Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Russia Massing Military Forces on Ukraine's Eastern Border


bison

Recommended Posts

It seems that Russia's Mr. Putin wants Ukraine for a close ally, or failing that, at least a neutral island between itself and the West. A thorough takeover of Ukraine does't appear in the cards, but psychological pressure tactics to keep NATO or the European Community from extended its influence in Ukraine are definitely in the picture. Doyle McManus writes an illuminating  article for the Los  Angeles Times, thoroughly exploring the situation. It makes for very interesting reading. His article is linked below:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-11-28/ukraine-is-one-big-mess

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the current state of our leadership in DC, it will amaze me if we make it until 2024 without being embroiled in a global conflict.  I grew up during the Cold War and I believe we're in much more danger of a potential nuclear exchange than we were back then.  Having the most sophisticated or powerful military on the planet does no good at all if your enemies doubt you have the will to pull the trigger.  Miscalculation has started many wars.  :( 

ETA:  From the article:

"One test of a great power is whether its leaders can walk and chew gum at the same time."

 Fiona Hill, the horse-face Impeachment clown, used a rather unfortunate phrase for this current administration^ ;)  We're literally talking about a guy whose senescence makes him unable to control some of his bodily functions.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, and then said:

Considering the current state of our leadership in DC, it will amaze me if we make it until 2024 without being embroiled in a global conflict.  I grew up during the Cold War and I believe we're in much more danger of a potential nuclear exchange than we were back then.  Having the most sophisticated or powerful military on the planet does no good at all if your enemies doubt you have the will to pull the trigger.  Miscalculation has started many wars.  :( 

Their nukes are better, they have been deploying hypersonic ICBMs.

Edited by Cookie Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, and then said:

Considering the current state of our leadership in DC, it will amaze me if we make it until 2024 without being embroiled in a global conflict.  I grew up during the Cold War and I believe we're in much more danger of a potential nuclear exchange than we were back then.  Having the most sophisticated or powerful military on the planet does no good at all if your enemies doubt you have the will to pull the trigger.  Miscalculation has started many wars.  :( 

Nah, you're good. And if you get into a war, at least your own president will be on your side. 

And that article seems to suggest Biden is not smart enough to appease Putin. The joke is in the fact that only an utter moron would choose to appease Putin.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Their nukes are better, they have been deploying hypersonic ICBMs.

Nukes are not wine to become better by sitting in cellar for decades without maintenance. 

Edited by Helen of Annoy
spelling. gudnajt.
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, bison said:

It seems that Russia's Mr. Putin wants Ukraine for a close ally, or failing that, at least a neutral island between itself and the West. A thorough takeover of Ukraine does't appear in the cards, but psychological pressure tactics to keep NATO or the European Community from extended its influence in Ukraine are definitely in the picture. Doyle McManus writes an illuminating  article for the Los  Angeles Times, thoroughly exploring the situation. It makes for very interesting reading. His article is linked below:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-11-28/ukraine-is-one-big-mess

It's their border, they can put whatever they want there anyway... a winter fight is not on the agenda, it's just muscles flexing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Nukes are not wine to become better by sitting in cellar for decades without maintenance. 

Their nukes are maintained and functional, and the hypersonic ones brand new.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Nah, you're good. And if you get into a war, at least your own president will be on your side. 

And that article seems to suggest Biden is not smart enough to appease Putin. The joke is in the fact that only an utter moron would choose to appease Putin.

 

What's your opinion of Putin's willingness to back down if he first miscalculates Biden's resolve to step in to help defend Ukraine from the Bear?  That's the thing that worries me most about this current Oval Office inhabitant.  There is no reasonable doubt any longer that the guy is too old for that job and that he isn't the one calling the shots on policy.  If Putin or Xi decide that they won't get a better opportunity to expand their territory and power than is available right now, do you really think Putin would back down if Biden sent NATO forces to oppose him?

Putin is a thug, a criminal, but above all else, he's in power because Russians want a strongman.  If he's seen as backing down from the decrepit American president, the only way he'd be able to stay in power is through openly returning Russia to the bad old days before they had even the appearance of a representative democracy.  Sure, he's already returned the Rodina to that era in all but name only but he won't be able to keep any fantasy like that alive if he has to openly refuse elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Their nukes are maintained and functional, and the hypersonic ones brand new.

