War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[Oniya]

I'm wondering if Botswana was a strange alias for Greece in the post you quoted? Or for the Arab leaders at the time of Lawrence (though actually, Lawrence was betting on the wrong Sheikh - he failed to see that the future leader was Ibn Saud)? Or am I missing something here? 

The movie 'Ernest Scared Stupid' is a comedy movie from 1991.  In the movie, Ernest (Jim Varney) relates a story about Botswana fighting the Ottoman Empire.

[Oniya]

I love the Internet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8124I94cwM

(There's a child in the scene, and I don't know if he'll show in the thumbnail.)

[TheGlyphstone]

Holy obscure reference material, Batman!

[Humble Scribe]

I'm glad we cleared that up! I had just nodded past Hyena's original post with a shrug of: "Ottomans in Botswana? It sounds unlikely, but I know they reached Uganda... anyway..."

[Oniya]

Holy obscure reference material, Batman!

I'm glad we cleared that up! I had just nodded past Hyena's original post with a shrug of: "Ottomans in Botswana? It sounds unlikely, but I know they reached Uganda... anyway..."

Is this where I dredge up that line from 'Who Killed Captain Alex'?  [/digression]

[Dashenka]

The Russian installed governor of Cherson has been killed in a car accident. The Ukrainian governor claims he has been assassinated but Kiev doesn't officially claim that.

Also the Russians are retreating from the city of Cherson, avoiding the bloody battle everybody had expected to come.


Interesting turn of events.

[Vekseid]

On /r/CredibleDefense the suspicion seems to be the retreat was timed with the US election. Not wanting to give Biden a political win for Democrats.

That said, their position was increasingly untenable. They would be defending in the midst of an incredibly hostile partisan environment, with increasingly limited supplies, outnumbered and outgunned.

While it hasn't been fully confirmed yet (barring some reports from survivors of a few units), Russia seems to be taking incredible amounts of casualties.  They seem to be adapting poorly to defense in depth.

[Dashenka]

It could also be because Putin claimed 20 or 50 thousand of the new drafts were already sent to the front.

I imagine morale among those people isn't too high and it's said Russia fears those people to defect or surrender the first chance they'll get. With Russia needing every gun and bullet they have, having large numbers of soldiers surrender, they're losing guns and bullets they don't have. And bodies. But one can argue if a young man lifted from his bed is an asset to the war, or a liability.

Or just meat for the grinder.

The continuous attack on cities is also depleting the missile armory, one they might need later on down the road.



As for the political thing, I don't think Putin cares who's the president of the United States.

Pinky or Perky. He doesn't really care.

I think the retreat has to do with the Ukrainian army advancing and cutting Cherson off, not with politics in a country labelled as the enemy.

[TheGlyphstone]

Putin doesn't care who is in charge, but it is to his benefit if we are tangled up in partisan infighting and disunified. That was largely the goal of their cyberops in 2016, playing both sides of the fence to stock partisan rancor.

[Dashenka]

But will the result, whatever that will be, make a difference in the US?

(Not trying to mock, just an honest question.)


From my point of view, the US has been disunified for a long long time. It might have gotten worse or not, I don't know that but the result of the elections won't change that. In a way, it will only make it worse.

[TheGlyphstone]

There really isn't a short or good answer to that, and the impact on the US itself is better suited to other threads. Suffice for here that I do find it plausible for Russia to make plans with a US election as at least one of the contributing factors, though by far not the only one.

[Vekseid]

Well a huge backlash could be taken as an interpretation the US may withdraw support. Which wasn't really in the cards, the American Military Industrial Complex is our butter. But Russian leadership is fueled by hopes and dreams.

The official announcement of the withdrawal[/ur] is like watching a B movie.

[Azuresun]

As for the political thing, I don't think Putin cares who's the president of the United States.

If you look into the Russian disinformation campaign in 2016, and how chummy Trump and Putin were afterwards (and how much Russia benefitted from Trump's actions), he was clearly aiming to get a useful, easily manipulated patsy into the White House, and took full advantage of it.

[Humble Scribe]

Two words: Pee Tape.

