The Situation in the Ukraine. #29

gbu48098 wrote:
There is deeper conspiracy in works that is not out for general public or arm chairs yet

JohninMK wrote:

gbu48098 wrote:
There is deeper conspiracy in works that is not out for general public or arm chairs yet

From my arm chair, pray tell us more.


Meanwhile those British ships are just like those RAF Typhoons going to Romania earlier in last week, a Ukrainian spin on a prior commitment.

Sierra Alpha
@skywatcherintel
·
8h
Clickbait story.

1x Type 23 Frigate and 1x Type 45 Destroyer will pay a routine and planned visit to the region during next months Carrier Strike Group 21 deployment.

gbu48098 wrote:....lots of npr and ncr...you can pick you n and r for input.

JohninMK wrote:

gbu48098 wrote:....lots of npr and ncr...you can pick you n and r for input.

I am not sure what you mean, actually don't have a clue.

gbu48098 wrote:Since I am arm chair and general common civilian, it was my guess as this level of escalation on Donbass after so many years doesn't make sense. PRactically suicide for Ukraine. I think Taiwan is one possibility and use Donbass as a switch to turn on when necessary. Its just permutation and combinations and you can input your own n and selector values, basically saying I got no clue other than rejecting the obvious....

BBC wrote:he build-up has been impossible to ignore: thousands of Russian troops deployed towards Ukraine; US warships reportedly heading for the Black Sea and Russia's foreign ministry warning them off "for their own good".

As the hostile rhetoric and military moves around Ukraine have intensified, Western politicians have begun fearing an open invasion and urging Russia's Vladimir Putin to "de-escalate".

Russia has refused: the defence ministry this week insisted its moves were in response to "threatening" Nato exercises in Europe.

Then Mr Putin got a phone-call from the White House.

'Biden blinked'
"In Putin's game of brinkmanship, Biden blinked first," argues journalist Konstantin Eggert, after Joe Biden made his first call to the Kremlin and proposed meeting Mr Putin "in the coming months".

It's just weeks after the US president agreed with an interviewer that Russia's leader was "a killer".

President Biden's new move is now a new topic of debate - disaster prevention or a mistaken concession - but in the run-up to a summit, the risk of major military action by Russia certainly fades.

"That would be really unstatesmanlike: a slap in Biden's face," Mr Eggert told the BBC. "But the fact that it was Biden who suggested they meet does give Putin the edge."

Hosts and guests alike on political chat shows have been hailing Moscow's show of force, claiming their country stood up to US and Nato hostility. One commentator suggested President Biden's "nerves had failed him".

Senator Konstantin Kosachev was widely quoted arguing that the US had realised it was "impossible to achieve military superiority over Russia" and the two countries needed to return to dialogue.

Russia's recent ostentatious troop movement always looked like grandstanding by a country that's given up trying to be liked and now wants the West to fear it instead.

When Vladimir Putin sent troops and hardware into eastern Ukraine seven years ago, those were secret operations that are still denied to this day.

This time, Russia seems more intent on sending signals than soldiers.

"My take is that it's about deterrence," says Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council. He points out Kyiv's own recent reinforcements in eastern Ukraine and argues that Russia's actions are to avert any move to retake areas controlled by Russian-backed militants.

One senior Kremlin official warned that such military action would be "the beginning of the end of Ukraine", whose government was children "playing with matches".

These days, Russia has an excuse to intervene: some half a million people in the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk "People's Republics" of eastern Ukraine have been issued with Russian passports since fighting broke out in 2014.

"I think it would be difficult for the Kremlin not to come to their rescue if these 'republics' faced a threat of major defeat," Mr Kortunov says, noting that Ukraine's military was significantly better equipped and trained now thanks to US and European support.

But he still doubts that Vladimir Putin is planning an intervention.

"I don't see anything the Kremlin could gain by direct military engagement in the Ukraine crisis. I think Russian policy is more focused on maintaining the status quo and assuming that Ukraine will implode from mounting problems and Ukraine fatigue in the West," Mr Kortunov says.

A message to Washington
The other audience for Moscow's manoeuvres is further afield.

