Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

[afadeev]

the highest ranking Russian official to meet Xi on the tarmac when he arrived was ... the deputy minister of tourism. Not the foreign minister or Putin himself. That's gonna get noticed and recorded, even though everyone is all smiles in the pictures that get published.

Unless, that is, "minister of tourism" is the new Russian euphemism for "minister of war". There was a Russian official who liked to brag that "Russian tanks don't need visas"

Russian Official: 'Tanks Don't Need Visas'

An outspoken deputy prime minister in charge of Russia's defense sector has dismissed Western concerns over Moscow's increased assertiveness in the Arctic by saying that "tanks don't need visas."

www.defensenews.com

Although, in the best of Russian traditions, that ministry would be called "ministry of peace".



a

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

What boggles my mind is that the highest ranking Russian official to meet Xi on the tarmac when he arrived was ... the deputy minister of tourism. Not the foreign minister or Putin himself. That's gonna get noticed and recorded, even though everyone is all smiles in the pictures that get published.

That really is odd. This whole meeting is about strong China helping to prop up weak Russia who has no other strong allies in the world. Seems like they would want to avoid any kind of perceived slights.

Russia launched this war in an attempt to increase their strength versus the West, and got exactly the opposite. Now they are so weakened, they need to turn to China for help, and most likely in coming years, Russia will be dominated by China. They will be dependent on China economically and maybe militarily.

On the one hand, it’s tempting to laugh at Russia over how this has worked out for Russia. But it would not be a good thing for us if China and Russia were to form a partnership, or even if China were to hold a lot of power over Russia. That’s not a bloc that would work to our advantage.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Why expect rationality from Putin at this point? He seems to continue to feel that others should come to him.
I guess I think Xi is making an earnest effort to steer Putin towards something marginally acceptable before Russia collapses, which would be horrible for China as well.

 

[rocket_troy]

That really is odd. This whole meeting is about strong China helping to prop up weak Russia who has no other strong allies in the world. Seems like they would want to avoid any kind of perceived slights.

Russia launched this war in an attempt to increase their strength versus the West, and got exactly the opposite. Now they are so weakened, they need to turn to China for help, and most likely in coming years, Russia will be dominated by China. They will be dependent on China economically and maybe militarily.

On the one hand, it’s tempting to laugh at Russia over how this has worked out for Russia. But it would not be a good thing for us if China and Russia were to form a partnership, or even if China were to hold a lot of power over Russia. That’s not a bloc that would work to our advantage.

There's still lots of bad blood between China and Russia from the latter 2/3rds of the 1900s. There's no love between the CCP and Russia, but there *is* love between Xi and Russia and I suppose, that's what matters now.

TP

 

[aerostadt]

But they both have lost provinces that they earnestly want back. Not a good combination for the rest of the free world.

 

[Funkworks]

But they both have lost provinces that they earnestly want back. Not a good combination for the rest of the free world.

That is not everyone’s view. Xi’s and Putin’s perhaps, but not those in the provinces. ( if by provinces you mean the territories of Ukraine and Taiwan ).

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I’ve seen a few reports today that the US is going to accelerate providing Abrams tanks to Ukraine.

Originally, the US was going to pay to produce brand new M1A2 tanks for Ukraine, and it was going to take a year and a half or two to build them and ship them. It was considered mostly a sign of commitment to Ukraine’s long-term national security after the war, not so much immediate help for the current war and short-term offensives. But now the US is switching to refurbishing existing M1A1 hulls. It’s not as advanced of a tank, but we can deliver them by fall, which is a lot sooner.

 

[Peartree]

Sure, but which one is Pinky and which is Brain?

What boggles my mind is that the highest ranking Russian official to meet Xi on the tarmac when he arrived was ... the deputy minister of tourism. Not the foreign minister or Putin himself. That's gonna get noticed and recorded, even though everyone is all smiles in the pictures that get published.

I thought that too. Especially when greeting the leader of a nation that operates on a system of honor (face). Being so publicly dishonored did not pass the Chinese without notice.

