will be a real blow to the Russians.

In reply to neilh:

Motivated and well protected in/under the city.

Presumably they're not currently returning much fire since they don't need to, their very presence as a motivated and dug in fighting force within the city makes taking it extremely costly for Russia. Access to food and water will presumably be the limiting factor, that sounds grim from civilian reports.

Of course the Russians won't truly know what state the Ukrainian forces are in until they test them.

There seems very little chance of Ukrainian re-supply or a counter-offensive so they'll probably be starved out by the time any peace process concludes. Russia will get the ruins and its coastal corridor eventually one way or another.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

The port is still intact though and has not been shelled.So it could go on a long time.

In reply to jkarran:

I had a friend, sadly recently deceased, who'd seen violence, bloodshed and death close-up in various trouble spots he'd been sent to in the 1960s and 1970s (from the S Atlantic to Borneo) and one thing he said on a number of occasions - The man you've got to be really scared of, the most dangerous you can meet is someone who has nothing to lose by fighting

In reply to neilh:

But the Russian navy has uncontested control of access to the Sea of Azov in general, Mariupol in particular and can shell anything docking there so it's useless to the besieged for re-supply whether it's physically intact or not.

jk

In reply to wercat:

I don't doubt it for a second but starvation does inevitably eventually rob that man of his capacity to fight effectively.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Not sure thats relevant if they were well supplied in the first place.

In reply to jkarran:

The Ukrainians had years to think about this and prepare.  Quite possibly they've got stores prepositioned and tunnels/bunkers ready for a long siege. I wouldn't rule out them having tunnels or some other way of resupplying. 

If you were a senior soldier educated in tactics by the US or UK and studied recent sieges of cities vs armies and looked at places like Gaza and various cities in Iraq and Syria and had access to state of the art weapons and the resources of a national army what would you do?

In reply to captain paranoia:

Hollywood trope.. English accent:Bad Guy

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well I guess we'll see but I think there's a fair bit of wishful thinking in that.

jk

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What, tunnels from somewhere in the countryside under 30km or more of Russian territory to a sandy swamp riddled with rivers? That the Russians aren't going to notice and bomb out of existence.

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

Anglo-Norman accent: Bad guy

I’ve recently read “the shortest history of England” - makes some fascinating points including ones around this.

I think TiE would enjoy it a lot, it might even persuade him to stop blaming the English

In reply to jimtitt:

The perimeter of a city is tens of kilometres of fairly complex terrain.  The Russians can't be everywhere and they are facing sufficient resistance that they feel the need to dig trenches. 

The question is if you were a senior officer who had studied these things and had 6 years to think about it after the 2014 invasion of Crimea could you figure out a way of hardening Mariupol against a siege and a way to resupply through an encirclement.  A tunnel doesn't need to cross 30km of 'Russian territory' it needs to get small groups of fighters past the front line of the Russian encirclement.  

The fact that Mariupol is holding out so long makes me think that they did think about it and whether it is tunnels or some other means they've got a way to resupply.

In reply to jimtitt:

Presumably they got some magic future tunnelling technology from that place that does magic covid technology etc.

Slightly off-topic, but I was amazed to read about the Odessa Catacombs recently - 2,500 km of tunnels made from mining the karst under the city.   

https://leodessa.com/odessa-catacombs/ 

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

And supplies for the few hundred thousand people in the city? Across 60km of Russian controlled territory?

Complex terrain? It's flat cornfields.

In reply to wintertree:

They are cool, one of them had a mafia nightclub in it when I was there. Odessa is lucky as it's got an escarpment between the port and the city and some of the tunnels start there (it's mostly a park full of drug dealers) and presumably where all the stone came from to build everything. Cherson and Mariupol are just hideous Soviet-era industrial cities slammed down in mosquito infested swamps because there are navigable rivers.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

It just makes me think it's very dangerous and costly to take a city hellbent on resistance. Tanks lose almost all their advantages once they become hemmed in blinded by buildings, impeded by barricades and ruins, vulnerable to even simple weapons like mines and RPGs fired from cover let alone the guided missiles used to such effect elsewhere. Infantry in the open is vulnerable to snipers and entrenched troops from every angle. The remains of reinforced concrete buildings make for effective protection, near impenetrable to all but the heaviest weapons and most of those will be silenced if and when the Russians move in since they appear to lack the clear communications necessary to call in effective air or artillery support.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Artillery or air support is irrelevant for the defenders as the Russians are not wanting to destroy the port.So there are intact buildings not touched by the Russians as they want a functioning port .

