So yes, perhaps he'll be happy if he has that firm land bridge to Crimea. But then why not push Ukraine out of the Black Sea and have Odessa too?

Their inability to get across the Southern Bug back when they had fresh forces, the heavy casualties and counter attacks they faced there, and the fact that the Neptunes in Odessa make using an amphibious assault likely a suicide mission that will result in an unambiguous mass fatality event.

I imagine it would be pretty hard to get soldiers, no matter how loyal, to countenance even getting on a ship when it's going to have next to no missile defense and going to be facing relatively long range, modern US and UK anti-ship missiles.

Might want to rethink that. They couldn't support their advances more than 40 miles from their border. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yep. Russian logistical support is confined to railways. This actually had been known earlier.

Also, it'd still be a good deal less than what Russia did in Vietnam to counter the US, or what China did in Korea. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Somehow we have forgotten how extensively during the Cold War both sides supported their allies. In fact the Soviet Union had a long histrory of deploying Soviet manned crews to help their allies. Peculiarly they did always wear civilian clothes.

The marching style is obvious. But how strange a military parade looks in civilian clothes, even the band. Soviet troops in Cuba, maskirovka-style:


What didn't launch WW3 back then wouldn't likely launch WW3 now.

Their inability to get across the Southern Bug back when they had fresh forces, the heavy casualties and counter attacks they faced there, and the fact that the Neptunes in Odessa make using an amphibious assault likely a suicide mission that will result in an unambiguous mass fatality event. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The primary assault was done on the assumption that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, that it would be somehow a repeat of 2014. Now that's out of the question. And the total withdrawal from the Kyiv area shows that Putin understands that it didn't work.

Russia
Global superpower

Might want to rethink that — Count Timothy von Icarus

For 2022, Russia is ranked 2 of 142 out of the countries considered for the annual GFP review. It holds a PwrIndx* score of 0.0501 (a score of 0.0000 is considered 'perfect'). This entry last updated on 04/09/2022. — https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=russia

...or we could go with the opinion of some random dude off an obscure social media forum...

it'd still be a good deal less than what Russia did in Vietnam to counter the US — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, 'cos Vietnam is a model we should all be striving for. Napalm anyone?

I don't think they think they are in a particularly good place to use that threat. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, up to the moment you provide any kind of qualification and position which might give cause to take your ad hoc reckoning seriously, you'd need to provide some credible expert assessment we can look at on that.

what are you going to do, let Russia invade all of their neighbors because they will threaten to attack civilians with nukes every time they lose a war? — Count Timothy von Icarus

So war or submission are your only options. Turns out you did learn diplomacy from a fucking pack of football hooligans after all.

wouldn't likely launch WW3 now. — ssu

Oh well, you should have said earlier! If it isn't likely then you crack on, 'cos 'not likely' is a perfectly good enough probability to work to for a third world war. As long as it's less than 50/50 let's keep pushing that boundary. I mean, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists say

For many years, we and others have warned that the most likely way nuclear weapons might be used is through an unwanted or unintended escalation from a conventional conflict. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought this nightmare scenario to life — Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

...but what do those guys know. We've got some completely unqualified laymen we can consult.

Took them long enough to say this. They've been really trying to make it seem as if there's almost no chance this can happen here, or a very low chance.

I think it's higher.

But yes, you are correct, these are people that should be taken seriously.

The problem is this...

I don’t see it as a problem, but rather an inevitability. We and the world have seen what the US gets up to for many years. But in reality that doesn’t figure here. This crisis is between Russia and a previous member state of the USSR. There is a bit of proxy war going on, but what figures larger than that is the attempts to support Ukraine against Russian aggression by NATO. This confrontation was inevitable from the point that Putin decided to rebuild the Russian nation in the image of USSR. NATOs involvement may result in a failure by Russia and the building of a new iron curtain. If NATO hadn’t got involved in this way, a similar, or worse crisis would have developed sooner or later. And an iron curtain rebuilt, but in a different position.

