Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 276 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,027
13,538
136
First of all...it wasn't OUR war until it was...why didn't Europe do something to stop the massacre of the Jews? It was happening in Europe.

Next...let's see...116,000 US troops died in WWI, over 400,000 in WWII, perhaps as many as 180,000 of those in Europe.

As for nuking Japan...they had NOT yet surrendered. Hiroshima was NOT just civilians...



Nagasaki was a seaport city...
There is no right or wrong in geopolitics… There should be and maybe we’ll get to engineer it that way someday, but if you view it through any other optics than power, you’re doing it wrong.
The right thing right now would be to get boots on the ground in Ukraine. Its the moral ethical and sympathetic thing to do.
So why dont we?
Someone earlier said “don’t interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake” <- And this is it, 100%, the players of games is letting Putin punch himself tired, wear himself out, and using Ukraine as the proverbial punching bag as the catalyst. Ukraine is gonna be leveled before this is over, Ukraine is gonna pay the price for us to wage our western ideology vs Putinism, and our skin in the game is minimal. Its disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adamsleath

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
11,820
955
126
What I've seen so far that makes the most sense to the Russian plan is to capture the southern coast and then pursue peace with with them retaining the area. This would cut Ukraine from the Black Sea and give a buffer for Crimea. The attacks up north isn't full-fledged since they wouldn't be able to hold the cities anyway if they pay too high a price to take them. They are just meant to make the population war-weary so they would accept a peace on Russia's terms.
 

Leymenaide

Senior member
Feb 16, 2010
750
368
136
Update:
My family and friends filter news daily as to the War front. My wife and I both have Family in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine going back well over 500 years.
We have been raising funds for a friend's wedding venue turned into refugee center. Numerous friends have turned their Polish homes and apartments over to refugees. My wife's family is actively furnishing public housing in southwest Poland for refugees.

The news is bad. Russians are destroying everything in their path. Clearing out houses leaving nothing. Killing civilians. These are the reports from the refugees.

I grew up learning to work with my hands from people that never lost their death camp eyes. I never expected to see this again.
 
Nov 17, 2019
12,403
7,518
136
People snatchin' stuff ....

Protesters seize mansion linked to Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska in London's exclusive Belgravia neighborhood

www.cbsnews.com.ico
CBS News|18 minutes ago
"This property has been liberated," read a banner unfurled by activists on the roof of the huge house in London's exclusive Belgravia neighborhood.


Anti-War Protesters Target Russian Oligarchs' Mansions Over Putin's Invasion Of Ukraine

www.forbes.com.ico
Forbes|25 minutes ago
Protesters occupied properties tied to Russian elites in France and London on Monday amid growing calls to open up the buildings to house Ukrainian refugees fleeing the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number1

DisarmedDespot

Senior member
Jun 2, 2016
591
592
136
There is no right or wrong in geopolitics… There should be and maybe we’ll get to engineer it that way someday, but if you view it through any other optics than power, you’re doing it wrong.
The right thing right now would be to get boots on the ground in Ukraine. Its the moral ethical and sympathetic thing to do.
So why dont we?
Someone earlier said “don’t interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake” <- And this is it, 100%, the players of games is letting Putin punch himself tired, wear himself out, and using Ukraine as the proverbial punching bag as the catalyst. Ukraine is gonna be leveled before this is over, Ukraine is gonna pay the price for us to wage our western ideology vs Putinism, and our skin in the game is minimal. Its disgusting.
Counterpoint: Nukes.

If Russia didn't have nukes, we would have at minimum enforced a no fly zone by now, if not a full-on Gulf War style air campaign. The Russian air force and their air defense haven't even managed to shut down the Ukrainian air force, so NATO would be having a field day.

But, Russia has nukes. 6500 of them. As much of an insane humanitarian tragedy as the invasion is, nuclear war would be much, much worse. Any argument for NATO involvement has to face that fact, and argue that Putin will not cross that line and let the genie out of the bottle. With how Putin's been acting, that's a worrying prospect.

