Ukraine

Fiji Bitter

I love Fiji Bitter
5,073
1,774
In the wild.
Dogwatch has me probably on ignore.

Dogwatch might not see the above, so:
Quote
LeoV
Super Anarchist
13,949
4,757
The Netherlands
Today at 7:47 AM
Dogwatch has me probably on ignore.
Unquote.

Serieus question @dogwatch :

Do you really have Leo on ignore?

And did you check/enable 2-way ignore?
 
Last edited:

Fiji Bitter

I love Fiji Bitter
5,073
1,774
In the wild.
Who cares about that Fiji, he has that right. He as me not on double ignore, he is the thread starter and then I would not see this thread.

I can understand that you don't care, but I do.

And the techadmin corrected that you did not see the threads started by 2-way ignorers.
If you don't see Dogwatch's posts, then he has you on 2-way ignore.
 

Fiji Bitter

I love Fiji Bitter
5,073
1,774
In the wild.
What is it, the obsession with the ignore function that poisons several threads? Can we please give it a rest, it is as it is

No I don't Renny.

Leo mentioned that Dogwatch seem to have him on ignore, and that made me curious, because Leo is one of our very best posters in every respect, and in many different forums too.
And as you did note, I recently had a long discussion with Dogwatch on the 2-way ignore function, to the point of doubting his moral integrity. So if he now puts someone on 2-way ignore, in his own thread, that would be inexcusable.
I know this is a thread we all take very serieus, and thread drift is not desirable, but in this instance it will affect the posts here, so I will speak out on it.
I hope you understand as you generally are one of the more principled posters.
 

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,957
1,373
Admission to NATO requires unanimity and I find it hard to see Hungary or Turkey voting "aye".
This is exactly why I said "article 5 like" protection. For the foreseeable future, I think it is more likely a group of countries (US, UK plus a few more) provide a custom set of defense guarantees than that Ukr is formally entered into NATO. Even this will be a tough political ask, but something of this sort is an essential component of any serious resolution to the situation. Russia is a repeat offender and a mechanism has to be provided to deter this in the future.

As you suggest I do think it possible to bribe and bludgeon the NATO hold-outs but at some significant cost and tension to the alliance - idk enough to state the trade-offs of that path vs the above, but am pretty sure the above would be 'easier to accomplish'.

I believe Russia could, if need be, supply Crimea in the medium term by sea and air and nothing short of direct NATO intervention could prevent that. I don't see that happening.
If we provided them with 1000 ATACMS (well within our means - US has an improved long range missile already in production) plus 200 F16's with standoff missiles (also well within our means and also in the 'replacement' category), Ukr could make Sevastopol an untenable navel base and sustaining garrisons rather difficult, unpleasant, and expensive in all regards for the Russians in Crimea.
 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
18,557
2,595
South Coast, UK
If we provided them with 1000 ATACMS (well within our means - US has an improved long range missile already in production) plus 200 F16's with standoff missiles (also well within our means and also in the 'replacement' category), Ukr could make Sevastopol an untenable navel base and sustaining garrisons rather difficult, unpleasant, and expensive in all regards for the Russians in Crimea.
It might be within means, I don't think it is in the bounds of political will. As for "difficult, unpleasant, and expensive", I think as long as Putin is in power, he'll live with all of those, he's painted himself into a corner where there's no other choice.
 

estarzinger

Super Anarchist
7,957
1,373
I don't think it is in the bounds of political will.....he'll live with all of those
for me, "perhaps, perhaps not" to both.

we have been gradually moving over time toward giving them these weapons, but how far we will go is an open question. I have small suspicion there is some sort of non-public agreement (with either russia or china) not to give them ATACMS (perhaps to minimize the possibility of strategic missile defense mistakes).

Russia does has some form for withdrawing when costs are too high, but Crimea is also a 'special case' for them and likely worth high(er) costs.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
5,220
2,702
Earth
I believe Russia could, if need be, supply Crimea in the medium term by sea and air and nothing short of direct NATO intervention could prevent that. I don't see that happening.
I don't that is necessarily true, although I think politically it may not be sensible for Ukr to prevent it.
Crimea has a a population of somewhat over 2m, coincidentally similar to that of the western part of Berlin during the blockade and airlift. That was a massive operation then and I don't think it is credible Russia could mount anything similar now - even before you take into account the impact of sanctions on Russia's aircraft

Which leaves re-supply by sea. It would be possible for Ukr to use its unmanned surface vessels to either lay mines in key port entrances or attack supply ships. That would slow re-supply enough to make it untenable I think. However, I also think that would turn some world opinion against it - and certainly put the Ukr grain export deal at risk.