Unless Russia decides to embrace a more peaceful, cooperative, unaggressive course these episodes will continue to the detriment of the Russian people. Now Europe has woken up and will arm themselves again, a new dynamic will evolve and the Russian people will experience a new crisis of identity and governance, as a result of sanctions and a phobia of commercial involvement from the West.

..or we could go with the opinion of some random dude off an obscure social media forum... — Isaac

Russia isn't a superpower, Issac. Read some contemporary political science and get yourself up to speed.

Notably though, Russia kept its official conscription figures fairly normal, which was a good sign for peace, but now apparently they are doing behind the scenes conscription, including on the spot conscription at road blocks. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the separatist "republics" they have been forcibly conscripting all military-age males right from the start of the invasion. Many men there are in hiding, afraid to go outside even to buy food. Recruitment patrols grab anyone they can find and take them straight to the barracks. I haven't heard about such things in Russia proper though.

these are people that should be taken seriously. — Manuel

Yeah, astonishingly reckless complacency from those advocating escalation. It really highlights for me how it's zeitgeist, not expertise that drives these kinds of opinion.



That's one way of looking at it. Trouble is, as I'm sure you'll admit, it's only one of many plausible narratives. It's also the one most likely to lead to escalation if it's adopted. So I can't see why anyone would deliberately choose it, even if they feel it's more likely. It's just not a very helpful narrative to propagate

Read some contemporary political science and get yourself up to speed. — frank

Will do. If you could cite me a good contemporary political science source arguing that Russia is no longer a military super power, I'll get stuck in.

Will do. If you could cite me a good contemporary political science source arguing that Russia is no longer a military super power, I'll get stuck in. — Isaac

I think you're capable of doing a little research.

Yeah, I saw the reports as well. It's unconfirmed at this point. We don't know whether the Russian army even has chemical munitions in its arsenal (poisons that security services have been using for assassinations are a different thing).

It's hard to imagine that the atrocities that the Russians are already committing could be made worse, but I fear that chemical weapons could take them to a new level. Remember the bombing of a theatre in Mariupol where hundreds of women and children were taking shelter? Many died, but many who were hiding in the basement survived and were able to get out. If instead of, or in addition to conventional explosives the theater was hit with chlorine or Sarin, there would be fewer survivors. As we have seen in Syria, these heavier than air gases are terrifyingly efficient at killing large numbers of civilians sheltering underground in cities.

I haven't heard about such things in Russia proper though. — SophistiCat

Russia may dip into the vast reserves of those that have served their military service. But that would take a month to bring them up to speed. And popularity of the war might dramatically change with that. Not publicly, but through hearsay and kitchen talk, as usually it is in a totalitarian system.

It's hard to imagine that the atrocities that the Russians are already committing could be made worse, but I fear that chemical weapons could take them to a new level. — SophistiCat

If the bombings of civilians and the killings have forced people to became refugees, then the strategy has worked for Putin.

The escalate to de-escalate can be used when Putin either has gotten the objectives he desires and wants for the Ukrainians to get the message that now is the time to end the war. Or if it going to be a similar mess as with the attempt to encircle Kyiv.

As we have seen in Syria, these heavier than air gases are terrifyingly efficient at killing large numbers of civilians sheltering underground in cities. — SophistiCat

And if the Syrian example tells us something, it is that many will believe the arguments that it's the Ukrainians using the chemical weapons on their citizens. :vomit:

I think you're capable of doing a little research. — frank

Indeed I am. I did a DuckDuckGo search for "is Russia a military superpower"

Hit one

So, we can safely say that Russia isn’t a superpower, right? Let’s look at other opinions.

Some leaders and political scientists, however, still sometimes refer to Russia as a superpower: for instance, in July 2018, Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz called the summit between Putin and Donald Trump a good sign of “cooperation between two superpowers

Mixed picture, there then.

Hit Two

For 2022, Russia is ranked 2 of 142 out of the countries considered for the annual GFP review. It holds a PwrIndx* score of 0.0501 (a score of 0.0000 is considered 'perfect'). This entry last updated on 04/09/2022.

World Number 2. Not convinced yet...

Hit Three.

What are the 5 super power countries?

Power

United States.
China.
Russia.

Not really the compelling evidence we were after.

Pushing on. Hit Four.