 

[Peartree]

But they both have lost provinces that they earnestly want back. Not a good combination for the rest of the free world.

Odd thing about that is that one could reasonably argue that despite China's claims, Taiwan has never belonged to what is the new nation of Communist China.

 

[Peartree]

Interesting note today from the British intelligence folks is that all of the Russian convicts that Wagner group recruited with promises of pardon in exchange for six months of service will very soon receive their pardons and go home. This will leave a huge gap in manpower just in time for the Ukrainian counter-offensive.

 

[aerostadt]

Odd thing about that is that one could reasonably argue that despite China's claims, Taiwan has never belonged to what is the new nation of Communist China.

True. When Chiang Kai Shek crossed over to escape the Communist Chinese, Taiwan had its own native population. The native Taiwanese were swamped by Chiang Kai Shek and he and his people took over. In fact, for a long time the new government had their own figurehead representatives for the Chinese mainland provinces in their general assembly.

 

[MAT2000]

Interesting note today from the British intelligence folks is that all of the Russian convicts that Wagner group recruited with promises of pardon in exchange for six months of service will very soon receive their pardons and go home. This will leave a huge gap in manpower just in time for the Ukrainian counter-offensive.

posthumously?

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Interesting note today from the British intelligence folks is that all of the Russian convicts that Wagner group recruited with promises of pardon in exchange for six months of service will very soon receive their pardons and go home. This will leave a huge gap in manpower just in time for the Ukrainian counter-offensive.

 

[Bill S]

I could so see the deal being altered.

 

[boatgeek]

I could so see the deal being altered.

I mean, what are the conscripts going to do? Sue? That'll work really well when troublemakers are put in the next "first round" group whose sole purpose is to identify Ukrainian firing positions by getting shot.

 

[Peartree]

posthumously?

Apparently about half have survived.

And, indications are, so far, that Putin (and company) intends to follow through on the deal. Progozin is panicked enough about it that he wrote a letter to the Kremlin begging for help and leaked his own letter to the media.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I would be kind of surprised if any of the convict troops actually survived the 6 months to receive their pardons.

EDIT: We posted at exactly the same time. Half have survived? That’s surprising.

 

[Matt_The_RocketMan]

China Does have a Point, aside from us asking for peace talks, resolutions, or cease fires, Ukraine keeps asking for larger and larger wartime bills, and or equipment, to which we oblige, but we dont necessarily see results in Russia backing down. More so just making the situation worse, where Russia just doubles down on what they claimed, which results in more blood loss. Also since when does war not profit large corporations, just adding more fuels to the flames, unless someone takes steps to call for peace, and not sign the line for a larger war aid.

 

[boatgeek]

Now it's time to move from Star Wars memes to some schadenfreude about Russian tanks. Apparently, a trainload of T-54/55 tanks (first produced: 1946) pulled from mothballs in Russia just left for the front. The rest of this story has some interesting notes about Russian tank supplies:

Russia started the conflict with 2000 active T-72s and 450 active T-80s.
Documented losses include 1025 T-72s and 448 T-80s of a total 1871 documented tank losses.
Ukraine claims 3557 Russian tanks destroyed
The actual number of losses is likely somewhere between the documented number and Ukraine's claimed number, and I'm not sure if the "destroyed" numbers include tanks captured by the Tractor Brigade.

Ukraine Update: Welcome to 1946. Russia is sending in tanks designed for World War II

UPDATE: Wednesday, Mar 22, 2023 · 4:13:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner As someone with permanent tinnitus following a year working as a blaster in the mines, I sure hope those guys on the howitzer above have better hearing protection than sticking their...

www.dailykos.com

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

China Does have a Point, aside from us asking for peace talks, resolutions, or cease fires, Ukraine keeps asking for larger and larger wartime bills, and or equipment, to which we oblige, but we dont necessarily see results in Russia backing down. More so just making the situation worse, where Russia just doubles down on what they claimed, which results in more blood loss. Also since when does war not profit large corporations, just adding more fuels to the flames, unless someone takes steps to call for peace, and not sign the line for a larger war aid.