I don't think it's ideology keeping NATO out, I think it's that fact that trying to save Kyiv with direct intervention could cost us Kyiv, Moscow, Berlin, London, New York and essentially every other major population center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
While I think it likely the Russian military resorts to even deeper depravities as a result that the Ukrainians have killed most of their momentum and are inflicting major losses is undeniable. Significantly assisted by large weapons shipments from US and all over Europe.

That’s just amazing! It was looking like the Russians had the initiative in Kharkiv, and then completely blew it. The UA must be putting up one hell of a fight. They’ve sent the Russians out begging for military aid from China. I think their vast trade with the west will trump any significant contributions towards Russia. They have to see the writing on the wall.

On a side note. I am disappointed that US intelligence so egregiously overestimated the strength of the Russian army. This will need to be addressed at a later date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number1

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
What I've seen so far that makes the most sense to the Russian plan is to capture the southern coast and then pursue peace with with them retaining the area. This would cut Ukraine from the Black Sea and give a buffer for Crimea. The attacks up north isn't full-fledged since they wouldn't be able to hold the cities anyway if they pay too high a price to take them. They are just meant to make the population war-weary so they would accept a peace on Russia's terms.

Possibly, but any reason to assume the Ukrainians would accept this? Any parallels to compare to?

Any negotiation by RU now is at a position of weakness vs original goals.

If UKR agreed to a peace deal, why trust Russia wouldn't just take the timeout to reconstitute their forces for a future invasion?

After seeing the large scale murder and destruction of their country, settling now means no justice or vengeance against the murderers. It's accepting the loss of land, lives and capability to repel the next invasion attempt.

Does UKR trust the West to continue the flow of arms and aid once the shooting stops? Will we want to continue sanctions and oil embargoes when inflation and fuel prices are high and there is an election this year? No way.

If UKR thinks it can withstand the assault, it has to continue the fight. The only realistic option they have for long term survival is Putin's defeat, and I don't they will have a stronger hand later.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Counterpoint: Nukes.

If Russia didn't have nukes, we would have at minimum enforced a no fly zone by now, if not a full-on Gulf War style air campaign. The Russian air force and their air defense haven't even managed to shut down the Ukrainian air force, so NATO would be having a field day.

But, Russia has nukes. 6500 of them. As much of an insane humanitarian tragedy as the invasion is, nuclear war would be much, much worse. Any argument for NATO involvement has to face that fact, and argue that Putin will not cross that line and let the genie out of the bottle. With how Putin's been acting, that's a worrying prospect.

I don't think it's ideology keeping NATO out, I think it's that fact that trying to save Kyiv with direct intervention could cost us Kyiv, Moscow, Berlin, London, New York and essentially every other major population center.
Exactly. If we just went in and annihilated their entire army in Ukraine would they respond with nukes? I personally doubt it but I'm not NEARLY sure enough for it to be a risk worth taking.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,064
8,083
136
Counterpoint: Nukes.

If Russia didn't have nukes, we would have at minimum enforced a no fly zone by now, if not a full-on Gulf War style air campaign. The Russian air force and their air defense haven't even managed to shut down the Ukrainian air force, so NATO would be having a field day.

But, Russia has nukes. 6500 of them. As much of an insane humanitarian tragedy as the invasion is, nuclear war would be much, much worse. Any argument for NATO involvement has to face that fact, and argue that Putin will not cross that line and let the genie out of the bottle. With how Putin's been acting, that's a worrying prospect.

I don't think it's ideology keeping NATO out, I think it's that fact that trying to save Kyiv with direct intervention could cost us Kyiv, Moscow, Berlin, London, New York and essentially every other major population center.

Do all nuclear nations simply get to attack a victim of their choice?
Do they all get to commit genocide while we sit back and watch?
MAD is for ensuring your nation continues to exist. Not for ensuring the removal of other nations.

Ukraine is a case where our military needs to engage directly. Against everything outside Russian soil.

Europe is suffering a multi-million person refugee crisis. This is Russia's act of war against Europe / NATO and we must use deadly force to push back and bring it to an end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Number1

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
Counterpoint: Nukes.