Just stats about their military power showing the US and Russia to be equal in many areas, unequal in others.

Hit Five.

War Proves Russia Is No Longer a Superpower

Ah ha! Jackpot! Yet, "David Von Drehle is a columnist for The Washington Post, where he writes about national affairs and politics from a home base in the Midwest." - Hardly the cutting edge of military analysis, but still - an interesting read

Hit Six.

The US, Russia, and China are considered the world's strongest nations when it comes to military power

Late success seems to be waning...

Shall I go on, or are you going to point me in the 'right' direction?

:rofl: Well I thought you could research a topic. I might have been wrong.

You can start with learning what's meant by "superpower."

I'm not continuing this conversation.

Tartar Yolk — Count Timothy von Icarus

You mean steak tartare?

I mean, there should be people around that remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, not just Chomsky.

But it's also cheap votes. It's disgusting. But - nothing new.

I mean, I know the initial shock of this war has blown over - for those of us not in it in real time - but it's far from clear we are out of the woods yet.

That's one way of looking at it. Trouble is, as I'm sure you'll admit, it's only one of many plausible narratives.

Is there another plausible outcome, I’d like to hear it?

It's also the one most likely to lead to escalation if it's adopted.

It’s not a narrative, or a narrative that may be adopted. It’s an opinion of the likely outcome.

The narrative of NATO is well known. What is adopted is a military and political strategy and one which is largely confidential, I expect.

Yes, they will have chlorine barrels I expect. A good way of flushing out whose left after they’ve levelled the city. Just blame Ukrainians,

The primary assault was done on the assumption that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, that it would be somehow a repeat of 2014. Now that's out of the question. And the total withdrawal from the Kyiv area shows that Putin understands that it didn't work. — ssu

Word is that many of the FSB officers from the 5th Division, the office responsible for Ukraine intelligence, have been fired and may be facing prosecution. If true, this would likely be the biggest purge in the security services since Stalin. The head of the office has been charged with embezzlement and premeditated disinformation. On some level this is encouraging: at least this shows that Putin is aware that he was massively misinformed before the invasion.

Yes, NATO could do more, I’m not of the opinion that Putin would escalate the nuclear risk. It looks as though NATO has chosen not to do more and hide behind the excuse of the nuclear threat. But of course we don’t have a line into their war room, so it’s guesswork, I’m afraid.

the initial shock of this war has blown over - for those of us not in it in real time - but it's far from clear we are out of the woods yet. — Manuel

Well after the Cuban missile crisis was over, it was reported that Kennedy and top officials were living in bunkers during the denouement, totally unbeknownst to the naive general population. They were ready to push the red button.

Now, we are in the early stages of this war, with escalation hardly mentioned as far as the West is concerned. But Russia is getting ready to use thermobaric, chemical, biological weapons to annihilate civilian populations after its tanks fail to make sufficiently significant inroads in the Donbas. The Western leaders will then have a big decision to make as far as initiating direct involvement leading to WWIII.

You're not helping your case by bringing up an absolute meme site for "military rankings." GFP just shoves arsenals that exist on paper into a spreadsheet and takes no account at all about actual capabilities. E.g.: Are reserves actually trained and able to be mobilized quickly? Is mothballed hardware kept useable or up to date? Can the country supply its own munitions? Can they keep an active, encrypted coms network up? Is investment on paper being embezzled? Does it have a meritocratic leadership system? And most notably here, it takes absolutely zero account of logistics.

For example, an M1 tank can't be judged as a "unit of firepower." A division of the things can burn through half a million gallons of fuel a day. Without well drilled fuel teams and specialized equipment, they become a hell of a lot less effective. Without fuel in general, they become useless outside of dug in positions. There is a reason the US Army mothballed a ton of tanks, and instead is sinking almost a billion into upgrading just 70 tanks.

Outdated hardware is how you end up with all these videos of Russian tank columns spotted by drones getting lit up by artillery and being reduced to smoldering husks without ever engaging the adversary.