If they only target military re-supply I am sure Russia would very quickly put military stores on civilian vessels and even hospital ships (as Argentina did in 1982 for example)
 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
18,557
2,595
South Coast, UK
Russia does has some form for withdrawing when costs are too high, but Crimea is also a 'special case' for them and likely worth high(er) costs.

It does but my sentence was prefixed "as long as Putin is in power". I don't consider any scenario likely in which he loses power but continues with his life/liberty, nor do I believe he can lose Crimea and stay in power. Furthermore, I believe that would be his analysis too.
 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
18,557
2,595
South Coast, UK
....various reports emerging today that indicate the long-awaited counteroffensive has begun - and that Ukraine appears to have been making advances - should be taken seriously.

Prominent Kremlin-affiliated "milblogger" Semyon Pegov, widely known by the alias Wargonzo, said today that "the enemy had some success" in an attack in Novoselivka-Ugledar, in the Russian-occupied region of Donetsk.

Indeed, he said the news emerging from the area was "getting more and more alarming every hour".

He said information suggested Ukrainian forces had "managed to enter the outskirts of Novodonetsk" (around 60 miles south of Novoselivka, also in Donetsk) and that "fierce battles are going on" for control of the settlement.

He adds: "The situation is heating up. The attack is much more serious than yesterday."

Meanwhile, a Western official with knowledge of the situation told The Economist that Ukrainian forces had advanced in Novodonetsk by up to five or six kilometres.

The newspaper also reported that US and European military officials advising Ukraine say that Russia’s defensive lines "could be more fragile than thought".



Novoselivka-Ugledar is around 50 miles west of Severodonetsk and I think Novodonetsk is 40 miles WSW of Donetsk, although there is another town with the same name.
 
Last edited:

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
5,220
2,702
Earth
You mean "However, I also think that would turn some world opinion against it - and certainly put the Ukr grain export deal at risk." Sorry, I don't find that convincing. All of their stated plans and objectives incur those risks.
Yes, but contravening the Geneva convention on the starving of civilians would tilt world opinion far more than anything else.

BTW I am not saying they do have mine-laying capability from their unmanned surface vessels, just that if they don't it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to add it
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
15,506
4,412
PNW
Yes, but contravening the Geneva convention on the starving of civilians would tilt world opinion far more than anything else.
Maybe if UKR lined up trains with food to supply Crimea those would be let in by RU, leaving supplies of any kind by RU as legitimate targets. Put the food-supply onus on RU, basically.
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
15,506
4,412
PNW
RU is claiming they killed at least 250 UKR troops who were trying to advance today. There's a video of a few tanks and armored personnel carriers being blown up but the number seems an exaggeration so far.
 

Kiwing

Super Anarchist
4,201
844
Bay of Islands
Great conversation.
I wish I could contribute without "I think" but you guys are much better read than I am,
Thank you all. Please keep the conversation going.
I watched the escalation video twice and "I think" there is some real meat in it.
 

jaysper

Super Anarchist
10,438
1,429
Wellington
I don't that is necessarily true, although I think politically it may not be sensible for Ukr to prevent it.
Crimea has a a population of somewhat over 2m, coincidentally similar to that of the western part of Berlin during the blockade and airlift. That was a massive operation then and I don't think it is credible Russia could mount anything similar now - even before you take into account the impact of sanctions on Russia's aircraft

Which leaves re-supply by sea. It would be possible for Ukr to use its unmanned surface vessels to either lay mines in key port entrances or attack supply ships. That would slow re-supply enough to make it untenable I think. However, I also think that would turn some world opinion against it - and certainly put the Ukr grain export deal at risk.

If they only target military re-supply I am sure Russia would very quickly put military stores on civilian vessels and even hospital ships (as Argentina did in 1982 for example)
The other option is that Russia evacuates all civilians leaving only the military to supply, which would most likely be possible.
 



Latest posts

SA Podcast

Sailing Anarchy Podcast with Scot Tempesta

Sponsored By:

Top