There always seem to be ways in and out even in sieges.

In reply to jkarran:

Difficult for the political strategy guys as well, Mariupol is politically divided ( a nice way of saying there's a hell of a lot of pro-Russian and seperatist sentiment there) and the city is owned and run by pro-Russian oligarchs. So wholesale slaughter of the civilian population isn't good, increasing pressure for the city to surrender without a total bloodbath has got to be the aim. There are reasons why half the population didn't get the f#ck out at the start.

This is where Selensky has to start thinking hard, heroically standing to the last Ukranian doesn't reflect the political reality in his own country.

In reply to jimtitt:

Difficult one that, but you do question if that pro Russian sentiment exists to a greater extent now.Considering how many people have migrated to Russia and how many to Europe it suggests its far weaker pro Russian than people make out.

IFor Ukraine it is no good if they become landlocked there.It also ties up more Russian trrops there.So perhaps it works in Zelenskys favour.

Besides that they are throwing a snub to Putins demands.

The Russians if  they take it are going to be faced with a huge bill to rebuild.

Anyway- whose politcial reality-Zelensky or Putins. Putins and his denazification and restoring the Soviet empire reality? Zelenskys view on this wins hands down.

In reply to neilh:

The port and its infrastructure is just one part of the city but the value of it won't protect Mariupol's defenders forever if they stand between Russia and its Crimean land link.

Without artillery and or air support available it's going to be even deadlier than it would already have been for the Russians to take the city street by street. The Russians in the south can be relatively easily resupplied they can just dig in and wait.

Maybe for the odd sneaky individual on foot, not for 100s of tons of supplies. 'Sieges' like Gaza that have been ongoing for decades are incomparable.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

But they are not digging in and waiting. They need to take it and cannot just sit back and wait.Huge pressure on the Russians that is why Putin is saying surrender.

Time will tell. And another week goes by and Muripol still not taken.

In reply to jimtitt:

The reports coming from inside Mariupol suggest there is now a lot less pro Russian sentiment than before for obvious reasons! I've heard some comments that were very bitter - I suppose someone you looked up to killing your family members is somehow even worse than someone you always hated doing the same.

It's more than a bit ironic that Putin has done more to push Ukrainian speakers (many from the west it seems) who were very sceptical of Zelenskyy towards him, as well as pushing Russian speakers who were either neutral or sympathetic to Russia away from Russia. The BBC Russia monitoring chap (he's a Russian speaking Ukrainian) who is now hosting Ukrainecast said his parents who have never spoken to him in Ukrainian in his life, have now started only speaking to him in Ukrainian! 

In reply to TobyA:

And you can understand it.Putin is not going to compensate you directly  for your wrecked car or job.

In reply to neilh:

The economic pressure isn't coming off Russia this summer whatever happens, probably not until Putin has gone or has toughed it out for at least a couple of years post ceasefire. Hearing reports of people fighting for food, drinking from puddles and drains during brief breaks in the shelling the Russian troops have more time than the people they've encircled.

After a month shivering and starving in their basements under Russian fire I wonder how much pro-Kremlin sentiment is really left.

jk

In reply to neilh:

This is the billion dollar question that won't be answered for decades, if the Donbas region becomes a seperate state or as part of a Ukranian republic then the battle will be to see whether pro-Russia or allied to the EU was a better bet. There's still plenty of pro-communist sentiment just north of me in Germany!

In reply to jkarran:

Grim and horrifying. More to come I am afraid to say.

In reply to jkarran:

the Russians determined ways to empty defenders from rubble in Syria without tanks and infantry

the tide is said to have been turned in 13 days there by the means employed

In reply to wercat:

Yes, Putin even if he loses most of his ground forces retains the ability to 'win' this war by a number of grim and increasingly dangerous means. I don't think we should kid ourselves he won't, his bridges back to a normal position on the world stage are burned. 

Jk

In reply to wercat:

An obvious way is chemical weapons.  But at least up to now they don't have the nerve for that tactic in Ukraine.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, people from the Caucasus and Central Asia could have an accent but it depends how they learned Russian. Same in the Baltic states. I think the UK is unusual in having such a variety of strong regional accents within a relatively small geographic area. 

