Ukraine reacts to fears of Russian invasion as troops build up at the border

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It does however seem like a safe assumption that if the Ukrainian army pursues the retreating Russian forces across their pre-2014 border and pushes on towards Moscow, which I don't consider particularly likely but is hardly outside the realms of possibility, Putin's regime is a lot more likely to resort to nuclear or chemical weapons than to seek terms.

Yeah, but he's also repeatedly stated that this is an ironclad policy of the Russian government and also that it applies to any NATO troops setting foot in Russia's Ukraine provinces. That's a lot more specific than the usual 'will probably use them in response to a successful invasion' that applies to most any country with a nuclear arsenal, and also a lot more specific than anything the Russian government has ever officially stated as far as I know.

The million-dollar question is, what happens when Ukraine turns their attention to kicking the Russians out of Crimea?

[Lord Revan]

It does however seem like a safe assumption that if the Ukrainian army pursues the retreating Russian forces across their pre-2014 border and pushes on towards Moscow, which I don't consider particularly likely but is hardly outside the realms of possibility, Putin's regime is a lot more likely to resort to nuclear or chemical weapons than to seek terms.

Yeah, but he's also repeatedly stated that this is an ironclad policy of the Russian government and also that it applies to any NATO troops setting foot in Russia's Ukraine provinces. That's a lot more specific than the usual 'will probably use them in response to a successful invasion' that applies to most any country with a nuclear arsenal, and also a lot more specific than anything the Russian government has ever officially stated as far as I know.

The million-dollar question is, what happens when Ukraine turns their attention to kicking the Russians out of Crimea?

Honestly that's 2 questions, first would Putin consider his ego to be more important then his life (we can pretty assume he knows what happen if nukes started flying) and second is there enough people in Russia who'd go along with that (as far as I know there's no "launch" button Putin could press to launch the nukes by himself and he'd need people to agree with him to that).

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

(since their nuclear policy is essentially 'send troops across the border, we'll start evaporating divisions,' and we all know where that would end up).

You keep saying this. For the umpteenth time, care to provide proof? Because if you actually know the Russian government's policy on the subject I know some people who would be thrilled to see it.

Putin reiterated the unspoken part out loud in fancy language. Since an invasion of the Motherland would be considered a threat to the state's existence...

... you can figure out the math.

[Ralin]

Putin reiterated the unspoken part out loud in fancy language. Since an invasion of the Motherland would be considered a threat to the state's existence...

... you can figure out the math.

No, no I can't because saying that the Russian government will use nuclear weapons against a threat to the existence of the state even if they are armed with conventional weapons is a long way from 'send troops across the border, we'll start evaporating divisions.'

Especially since you have stated in the past that this applies to any foreign troops on 'Russian clay,' i.e. in Ukraine.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that it could be assumed that most any nuclear armed government would consider the use of nuclear weapons in response to an existential threat to the survival of the state to be a valid option.

So can we take that as you conceding that no, NATO troops being sent into Ukraine will not automatically trigger them being EVAPORATED under the Russian nuclear response?

[Zaune]

Look, does it actually matter what Russia has and has not explicitly stated on the subject? Because at this point it's something of a technicality: The question is not whether Russia would resort to deploying WMDs against a hostile invasion force at all, but how soon would they get that desperate.

And going by the performance of their conventional forces to this point, I wouldn't bet on it taking very long.

[Ralin]

Look, does it actually matter what Russia has and has not explicitly stated on the subject? Because at this point it's something of a technicality: The question is not whether Russia would resort to deploying WMDs against a hostile invasion force at all, but how soon would they get that desperate.

And going by the performance of their conventional forces to this point, I wouldn't bet on it taking very long.

It matters when it's repeatedly brought up as a reason why direct US/NATO intervention in Ukraine is absolutely not an option. As opposed to an option with serious risks.

[Zaune]

Look, if the best justification you can come up with for badgering GrosseAdmiralFox about this detail is the difference between a catastrophic escalation of the war being a certainty and a catastrophic escalation being merely highly probable then I think you should find something more important to be proven right about.

