Russia's War Against Ukraine

[GDS_Starfury]

fire fights around a train station in Kherson.  some video but no details.

[SirAndrewD]

well when your regrouping in Belgorod its a sign that things arent going well for the russians at all.
but please, continue being wrong in your thought processes.

WSJ did an article on the Belogrod "regrouping".   It was surreal, lots of Russians wandering about with no equipment, doing interviews and mostly saying they don't even know what happened.  Reminiscent of Berlin in 1918 after the Armistice.   They seem to have a vague notion that they'll be redeployed largely for border security until they can replace their equipment losses, which are substantial.  They're out of action for some months at least. 

The Russians have done better elsewhere though.  They have a good position behind the wide portion of the Oskil that seems to be largely holding.  The Ukrainians in the north had to shift a large portion of their forces to the border to chase out the routed Russians, so they will need time to reorient those forces for further offensives. 

The Russians also wisely bought themselves a lot of time with their tactics after the Izium collapse.  The retreat in the far north was so complete that, as DW reported, the Ukrainians ran into the problem of not being able to advance faster than the Russian retreat.  They then followed with the strikes against Kharkiv's power grid and infrastructure to try to slow redeployment east and south.  That seems to have worked.

It's telling how badly the Russians got pasted though, as that was the prime opportunity for a counterattack at Kupiansk.  They tried to put together an effort there as CNN reported earlier this week, but that not only failed but they lost the rest of the east bank of the city.

The Russians had the most "success" in the south.  They plugged in reinforcements from Donetsk into the Melitopol region, which may have slowed/thwarted a new Ukrainian counterattack that was planned there.  Reports from a few pro-west milbloggers said the Ukes were trying to send troops from the North to the Melitopol axis but that was ground down by the infrastructure strikes. 

The Russians also saved a potential collapse in the south by blowing the Karachunov dam.  It looks like the Ukrainians were close to a breakthrough there that threatened to cut the 48th Army clean in half, but the destruction of the dam flooded the axis of advance and stabilized the situation.  The Ukrainians reported that the damage was minimal but satellite imagery shows otherwise.

So, it's not all great news this week, but not all bad.  It's very telling that the Russians did not try to immediately capitalize on the Ukrainians being disorganized from their victory in the north by launching at least a local counterattack in Kupiansk or the Lyman region to try to stabilize the fronts there.  They formed defensive lines to be sure, but those lines aren't secure as the Ukes have a beachhead across the Oskil in Kupiansk and several beachheads across the Dniper around Lyman.  That threatens both the northern and southern flanks of their new defense line and that can't be a situation the Russians see as favorable prior to a "regrouping".

[JasonPratt]

On the Russian state newsservice roundtable a few days ago, "Professor Alexi Fenenko" (no doubt a professor of psychology and parapsychology ;) ) argued that the United States only respects strength, only backs off when we (the US) see overwhelming strength, and regards less than spine-breaking acts of strength as meaningless. Thus, if Russia had gone in at first whomping civilian populations (!!), like the US did in Mosul (!), the US would have respected the Russian position and would not have opposed it (!!!), therefore the only solution to stop US involvement now is to throw away the white gloves and start seriously wiping out Ukrainian civilians (!!!!) unlike before. Until then the US will not respect and accept Russian claims which are based on Russian strength.

I'm currently reading Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and I've still never seen a crazier justification for intentional mass casualties. Commit warcrimes to prove you have the right to do what you want. But it isn't hard to see where this line of thinking leads to: 'If we give up ever attaining some key cities and just nuke them off the face of the earth, the US will accept that we're strong enough to be right and so will agree we should do what we want.'

Keep an eye out for the guy wearing a hammer & sickle...  ::)

[GDS_Starfury]

[SirAndrewD]

I've still never seen a crazier justification for intentional mass casualties. Commit warcrimes to prove you have the right to do what you want. But it isn't hard to see where this line of thinking leads to: 'If we give up ever attaining some key cities and just nuke them off the face of the earth, the US will accept that we're strong enough to be right and so will agree we should do what we want.'

Humorously that was the American mindset for dealing with the Russians since the early 20th Century.  That was essentially the cornerstone of American policy since Kennan's Long telegram and embodied by policymakers like Acheson, Dulles and Kissenger. 

[JasonPratt]

So we would hit civilian casualties on a regular basis to show the Soviets that we had the right to do what we wanted to the civilians in those areas, expecting the Soviets to agree with us, and if they ever didn't agree that our killing those civilians gave us the right to control them, then our policy was to escalate the mass civilian casualties because that would surely make the Soviets respect our rights to do what we wanted with the civilians in those areas... huh.