For the US there's a not-so-veiled warning that Russia still considers its neighbour's fate its business and remains particularly opposed to Ukraine's aim, reiterated this week, of joining Nato.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on a working visit to the eastern Ukrainian conflict zone, 09 April 2021
IMAGE COPYRIGHTEPA
image captionUkraine's President Zelensky visited eastern Ukraine last week and has called for Nato to admit the country as a member
But some detect another goal: attempting to avert the tough, new sanctions that the Biden administration is threatening in retaliation for Russia's election meddling, hacking attacks and more.

"Russia is trying to raise the stakes: to show that it can inflict cost on those trying to inflict costs on Russia, even if that is reckless and may result in harsher sanctions," argues foreign policy analyst Mikhail Troitskiy.

"I think this is the logic behind this escalation - which is dangerous because at some point it could spiral out of control," he adds.

State of the Nation?
Despite renewed talk on state TV of "fascist" Ukrainians, there's little sense that all-out war would be popular among Russians already coping with Covid, sanctions and the impact of a low oil price.

Andrei Kortunov believes the "mobilising potential" of foreign policy adventures is now "almost depleted" with people more concerned with their own problems than in the more comfortable context of 2014.

Russia's 2008 war with Georgia is a stark warning of how rapidly such a confrontation can escalate and there is always the caveat that no-one believed Vladimir Putin would dare to annex Crimea either.

But defending the Donbas would likely be a far bloodier and more dangerous operation.

Mr Putin's intentions may become clearer next week when he's due to make his annual "state of the nation" address, a podium he's often used for sabre-rattling against the West.

But the call from Joe Biden may have given him chance to pull back from this particular fight. Turkey now says the US has cancelled Mr Biden's request for two warships to pass through the Bosphorus.

"I think Putin attracted attention, he put himself in the focus not only of Europe but the US administration," Konstantin Eggert says. "He managed to scare them, and he likes doing that."

Mikhail Troitskiy agrees.

"If Russia sees no major US sanctions affecting its vital interests, then it may consider pulling troops from the border," he believes.

"Another way to de-escalate things is for them to climax, as happened in the Cuban missile crisis. But that would be very undesirable."

gbu48098 wrote:My guess is tame Germany and isolate Russia completely from "civilized world".....Pyramid is becoming a bit shaky to sustain.

Keep Rooskies busy in case China gets ideas on Taiwan and it turns into hot zone.....lots of npr and ncr...you can pick you n and r for input.

Finty wrote:Why Russia may not be planning the invasion that Ukraine fears
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56746144

flamming_python wrote:

gbu48098 wrote:My guess is tame Germany and isolate Russia completely from "civilized world".....Pyramid is becoming a bit shaky to sustain.

That's not much of a conspiracy. It's been talked about for years.

Keep Rooskies busy in case China gets ideas on Taiwan and it turns into hot zone.....lots of npr and ncr...you can pick you n and r for input.

A bit more escalation and China would have a golden opportunity while the US is busy

gbu48098 wrote:What is not clear to me is why Russia did not start the pipeline from both ends actually Germany first if pipelaying ships are not available from both ends. Then they would not have been in this position....someone trusted someone too much to invest billions and then go through this shit.

Finty wrote:Why Russia may not be planning the invasion that Ukraine fears
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56746144

BBC wrote:......'Biden blinked'
"In Putin's game of brinkmanship, Biden blinked first," argues journalist Konstantin Eggert, after Joe Biden made his first call to the Kremlin and proposed meeting Mr Putin "in the coming months".

BBC wrote:......Despite renewed talk on state TV of "fascist" Ukrainians, there's little sense that all-out war would be popular among Russians already coping with Covid, sanctions and the impact of a low oil price.

BBC wrote:......But the call from Joe Biden may have given him chance to pull back from this particular fight. Turkey now says the US has cancelled Mr Biden's request for two warships to pass through the Bosphorus.