[Oniya]

To be honest, I think Trump is far easier to manipulate with the 'carrot' than he is with the 'stick'.  Tell him he's awesome, the best, or any sort of adulation like that, and he'll strut around like a bantam.

[Dashenka]

I think you all give your government too much credit. Whoever sits in the white house, Putin and China and Kim give very little.

Its hardly even an inconvenience. Trump shouts a lot but does very little on a world stage. Biden shouts just as much but has the leverage and charisma of a dying goldfish.

[firepyre]

Are we sure the withdrawal from C/Kherson is actually legit and not just psy-ops yet? Last I saw, Ukraine was pretty weary about it, because russian actions weren't matching with a full withdrawal. That video certainly seems pretty carefully scripted, although on the other hand, I imagine you'd want to be pretty careful justifying a retreat right now.

A retreat would signify a pretty big shift in strategy from russia too, I would think. Giving up a bridgehead like that is a pretty strong indication that they've given upon the possibility of making ground in that region, which does make a certain amount of sense seeing as winter is basically on them. Still, it's giving Ukraine a lot of opportunity to dig in. Come spring, it'll probably be almost impossible to retake.

As for the impact of US politics, I think the russians would probably prefer a republican majority, because it makes the US more impotent, but it's hardly a major concern either way. That ship has sailed.

I'm more surprised that there's been very little development regarding the Nordstream sabotage. Russia is pointing at the UK, and the west is pointing at Russia. Personally, I think I'm actually more inclined to believe a western government was behind it, to remove any temptation Germany might have had to make concessions for gas. Or possibly even an element within Germany itself. Even if say, the UK did do it, and Germany knows it was the UK, I still doubt we'd see any public finger pointing - it wouldn't bring the pipe back, or do them any good if it was made public anyway. Even if it wasn't Russia, it makes sense to point the finger there. As for russia, I really can't see them blowing up their biggest bargaining chip out of spite, or in some half cocked false flag op. The only big picture advantage I can see for Russia being behind the sabotage would be to try to sow division amongst EU members... Seems like a stretch, given the pipe already had the potential to do that, just by existing, and tempting Germany. I suppose it could also be seen as a move to sever ties with the EU, but again, it seems unlikely. Maybe it was intended as a form of economic warfare, but in that case, would it really be worth blowing up the pipes to obfusicate whodunit, as opposed to just turning off the taps? I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but Nordstream definitely raised questions for me. I wonder if we'll ever actually know.

[Numerion]

Are we sure the withdrawal from C/Kherson is actually legit and not just psy-ops yet? Last I saw, Ukraine was pretty weary about it, because russian actions weren't matching with a full withdrawal. That video certainly seems pretty carefully scripted, although on the other hand, I imagine you'd want to be pretty careful justifying a retreat right now.

A retreat would signify a pretty big shift in strategy from russia too, I would think. Giving up a bridgehead like that is a pretty strong indication that they've given upon the possibility of making ground in that region, which does make a certain amount of sense seeing as winter is basically on them. Still, it's giving Ukraine a lot of opportunity to dig in. Come spring, it'll probably be almost impossible to retake.

Hertling had a thread on this topic. Ultimately all of our worries and fears are rational, but they are worries and fears of armchair generals with incomplete info.

UA has been signaling that RU forces are making a preparation for a full retreat from the area for weeks now. They do have some info about some minor setbacks, but ultimately they have the full info and they will know what to expect.
With the amount of troops reportedly in the area, it will be hard for the Russians to hide a significant portion of them as a trap.

[Humble Scribe]

I'm more surprised that there's been very little development regarding the Nordstream sabotage. Russia is pointing at the UK

Although that means it would have been ordered by Liz Truss. Actually, now I say it out loud, it's just possible she was stupid enough to do that, but I'd hope the Navy would have said: "are you sure that's a good idea, Prime Minister?"

