Russian invasion of Ukraine

[Gabriel]

You know, there's two opposing schools of thought on this, countervalue and counterforce, countervalue is deliberately targeting civilian populations, it is prohibited of course but I bet russia is a proponent of countervalue. (To be sure both have their...merits...and drawbacks.)

If NATO was to do a first strike (following a Russian strike in Ukraine for example), it would 100% go for counterforce strike. Remember, the goal is to prevent Russia from using more nukes, not to just punish them.

[Iphie]

If NATO was to do a first strike (following a Russian strike in Ukraine for example), it would 100% go for counterforce strike. Remember, the goal is to prevent Russia from using more nukes, not to just punish them.

Oh, yes, the Kola Peninsula would be glass, without a doubt. (together with Murmansk and every other settlement there.)

[Gaidax]

People again fantasize about nukes. It's not happening.

- - - Updated - - -

I suppose technically correct is the best kind of correct, putting aside the numerous multilateral verbal assurances, the billions in aid already provided long before the invasion and the strategic obligations to our own populations.

And you suggesting that “Russia IS afraid of the west glassing them” is where I got the notion that someone somewhere seems to think Russia might think it could happen.

West is most certainly not going to go to WW3 over Ukraine.

As a matter of fact, Ukraine is practically a bone tossed at Russia to gnaw and choke on of for relative pennies. Make no mistake, there is no "almost NATO" or "practically NATO" - it is simple, you're either in NATO or not and it is clearly evident from the events of last two years and a change.

- - - Updated - - -

As a side note, the main point of NATO is not to actively fight Russia, but to discourage it from attacking NATO members and keeping the NATO members safe and it is done by all means necessary, including keeping up this whole Ukraine stalemate. It's a "cozy" arrangement where just enough aid is given to keep Ukraine afloat, but not enough to make Russia freak out and do something stupid like attack actual NATO countries.

[Gabriel]

Oh, yes, the Kola Peninsula would be glass, without a doubt. (together with Murmansk and every other settlement there.)

Sounds like a golden opportunity to liberate some rightful Finnish clay from Russia... all without having to ethnically cleanse the area ourselves.

[diller]

m8 I don't think they have 3 "major" cities.

Fair enough, my point was obviously to hit the places of power and with atomic military installations there can't be that many,

[Dontrike]

Russia loses 80 vehicles in one day, in just one area.

Every day, open-source analyst Andrew Perpetua sits down and spends hours scouring social media, satellite imagery and other sources for evidence of damaged, destroyed and abandoned vehicles—Russian and Ukrainian—all along the 600-mile front line of Russia’s two-year wider war on Ukraine.

On average every day, he identifies a couple of dozen freshly wrecked Russian vehicles and a handful of Ukrainian vehicles in the same condition. That’s consistent with Oryx’s overall tallies of Russian and Ukrainian equipment losses in the first 700 days of the wider war: respectively 14,000 and 5,000.

So what happened on or around March 1 to make March 2 one of Perpetua’s busiest days? Just slightly less busy than Feb. 3, when Perpetua counted losses that represented, for him, a one-day record: 103 damaged, destroyed and abandoned vehicles. Seventy were Russian; 33 were Ukrainian.

On March 2, Perpetua tallied 97 losses—84 of them Russian. Four times the daily average for the Russians and double the average for the Ukrainians.

It’s possible to make sense of the devastation. The February record came as the Russian army’s four-month campaign to capture Avdiivka, a former Ukrainian stronghold northwest of Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, culminated in what would turn out to be a pyrrhic Russian victory.

The Russian 2nd and 41st Combined Arms Armies ended up losing 16,000 men killed, tens of thousands wounded plus around 700 vehicles seizing the ruins of Avdiivka from the ammunition-starved Ukrainian garrison, whose own personnel losses likely were in the four digits.

The Ukrainian 110th Brigade retreated from Avdiivka in mid-February. Rather than consolidating in the city’s rubble, the Russians kept attacking—chasing after the Ukrainians as they passed west through the first line of settlements, a few miles west of Avdiivka. The Russian army, bloodied though it was, quickly captured Stepove, Lastochkyne and Sjeverne.

It was in the next line of villages—Berdychi, Orlivka and Tonen'ke—that the Ukrainian 47th, 3rd and 57th Brigades switched from fighting-retreat to active-defense, turned and fought back with tanks, artillery, mortars and drones.

Bolstered by an uptick in ammunition deliveries from Ukraine’s European allies—though not from the United States, which hasn’t delivered aid since shortly after Russia-friendly Republicans in the U.S. Congress blocked funding back in October—the Ukrainian brigades halted the Russian advance.

The Institute for the Study of War in Washington, D.C. anticipated this development on Feb. 18. “Russian forces, which have suffered high personnel and equipment losses in seizing Avdiivka, will likely culminate when they come up against relatively fresher Ukrainian units manning prepared defensive positions,” ISW stated at the time.

The evidence of this culmination lay scattered across the fields, roads and treelines west of Avdiivka: hundreds of wrecked Russian vehicles and many fewer wrecked Ukrainian vehicles. Those 84 Russian losses Perpetua tallied on March 2 may point to the last big Russian push west of Avdiivka.

For now, at least.

[Specialka]

Fair enough, my point was obviously to hit the places of power and with atomic military installations there can't be that many,

Won't happen, no one will glass no one over Ukraine.

[Saradain]

Won't happen, no one will glass no one over Ukraine.

Neither will Russia if they prefer to remain within their goal of eradicating a sovereign state.

[Dontrike]

Won't happen, no one will glass no one over Ukraine.

Russia won't either, unless they want literally every country going after them.

[Specialka]

Neither will Russia if they prefer to remain within their goal of eradicating a sovereign state.