In reply to TobyA:

The Russian ammo depot explosion was referred to as an accident due to negligence on the Ukrainian armed forces Facebook page. I suppose they would say that but equally Russia hasn’t made any accusations. An accident is credible as there have been reports of them using old ammo.

In reply to neilh:

If they opt to rebuild. Do you think Putin cares? The breakaway Donbas ‘republics’ haven’t exactly prospered since 2014. There’s a fundamental difference between the Russian government’s mindset and what we’re used to. They don’t care about people.

In reply to jkarran:

There was an interesting quote in a recent BBC article from a Mariupol refugee - they said some of their neighbours claimed the bombardment was from Ukrainian forces. Clearly anecdotal so wouldn’t attach too much value to this but makes you wonder what some people are thinking. 

In reply to Misha:

A couple of the reliable OSINT Twitter folks are (re)posting Russian language news stories and videos of a fuel depot also in Belgorod now on fire.  16 million litres aflame and as much again at risk, multiple videos of two helicopters departing and photos of spent rockets on the ground.

Once might be carelessness, twice starts to look like a pattern…

In reply to Misha:

If they want to use it as a port ( which is the strageic objective) then they are  going to have to rebuild.Granted it might be smaller.

I agree with the mindset difference.

In reply to Misha:

Poossible though, based on previous wars " friendly" fire happens.It is unfortunately part of war.

In reply to neilh:

The port (and the city) is only of interest because Mariupol is one of Europes largest (if not the largest) steelworks and possibly for some grain exports.

In reply to jimtitt:

 I was  told the steel mills are near Kyiv( 40% of European steel) and boy are we seeing it in steel prices.Some stunning increases.Quotes valid for 24 hours now.Warned about it by my steel supplier right at the beginning.

Either way I agree it is the most important port in that area.

In reply to neilh:

The Acelor plant is at Krywji Rih (the largest in Ukraine) and the Mariupol ones Azovstal, Illich the second largest. The steel industry is concentrated in the south because the coal and iron ore is there. Mostly it is owned by Akhmetov who is a typical pro-Russian oligarch who's company is the largest in the Ukraine wirh a turnover of ca $10bn.

In reply to jimtitt:

One of the machining companys I use also happens to machines railway wheels for Ukraine. Every month a couple of artics come over to his machine shop and he puts them on a big milling machine and back they go to Ukraine.

Business is still going on......

In reply to neilh:

Those railways have been getting a lot of use lately…

In reply to thread:

Really; in reply to several closed threads.

Horrific early reports emerging from population centres following the retreat/rout of Russian troops from the Kyiv area - civilian executions, mass graves, bodies left in the street.  The word people keep falling back to is "Srebrenica".  I know we've had suggestions on here that surrender would be preferable to fighting, and that the damage to civilian buildings was accidental; I don't think the current reports leave any room for doubt about the true intent of deploying the Russian forces; nor is it out of keeping with their prior use in Chechnya and Syria.  What's probably happened and happening around Mariupol; horrific.  

Significant escalations in the level of armaments being sent in from various western nations including vehicles and imminent preparations for Polish tanks, and escalations from Russia on western Ukraine as they now target the railways they no longer need.  If the scale of horrific war crimes coming out now is sustained and verified, it is no longer reasonably possible for anyone to suggest that surrendering eastern parts of Ukraine is anything but a licence to massacre civilians, but the ongoing war to expel the Russians is likely to become increasingly horrific too.

Perhaps the EU shutting off gas imports immediately would be enough to bring Russia to a genuine negotiating table; the only non-nuclear alternative I can see to bringing them there immediately is political pressure backed by threat of immediate and total sanction from China.  China I expect  is more interested in studying modern NATO weapons in action, analysing interesting things Russian forces capture, and re-evaluating their view of how brazenly murderous a nuclear state can act.

In reply to wintertree:

Not Srebenica, Beirut and Syria I think.  But this is nothing more than I expected of an army that included political assassination troops.  We've been seeing this in E Ukraine since 2014 and Chechnya before that.

NATO has failed and seems no longer to understand deterrence though perhaps the sea has changed now

Are Russian weapons uniquely bad or is it just the weapons involved - as I've said before I've never seen pictures before of so little left of so many armoured vehicles.  I know some are light to be airportable and have thin/aluminium armour but they appear to be just scrap.  Whole areas of the country reduced to what looks like vast landfill sites.