Far better to do more with less and have something like the SEPv3, where you have systems to shoot down incoming anti-tank missiles and drones, sensors for knowing if you're subject to laser targeting, and video feeds for drone recon elements that can use AI to locate potential ambush teams so you can light them up from outside line of sight.

More is better is definitely not proving true in modern warfare. This has been true at least since Mole Cricket, where Syria scrambled 100 MiGs only to see 86 shot down, along with more than two dozen SAM batteries destroyed, while not taking down a single Israeli fighter. A numbers based methodology is, frankly, hot garbage. The number of useful tanks is the number you can keep fueled and updated, not the number you have in storage.

Do we really think Syria had one of the most powerful militaries in the world in the run up to their civil war? Egypt has a more 28% more powerful military than Israel and one more powerful than Turkey? Why?

Because the US dumps hardware there as a pass through to defense contractors and because it has a huge number of soldiers due to the military functioning as a gigantic jobs and social stability program? Turkey has been developing its own hardware it can supply itself, including drones that have caused Russia a ton of pain, and bested Russia in a proxy war in 2020 (a conflict that is heating back up in light of perceived Russian weakness). Israel regularly makes its own upgrades to US hardware that the US ends up buying due to superior functionality, and has been involved in no shortage of conflicts the past 20 years. Outside the Sinai insurgency, which is quite small scale, Egypt's institutional experience is in machine gunning groups of protestors and starving Palestinians of supplies.

Not to mention that their methodology would have made Iraq one of the most powerful nations in the world before both Gulf wars.

So war or submission are your only options. Turns out you did learn diplomacy from a fucking pack of football hooligans after all.

Yes, war and submission are the only options when Russian tanks keep rolling into neighboring countries. You know, sort of like they have in Ukraine and Georgia, or Moldova before that(where they still haven't left), or their repeated violent repressions of Eastern Europe's attempts to free themselves from the Russian yolk from 1945 on.

More is better is definitely not proving true in modern warfare. This has been true at least since Mole Cricket, where Syria scrambled 100 MiGs — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am curious to see if anyone supports Syria's right to defend itself against air attacks, or whether the right to defend itself is only for a few select nations.

Judging from the media lead-up, there is a perfect opportunity now for Ukraine to use chemical weapons with 'impunity'. Not saying that they will, however everyone will believe that the Russians did it, that at least is a fact.

The US and Britain say they are looking into reports that chemical weapons have been used by Russian forces attacking the Ukrainian port of Mariupol.

Ukraine's Azov regiment said three soldiers were injured by "a poisonous substance" in an attack on Monday.

However, no evidence has been presented to confirm the use of chemical weapons.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61077641

What was the CIA term- plausible deniability will work fine. I will really worry when they start talking about tactical nukes - are you and I going to take a trip to Ukraine and see which side they came from, or listen to RT, Sputnik News or CNN, BBC and the other shills. With some things there is no way to know until it is too late, then the damage has been done.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. — CNN

Word is that many of the FSB officers from the 5th Division, the office responsible for Ukraine intelligence, have been fired and may be facing prosecution. If true, this would likely be the biggest purge in the security services since Stalin. The head of the office has been charged with embezzlement and premeditated disinformation. On some level this is encouraging: at least this shows that Putin is aware that he was massively misinformed before the invasion. — SophistiCat

It's likely true.

I've heard this also and many ex-intelligence officers here commentating the war have noted this, so it might be very likely. Putin's personal intelligence service raided the FSB HQ that was responsible for the "near abroad". Usually other countries are handled by the SVR (and of course the GRU), but the near abroad states (as Ukraine) were given to the FSB.

Did an overview of articles again today. I'm reading a lot Al Jazeera, which seems the only non-Western newspaper to have Ukraine as front page news but that probably doesn't have much of a bias.

The Buenos Aires Herald hasn't written about the war.

The Rio Times barely (Brazil urges independent investigation without "pre-judiging Russia"). Certainly not front page news.

Japan today has one link on the front page but main story is about pregnant women facing abuse in an internship. Neutral reporting.

The Korean Chosun Ilbo does not have it on the front page. Pro-Ukraine reporting.

The Times of India do not report about it on the front page. Reporting appears sympathetic to Russia.