It's almost certainly Russia responsible. This way they don't have to keep pretending there are 'technical issues' with the Nordstream 1 pipeline that stop them delivering gas, which was wearing a bit thin, and can claim force majeure on all of their gas supply contracts to Germany, so they don't have to compensate buyers. It also sows a bit of doubt and confusion, or even a warning - 'I can keep blowing up your infrastructure covertly, you know'. Also it doesn't necessarily remove the bargaining chip. There are a number of gas transit pipelines from Russia to Europe and Nordstream was only two of them (one of them never used anyway). Russia is still delivering gas to 'friendly' European countries like Hungary and Turkey, and, if an agreement with Ukraine was reached, could still push the supply to central Europe right back up if it was encouraged to (the largest remaining pipelines cross Ukrainian territory).

[Thufir Hawat]

As for russia, I really can't see them blowing up their biggest bargaining chip out of spite, or in some half cocked false flag op.

Sure, but then almost nobody saw this war actually starting, either. So I don't really know, apart from "conspiracy theorists are going to debate this for decades".

Also, what HumbleScribe said, including the part about not compensating buyers.

[firepyre]

It's almost certainly Russia responsible. This way they don't have to keep pretending there are 'technical issues' with the Nordstream 1 pipeline that stop them delivering gas, which was wearing a bit thin, and can claim force majeure on all of their gas supply contracts to Germany, so they don't have to compensate buyers. It also sows a bit of doubt and confusion, or even a warning - 'I can keep blowing up your infrastructure covertly, you know'. Also it doesn't necessarily remove the bargaining chip. There are a number of gas transit pipelines from Russia to Europe and Nordstream was only two of them (one of them never used anyway). Russia is still delivering gas to 'friendly' European countries like Hungary and Turkey, and, if an agreement with Ukraine was reached, could still push the supply to central Europe right back up if it was encouraged to (the largest remaining pipelines cross Ukrainian territory).

If that was the goal, they'd have very little reason to target Nordstream 2, which wasn't operating yet anyway. Secondly, given their invasion of Ukraine, the idea they'd be concerned about holding up their end of a contract when they're willing to flagrantly violate international law, as well as their own memorandums to annex Ukraine seems completely laugable. Russia has this concept they call "Vranyo",  which is basically telling a lie that everyone knows is bullshit, but you go along with it anyway. I doubt they'd have any qualms about declaring the pipeline was under maintenance indefinitely, if they simply wanted keep the gas stopped. As for being able to covertly target infrastructure... I don't think they needed to blow up their own pipeline to get that message across. Plenty of other stuff to pick. It's a stretch.

There is a case for Russia being the culprit. But it seems fairly shaky and convoluted compared to the case for some western group being responsible. With the war, Russia had a strong precedent, in that it had previously invaded other countries(and Ukraine itself) and a solid motive(around securing a water supply and a land bridge to Crimea, which in turn is important to russia as it provides access to sea, and control of the gas reserves that Ukraine was originally planning to develop in competition with Russia. So another war was forseeable, and indeed, Ukraine had spent quite a lot of effort in overhauling it's military in preparation. So I would refute the idea that you can just put it down to the Kremlin being irrational. They might have a very different set of goals, and a history of poor decision making, but they're not totally unhinged or we'd be seeing the nukes flying already.

In contrast, the case for a western government being responsible is much more clear cut. The pipe is a threat to unity, removing it removes that threat. The only hard bit to wrap out heads around is... We wouldn't possibly do that, would we? We're supposed to be the good guys! Right? Iraq was totally stockpiling WMDs. Gitmo doesn't torture people. The CIA didn't miscalculate and  accidentally help bring about the whole Syria mess...

Let's be real: Things are a lot greyer than that, and good intentions are used to justify questionable actions all the time.

Consider this. If the gas shortage is hard on Germany, and the pipe is there, people are likely going to be unhappy with the government if they don't arrange to turn on the taps. The worse the crisis gets, the greater the pressure.

On the other hand, if the pipe is inoperable and everybody knows it... When Germany starts having to take tough measures, nobody is going to blame the govt, because there's no easy alternative. And as it was pointed out previously, there's still other potential routes to get gas if they get really desperate, it's not like they're completely shutting the door. At the very least, it's far more plausible than a staged moonlanding.