The hypersonic additions have more meaning than the old inventory.  The problem with them is they are destabilizing.  They give Russia the capability to sink carriers or evade any kind of missile defense.  I think the only way we stumble into a nuclear war is if an enemy has sufficient reason to doubt our willingness to defend ourselves by sending nukes in return.  THAT is the danger of having an obviously senile man in charge of our military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Their nukes are better, they have been deploying hypersonic ICBMs.

If they Nuke Europe, dominant wind will bring radiation directly on Russia soil...  Nuke is far more dangerous in the hands of desperate nations like North Korea. Russia will not nuke Ukraine. Russian nukes are deterrent weapons.

Battle in Ukraine rely on thousand of tanks and weapons in old soviet era caches that the separatists refurbishe and use. You just need to dig a little and you found a t-64 over there. One of many tank yard in eastern Ukraine: 

knoetstxj4f51.jpg

Protester looting old weapons cache : 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/protesters-ukraine-weapons-cache-mine

Edited by Jon the frog
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, and then said:

What's your opinion of Putin's willingness to back down if he first miscalculates Biden's resolve to step in to help defend Ukraine from the Bear?  That's the thing that worries me most about this current Oval Office inhabitant.  There is no reasonable doubt any longer that the guy is too old for that job and that he isn't the one calling the shots on policy.  If Putin or Xi decide that they won't get a better opportunity to expand their territory and power than is available right now, do you really think Putin would back down if Biden sent NATO forces to oppose him?

Putin is a thug, a criminal, but above all else, he's in power because Russians want a strongman.  If he's seen as backing down from the decrepit American president, the only way he'd be able to stay in power is through openly returning Russia to the bad old days before they had even the appearance of a representative democracy.  Sure, he's already returned the Rodina to that era in all but name only but he won't be able to keep any fantasy like that alive if he has to openly refuse elections.

He can do whatever he wants in Russia, because he's got total control over complete repressive mechanism. The elections are morbidly humorous events there. 

But that's not direct problem for the West. It's the fact to be worked with. 

American president can be a literal mummy, it doesn't matter, as long as he's not directly opposing American interests and going around destroying alliances. Like certain person I won't mention.  

It's the competence of the administration that matters. What that otherwise unsavory article got right is that obstructions in international affairs out of petty domestic reasons are unwise. (Not appointing ambassadors because Republicans are pouting since their candidate failed. That's not how American interests are protected.)

Putin knows the limits of muscle flexing. He also knows he couldn't back up, so he won't try doing that, what he thinks would initiate direct Western action. This is why a number of presidents and other highest ranked officials and diplomats were messaging him, defining the limits. In case of actual conflict, his economy would be dead in few weeks. He knows that.  

I'm too tired at the moment for this, so I'll leave it sort of unfinished. We're too small fish to know what is really going on, who said what to whom, but generally, most importantly, open conflict between West and Russia is out of the question. It's not going to happen.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and then said:

The hypersonic additions have more meaning than the old inventory.  The problem with them is they are destabilizing.  They give Russia the capability to sink carriers or evade any kind of missile defense.  I think the only way we stumble into a nuclear war is if an enemy has sufficient reason to doubt our willingness to defend ourselves by sending nukes in return.  THAT is the danger of having an obviously senile man in charge of our military.

The hypersonic missiles are not as destabilizing as they appear to be from reporting.

Its important to point out how there are two different types of hypersonic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles.  Media rarely differentiates between the two and treats them both as the same despite being radically different.

Russia is working on developing both types into various weapon systems, all at various stages of development.

For hypersonic cruise missiles Russia has the Zircon, which is still under going testing I think but I might be wrong.  The Zircon is designed to be an anti-ship cruise missile and would be a threat against American carriers.  It has a HE warhead between 300 and 400 kg, travels between mach 8 and mach 9, and has a range of around 1000 km. 

Initially that makes it sound like a game changing weapon system but it has a few flaws.  The Zircon generally flies at an altitude of about 18 km, hypersonic glide vehicles due to being scram jets cant fly over an altitude of 30 km.  Also since it flies between mach 8 and mach 9 it generates a massive amount of heat.  From a combination of the altitude it flies at and the fact that its impossible to make it stealth as any thermal detection system will spot it instantly under the majority of conditions the amount of time from first detection to impact is at best the same to slightly longer then American sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles.  Basically the Zircon flies far faster but since it generally flies higher it can be detected far further out then a missile flying far slower only a couple 10s to 100s of meters over the surface.