Attaching screenshot of a news story is not a great way to share it if you want anyone to read it. A link would be better, or an excerpt of the text you think is important.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I have a military history question. When was the last time a country successfully initiated a war by invading another country, took it over, and successfully annexed it or maintained long-term control?

I don’t think there are many examples for more than 100 years. You would have to go back to the colonial empires, right? I know that WWII ended with some countries in control of others and some borders redrawn, but I think that had more to do with the fallout of a global conflict, and I don’t think the aggressor nations that initiated the war succeeded in obtaining and maintaining control of any other nations.

I’m curious if there are any examples similar to what Russia is attempting in Ukraine.

 

[PhilC]

I have a military history question. When was the last time a country successfully initiated a war by invading another country, took it over, and successfully annexed it or maintained long-term control?

I don’t think there are many examples for more than 100 years. You would have to go back to the colonial empires, right? I know that WWII ended with some countries in control of others and some borders redrawn, but I think that had more to do with the fallout of a global conflict, and I don’t think the aggressor nations that initiated the war succeeded in obtaining and maintaining control of any other nations.

I’m curious if there are any examples similar to what Russia is attempting in Ukraine.

Perhaps the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974? They still occupy the Northern (Turkish) half of the island.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Now it's time to move from Star Wars memes to some schadenfreude about Russian tanks. Apparently, a trainload of T-54/55 tanks (first produced: 1946) pulled from mothballs in Russia just left for the front. The rest of this story has some interesting notes about Russian tank supplies:

Russia started the conflict with 2000 active T-72s and 450 active T-80s.
Documented losses include 1025 T-72s and 448 T-80s of a total 1871 documented tank losses.
Ukraine claims 3557 Russian tanks destroyed
The actual number of losses is likely somewhere between the documented number and Ukraine's claimed number, and I'm not sure if the "destroyed" numbers include tanks captured by the Tractor Brigade.

Ukraine Update: Welcome to 1946. Russia is sending in tanks designed for World War II

UPDATE: Wednesday, Mar 22, 2023 · 4:13:09 PM +00:00 · Mark Sumner As someone with permanent tinnitus following a year working as a blaster in the mines, I sure hope those guys on the howitzer above have better hearing protection than sticking their...

www.dailykos.com

A couple of weeks ago I saw this story about how Ukraine is also receiving T-55 tanks, but they are highly upgraded by Slovenia to a variant called M-55S. They have upgraded Israeli electronics and upgraded British guns. So they are fairly lightly armored but probably pretty effective in terms of targeting and firepower.

Ukraine has few nato standard main battle tanks, but lots of lightly armored tanks and even more good infantry fighting vehicles with advanced anti-tank weapons. The article talks about tactics Ukraine might use to make this mix of vehicles work in combined arms warfare. It’s not the usual mix and ratios of vehicles, but they might still be able to make it work effectively by changing up the roles of the vehicles.

Some Of Ukraine’s Heavy Brigades Don’t Have Real Tanks Yet. Here’s How They Might Fight.

The Ukrainian army doesn’t say no to armored vehicles. Whatever surplus tanks, fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and reconnaissance vehicles some ally offers, the army happily accepts. That has resulted in some weird imbalances.

www.forbes.com

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Perhaps the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974? They still occupy the Northern (Turkish) half of the island.

Ok, that is pretty recent, and it’s not one I remembered.

 

[boatgeek]

I have a military history question. When was the last time a country successfully initiated a war by invading another country, took it over, and successfully annexed it or maintained long-term control?

I don’t think there are many examples for more than 100 years. You would have to go back to the colonial empires, right? I know that WWII ended with some countries in control of others and some borders redrawn, but I think that had more to do with the fallout of a global conflict, and I don’t think the aggressor nations that initiated the war succeeded in obtaining and maintaining control of any other nations.

I’m curious if there are any examples similar to what Russia is attempting in Ukraine.