I don't know what the truth is, and I'm not sure it matters. If investigators found anything concrete, they're not saying. Even if the west was responsible and we find out it was, I doubt it would change much, though it would be interesting. If Russia was responsible, I'd be really curious what their actual objectives were, and whether or not they managed to achieve them, because if it was Russia, it seems more like a backfire.

[Vekseid]

Are we sure the withdrawal from C/Kherson is actually legit and not just psy-ops yet? Last I saw, Ukraine was pretty weary about it, because russian actions weren't matching with a full withdrawal. That video certainly seems pretty carefully scripted, although on the other hand, I imagine you'd want to be pretty careful justifying a retreat right now.

To a degree, certainly.

The reality on the ground is Russia cannot hold the city. They will not be able to supply a force in Kherson through the winter.

I'm more surprised that there's been very little development regarding the Nordstream sabotage.

Two reasons.

The first is it is a moot point. Germany and Europe have massively expanded their LNG capabilities, storage is at record highs, and prices are stabilizing.

The second is because there isn't any meaningful question that Russia did it. You don't take political risks of this magnitude while you are winning.

[qoute author=firepyre link=topic=339400.msg16335243#msg16335243 date=1668076584]As for russia, I really can't see them blowing up their biggest bargaining chip out of spite, or in some half cocked false flag op. The only big picture advantage I can see for Russia being behind the sabotage would be to try to sow division amongst EU members...[/quote]

You are, right now, sowing division.

Beyond getting people like you to do his work, Putin gets two more important things out of this.

Domestically, it signals there is no way back. Agreements cannot be made with Europe, only confrontation.

Internationally, it signals Putin as an 'irrational' actor. If he is willing to do this, can we be sure he won't escalate to nukes? Ignore that one of the pipelines survived and if Europe really wants we can totally use that one and you can certainly trust Russia again.

Anders Puck Nielsen has an excellent video on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

[firepyre]

I remember watching that video. I have certain issues with his analysis though. Around 5 min in, he makes an assumption that a western country would prefer an undetectable clandestine op. I would suggest that there is a genuine benefit to making it flashy, especially if you intend to point the finger towards your enemy(this applies to both western and russian actors). If you successfully pin it on your enemy, you're going to generate a lot of negative sentiment towards them. Secondly, by doing it in such a flashy way, you ensure everyone is aware of it, which is politically very conductive towards moving away from gas. If the gas pipes don't work, and everybody knows it, you're off the hook as far as getting the gas flowing goes. If the op is secret, and it's not painfully obvious the pipe is inoperable, then there's a real risk that keeping the gas off is going to be mighty unpopular when people are freezing their asses off.

The second issue is with what he says around the 10min mark, around putting too much stock in the economic value to russia of the pipeline.

The issue I have with this is that the pipeline isn't purely an economic asset. I would argue that just by existing, Nordstream was already providing Russia with political leverage against Germany, and anything they could gain by demonstrating their ability to hit other pipelines pales in comparison to the ability to turn the taps back on in return for concessions once germany starts to struggle.

The fact that by all accounts, Europe looks like it will be able to weather the loss of gas through LNG and storage, only makes it more likely in my mind that they'd be willing to sever that weakness.

Far from sowing division, blowing up Nordstream only serves to help Europe put up an even more strongly united front. That doesn't change, regardless of who was actually responsible. There would be very little value to pointing fingers at each other within the EU, since basically everyone benefits in a political sense if it looks like Russia did it, Germany included. So to me, it seems like either a very clever western move, or an exceedingly stupid Russian one.

So if the russian goal was to get schmucks like me to sow conspiracies, mission accomplished. I seriously doubt that's going to create the kind of division they probably want though, since I don't actually disapprove of the idea of getting rid of the pipe, and cutting that tie anyway, and I doubt many people would disagree with that sentiment.

As for the point about one pipeline surviving; I think that should be considered a red herring... There are 4 leaks. 1 in Nordstream 1a, 1 in nordstream 1b, and 2 in nordstream 2a. Why blow up one line twice but the others once? Unless you were trying to hit all four but managed to identify the wrong pipe in what I assume would be quite a challenging operation. And even if you assume a line  surviving was intentional... Just because some capacity is still there doesn't mean that there wasn't a significant impact on the ability to move gas from Russia to Germany. You can only put so much gas through a pipe, and there's now one instead of four... So we can probably assume there is only a quarter of the original capacity available, or there about.