[Ralin]

Look, if the best justification you can come up with for badgering GrosseAdmiralFox about this detail is the difference between a catastrophic escalation of the war being a certainty and a catastrophic escalation being merely highly probable then I think you should find something more important to be proven right about.

I mean I personally am a lot more open to the idea that maybe the US and/or NATO directly intervening in Ukraine would be a net good than I was six months ago. So I don't think it's hair-splitting.

EDIT: And be intervening I mean shooting/bombing the Russian military in Ukraine.

[LadyTevar]

I mean I personally am a lot more open to the idea that maybe the US and/or NATO directly intervening in Ukraine would be a net good than I was six months ago. So I don't think it's hair-splitting.

EDIT: And be intervening I mean shooting/bombing the Russian military in Ukraine.

I disagree. I think NATO/US direct involvement would be a very bad thing. As long as NATO keeps to the sidelines, Russia's forced to keep up the "Special Mission" fiction. The instant NATO drops NATO troops, Russia can claim TOTAL WAR, which would give Putin justification to hit Finland and any other country he wants "Back in Russia".

Assuming Putin has anything left. NATO doesn't need to put troops on the ground, Putin is already showing the whole world the All-Powerful Russian Army is a pathetic whimper of a paper tiger.

[KraytKing]

I think we're already riding the edge of Russian nuclear intervention as it is. Deploying NATO assets outright might just be the trigger. Furthermore, even if it doesn't trigger nuclear holocaust, it might have effects on Russian morale at home and on the front. Positive or negative. On one hand, it does make absolutely clear that the propaganda is right and America is trying to destroy Russia--total mobilization is a lot more justified. On the other hand, people probably already know America is trying to destroy Russia, and knowing that you're going up against the premier global military could seriously increase desertion rates.

It pays to keep in mind that there doesn't have to be a general nuclear exchange for millions of lives to be ended outright and the globe to face hardship for decades. Five or so IRBMs to major Ukrainian cities would kill more people than have died in the war up to this point and likely would not provoke NATO to annihilate Russia entirely. It would mean the death of Russia as a functioning state on the global stage, of course, but that is small consolation to the millions dead by vaporization, fallout, and lost crop harvest.

The other thing to remember is, how much more involved can NATO get? Ukrainian troops are already being trained in NATO countries to NATO standard, being given NATO small arms and AT weapons, and being supported by top-line NATO artillery--all on the NATO dime. They're probably getting strategic and tactical intelligence from NATO sources--targets, troop movements, reinforcements. I would wager that currently, man-for-man, Ukrainian frontline troops are superior to American troops, so qualitative improvements are likely more equipment-dependent. Now, NATO can bring more of the same--but even then, can it be used efficiently? There are nearly a million Ukrainian soldiers under arms, how many more troops can be effectively coordinated? How many more tanks, MLRS? Air power is the one zone where I think NATO would make a HUGE difference, but I imagine that is going to be a lot less spectacular than in Desert Storm. This time the enemy has a LOT of MANPADS and larger air defenses--and every plane we lose is a fucking LOT of lost money, not to mention top-secret wreckage in the case of F-22 or F-35. Not suggesting that we should avoid it on the basis of price--suggesting that use of aircraft is going to be a lot more limited than in other wars, and thus less capable of spectacular war-winning in weeks.

Just things to consider. Obviously I think the war should be forced to a swift and victorious end as quickly as possible--I just don't know that direct intervention would help. What NATO is doing is probably as good as it gets.

[Broomstick]

They're probably getting strategic and tactical intelligence from NATO sources--targets, troop movements, reinforcements.

No maybe about it - everyone backing Ukraine is giving them intelligence, from Estonia to the US, and the US Pentagon is helping the Ukraine military with strategy and war-gaming proposed actions. This has been the case from the very start and the nations involved have been quite open about it.

This time the enemy has a LOT of MANPADS

It's a bit of a lucky shot, but here's a Ukrainian using a MANPAD to shoot down a missile:
https://youtu.be/HzbhkWso1eg

Technology has advanced to the point where a properly trained and equipped solider can take down a missile. With some luck. But the Ukrainians have demonstrated just how effective man-portable weapons can be against all sorts of things, like tanks as well as other troops.