If I were in Ukraine now at my age I would feel utter despair and want to leave as the damage is too great,, I believe, to be rebuilt in my lifetime.  There is going to be a humanitarian problem there on a scale unknown in Europe since 1945 for a long long time.

The reason I don't find the number of civilian casualties so high is that this battle was going on 12 years before I was born and something forgotten by many who remember D-Day

https://www.normandythenandnow.com/caen-before-and-after-the-battle-of-1944...

In reply to wintertree:

A gas embargo is a two-edged sword, not only do the Ukraine stop receiving the considerable revenues for transit they would lose all of their gas supply which would undoubtedly damage them more than Russia and the EU. In the longer term it would possibly be even harder as the pipeline is only economic due to the transit payments and potentially be cut off completely, why the Ukraine opposed North Stream 2 so vehemently.

More interesting would be to know what plan the UK and USA had to fulfill their obligations under the 1994 memorandum, surely Boris has pulled out the dusty document and put it in action by now? Wercat thinks NATO have failed but they never signed up to anything to do with the Ukraine (and couldn't) but the UK did.

In reply to jimtitt:

You may note I did not advocate for a full gas embargo, I gave it as one of the few examples of actions I thought could bring Russia to honest negotiations for an end to this.

Im terms of a two-edged sword however, I do not feel it is appropriate for me to compare loss of Ukrainian transit revenue with the horrors being visited on them at a scale not seen in Europe in a long, long time.

Nor do I think the long-term situation you raise is that relevant to the immediate term; gas purchasing and transit agreements can be re-negotiated after the war stops, the dead can't be re-animated.  

My limited understanding is that the UK and the USA are in keeping of their obligations, which are not to act as aggressor in Ukraine.  As I understand it, it does not obligate either party to enter into war on Ukrainian territory against an aggressor 3rd party.  Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding - and the expert analyses I have read - and you can educate me?

You also seem to be implying that you think the UK and USA can act overtly and at scale militarily in Ukraine without escalating to the point of the use of non-conventional weapons; perhaps I misunderstand.  This would certainly be a minority position.  From my view there's been definite boundary pushing from the west in terms of finding Putin's red line; tangle horrific things are happening in the mean time and are balanced against intangible odds of far more horrific things.  It's an all round awful situation.

The UK and the USA have led the equipping and training of the Ukrainian forces over the last 8 years, and continued to provide defensive and offensive weapons both before and after the outbreak of hostilities.  I can think of some other countries that pledged weapons after the invasion, where it then turned out that the weapons were junk-grade ex-soviet era parts that were supposed to have been destroyed and that were in such an unfit state they were judged unsafe for transport let alone use.  Frankly though there's not much point in comparing because there's more to all this than we can see, and some countries are being more coy publicly about their arms donations whilst others almost appear to be trying to maximise the marketing/sales opportunity on some modern but largely unproven weapons systems. 

Bit odd how you've taken my observations of what I think it might take to bring Putin in to honest negotiations (or more realistically to turn his state security apparatus on him and his senior staff) and turned it in to another national pissing contest.  I thought we had enough of that with Covid.   As with that, everyone is loosing - but some are loosing far, far more in ways for which restitution can never be made. 

I agree that NATO are operating within their remit.  As I have said, as I understand the 1994 agreement the UK is operating within the framework of that as well.  It is not a mutual defence pact.

From my view, the real failure here is with the UN - again - and ongoing appeasement of China from many nations who are utterly dependant on Chinese goods.   

In reply to wintertree:

The Russian Federation broke the terms of the treaty, the question was what was plan B in this event for the other two signatories?

In reply to wintertree:

Interesting to see this on the BBC news feed. Whether it will come to anything is another question. I don’t know if it’s actually feasible to stop the energy imports, particularly gas. Perhaps it would be as we’re going into spring now. Orban’s re-election could also present an issue for a united EU response (Putin’s last friend in the EU?).

“EU should consider ban on Russian gas, says German defence minister

The European Union should consider a ban on gas imports from Russia, German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht has said. 

It comes after alleged atrocities by Russian forces in the Ukrainian town of Bucha attracted widespread condemnation from world leaders.

Speaking to German public broadcaster ARD, Ms Lambrecht said: "There has to be a response. Such crimes must not remain unanswered."

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also said Putin and his backers would "feel the consequences" of their actions.”

