Russian invasion of Ukraine

aart wrote:

and one could say the same of a large part of the poor, brainwashed population

I know a couple of Russians living in Norway, and have lived here for the last 10+ years. I wouldn’t call them brainwashed by any stretch, but they still have a different “attitude” towards Putin than we do. I don’t know, blood is thicker than water and all that. It’s all very “Game of Thrones” indeed

aart wrote:

a large part of the poor, brainwashed population

I’d say it might be more prononced there than some other places, but I pretend we are all being brainwashed to a certain degree, and that is the common denominator leading to war.
Actor politicians, propagator medias, and belligerent religions are mainly responsible for this, we therefore can only be grateful to those…

This is an interesting update

LeSving wrote:

“attitude” towards Putin than we do

I saw some interviews with people in the long queues to vote at the recent presidential elections at Russian embassies around Europe. A big chunk among those who support Putin are the people who relocated from Russia 20+ years ago, so they haven’t fully experience the life under Putin.

I am delighted that they enjoy their €1000 Miele washing machines, whereas in Ukraine they would have to manage with €150 Indesit ones, and in most of Russia even those will have been stolen

It was said during Putin’s early years that without him, Russia would have torn itself apart. And I am sure that is true. It makes his current adventure even more of a puzzle. He had it all, and he threw it away.

Peter wrote:

This is an interesting update

Thanks for the link. I found it an interesting analysis.

Peter wrote:

It makes his current adventure even more of a puzzle. He had it all, and he threw it away.

Not really a puzzle – all leaders get steadily more unhinged and out of touch and paranoid with the passage of time (and why the US 2-term limit is a great innovation, it stops this happening with US presidents). This was on Radio 4 just after the invasion and describes this happening to Putin too. https://www.alioth.net/tmp/powell-on-putin.mp3 (from about 2m 10s)

I just watched it last night too

A long article from Harper’s Magazine on the current Russian mindset.

• Russia is unaffected by sanctions. The port of Astrakhan is being built up, as is the Volga-Don canal, to handle all the extra imports from Iran. There has been an explosion in domestic production: manufacturing, food, and tourism.
• An interview with a war widow reveals that volunteers are given 10 days’ military training before being sent to the front line. Her indebted husband earned between ‘almost nothing’ and 50,000 rubles a month driving a cab; army pay was 200,000₽ (1EUR = 100RUB). He died just 40 days after enlistment.
• There is a growing cult around Stalin; Lenin is too intellectual, complex and European The introduction to democracy in the 90s just lead to deaths from gangs and alcohol.
  From an interview with an Orthodox priest:

“We’re influenced by the immense nothingness around us, and by the harsh climate,” he said. “In a land like this, you have to have an objective, a dream. We Russians need to have something big to strive for. […] believe in Russia and they’re ready to sacrifice themselves for Russia.”

A 90 minute arte documentary on NATO, mostly an overview with a few interesting bits.

• NATO has logistical problems in Europe: no EU or Schengen for the military, and infrastructure is lacking. Insufficient road haulers means positioning tanks by train, booked far in advance and fitting around rail companies, strikes, and different railway gauges. Bridges are no longer built to Cold-war standards, so tanks can only cross singly. Currently they can move 50,000 soldiers in 2 weeks; a new logistics centre will improve to 100,000 men in 10 days.
• Until the invasion of Ukraine NATO troops were stationed in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, near the Suwalki gap. Now they are also in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, creating a much longer deterrent: multiple nations on the front line greatly increases the chances of triggering article 5. The biggest ever NATO military exercises took place recently, practising defending a Russian invasion.
• The USA leaving NATO was simulated, as threatened by Donald Trump: individual countries would scramble to make independent bilateral agreements with the USA. The decision to declare war rests with Congress, but the President is head of the armed forces so can choose to do nothing.
• Turkey is playing both sides. 72% of the Turkish population view the (allied) USA as their biggest threat, and NATO only has a 23% approval rating there. But it is needed for its geographical location and size of army:

Russia is unaffected by sanctions

There will be some effect but for the basics like bread and potatoes and meat, Russia is for sure self sufficient. The population doesn’t need avocadoes

multiple nations on the front line greatly increases the chances of triggering article 5

I don’t think anybody in power believes Art 5 is worth the paper it is written on. Ultimately NATO = USA and everybody else is almost irrelevant against the USSR/Russia in a conventional war, and nobody really believes any US president would press the button for yet another one of a series of European wars. One would need another Pearl Harbour.

That’s why the UK, and incidentally France despite it’s “part time NATO presence”, have their own nukes. And why Germany won’t send Taurus to Ukraine: no own nukes.

But no national leader will say this openly.

There is a growing cult around Stalin; Lenin is too intellectual, complex and European

That’s really funny, but in the context of shipping €150 Indesit washing machines back to Russia, having stolen them with a BTR-80, it makes perfect sense.

Peter wrote:

and everybody else is almost irrelevant against the USSR/Russia in a conventional war

That’s what “everybody” believed before Ukraine. The past 2 years has showed this to be wrong. Except perhaps nukes, the Russian armed forces has nothing that can penetrate modern NATO forces. The Ukraine air force is as good as gone, and what they had was late 70s technology. They still managed to stop Russia and keep it that way. It’s strange the whole thing IMO. To me it looks like the Russian forces are all designed for defense rather than offense. What exactly they are doing in Ukraine? who knows. The Ukraine military is traditionally the same as the Russian. They are good at defending Ukraine for the same reason Russia is very poor at attacking Ukraine.

Ukraine has somewhere between 70 to 80 F-16s ready now, or almost ready. These are very capable aircraft, all F-16A MLU (F-16A upgraded to F-16C standard) which is the same aircraft used as the back bone of the US air force. The offensive firepower of these aircraft is way above anything Ukraine has today. However, looking at what is happening, the problem right now appears to be the pilots. To me it looks like they have to be re-trained from the very ground to behave like a coherent NATO standard force. They are all young, early 20s. No older and experienced MiG/Sukhoi pilots appears to be taken out for the training. They start in France flying (largely phased out) Alphajets before transitioning to F-16. Less than 10 pilots are “ready”. Ready here means “just out of flight/weapon school ready”, with no experience whatsoever.

It’s not the offensive power of the Russian forces we should be afraid of, it’s their defensive power. The problem appears to be that the same can be said for the Ukraine forces.