But I agree that landing explicitly NATO troops into this conflict is getting way too close to triggering NBC/WMD. Right now, Ukrainian fighters (with a few foreign volunteers) seem to be getting the job done. Although I'd be the first to admit I am NOT a military expert and I'm very glad I'm not having to make some of these decisions.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Putin threatens 'very harsh' measures after forces launch a barrage of strikes at Ukrainian cities.

Towns and cities across Ukraine, including the capital Kyiv, have been hit by multiple strikes this morning.

Downing Street said Liz Truss “strongly condemned” Vladimir Putin’s “appalling attacks on civilian areas”, saying she had called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“The Prime Minister said that these are a sign of Ukrainian success and increasing desperation by Putin in response.

“The Prime Minister stressed that the UK stands wholeheartedly behind President Zelensky and Ukraine. Putin’s destructive rhetoric and behaviour will not diminish our resolve."

The UK's Security Minister described the strikes as 'war crimes' while Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said they were “unacceptable”.

Meanwhile French President Emanuel Macron expressed “extreme concern, as the strikes caused civilian casualties” and renewed his pledge of more military aid for Ukraine.

Charles Michel, the President of the European Council, also said the attacks show the "desperation"of the Kremlin.

"These indiscriminate attacks on civilians are war crimes," he said in a tweet.

Russia's President Putin, however, accused Ukraine of carrying out terror attacks and said his country would respond with "very harsh" measures.

Kyiv Mayor Vitalii Klitchko reported explosions in the city’s Shevchenko district, a large area in the centre of Kyiv that includes the historic old town as well as several government offices. At least eleven people were killed and 64 injured.

The Associated Press reported "many dead" from multiple strikes across the country, although exact figures are yet to be confirmed.

There was a total of four reported explosions in Kyiv on Monday, ITV News Correspondent John Ray reports.

One video circulating on social media appears to show a strike on a cycling and pedestrian bridge, suggesting that Russia is striking civilian infrastructure after weeks of disappointment on the battlefield.

The sustained barrage on major cities hit residential areas and critical infrastructure facilities alike, representing a major surge in the war amid a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive in recent weeks.

It came a few hours before Putin was due to hold a meeting with his security council, as Moscow’s war in Ukraine approaches its eight-month milestone and the Kremlin reels from humiliating battlefield setbacks in areas it is trying to illegally annex.

Many know search for loved ones will end in tragedy after Zaporizhzhia strike
Little boy just wants 'peace' - the cost of war laid bare in liberated Lyman
The General Staff of the Ukraine Armed Forces said 75 missiles were fired against Ukrainian targets, with 41 of them neutralised by air defences.

Strikes hit other cities in Ukraine not under immediate attack by Russian forces, including Dnipro and Lviv, as air raid sirens sounded for four straight hours across much of the country.

Kharkiv was hit three times, its Mayor Ihor Terekhov said. The strikes knocked out the electricity and water supply. Energy infrastructure was also hit in Lviv, Regional Governor Maksym Kozytskyi said.

Kharkiv, Ternopil, Khmelnytskyi, Zhytomyr and Kropyvnytskyi were also hit by strikes this morning. The strikes come after an attack damaged a large bridge connecting Russia to the annexed territory of Crimea, something which was widely praised on Ukrainian social media.

Ukraine's President Zelenskyy said on his Telegram account that Russia is “trying to destroy us and wipe us off the face of the earth.”

“Please do not leave (bomb) shelters,” he wrote. “Let’s hold on and be strong.”

Recent fighting has focused on the regions just north of Crimea, including Zaporizhzhia, where six missiles were launched overnight on Saturday from Russian-occupied areas of the Zaporizhzhia region.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday called the attack on the Kerch Bridge “a terrorist act” masterminded by Ukrainian special services.

The bridge, which links annexed Crimea to Russia, was hit by an explosion over the weekend. Nobody has claimed responsibility.