To answer your direct question, I don't think there are any examples of an aggressor successfully annexing an entire country since WWII. However, that's not exactly what Russia is attempting. They are annexing some provinces and trying to install a client state in the rest of Ukraine. In addition to Cyprus above, you have the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (though that's not a long-term stable situation) where an aggressor has taken and held significant chunks of territory. I don't think that there are many other examples post WWII. I'm deliberately not counting situations like Gulf War II or the 2001 Afghanistan invasion, since the US did not try to annex territory. We did install nominally friendly governments (look how that turned out!).

 

[aerostadt]

Red China swept through Tibet and have been holding ever since.

 

[SecondRow]

I have a military history question. When was the last time a country successfully initiated a war by invading another country, took it over, and successfully annexed it or maintained long-term control?

I don’t think there are many examples for more than 100 years. You would have to go back to the colonial empires, right? I know that WWII ended with some countries in control of others and some borders redrawn, but I think that had more to do with the fallout of a global conflict, and I don’t think the aggressor nations that initiated the war succeeded in obtaining and maintaining control of any other nations.

I’m curious if there are any examples similar to what Russia is attempting in Ukraine.

The Six Day War. Although there was a buildup of enemy troops along its border, technically Israel made the first attack.

 

[PhilC]

Ok, that is pretty recent, and it’s not one I remembered.

It was very relevant to us Brits as we have Sovereign Base Areas on Cyprus. Some of my former RAF colleagues were there at the time and said the Turks stopped right at the edge of the SBAs but didn't enter.

 

[PhilC]

To answer your direct question, I don't think there are any examples of an aggressor successfully annexing an entire country since WWII. However, that's not exactly what Russia is attempting. They are annexing some provinces and trying to install a client state in the rest of Ukraine. In addition to Cyprus above, you have the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (though that's not a long-term stable situation) where an aggressor has taken and held significant chunks of territory. I don't think that there are many other examples post WWII. I'm deliberately not counting situations like Gulf War II or the 2001 Afghanistan invasion, since the US did not try to annex territory. We did install nominally friendly governments (look how that turned out!).

Gulf War II was a coalition operation with USA in overall command. Technically the 2001 Afghan operation was NATO, not the USA. It was an Article 5 response to the Afghan Government sanctioning an attack on the USA.
In neither case was there air any possibility of the USA annexing territory as their allies/NATO partners would never have condoned it.

 

[smstachwick]

China Does have a Point, aside from us asking for peace talks, resolutions, or cease fires, Ukraine keeps asking for larger and larger wartime bills, and or equipment, to which we oblige, but we dont necessarily see results in Russia backing down. More so just making the situation worse, where Russia just doubles down on what they claimed, which results in more blood loss. Also since when does war not profit large corporations, just adding more fuels to the flames, unless someone takes steps to call for peace, and not sign the line for a larger war aid.

I don't think the issue is that the United States isn't impartial. We are publicly helping Ukraine take a stand. I think that the issue is that the Chinese are attempting to draw a moral equivalence between a war of defense and a war of aggression, implying that the aggressor should be given legitimacy with a seat at a bargaining table while they still hold stolen territory. This is obviously a favorable precedent for them to set when they have aspirations to forcibly conquer their neighbor across the strait.

The US sees these ambitions (how could it not?) and isn't falling for it. Neutrality isn't really a morally justifiable option when confronted with wartime genocide, and our leadership recognizes this.

I don't know if Russia will ever back down. Forcing them back to square 1 and retaking all the conquered territory (including Crimea and Donbas) may effectively force them to. Providing training and equipment to Moldova and Georgia may provide additional pressure. But if not, Ukraine will need the means to secure its borders with its hostile neighbor.

War profiteering won't be much of an issue in this war, I don't think. Most of the equipment going there was previous-generation stuff that was slated for replacement anyway.

Regarding the blood loss...Russia can stop this at any time by withdrawing. There was no military necessity to this invasion and there still isn't. They can send their guys home and blunt the damage to their people and their state. At this time, they're only digging themselves a bigger hole and Ukraine is only getting stronger. I don't see them winning.