The hypersonic glide vehicles are often what gets talked about as evading missile defense, and they do as our current missile defense is designed to pick up and target ballistic missiles.  Unlike hypersonic cruise missiles the hypersonic glide vehicles get boosted to hypersonic speeds by a rocket and glides in the upper atmosphere.  Generally they are bigger and are designed to carry strategic nuclear warheads like ballistic missiles.  I'm not even sure if a hypersonic glide vehicle can practically target something as small as a carrier.

As for risk of nuclear war I cant see any conflict over Ukraine sparking a nuclear exchange.  Ukraine, America, and Europe as a whole has no real interests, motivation, or will to actually invade Russia itself and Russia seems to only be interested in keeping a conflict limited to Ukraine and not expanding it to beyond a regional war.  Not facing an invasion of the Russian homeland and thus not facing an existential threat Russia wont use nuclear weapons to defend themselves, at worst they will threaten the potential use of nuclear weapons if opposing armies advance past a certain point inside of Russia's border.  

It's also important to remember that Putin is not the true power in Russian politics, it's the Russian oligarchs.  Putin stays in power cause he has enough backing from enough powerful oligarchs.  While a failed invasion of Ukraine might be the end of Putin the Russian oligarchs will continue on regardless if it goes well or not and will not allow any conflict over Ukraine to go nuclear as that will be a threat to them.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

The hypersonic missiles are not as destabilizing as they appear to be from reporting.

Its important to point out how there are two different types of hypersonic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles.  Media rarely differentiates between the two and treats them both as the same despite being radically different.

Russia is working on developing both types into various weapon systems, all at various stages of development.

For hypersonic cruise missiles Russia has the Zircon, which is still under going testing I think but I might be wrong.  The Zircon is designed to be an anti-ship cruise missile and would be a threat against American carriers.  It has a HE warhead between 300 and 400 kg, travels between mach 8 and mach 9, and has a range of around 1000 km. 

Initially that makes it sound like a game changing weapon system but it has a few flaws.  The Zircon generally flies at an altitude of about 18 km, hypersonic glide vehicles due to being scram jets cant fly over an altitude of 30 km.  Also since it flies between mach 8 and mach 9 it generates a massive amount of heat.  From a combination of the altitude it flies at and the fact that its impossible to make it stealth as any thermal detection system will spot it instantly under the majority of conditions the amount of time from first detection to impact is at best the same to slightly longer then American sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles.  Basically the Zircon flies far faster but since it generally flies higher it can be detected far further out then a missile flying far slower only a couple 10s to 100s of meters over the surface.

The hypersonic glide vehicles are often what gets talked about as evading missile defense, and they do as our current missile defense is designed to pick up and target ballistic missiles.  Unlike hypersonic cruise missiles the hypersonic glide vehicles get boosted to hypersonic speeds by a rocket and glides in the upper atmosphere.  Generally they are bigger and are designed to carry strategic nuclear warheads like ballistic missiles.  I'm not even sure if a hypersonic glide vehicle can practically target something as small as a carrier.

As for risk of nuclear war I cant see any conflict over Ukraine sparking a nuclear exchange.  Ukraine, America, and Europe as a whole has no real interests, motivation, or will to actually invade Russia itself and Russia seems to only be interested in keeping a conflict limited to Ukraine and not expanding it to beyond a regional war.  Not facing an invasion of the Russian homeland and thus not facing an existential threat Russia wont use nuclear weapons to defend themselves, at worst they will threaten the potential use of nuclear weapons if opposing armies advance past a certain point inside of Russia's border.  

It's also important to remember that Putin is not the true power in Russian politics, it's the Russian oligarchs.  Putin stays in power cause he has enough backing from enough powerful oligarchs.  While a failed invasion of Ukraine might be the end of Putin the Russian oligarchs will continue on regardless if it goes well or not and will not allow any conflict over Ukraine to go nuclear as that will be a threat to them.

Deployment of glide vehicle missiles started last month in Russia.

But yes, no one is going to commit nuclear suicide over Ukraine. If Russia did invade we would send forces, we would probably grab half each, then have a stand-off that comes to nothing. Countries aren`t going to take millions of their own citizens dying to save another people from a takeover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Deployment of glide vehicle missiles started last month in Russia.

But yes, no one is going to commit nuclear suicide over Ukraine. If Russia did invade we would send forces, we would probably grab half each, then have a stand-off that comes to nothing. Countries aren`t going to take millions of their own citizens dying to save another people from a takeover.

