Sanctions against Russia

[willedoo]

Ukrainian forces have reached Hoptivka on the Russian border. Hoptivka is on the main road north from Kharkiv, leading to Belgorod in Russia.

[willedoo]

Here's the latest ISW map update as an animated GIF showing land taken by the Ukrainians in the last few days. The entire north east Russian front has collapsed by the look of it.

 

https://twitter.com/georgewbarros/status/1569140797521678338

[willedoo]

One of our Bushmasters near Izyum.

[Jerry_Atrick]

There's at least two journos who won't get to eat breakfast the next morning:

 

[willedoo]

Liberators and locals in the Kharkiv Region.

[willedoo]

Just a thought - with the way Putler's war is going, will we one day see a role reversal, ie: NATO countries with Ukrainian advisors?

[willedoo]

[willedoo]

An in depth analysis of Ukraine's Kharkiv counter offensive. You need the sound on for this one.

 

https://twitter.com/ameswicksniper/status/1568983330955091968

[willedoo]

This journo makes some valid points for the non-appeasement camp. It's a response to the question of whether Biden would slap Putler with a wet lettuce if nukes were used in Ukraine.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2022/sep/17/putin-nuclear-ukraine-biden-russian-forces-nato-kremlin

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I like the idea that all russians would die. In fact, it is only my intuition that they also think this that means they have not already loosed nuclear weapons. The dangerous moment will come if Putin fears for his own life in Russia and feels he has nothing to lose. Then it will be up to the rest of them to defy Putin in order to live.

[Bruce Tuncks]

I still reckon that Australia should at least have dirty atomic bombs while we embark on getting our own real ones. And I acknowledge that we would not have been offered the US nuclear submarines if we had done this. Are the weapons ( nukes) included in the deal or not?

[Jerry_Atrick]

No nuclear weapons for Aus

[Bruce Tuncks]

So, jerry, what do we do if threatened by a nuclear country?

 

[nomadpete]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

So, jerry, what do we do if threatened by a nuclear country?

 

And, the most likely military defense scenario would have us in conflict with a large, nuclear armed country.

 

Our defence plans sound like buying a nice big knife to take into a gunfight.

[willedoo]

Probably not how Peugeot originally saw their 307 CC coupe convertible. A Ukrainian militarised adaptation:

[Jerry_Atrick]

6 hours ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

So, jerry, what do we do if threatened by a nuclear country?

 

The question, I thought was are nuclear weapons included in the [AUKUS] deal? In which case, no, it is only nuclear  powered submarines. Before we even talk nuclear weapons, we have to think what the submarines means for Australia, logistically. On the benefits side, they give us stealthy global capability and the ability stay submerged for theoretically many years without the need to surface. I think the French have a 10 year manitenance requirement, whereas the US and UK submarines can go underweater for many lifetimes - theoretically. Of course, the mental strain under water for all that time, and I am guessing simple things like, I dunno, food and clothing that will have to be replenished I imagine will will mean at least surfacing in between, even if only to catch some fish and dock for some new fatigues, soap, etc.

 

Forgetting the nuclear weapons side of it, which in terms of the submarines will only be of relevance if we obtain weapons similar to trident missiles, the downside is Australia now has to beef up its shipyards to handle nuclear capability. And, apart from routine maintenance items, Australia's submarine fleet will now require nuclear capable and safety dockyards for maintenance for two reasons - first, the safety aspect; and second, they are usually more fortefied and secure than standard installations. It also limits were our submariners can park their shiny new vessels as many countries, and indeed the vast majority our own simply don't have the facilities dotted across them to serve in an emergency or urgency basis. I used to work for a compnay founded by ex-US Navy nuke engineers and submariners and there were a lot of such ex-servicemen I worked with. They are more expensive to make and mnaintain as they have to have far more rigorous standards applied, but they still do breakdown and often require nuclear related servicing well before their shceduled intervales. Those reactors still run hot.

 

On the question of whether Australia should have nuclear weapons or not, there are a few factors at play. Firstly, Australia is signed up to various world treaties which bans countries that do not already have nuclear weapons from taking them on. Australia is generally a law-abiding nation (previous government excepted, of course), so in terms of abiding by international law, we won't take up nuclear arms. However, even if we weren't law abiding or we pulled out of the treaties, unless there is some extreme condition prompting a foreign nulcear capable enemy to immediately throw nuclear bombs at us before conventional warefare, I can only see Australia having a nuclear capability will speed up other countries throwing their nukes our way. And, to be honest, as it would be unlikely a country would do anything to Aus without there being some multi-lateral conflict, if it has escalated to nukes, whether we have them or not, is almost immaterial as there will be bigger fireworks going off, in which case, the winds are probably going to bring some of it downunder, anyway.

 

You can end up like the L.A.P.D, that, during some gunfight with a drug gang, had to go into a firearms shop to buy themselves bigger arms than the drug gang had, and it continues to escalate.. Sadly, the west is so caught up in its internal ideological squabbling, and the individual has become king, that it isn't using foresight to mitigate the risks.. and using personal greed to fuel the enemy. Look at the billions going to Russia and China so we can have cheap disposable junk (and I am being somewhat hypocritical as I bought a cheap Chinese shredder.. and it lasted less than two tankfulls of petrol to boot). One of the ex-servicemen I worked with was a sniper and some of the stories he could tell me were bone-chilling, but they did nuetralise threats rather than simply get bigger guns for them.

We need better defence capability - that is for sure.. does it have to be nuclear - I am not so sure.

Edited September 19, 2022 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

Sniper !.

My grandfather , in ww1 , was under ' sniper-fire ' , & it ended when the Big guns took out , not just A tree.

But quite a lot of trees, just to make certain they got him, ( or her ) .