Yes, that was my point. Russia won't do it and NATO won't as well.

[Saradain]

Yes, that was my point. Russia won't do it and NATO won't as well.

All great then. All the more reason to send NATO troops to vanguard Ukraine since no fear of nuclear response...After all, the world is what it is, and right now it looks like more desire to send in troops to ensure Russia can be forced to fuck off.

[Specialka]

All great then. All the more reason to send NATO troops to vanguard Ukraine since no fear of nuclear response...After all, the world is what it is, and right now it looks like more desire to send in troops to ensure Russia can be forced to fuck off.

And NATO won't do that because NATO is a defensive alliance which Ukraine is not a part of. Country, member of NATO, could do that on their own if they wanted to, though.

NATO sending troops to help another country which is not a part of would simply feed russian propaganda which quite a few country are fond of (Most of africa, quite a few country in asia, iran, etc...)

[Saradain]

And NATO won't do that because NATO is a defensive alliance which Ukraine is not a part of. Country, member of NATO, could do that on their own if they wanted to, though.

NATO sending troops to help another country which is not a part of would simply feed russian propaganda which quite a few country are fond of (Most of africa, quite a few country in asia, iran, etc...)

You're actually right. I misspoke. Individual countries, even if NATO members, can and have expressed thoughts of sending in their national troops. My bad.

However, Russia and their cohorts would do well to remember that NATO has intervened before via UN mandate without being attacked first. To prevent a genocide. Not saying it has a chance of happening right now, or at any point, but the possibility can be there if nazi orcs decide to escalate their already (in 2014) escalated stupidity.

[Specialka]

You're actually right. I misspoke. Individual countries, even if NATO members, can and have expressed thoughts of sending in their national troops. My bad.

However, Russia and their cohorts would do well to remember that NATO has intervened before via UN mandate without being attacked first. To prevent a genocide. Not saying it has a chance of happening right now, or at any point, but the possibility can be there if nazi orcs decide to escalate their already (in 2014) escalated stupidity.

When was that ? During Bosnia ? If I remember well, NATO intervened BEFORE getting the mandate (which they obtained afterward) and btw, that was what started russia's fear of NATO.

[Saradain]

When was that ? During Bosnia ? If I remember well, NATO intervened BEFORE getting the mandate (which they obtained afterward) and btw, that was what started russia's fear of NATO.

Question is, why is Russia afraid of counter-genocide actions? Is it because they planned to commit several?

- - - Updated - - -

Better question, why do YOU think taking the initiative to prevent a genocide is bad? Is it because you'd rather hate NATO for any reason you can find even if it is for an actual good cause?

[Specialka]

Question is, why is Russia afraid of counter-genocide actions? Is it because they planned to commit several?

- - - Updated - - -

Better question, why do YOU think taking the initiative to prevent a genocide is bad? Is it because you'd rather hate NATO for any reason you can find even if it is for an actual good cause?

Because hell is paved with good intentions. Why don't we (as in the West) directly intervene in Ukraine or in Gaza ? Why don't we intervene to help the Ouigours ? Etc ... ? There is always a cause to fight (and die) for. But we do not, why is that ?

[Saradain]

Because hell is paved with good intentions. Why don't we (as in the West) directly intervene in Ukraine or in Gaza ? Why don't we intervene to help the Ouigours ? Etc ... ? There is always a cause to fight (and die) for. But we do not, why is that ?

Vague saying does not equal to an answer. NATO intervening in Bosnia or wherever was a good thing. NATO intervening in Ukraine would be a good thing. Gaza, sure, why not if it is needed. But like you like to say, it is what it is. NATO has interests to protect and european security is one of them. Ergo, arming Ukraine.

Still waiting for your answer. Why Russia is afraid of being prevented to commit a genocide?

And why do you see NATO preventing a genocide bad?

[Specialka]

Vague saying does not equal to an answer. NATO intervening in Bosnia or wherever was a good thing. NATO intervening in Ukraine would be a good thing. Gaza, sure, why not if it is needed. But like you like to say, it is what it is. NATO has interests to protect and european security is one of them. Ergo, arming Ukraine.

Still waiting for your answer. Why Russia is afraid of being prevented to commit a genocide?

And why do you see NATO preventing a genocide bad?

You ask the wrong question here because it is totally bad faith. NATO intervened without any mandate (like I said, they got it afterward), thus it totally went against what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance), so if they did it once, they can do it again, and that is what Russia (and some other country) are afraid of. Why they intervene for is totally irrelevant in global politics.

[Saradain]

You ask the wrong question here because it is totally bad faith. NATO intervened without any mandate (like I said, they got it afterward), thus it totally went against what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance), so if they did it once, they can do it again, and that is what Russia (and some other country) are afraid of. Why they intervene for is totally irrelevant in global politics.

Nothing bad faith in wanting to know why NATO doing good things bothers you. NATO interference would depend on many factors such as reaching & occupying Odessa and/or Kyiv. Or nuclear strike of any kind, which is not likely.

But if you want to abandon the discussion about it, fair enough. As of recently, ideas about individual countries sending troops to vanguard in Ukraine have been mentioned. It's how the world works, Russia can complain about unfairness that they cannot genocide Ukraine

[Azadina]

You ask the wrong question here because it is totally bad faith. NATO intervened without any mandate (like I said, they got it afterward), thus it totally went against what it was supposed to be (a defensive alliance), so if they did it once, they can do it again, and that is what Russia (and some other country) are afraid of. Why they intervene for is totally irrelevant in global politics.

By that logic, RuZZia should kiss the NATOs feet in fear of being nuked. After all, US has nuked a country before, and could do so again any day, right? Why is it then, that RuZZia isn't even remotely afraid of that happening?