Get building those windfarms…

In reply to wintertree:

The Bucha scrap metal alley may be light airborne vehicles (I’m no expert) but there are plenty of photos of T72s and the occasional T80 which have been destroyed, sometimes with their turrets blown off. I think it demonstrates the effectiveness of modern anti tank weapons. Mostly NLAWs, Javelins, Bayraktars and artillery. Jets and helicopters not so much perhaps, simply because the Ukrainians don’t have that many of them. Makes me wonder whether hypothetically I’d rather be on foot than sat in an APC during urban combat.

In reply to wercat:

If you think that a significant NATO deterrence would have made a difference in this situation, think again. Cold War history is rife with (proxy) conflicts fought between the two super powers and neither of them stepped in directly to solve the conflict. Maybe if UKR was a NATO member, but that ship has sailed long ago.

Due to MAD, the consequences would simply be too big. This is THE worst side effect of MAD as a doctrine and it is one of the ways the world has become less stable over the last half century - as soon as a nuclear super power becomes involved in a conflict, all the other ones can only impose sanctions and speak up, but actually intervening is just too risky. 

Edit: I do agree with you that NATO should do much more to defend any would-be agressor from invading its territory, aside from relying on its nuclear deterrence. But I don't think that would have made a difference in this current situation. 

In reply to Misha:

Yes, but have you noticed how many tanks (not turreted APCs or SP Artillery) have apparently had all of their side armour burned away or blown to pieces in such a way that the vehicle is totally wrecked.  I don't think the turret being blown off is all the weapon either - don't forget the turret crew are just above a mass of high explosive and propellant which doesn't cook off slowly (as witnesss the many drone videos).  That force alone would lift the turret off complete with cooked crew fragments.

in one or two photos of less destroyed vehicles you can see the ring of outward pointed rounds for the autoloader for the main armament

As for being in an APC, no thanks,

There must be a lot of well fed dogs

In reply to VictorM:

The worst to date. It will be many many orders of magnitude worse when we eventually release our weapons.

jk

In reply to wercat:

They do rust really quickly.

In reply to VictorM:

I think NATO has failed because I do not believe that Putin was committed to an invasion while he built his forces up.  He was testing NATO as he is an opportunist, effectively a Blitzkrieg player, constantly probing and testing the enemy and using force when he discovers weakness.

The NATO countries repeatedly gave away too much information about action they would NOT take, ie the limits on any consequence there would be for Putin if he committed to battle.  Once they allowed that commitment to be cost free he had carte blanche to go.  Do not give an enemy evidence of your intentions, a failure which eliminates deterrence.

Also, as in the game of OXO, take the first corner.  In this case had NATO had the resolve to place troops (battle groups) in Ukraine on invitation (and even with every UNEXPRESSED intention to remove them at the first danger of contact with the enemy) Putin would have had to think again.  The consequences of his first move would have become incalculable to him with very little danger to NATO given that it could have been a bluff in strength.  A cheap fast invasion would no longer have been conceivable and his decisions would have had to be reconsidered because of the lack of offered weakness, even invitation.

Plus, NATO would have had something to offer Putin as a "show victory" by withdrwaing in return for him standing down and not invading.  You do not deter by being weak and particularly not by constantly announcing to the enemy that you will be weak.  That is how Cuba worked out because the US had something to offer Russia as a victory (missiles in Turkey)

In that the massed forces of NATO have failed to prevent terrible harm  inflicted on a friendly neighbour by an aggressor it has failed

in terms of strategy it has failed to do anything other than allow Putin the initiative at all times

I say that as a lifelong supporter of NATO, 6 at the time of Cuba and 12 at the time of the invasion of Czechslovakia

In reply to Misha:

This was already the case in the 1980s. Predicted survival times for APCs and tanks near the Iron curtain was measured in minutes.

CB

In reply to wercat:

Another possibility is Putin, who is no fool but having gone full-on isolated dictator over recent years is making good* decisions on bad information as everyone varnishes the truth for him and insulates him from their failures. In that situation a large deployment of NATO troops to Ukraine as tensions escalated through 2021 into 22 could have been not the sobering warning you hope but an absolutely catastrophic provocation leading to a direct, rapidly escalating and unstoppable clash. The reality is it didn't happen and we just don't know, it could have gone either way or have played out as you hope it would. Given the stakes this isn't the worst possible outcome by a very long shot.