If Russia didn't have nukes, we would have at minimum enforced a no fly zone by now, if not a full-on Gulf War style air campaign. The Russian air force and their air defense haven't even managed to shut down the Ukrainian air force, so NATO would be having a field day.

But, Russia has nukes. 6500 of them. As much of an insane humanitarian tragedy as the invasion is, nuclear war would be much, much worse. Any argument for NATO involvement has to face that fact, and argue that Putin will not cross that line and let the genie out of the bottle. With how Putin's been acting, that's a worrying prospect.

I don't think it's ideology keeping NATO out, I think it's that fact that trying to save Kyiv with direct intervention could cost us Kyiv, Moscow, Berlin, London, New York and essentially every other major population center.
FWIW. Some perspective on the Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,951
570
136
Do all nuclear nations simply get to attack a victim of their choice?
Do they all get to commit genocide while we sit back and watch?
MAD is for ensuring your nation continues to exist. Not for ensuring the removal of other nations.

Ukraine is a case where our military needs to engage directly. Against everything outside Russian soil.

Europe is suffering a multi-million person refugee crisis. This is Russia's act of war against Europe / NATO and we must use deadly force to push back and bring it to an end.


Basic answer today is basically yes. Until we have way to counteract any launched nukes, we need to do everything we can to avoid a nuclear war. That would be beyond catastropic.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Counterpoint: Nukes.

If Russia didn't have nukes, we would have at minimum enforced a no fly zone by now, if not a full-on Gulf War style air campaign. The Russian air force and their air defense haven't even managed to shut down the Ukrainian air force, so NATO would be having a field day.

But, Russia has nukes. 6500 of them. As much of an insane humanitarian tragedy as the invasion is, nuclear war would be much, much worse. Any argument for NATO involvement has to face that fact, and argue that Putin will not cross that line and let the genie out of the bottle. With how Putin's been acting, that's a worrying prospect.

I don't think it's ideology keeping NATO out, I think it's that fact that trying to save Kyiv with direct intervention could cost us Kyiv, Moscow, Berlin, London, New York and essentially every other major population center.

Nukes are a suicide bomb vest. I think their threat is generally overrated unless Russian leadership gets pushed to the most desperate corner and decides they'd rather end the world than live to fight another day.

What I think is more credible justification of non-involvement is the lack of clear scope and exit strategies, as well as sheer unpredictably of where the war goes.

Rus would have many devious and destructive capabilities, and completely lack any moral restraint.

Russian SF operations releasing dirty bombs or chemical weapons in NATO cities? Torpedoing offshore oil rigs? Sinking tankers and cargo ships? Massive cyber attacks?

How much can they disrupt our economy and global trade?

What do we do in response? Do we invade Russia? Regime change? Political purges? Occupation and monitoring new democratic elections? Just liberate Ukraine and sue for peace?



Fighting a proxy war is messy, bloody but containable. Open war will be magnitudes worse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Thump553 and Racan

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,636
3,510
136
Russians have not been able to cross the Irpin River or effectively swing around the city to the west. They've pulled some stuff up to that line like artillery and Grads but are pretty stuck. Lots of evidence of ambushes and drone attacks on the forces they're trying to stash in the forests north of Kyiv. The thrust on the city from the east has made some progress but at apparently quite high cost. Goal to encircle with city could take weeks assuming the Russian military even has the capability at this point. Things are going better for the Russians in the south (at the moment) but they've made little progress towards Odessa encountering stiff resistance.

I think this best displays the current situation.


I wonder how difficult it would be to take out the rail line going into Crimea? That would slow down supplies for the southern front a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Do all nuclear nations simply get to attack a victim of their choice?
Do they all get to commit genocide while we sit back and watch?
MAD is for ensuring your nation continues to exist. Not for ensuring the removal of other nations.

Ukraine is a case where our military needs to engage directly. Against everything outside Russian soil.

Europe is suffering a multi-million person refugee crisis. This is Russia's act of war against Europe / NATO and we must use deadly force to push back and bring it to an end.

It means we have to play the long game and degrade their capability and economy over the long term without sufficient escalation to spill into total war.

We light the match, no controlling where the fire goes.