I mean, I remember mutually assured destruction policies, which weren't about hitting civilians in contested areas to convince Moscow we had the right to do what we wanted with those civilians; and I remember some blowtorch policies in domino areas where we hit civilians in contested areas to root out Soviet-linked insurgents indistinguishable from the civilians (although I don't recall the justification for that being that now the Marxists would respect that we had the right to do what we wanted with the civilians in that area). But I don't recall policy ops like what I was talking about, and what the Russian mouthpieces were talking about. I mean, granted, I was a teenager or younger at the time but there must be a huge hidden history of such actions by the US that I've never learned about yet, if that was our policy basis for action the whole time.

Flaunting strength to keep enemies from wanting to attack us, or in contested areas, is one thing. Trying to demonstrate to the world our right to control civilians in contested areas by killing them, is a rather more particular thing. Or so I thought. That isn't even the same policy as killing rear area enemy civilians during a developed war to hamper military backfield support, which at least has a direct goal on war prosecution.

[SirAndrewD]

No, the policy, which isn't really in dispute by anyone, was to make the Russians respect strength with strength, through isolation, and at times direct confrontation. 

Kennan wrote, and many in the west agreed, that the Russian mindset was largely one that only would respond to you if you showed you were their equal or stronger.  If you backed down or did things by halves, the Russians would walk all over you. 

That was echoed word for word in the video you shared. 

I suppose in the Cold War that US policy did include a lot of collateral damage.  Alperovitz argues. with a lot of documentation, that the Atomic Bombs were largely unnecessary to bring about the capitulation of Japan, and were simply an early demonstration of American will to use WMD's on populations that included civilians.

So, the Russians seem to be turning the historical screw there as it were.  That's not a judgement on American policy, as in a lot of ways studying Russians, they had a point. 

These guys have just read a history book or two and are turning a screw.  And no, I don't think they're correct in equivalency.

[FarAway Sooner]

Yeah.  It is worth pointing out that the US had no qualms about inflicting massive intentional damage on German and Japanese civilian populations less than 80 years ago. 

I'm not saying that the US in 1944 and Russia today are equivalent.  I'm just saying, we sure do seem to be getting squeamish now compared to some other times in the last century.  That doesn't make us wrong.  It's just worth remembering.

[bobarossa]

I'm surprised (not sure why) that the press is screaming war crimes for Russia bombing power, water, and transportation centers.  The US/British used these exact methods against Germany in 1944. 

[SirAndrewD]

I'm surprised (not sure why) that the press is screaming war crimes for Russia bombing power, water, and transportation centers.  The US/British used these exact methods against Germany in 1944.

And the US did similar in Vietnam in the invasion of Cambodia and Linebacker I and II.  With the same overall reasoning.  Some of the Russian voices in the video above sound like the Hawks of the 50's and 60's demanding we stop fighting white glove war and start operating like it was WW2. 

Anyway, it's opening up a can of worms for debate that may border at least on the edges of political.  I'm just saying some of this is very much "everything old is new again" to my eyes. 

I think it's just all the more reason for our NATO partners to up their direct material support so the Ukrainians can continue to settle this on the battlefield. 

[Jarhead0331]

I'm surprised (not sure why) that the press is screaming war crimes for Russia bombing power, water, and transportation centers.  The US/British used these exact methods against Germany in 1944.

Yeah. No surprises here. The press is depicting the Russian war effort in this light in an effort to maintain support for shipping arms to Ukraine and to prolong and perhaps even expand hostilities.

[FarAway Sooner]

I guess the primary difference is that the Germans had tried doing those things to the Allies before the Allies tried doing them back to the Germans.  Even if the Germans hadn't done so, I doubt the Allies would have hesitated to do so. 

To me, it's a more damning measure of Russian duplicity to claim that this "special operation" is a humanitarian rescue mission, and then try to prosecute that mission by bombing Ukraine back into the Stone Age.

After this is all said and done, assuming the Ukrainians win their freedom and relief investments come washing in, I wonder how much corruption we'll see in Ukraine.  Compared to what's going on right now, I guess that would be a pleasant problem to have.   :-[

[GDS_Starfury]

Yeah. No surprises here. The press is depicting the Russian war effort in this light in an effort to maintain support for shipping arms to Ukraine and to prolong and perhaps even expand hostilities.

or maybe the western concept of warfare has been to move away from carpet bombing everything which is why we have such a lead in precision munitions. 

[Jarhead0331]

Yeah. No surprises here. The press is depicting the Russian war effort in this light in an effort to maintain support for shipping arms to Ukraine and to prolong and perhaps even expand hostilities.

or maybe the western concept of warfare has been to move away from carpet bombing everything which is why we have such a lead in precision munitions.

I agree with your comment, but I don't see what it has to do with mine.

[GDS_Starfury]

should have had Andrews quote along with it.