He was wounded three times in three wars .

spacesailor

[Bruce Tuncks]

For some years, I foolishly thought that signing the nuclear non-proliferation stuff meant that the nuclear countries would all guarantee our safety.

Nothing of the sort actually is true.

 

[willedoo]

I wish Putler would realise it's over and throw in his hand. Even in a best case scenario for Russia, it's hard to see them ending up with any more than the 2014 civil war boundaries. It's looking quite likely they will eventually lose a lot of that as well. There's a lot of gear Ukraine needs, but one of the most helpful weapons is still being denied them by the U.S. The ATACMS, which can be fired from either the HIMARS or M270, has a range of 300klm.. With an ample supply of them, Ukraine could knock out almost every Russian command post and ammunition dump, as well as destroying most of their logistics lines. The U.S. has held off on supplying them out of a fear the Ukrainians will use them to strike Russian territory and cause an escalation.

 

In other words, the U.S. doesn't trust Ukraine with them and fears Putler and his nukes. I think it's well and truly time the Ukrainians were trusted with them. They've proven what they are now. The only grey area would be if Ukraine used them to attack the Crimean bridge and Black Sea Fleet, as Russia considers Crimea to be part of Russia. However, most of the world considers Crimea to be occupied Ukrainian territory, and the U.S. itself has indicated that Crimea is a valid target.

 

I think by any logical observation, the Russian military can only go in one direction from here, and that's down. There is just nothing in the wings that will magically reform it into a force that can capture more of Ukraine, and it will struggle to hold onto what it's got now. The problem is ever depleting equipment reserves, and a military structure that's incompetent and rotten to the core. It's like a house of cards.

 

Putler doesn't want general mobilisation (new conscripted forces) because of the political cost for him. He knows his survival depends on all this and is why he's playing a make or break game. General conscription would be the straw that breaks the camel's back in public opinion. There's increasing signs that Putin's relationship with military command and the Ministry of Defence is at rock bottom. Their only tactic at the moment is to cobble together ad hoc, rag tag units and dubious proxy forces as replacements.

 

Private contractors, the Wagner Group, have been recruiting prisoners from civilian jails, offering them a pardon if they serve six months in Ukraine with Wagner. Throwing more barely trained troops into Ukraine will not help the orcs one bit. The recently formed Third Army Corps that is made up of old men and boys from the regions, has already suffered heavy losses in the recent Ukrainian counter offensive. Throwing more untrained meat into the grinder is just dumb, as is most of what Russia has done since February.

 

The Russians have had heavy losses among the officer corps and replacements coming in are even less experienced. Putlers recent announcement of adding another 150,000 troops to the armed forces will have no bearing on the Ukraine war. For a start, they no longer have the ability to train them properly. Any experienced officers and NCOs are away fighting or already dead, and what they can muster up in Russia won't cut the mustard.

 

This war is getting dumber for Russia by the day. It's now down to just one misguided dictator fighting for his personal survival. It would be good if the West would give Ukraine the gear they need to finish the job sooner rather than later. As far as the big picture goes, the longer it drags on, the better it is for the U.S. and NATO as it reduces more Russian military ability as time goes on. One the other side of the coin, it's also a big drain on Western budgets and weapon stocks. I think even if Russia stopped now, it would take more than a decade to rebuild to their pre February level.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by willedoo

[Yenn]

If the west gives Ukraine all that is necessary to defeat Russia, what will happen to Putin? It is fairly obvious that he will be pursued by those investigating war crimes and he will not want that. So what will he do? My guess is that Putin is going down one way or another. The military will wake up to him one day, but will that be before Putin orders them to use nukes? So far the top military don't seem to be very intelligent, if they were they would have realized the situation was out of hand weeks ago. Now we are going to se if they have enough brains to overthrow him and solve the problem.

[willedoo]

Also, the public sheep in Russia are finally starting to see what's been going on. Russian milbloggers have been uncharacteristically critical lately, and several public deputies in the Saint Petersburg region have risked treason charges to sign a petition calling for Putin's dismissal. Once enough ducks line up in a row, he might be gone. Let's hope his successors prefer comfort and economic growth to war and destruction.

[facthunter]

What's wounded madman do when cornered? That's the risk with this megalomaniac. He won't even want to keep the WRECK.  Nev

[willedoo]

This is an interesting interview with retired U.S. General Ben Hodges by the Kiev Independent. He shares his thoughts on why he doesn't think Putin will use nukes, and how the war is likely to pan out.

 

https://kyivindependent.com/national/retired-us-general-if-russia-used-nuclear-weapon-in-ukraine-us-would-have-to-get-directly-involved?fbclid=IwAR0X4fop261_1OkApkOgDJ8PiEizGZzchHc-yJIK_p7Im74pTg9wOfwTzHo

[kgwilson]

If anyone has read about Hitlers downfall, it took a long time before he was able to accept the inevitable that began in mid 1943 or even earlier with Stalingrad & Rommels failure in North Africa. Towards the end in his bunker under the Reichstag he became completely irrational & had absolutely no concern for the German people. I don't think Putin has the same stranglehold over his lackeys as Hitler did but they would do well to look at history & deal with him before something similar happens.

[willedoo]

Putler is getting desperate; he's calling up 300,000 reservists. I doubt Ukraine will be shaking in their boots. I can't see it making much difference. He doesn't have the logistical ability to create any more effective army corps. The newly formed Third Army Corps (the Dad's Army bunch) have already been hammered and a lot of the new gear they sent with them is now in the Ukrainian Army inventory. At best, in the next few months, the mobilised reservists will start rotating in to relieve Russian troops who've been fighting in Ukraine for months. They'll be just as hopeless as the mob there now.