* good for his strategic aims

jk

In reply to wercat:

From what I have read a major part of the problem is the Russian vehicle design and lack of internal protection for the ammunition. Western tanks are designed with the ammunition separated out into separate containers which are often equipped with blow out panels. So only part of the ammunition load is likely to expload and the energy will be directed outwards.

Russian designers didnt take that approach for various reasons (including allowing auto loaders and hence less crew) and so the ammunition isnt very well separated. Hence if it does get hit the entire load gets set off.

There was also a claim there looked to be some really bad construction. Perfectly straight break lines which were obviously along the weld points and so forth.

In reply to cb294:

One of my buddies drove a tank transporter in his German national service back in the 80's and in the war games against the Warsaw Pact battle tanks were given three shots and then considered destroyed.

In reply to wercat:

Not really as Russia has already been in Crimea and the Eastern part of Ukriane since 2014.

2014 was the failure.

In reply to neilh:

Oh yes, it's been a line of failures, fully agree

In reply to wercat:

The Ukraine didn't invite NATO troops (and getting a concensus extremely improbable) so your argument is meaningless.

In reply to jimtitt:

no, not meaningless at all but the political element does mean that failure is if not inevitable then likely

In reply to wercat:

It's meaningless because you ignore that the countries in NATO are democracies. Moving three battlegroups (a grandiose term for maybe 1,000 troops on a good day) means the national governments of the countries who's troops would be involved and the terms of engagement openly debated and voted on. That is, there is no bluff available, NATO's reaction is in the public domain.

In reply to wercat:

They are more misjudgements though , as is usually the case.  
 

In reply to TobyA:

Still no sign of the Ukranians defending Muripol surrendering to the Russians.

Must be really annoying for Putin.

In reply to neilh:

I saw some pictures on twitter last night that purported to show surrendering Ukrainian marines in Mariupol. There was some discussion as to whether they really did show that, but some accounts who are normally pretty committed to not just sharing anything, also said that marines had surrendered after running out of all food, water and ammunition. Some suggestion that the Azov units of the national guard there are continuing to fight. You wonder if it's true whether that's because they feel they have no choice considering either a) they are neo-Nazis and expect no quarter if they surrender or b) they are not any longer (all?) neo-Nazis but know that Russia has based much of their justification for invading on them being so, and therefore expect no quarter if they surrender.

edit: OK - lots of confusion - see https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1511238802701959171 and replies below.

In reply to TobyA:

The BBC said a few days ago that it was just Azov units there.

In reply to neilh:

Just edited my reply with a link!

In reply to wercat:

Yes, that was my impression too.  Back when this all kicked off Ben Wallace lost no opportunity to announce all the things UK and NATO wouldn't be doing in response. 

In an odd way, this was one situation where Boris's tendency to bluster about things he doesn't really understand was quite helpful.  Putin couldn't be quite sure that he wouldn't do something rash.  Jens Stoltenberg was being fairly poker-faced, the Americans were taking nothing off the table, but Wallace immediately put all his cards on the table, face up. 

In reply to TobyA:

A brave/stupid (depending on your point of view) contribution from the Czech Republic and not so below the radar now.

“The Czech Republic has been sending tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to Ukraine, in a below-the-radar bid to bolster the eastern European nation’s capacity to resist Russia’s invasion.”

https://www.ft.com/content/1aec644e-baf7-4759-b982-e71f9eb5e948

In reply to Mark Edwards:

could that be sensible in that they might be legacy vehicles with which the Ukraine forces might be familiar and not require retraining?

In reply to Mark Edwards:

You need to look at the way equipment supply is being coordinated across NATO to avoid duplication and wasted effort  to figure that it in turn other countries will be doing the same with their Soviet supplied equipment when asked to do so.

In reply to TobyA:

Yes, both good points. But, IIRC, there was some uncertainty about supplying Starstreak missiles as they could be classified as offensive weapons instead of defensive weapons. I can’t see how tanks etc can be classed as defensive when MiG’s aren’t. Mission creep?

In reply to Mark Edwards:

Let’s stop pussyfooting around. Ukraine has  to defeat Putin.it’s that simple. 

In reply to neilh:

I rather wish people would confront the stark reality a bit more. We're dealing with Hitler Mk II; perhaps without so much anti-Semitism but with nuclear weapons.

Houston, we have a problem.