It does seem Avangarde was deployed as a function weapon system.  Zircon does seem to still be in testing for about another month or so.

Also as I forgot to mention Russia threatening Ukraine is largely due to Putin being at rather low popularity levels, about the same level he was at before invading Crimea.  Seems the pension reform that passed a few weeks ago in Russia was amazingly unpopular and it seems Putin is going to try a land grab again to boost his popularity as it has worked the last few times he has done it.  Only problem is this time Ukraine is better prepared and it might not be as low body count of Russian soldiers this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

Seems the pension reform that passed a few weeks ago in Russia was amazingly unpopular and it seems Putin is going to try a land grab again to boost his popularity as it has worked the last few times he has done it. 

This is a foreign thought but in reality it will greatly lower Putin's rating and complicate relations with Europe, and numerous sanctions will follow.

I believe that the increase in Russian troops is a response to the numerous statements of our pro-government politicians in the past months that if there is an order from the president, then Ukrainian troops are ready to seize Donbass. So Putin is preemptively pulling soldiers not to the border but to the location of military bases.
The tension is beneficial for the Ukrainian authorities, since they are supported with weapons and they do not forget the problem of Donbass and NATO's help, joint exercises bring this organization closer to us. Biden is an old politician and his methods of confronting Russia are traditional, but maybe they have some kind of plan for how to solve the problem of Donbass, or this is an attempt to complicate the introduction of the NS-2.

One gets the impression that both Ukraine and America benefit from an attack by Russia, and they themselves want and push it knowing that Putin reacts sharply to any threat. They pull the tiger by the tail. Time is working against Ukraine, and Russia can wait as long as it wants, dragging out the Minsk agreements. Because 5 years will pass and Zelensky will not solve the problem of Donbass, and so at least some kind of movement.

The idea that we need a provocation hovered in the heads of the Ukrainian people half a year ago, and what is happening now may be the result of these actions. At the same time, both conflicting parties recently made statements that they are not going to attack, so this is an attempt to change something and put Russia in an unfavorable light in order to get some advantages.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is already concentrated in the conflict zone in Donbas.
They are building up their military strength, pulling together heavy equipment and personnel. According to some reports, the number of Ukrainian troops in the conflict zone already reaches 125 thousand people, and this, if anyone does not know, is half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, "- said the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Maria Zakharova at a briefing." Ukraine is preparing a serious offensive, "says another expert.

The goal of all these movements is either to capture Donbass or to achieve international sanctions and stop the certification of Nord Stream 2, since tactically Russia is still winning together with Germany and this economic connection must be somehow broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coil said:

“Half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine is already concentrated in the conflict zone in Donbas.
They are building up their military strength, pulling together heavy equipment and personnel. According to some reports, the number of Ukrainian troops in the conflict zone already reaches 125 thousand people, and this, if anyone does not know, is half of the entire composition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, "- said the official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Maria Zakharova at a briefing." Ukraine is preparing a serious offensive, "says another expert.

The goal of all these movements is either to capture Donbass or to achieve international sanctions and stop the certification of Nord Stream 2, since tactically Russia is still winning together with Germany and this economic connection must be somehow broken.

I'm so sorry your country is going through... that. I don't know what to call it. But it reminds me completely of my country's situation in 1990's. 

Now, the economic connection you mention - it can't be broken, but it can be used to put things back in their natural place.

Expecting the EU (it's not Germany alone that buys Russian gas) to collapse Russian economy - which would cause general carnage in Russia, not an organized war by Russia - is too much. That general carnage would spill out of Russia in unpredictable ways. No one sane wants that. 

Russia is posturing as if they keep EU in control with gas, but it's actually the other way around. Shortage of gas would be unpleasant but not devastating for the EU. Not being able to sell gas to the EU would be devastating for Russia. (Recent artistic performance by Belarus showed that more clearly than Putin wanted.) But it wouldn't implode in controlled way, so it's not a healthy thing to go for.   

So the gas business is the tool to control Russia with. It's not to be spent just like that in its "nuclear" (total, that is) potential. 