On Monday, Putin gave a statement in which he doubled-down on his "terrorism" accusation. He also claimed Ukraine was carrying out attacks against critical infrastructure in Russia.

He said a "massive high precision strike" aimed at "Ukrainian military infrastructure," had been carried out on Monday.

He said further attacks on his "territory" would result in a "very harsh" response.

[wautd]

Maybe it's just me, but by shooting missiles at civilian targets as a wanton revenge for the Crimean bridge attack (whoever done it, it is a legitimate military target), Putin's actions reminds me of Nazi Germany's terror bombings with V-rockets in 1945.

[Broomstick]

This whole shit-show has reminded me of Nazi Germany's WWII.

[Zaune]

Not that the Russians really deserve the benefit of the doubt, but how do we know they weren't aiming for something of actual military value but the missile went off-target because of shoddy maintenance and/or bad QA at the time of manufacture?

After all, with the state their logistics must be in by now I don't think they've got the ordnance to waste on killing noncombatants out of spite.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/be ... 022-10-10/

Belarus's Lukashenko warns Ukraine, deploys troops with Russia
Reuters

LONDON, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said on Monday he had ordered troops to deploy with Russian forces near Ukraine in response to what he said was a clear threat to Belarus from Kyiv and its backers in the West.

The remarks from Lukashenko, who has held power in Belarus since 1994, indicate a potential further escalation of the war in Ukraine, possibly with a combined Russian-Belarus joint force in the north of Ukraine.

"Strikes on the territory of Belarus are not just being discussed in Ukraine today, but are also being planned," Lukashenko said at a meeting on security, without providing evidence for the assertion. "Their owners are pushing them to start a war against Belarus to drag us there."

"We have been preparing for this for decades. If necessary, we will respond," Lukashenko said, adding that he had spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin about the situation while at a meeting in St Petersburg.

Lukashenko said he had agreed with Putin to deploy a regional military group, and had started pulling forces together two days ago, apparently after an attack on Russia's road and rail bridge to Crimea early on Saturday.

Lukashenko said that a warning was delivered to Belarus through unofficial channels that Ukraine planned "Crimean Bridge 2", though he did not give details.

"My answer was simple: 'Tell the president of Ukraine and the other lunatics: if they touch one metre of our territory then the Crimean Bridge will seem to them like a walk in the park'."

Belarus's army has about 60,000 people. Earlier this year, Belarus deployed 6 battalion-tactical groups, totaling several thousand people, to the border areas. On Sunday, the head of Belarus's border guards accused Ukraine of provocations at the border.

Russian forces used Belarus as a staging post for their Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, sending troops and equipment into northern Ukraine from bases in Belarus.

Not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, 60,000 Belarusian troops - possibly with Russian support - are a complication Ukraine doesn't need. On the other hand, the Belarusian forces have even less combat experience than their Russian counterparts, and almost certainly the same organisational problems; and for the same reasons.

There's also the social dimension. Lukashenko depends on Putin to survive; but if he pushes the Belarusian public too far, even Putin might not be able (or willing) to save him. Does he dare take the risk?

[Crazedwraith]

That's definitely not good news from Ukraine given that an amateur glance, Belarus is the complete opposite side of Ukraine from the areas they're currently trying to take back. War on two fronts and all that.

[Lord Revan]

Not that the Russians really deserve the benefit of the doubt, but how do we know they weren't aiming for something of actual military value but the missile went off-target because of shoddy maintenance and/or bad QA at the time of manufacture?

After all, with the state their logistics must be in by now I don't think they've got the ordnance to waste on killing noncombatants out of spite.

They most likely don't got ordnance to waste on civilians but doesn't mean they won't be doing it, it's not like they've been wowing us with their performance.

[LadyTevar]

Not that the Russians really deserve the benefit of the doubt, but how do we know they weren't aiming for something of actual military value but the missile went off-target because of shoddy maintenance and/or bad QA at the time of manufacture?

After all, with the state their logistics must be in by now I don't think they've got the ordnance to waste on killing noncombatants out of spite.