PapaDragon wrote:Armor and troops will not be doing anything, they are being moved to send a message

If 404s try something for real we will just have VKS going on a rampage for a week or two and erase everything with Ukrainian flag on it after which NAF will move forward to take more territory

lancelot wrote:

gbu48098 wrote:What is not clear to me is why Russia did not start the pipeline from both ends actually Germany first if pipelaying ships are not available from both ends. Then they would not have been in this position....someone trusted someone too much to invest billions and then go through this shit.

The delay was never about the German section which is really short. The delay was the Danes dragging their feet approving pipeline construction. The consortium proposed to lay the Nord Stream 2 pipeline right next to Nord Stream 1 but the Danes refused claiming it was dangerous to the environment, or some crap like that, when they approved Nord Stream 1 just fine. So the consortium had to cancel the original request and apply for a different route south. Meanwhile construction was basically stopped because of uncertainty with regards to the pipeline route. Finally they approved pipeline construction along the alternate route but then the US threatened the Swiss company building the pipeline with sanctions.

nero wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Armor and troops will not be doing anything, they are being moved to send a message

If 404s try something for real we will just have VKS going on a rampage for a week or two and erase everything with Ukrainian flag on it after which NAF will move forward to take more territory

You can jack off to the image of the VKS bombing the Ukrainian troops to oblivion, though that is never going to happen realistically. The Russians do not manage escalation like a bunch of kindergarten kids. They're not into outright murder, especially given that the people on the other side are mostly poor conscripts.

Why Russia may not be planning the invasion that Ukraine fears
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56746144

'Biden blinked'

"My take is that it's about deterrence," says Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council. He points out Kyiv's own recent reinforcements in eastern Ukraine and argues that Russia's actions are to avert any move to retake areas controlled by Russian-backed militants.

What is not clear to me is why Russia did not start the pipeline from both ends actually Germany first if pipelaying ships are not available from both ends. Then they would not have been in this position....someone trusted someone too much to invest billions and then go through this shit.

I remember that name, Eggert is hardcore ultra-liberal pro-NATO sellout from long before 2014

If he is saying that Biden blinked first then it's even worse for 404s than they thought

You can jack off to the image of the VKS bombing the Ukrainian troops to oblivion, though that is never going to happen realistically. The Russians do not manage escalation like a bunch of kindergarten kids. They're not into outright murder, especially given that the people on the other side are mostly poor conscripts.

They already had all of the formations required in place.

I know Danes played the spoiler but one would think russians knew better and I still think they should have proceeded from the other end to avoid this risk and finished as much as they can.

What is actually going to happen depends on the level of escalation from Ukraine. This is something that no one on this forum can predict within a decent degree of correctness to make any judgements.

GarryB wrote:

That is what they did... the Danes withheld permission to start the end that is the last piece left to do. They had no choice but to do it last.... unless you are saying they should have just waited for permission and done that bit first, which means they could be finished it soon but have the rest of the pipeline to do.

Personally I think they should have just built the pipeline to Kaliningrad and then piped it through Poland to Germany... would not need Danes approval... Kaliningrad already gets piped gas through Ukraine and Poland so they already have the pipes to connect...

GarryB wrote:Personally I think they should have just built the pipeline to Kaliningrad and then piped it through Poland to Germany... would not need Danes approval... Kaliningrad already gets piped gas through Ukraine and Poland so they already have the pipes to connect...

11E wrote:In the news in that they move brigades, divisions and regiments and that hey have massed more than 25 Battalion Task Groups. In the brigades I can imagine forming BTGs. But why forming BTGs when you have the organic regiments with their combat support and combat service support and higher echelon (division).
I was under the impression that the RF was moving back from the small conflict BTGs to the much more robust regiment/division structure which is better suited to high intensity peer/near pear opponents.
Regards,Lesley

11E wrote:In the news in that they move brigades, divisions and regiments and that hey have massed more than 25 Battalion Task Groups. In the brigades I can imagine forming BTGs. But why forming BTGs when you have the organic regiments with their combat support and combat service support and higher echelon (division).

I was under the impression that the RF was moving back from the small conflict BTGs to the much more robust regiment/division structure which is better suited to high intensity peer/near pear opponents.

Regards,
Lesley

lyle6 wrote:https://southfront.org/us-and-russian-armies-organizational-and-staff-structure/