 

It would be extremely interesting to know what is really talked about at the highest levels. Russia will have to move out of Donbass, maybe some peaceful reintegration like we had over here in the 1990's. With theatrical negotiations and international observers and stuff. It takes years, so it's watered down in public perception, won't cause civil unrest and economic collapse, unlike an actual war that I'm sure wouldn't be accepted well in Russia. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

It does seem Avangarde was deployed as a function weapon system.  Zircon does seem to still be in testing for about another month or so.

Also as I forgot to mention Russia threatening Ukraine is largely due to Putin being at rather low popularity levels, about the same level he was at before invading Crimea.  Seems the pension reform that passed a few weeks ago in Russia was amazingly unpopular and it seems Putin is going to try a land grab again to boost his popularity as it has worked the last few times he has done it.  Only problem is this time Ukraine is better prepared and it might not be as low body count of Russian soldiers this time.

Its just sabre rattling.

In fact, many news articles are using old photos of the apparent troop build up from a past military exercise.

Ukraine is a buffer to protect the EU, and to protect Russia, and the Crimea has Russians naval port. Its all about arguing over strategic positioning and defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Russia will have to move out of Donbass, maybe some peaceful reintegration like we had over here in the 1990's.


Ukraine cannot fulfill paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Minsk agreements since Poroshenko and the nationalists threaten Zelensky, therefore it is still impossible to return the occupied territories.

-adoption by parliament of the law on amnesty of militants;
-holding local elections under the auspices of the OSCE.

In general, it looks strange at first the elections in the territory occupied by the militants and their legitimization, then their withdrawal from these territories, because as soon as the russian troops leave our regions, their elected government will not hold out there for long.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Coil said:


Ukraine cannot fulfill paragraphs 5 and 9 of the Minsk agreements since Poroshenko and the nationalists threaten Zelensky, therefore it is still impossible to return the occupied territories.

-adoption by parliament of the law on amnesty of militants;
-holding local elections under the auspices of the OSCE.

 

Yes, the general amnesty won't pass. The leaders will have to be held responsible. Maybe someone (an international initiative) will involve an international court with that. (Like it was with our war over here, there was no general amnesty. Common people were not put on trial for simply being on the wrong side, but the leaders and the suspects of war crimes were extradited to International court in Hague. Which is still the source of very intense, screaming fights in each country involved, of course. I'm not saying there will be justice, I'm just saying that there are solutions to this problem with amnesty.)

 

Quote

In general, it looks strange at first the elections in the territory occupied by the militants and their legitimization, then their withdrawal from these territories, because as soon as the russian troops leave our regions, their elected government will not hold out there for long.

Exactly. That's the whole point. Let them democratically go to hell on their own.

 

 

Thank you for your insight in the situation. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ukraine has no more chance of escaping Russian Hegemony than does Georgia or Belarus. Since no one in the Western Alliance is willing to go to war with Russia over them, they'll be left to their fate, regardless of the West's pious, public protestations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Ukraine has no more chance of escaping Russian Hegemony than does Georgia or Belarus. Since no one in the Western Alliance is willing to go to war with Russia over them, they'll be left to their fate, regardless of the West's pious, public protestations. 

lol. 

Why would anyone go to war, if real sanctions would do better job in much shorter time and without casualties? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is its about trying to reduce Russian sanctions, not as these actions on the border look like it.

If he can worry enough people and then extract sanction concessions for removal of troops Putin ends up in a better position. 

Unfortunately, for Putin, it looks as though this ploy has been spotted and there are already talks of increasing sanctions if Putin steps over the line. 

But I think this is all about Russia shaking the tree and seeing if they can gain an advantage not responding to a perceived western threat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

lol. 

Why would anyone go to war, if real sanctions would do better job in much shorter time and without casualties? 

When have sanctions ever worked against Russia? LOL back at you. Besides, E.U. sanctions against Russia are farcical. What one hand takes away, the other hand gives.

Russia is the EU's fifth largest trade partner, representing 4.8% of the EU’s total trade in goods with the world in 2020. The EU is Russia's biggest trade partner, accounting for 37.3% of the country’s total trade in goods with the world in 2020. 36.5% of Russia’s imports came from the EU and 37.9% of its exports went to the EU.

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Russia is the EU's fifth largest trade partner, representing 4.8% of the EU’s total trade in goods with the world in 2020. The EU is Russia's biggest trade partner, accounting for 37.3% of the country’s total trade in goods with the world in 2020. 36.5% of Russia’s imports came from the EU and 37.9% of its exports went to the EU.

Does that imply EU trade volume is almost 8 times the size of Russia's trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.