Ukraine Watch...

[clv101]

The military build up on the border was/is costing Putin a huge amount of resources. It had to have a purpose. Now we know.

He's not out of pocket (yet). The increased price of exported oil and gas (dollars) more than pays for increased mobilisation costs (rubles).

[clv101]

Seems invasion is now inevitable, Putin has accepted/recognised the independence of the Donbas region, and signed protection agreements. This now means there are Ukrainian tanks currently parked inside a newly independent region of the world with a Russia protection agreement.

The question now is whether it's *just* Donbas, or whether the Russians go further to create continuity with Crimea, or even over the river.

Putin has also just claimed Ukrainian is seeking nuclear weapons. This is highly unlikely, but the fact Putin has said it makes it harder to declare a full completion of all objectives whilst the current Ukrainian (with their nuclear plans) persist!

[Mark]

Putin annexed Crimea and the West did nothing much apart from a few sanctions - everyone still trotted off to their football World Cup...
He now seems ready to annex the Donbas region, but all we're proposing is a few more sanctions....
Next up the Baltic States....?

With Hitler it was the Olympics...., then Austria..., then Sudetenland....., then Poland....then World War....
It's all looking very grim....

[clv101]

Russian army now in Ukraine.

...well a peacekeeping force is in (after invitation) the newly independent DPR territory.

Are Russia and Ukraine at war today?!

[Mark]

Are Russia and Ukraine at war today?!

There's already been war by proxy for the last 8(?) years
More than 14,000 people have already been killed ?

[adam2]

Some reports state that large numbers of the inhabitants of these newly "independent" have been given Russian passports.
Obviously, Russian "peacekeeping troops" should protect the interests of these new Russian citizens.

I doubt that the West will do anything much in response to these peacekeeping missions.

[adam2]

If Russia puts large troop formations on the ground then this might not end well for Russia.

I perceive a risk that significant numbers of the Russian troops might defect, escape, surrender, mutiny, change sides, or otherwise not fight as their leaders order. Not so much out of any deeply held political beliefs but simply from a desire for a better life in the free world.
Many may take light weapons with them, a few might get away with tanks or artillery.

[Stumuz2]

The next segment watch will be if any US/UK ordinance gets to the Donbas region. Depleted uranium anti tank missiles are in Ukraine hands, Will they be given to the defence forces in the region.

This is something Putin has never had to face.

[Stumuz2]

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/ ... 6824183816

Latest tweet from the EU commission. I bet Putin is quaking in his boots.

What would you rather if you were a Ukrainian soldier facing a modern Russian tank? Unity and values from the EU, or a devastating 100% kill anti tank weapon which can be fired from long distance, thus avoiding close quarter battle, and allowing you to fight another day, from the UK ?

[kenneal - lagger]

I would think that the Baltic states are getting worried now with their large ethnic Russian populations imported to them in Stalinist times. It will be interesting to see whether or not they suddenly find themselves with separatist bands causing problems. It would not surprise me at all.

I thought quite early on in the crisis that Russia might carry out an annexation of those mainly Russian speaking areas. Perhaps the Russian presence in Belarus has a dual purpose: to split Ukrainian forces to allow a full annexation of the two Russian speaking areas with little opposition and to bolster Lukashenko's forces in case of a popular uprising against an unpopular dictator.

[adam2]

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/ ... 6824183816

Latest tweet from the EU commission. I bet Putin is quaking in his boots.

What would you rather if you were a Ukrainian soldier facing a modern Russian tank? Unity and values from the EU, or a devastating 100% kill anti tank weapon which can be fired from long distance, thus avoiding close quarter battle, and allowing you to fight another day, from the UK ?

Obviously the "unity and values from the EU" would be more effective than an anti tank weapon.
This being the modern equivalent of the "pen is mightier than the sword" The EU statement was probably typed on a PC without use of an actual pen, but is somewhat comparable. Likewise swords are little used these days, but anti tank weapons are a somewhat comparable modern equivalent.

[Mark]

The next segment watch will be if any US/UK ordinance gets to the Donbas region. Depleted uranium anti tank missiles are in Ukraine hands, Will they be given to the defence forces in the region.

This is something Putin has never had to face.

Stumuz2,
I have very little military knowledge, but I do know that using DU will leave an environmental legacy for a very long time to come...
Genuine question, why use DU anti tank missiles rather than conventional ones ?
Is there a military advantage, or is it a scorched earth policy ?

[adam2]

Depleted uranium projectiles have a military advantage. The material is very dense and hard and is therefore better able to penetrate that at which it is fired.

Fired at say a tank, the hope is that the DU projectile will at least partly penetrate the armour, and that the explosive charge then has a better chance of fully penetrating and destroying the target.

[Stumuz2]

Stumuz2,
I have very little military knowledge, but I do know that using DU will leave an environmental legacy for a very long time to come...
Genuine question, why use DU anti tank missiles rather than conventional ones ?

Conventional artillery just would not penetrate a modern tank. It will have 200-250mm thick armour plating. The only thing that will penetrate is the DU round, being as it contacts the armour it self sharpens and becomes flammable because of the high temperatures it creates.
As you say not good for the environment and is a STOT and carcinogen.

Is there a military advantage, or is it a scorched earth policy ?

Not a scorched earth. It will be defended for use in Ukraine because it is being used in defensive role, although they were an attack weapon in the gulf war with most of saddens tanks being destroyed in the first hours of the battle.
They are so controversial that the shells have DEPLETED URANIUM: NOT TO BE FIRED IN PEACETIME written on each round.

[Mark]

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/ ... 6824183816

Latest tweet from the EU commission. I bet Putin is quaking in his boots.

What would you rather if you were a Ukrainian soldier facing a modern Russian tank? Unity and values from the EU, or a devastating 100% kill anti tank weapon which can be fired from long distance, thus avoiding close quarter battle, and allowing you to fight another day, from the UK ?

Obviously the "unity and values from the EU" would be more effective than an anti tank weapon.
This being the modern equivalent of the "pen is mightier than the sword" The EU statement was probably typed on a PC without use of an actual pen, but is somewhat comparable. Likewise swords are little used these days, but anti tank weapons are a somewhat comparable modern equivalent.

Think that you'll find that the EU has also imposed economic sanctions on Russia.
Not the strongest, but still stronger than our extremely meek effort on a few banks and 3 individuals
Maybe Boris is wary because he knows there's so much dirty Russian money in London and the Tory Party ?

Also, Germany's new Chancellor has said that they'll stop certification of Nord Stream 2 for the indefinite future.
As for armaments, I'm sure that anything we send will have to be paid for - to the benefit of BAE Systems and the like...
All the worlds arm manufacturers/dealers will be wetting their lips in anticipation, and we're one of the biggest.....
Don't let your anti-EU views cloud your vision....