They most likely don't got ordnance to waste on civilians but doesn't mean they won't be doing it, it's not like they've been wowing us with their performance.

BBCNews stated bluntly the Russian General just put in charge was known to deliberately attack civilian targets.

As of this morning, it seems the Russians are now targeting water and electric plants, which means their missiles are not going off-course, they're hitting what the Russians are meaning to hit. Which begs the question -- why hit the building the German Embassy is in?

[Lord Revan]

Not that the Russians really deserve the benefit of the doubt, but how do we know they weren't aiming for something of actual military value but the missile went off-target because of shoddy maintenance and/or bad QA at the time of manufacture?

After all, with the state their logistics must be in by now I don't think they've got the ordnance to waste on killing noncombatants out of spite.

They most likely don't got ordnance to waste on civilians but doesn't mean they won't be doing it, it's not like they've been wowing us with their performance.

BBCNews stated bluntly the Russian General just put in charge was known to deliberately attack civilian targets.

As of this morning, it seems the Russians are now targeting water and electric plants, which means their missiles are not going off-course, they're hitting what the Russians are meaning to hit. Which begs the question -- why hit the building the German Embassy is in?

I'm guessing they're trying to intimidate rest of Europe to abandon Ukraine and doing with their typical level competence (that is to say none what so ever)

[Juubi Karakuchi]

That's definitely not good news from Ukraine given that an amateur glance, Belarus is the complete opposite side of Ukraine from the areas they're currently trying to take back. War on two fronts and all that.

True. It would depend on what resources Ukraine could spare for defence. As for Russian support, it would depend on how well the latest recruitment drive goes, how many of them end up as usable soldiers, and how many can be spared from the battles in the south.

I've done a little more checking. Apparently the Belarusian armed forces are actually only 45,000 strong, with 290,000 reservists and 110-120,000 paramilitaries intended for territorial defence (and probably internal security). Of that, the regular army is only about 20-25,000. Their equipment is primarily old Soviet stuff; and I don't know what condition it's in.

My inner optimist reckons Ukraine can handle them; though it might mean reducing or cancelling the southern offensives. A lot of it depends on just how much of his military Lukashenko dares to mobilise and commit. He's risking serious unrest just by doing it, let alone taking heavy casualties.

In a minor note, there are apparently at least a few hundred Belarusian volunteers fighting for Ukraine.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Update.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... ost-874349

Russia-Ukraine war – live: Putin’s troops enter Belarus amid nuclear escalation warning
Former Nato commander urges West to prepare for ‘worst case’ scenario of war

Russian troops are “entering Belarus by the trainload”, according to reports, after Moscow ally Alexander Lukashenko ordered his forces on a joint deployment to Ukraine’s northern border in what Minsk called a defensive measure.

Jason Jay Smart, reporter for the Kyiv Post, said a Belarusian source told him hours after Mr Lukashenko’s statement that “Russian soldiers are entering Belarus by the trainload. They’re traveling in cattle cars – just a huge quantity.”

Meanwhile, a former Nato commander urged the alliance to prepare for the war in Ukraine to spread further into Europe as well as nuclear escalation.

Richard Shirreff, Nato’s former deputy supreme allied commander Europe, said: “The chilling factor here is the nuclear one and some form of nuclear escalation,” he said in an appearance at the Cheltenham Literature Festival.

“What we have not seen is Nato recognising that it has got to be prepared for the worst case and the worst case is war with Russia,” he said.

Vague report that Russian troops are being moved into Belarus. No indication as to quality or capabilities. But it does look like Russia is going to try another northern flanking attack. At least this time Ukraine is in a better position to stop it.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Sustaining a second front would be just as problematic for Russia as Ukraine because they'd face all the same issues, and the last time the Russians used Belarus as a jumping-off point it resulted in a 60-mile convoy grinding to a halt.

[Bedlam]

They don't even necessarily need to attack to tie up some of the Ukranian forces, just having the potential for an attack requires the Ukranians to station some forces there to counter, forces which then can't be used elsewhere.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ukraine has been doing exactly that since the invasion began, so from that perspective nothing has changed.