Finally, I would just like to point out that even if Russia wasn't responsible in this case, it in no way absolves them of any of their other actions. I am in no way suggesting we should be sympathetic towards Russia, and the insinuation that I am somehow advocating we should trust their word is insulting. This is not some pro-russian thing. I simply think the Nordstream Sabotage is worthy of a touch of scepticism.

[Dashenka]

I am in no way suggesting we should be sympathetic towards Russia, and the insinuation that I am somehow advocating we should trust their word is insulting. This is not some pro-russian thing. I simply think the Nordstream Sabotage is worthy of a touch of scepticism.

That sounds familiar :)



As for assumptions, everybody only makes assumptions. This whole 'energy crisis' is based off assumptions.

The EU assumes that everybody in the EU is willing to pay the higher price for gas and fuel and stuff. Meanwhile, the citizens are struggling and just want cheaper gas. Also, we're now buying LNG from places like Qatar. When it comes to human rights and lgbtq rights, a shitstain just as bad, if not worse, as Russia. The hypocricy is painful but 'our leaders' are so proud of the deal they've struck.

Assumptions are made that we can somehow, magically I suppose, switch to green energy in two years. And that when the war is over, the gas problem is over.

It's so utterly ridiculous and incompetent from the EU, it's, as I said, painful.


As far as Russia retreating from Cherson, I do believe that is really happening. There's nothing left for the Russians there and I'm afraid, very little for Ukraine either. The Ukrainian army is not just rushing in because they fear boobytraps and other traps. So I think there's very little left of Cherson. All the bridges across the river are destroyed, which everybody says is a loss for the Russians. But Ukraine (backed up by Biden and the EU) claim they will take every single inch of land back. So they can fly over the bridge? I suppose.

The reports and comments here, and everywhere in fact, are too biased towards Ukraine. That doesn't mean I somehow support Russia, I just think it's not as 'positive' as some people report it. Media are colouring their reports and headlines. They're far from neutral.

The BBC headline was:

'The Russians suffered a heavy loss when they retreat from Cherson.'

But does one seriously believe they 'just left'? I'm convinced (and I pray to God I'm wrong) that in a few days or weeks, when the Ukrainians have taken over, we'll hear about what the Russians have done. So who suffered the heavy losses? Russia for retreating? Or the people of Cherson?


Stick to the facts.

'Russian troops retreat from Cherson.'

[Chulanowa]

You are, right now, sowing division.

Beyond getting people like you to do his work, Putin gets two more important things out of this.

There simply isn't a definite answer to the question of "who busted the Nord stream Pipeline." Nobody has claimed credit. Both Russia and NATO accuse the other. Neither has offered any compelling evidence to back their accusation. As neither side has done anything but yell about it, one must imagine that neither has any compelling evidence against the other. Since war is a team sport among both Americans and Russians (and for exactly the same reason) both sides have their howling "fans" who will refuse to consider that any narrative other than the one presented by their own Great And Glorious Leader Of The Nation could ever have merit.

But for all anyone really knows, it was a damned space rock with incredibly serendipitous aim. For all we know, Norway did it just to piss off Russia AND the EU, the little snow scamps. For all we know James Cameron took a wrong turn while "researching" for Titanic 2: Iceberg Boogaloo. Because we don't know. Given that it's 210 meters deep in the Baltic Sea, there's a fair damn chance that unless someone in some government goes "WE DID IT MWAHAHAHA IT WAS US! ALL US!" We will never have a definitive answer. because again, even if some evidence is dredged up, one side or the other will claim it's bullshit planted by people "working for THEM" meant to "sow division." And honestly at this point they'd probably be correct 'cause we've been dredging for a while with no evidence yet.

"But who did it, really?" is perfectly reasonable question here. Certainly not one that warrants personal attacks and baseless accusations.