Taipei Times it's not front page news even when selecting the section "world news". Reading western media you'd think Taiwan was in a state of panic because of the precedent this war would create. Except of course, every US war already gave them enough of a precedent to worry about. The Taiwanese don't really care.

In the South African the only Ukrainian news is that the bear Kiryusha has found a new home in the Netherlands. Reporting neutral.

Africanews only reports that the war will affect world trade and that the EU is negotiation with Nigeria for extra gas. Reporting neutral.

Haaretz. Not front page news. An article on Israeli diamond traders funding the Russian effort. Reporting neutral.

Nobody cares except the West, Ukrainians and Russians. The rest of the world knows what the rules are worth. Which is basically nothing because if you have power and you can project it, countries will. For them it's just another war not worth talking about.

What does that say about Western media and politicians? What does it say about the hopes of a rule-based international order?

I think it lays bare the continued Western "exceptionalism" thinking. We still think we're superior, we still think our moralising is what should govern the world and because it isn't universal and we haven't applied it consistently to ourselves as well, our vaunted treaties on wars (The Hague and Geneva conventions), the UN Charter, they're all worth less than the paper they're written on.

EDIT: This is a depressing conclusion to me as a trained human rights lawyer. I had high hopes 20 years ago.

You can start with learning what's meant by "superpower." — frank

Scholars generally agree on which state is the foremost or unique superpower—for instance, the United Kingdom during the Victorian era and the United States during and immediately after World War II—but often disagree on the criteria that distinguish a superpower from other major powers and, accordingly, on which other states if any should be called superpowers. — Britannia

'Wrong' experts again, I suspect.

I wouldn’t be so disheartened. Those treaties were written when the West was the world (as the rest of the world was under developed, or aligned with Western states).

Now in a more global world we need to look to the UN to take a more legalistic and international arbiter role. Most of those countries you cite are not carrying out, or likely to invade their neighbours. I see the invasion of Ukraine as fallout from the disintegration of the USSR. That marauding countries invading their neighbours is largely a thing of the past.

What is more of an issue for civilisation is ideological terrorism. Maoism and Islamic derived extremism. Like a cancer, they can quietly spread and infect nations.

We shouldn’t forget the elephant in the room though, climate change. That global politics etc will soon become concerned with the climate crisis and humanitarian concerns of the population. There will be a lot of barriers going up to prevent mass migration and worst effected countries becoming broken, or failing states.

20th century style wars and international disputes will pale into insignificance as humanity struggles with these new challenges.

That's all very interesting. What's missing is any reason at all to believe you above the experts at the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

Or indeed. Chatham House...

In Syria, Russia showed that it now had the capabilities to challenge what it saw as the US’s monopoly on the use of force on a global level and to get a say in the course of events relevant to its national interests. Certainly, this will have to factor into the West’s use of military force in certain situations in the future, because the danger of spiralling tensions and escalation with Russia will need to be taken into account. — Bettina Renz, School of Politics & IR, University of Nottingham - International Affairs

...or some random dude on the internet...

For them it's just another war not worth talking about.

What does that say about Western media and politicians? — Benkei

Not much. There is a war going on between Ethiopia and Eritrea. How many pages does the Taipei Times devote to it? Or to the war in northern Nigeria with Boko Haram? Rhetorical question of course, to show that geographic proximity matters. What matters to Europeans does not necessarily matter that much to Africans, and vice versa. What's newsworthy is relative to one's locale. Why should a Nigerian reader care that much for a European war at this point, other than re. possibly price hikes in oil and better export prospects for oil-producing Nigeria?

Europe is not the center of the world.

Had you sampled Italian, Spanish, Polish, German or Danish newspapers, instead of Brazilian, Chinese and Indian, you would have found more reporting on the war in Ukraine.

What does it say about the hopes of a rule-based international order?

Again, not much, but it's a more interesting question. In my view, the UN charter became obsolete in 2003, when the US (who had founded the UN) decides to ignore it and invade Iraq, stabbing in the back any possibility of a rule-based international order .

There is a reason why Putin is aping Bush with those accusations of bioagent labs, etc. He is trolling the US about Iraq.