Ukraine Invasion: Part 22

[MagicFox]

Here we are again

Guardian article

I found this to be quite a nice simple analysis of where we are and puts all the bluster etc into some sort of context.

DH says it doesn't really matter. Once they're fired there's no way to stop them even if detected. The 'Starwars' programme in the 80s was about intercepting them but was shelved once they realised it wasn't possible.

Well that’s depressing.

Christo Grozev AT christogrozev
Major shake-up in Bulgaria, as the leading coalition partner - previously seen as dependent on the "pacifist" president Radev - took a clear pro-Ukraine stance today and attacked the president in "presuming that Russia will win this war, while we think Ukraine will win"

The main party in Parliament, PP, unexpectedly emancipated from the president, said it will vote in favor of direct and open arms sales to Ukraine - to be voted in parliament on Monday.

As I said, one of Russia's wisest strategic decisions

He previously said:

Christo Grozev AT christogrozev
Russia cut off gas supplies to Bulgaria, killing off the last available argument for the "let's stay neutral" lobby for why Bulgaria should not sell arms to Ukraine. It's like Putin is in self-harm mode.

Yes it is. Sorry.

@RedToothBrush "I believe there is roughly 12000 Russia troops in Moldova."

I think it's 1200 in Transnistria.

DH says it doesn't really matter. Once they're fired there's no way to stop them even if detected. The 'Starwars' programme in the 80s was about intercepting them but was shelved once they realised it wasn't possible.

Wasn't part of the argument against a defence system such as Star Wars, aside from it being completely impossible, that it potentially upsets the bilateral deterrence that prevents nuclear powers from taking each other on.

So if, say, the USA successfully develops a system that can intercept nuclear attacks, it looks threatening and like the US might be planning a first strike because it renders the nuclear arsenals belonging to other countries effectively useless. Perhaps leading to a 'use it or lose it' mindset or, alternatively, an arms race to design weapons that can bypass the system.

I've seen so many articles talking about the Star Wars system as though it's an actual, functioning defence system. AFAIK the Americans have developed anti-missile systems that could potentially take out an incoming single attack, but I don't think it's very reliable.

Interesting. I'll ask him tomorrow as he's gone to bed now. (I have no idea, I'm just trying to sound cleverer than I am by repeating what he's told me.)

Another BBC Radio 4 series worth a listen
Moldova
The Bear Next Door
Five cultural figures from the front line of Russia's border with Europe - Lithuania, Finland, Moldova, Latvia and Estonia - explore their national psyche in uncertain times. Their words weave with sounds and encounters from their home city as they explore their country's history, ambitions and distinctive character in the 21st century.
Our essayists across the series include a rapper and media commentator, a former President, a celebrated art critic, a dystopian novelist, and a distinguished literary director.
Today - Arts critic Paula Erizanu unravels her tangled double identity as both Moldovan and Romanian, and considers how her nation has been shaped by the scars of its post-Soviet identity and frozen conflict in Transnistria.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0016pqq

Each episode is 15 minutes

Does anyone else get the impression that it's more a case of not if, but when, now?

Putrid's not going to back down now.

i Assume you’re talking about the use of nuclear weapons. In which case no I don’t.

What are his options though? He keeps threatening to use them. Does he honestly believe that the West are going to stop assisting Ukraine? Why threaten something you have no intention of using? He's looking like a fool. He's also old and has nothing to lose.

I think the idea was that MAD doctrine had, despite some scary moments, prevented either side from launching an attack, but the Soviets were genuinely fearful at times that the US may launch a first strike. So at the time, any attempts by the Americans to make the Soviet nuclear Arsenal redundant would be hugely threatening. I do occasionally wonder (wishful thinking) whether it might be possible that we have the technology to intercept, or at least have a go at intercepting, but to advertise that we could do so would upset the status quo. I think that is extremely wishful though.

It's been a while since I fell down the rabbit hole of researching nuclear defence systems (there was another idea called 'brilliant pebbles' that was also shelved) but it is quite interesting in an alarming sort of way.

He has a family and the people who have to sign off on the launch, I assume, would have family in some shape or another. I'm clinging on to this.

I just don't know. I don't think, on balance, that this will escalate into use of nuclear weapons, although I suppose the likelihood is higher now (although still unlikely IMO.) My (non-expert) guess is that nuclear sabre rattling isn't going to deter the USA and UK, but Putin may well think that he can still effectively deter countries like Germany from going all-in with assistance, which may in turn create significant friction between the allies. Or that it might scare the western public enough to lose confidence in the judgement of their leaders.

BBC News:

"The Foreign Secretary Liz Truss has said Russian forces must be pushed out of "the whole of Ukraine", in what amounts to the clearest statement yet of Britain’s war aims.
Western powers are turning their minds to how the war in Ukraine might end, and what they want beyond a cessation of hostilities.
In her speech in London, Liz Truss said Russia had to be pushed out of “the whole of Ukraine”.
That is the clearest statement yet of Britain’s war aims and implies Russian forces must leave not just the territory occupied in recent weeks but also those areas invaded eight years ago, such as Crimea.
Not all Western powers may share such an ambitious target.
The foreign secretary also made clear the West should do more to deter future Russian aggression, by spending more on defence and using its economic clout to exclude Russia from western markets.
She said the West should beef up the defence capabilities not just of Ukraine but other threatened countries too, such as Moldova and Georgia.
If Russia were to succeed, she said, there would be “untold misery across Europe”. Victory for Ukraine was a "strategic imperative" for the West, she said"

Ok, that wasn't half as bad as I was expecting.

Russia has re written the rules, previous conflicts, when the other side armed the others enemy, didn't result in threats of nuclear war.

It used to look like Putin was a loose canon but it appears more likely that this war is being prosecuted by the Russian Government as a whole, which means the argument "Putin is a long way from the Nuclear button" may not be true.

I think also the dual message is to a Russian audience. These public threats reinforce the message that there's an existential threat to Russia.

Russia isn't going to leave Crimea, i very much doubt they'll be kicked out of the Donbass or the south of the country.
What is she on? her Govt is continuing with its own defence cuts!

Russia can wage war on Ukraine for many years if it wishes too.

Nuclear weapons?

No. As I posted in a previous thread, Putin doesn't have access to an actual big red button that fires nukes on his sole activity. What he has is the access to the process to authorise the firing of them.

Despite his view of being in control, firing a nuke relies on a chain of command.

Yes, I'm sure the Russians drill for "getting the order" and accepting those instructions without question (as does every other nuclear country) but there are only two cases in history of those weapons being used in wartime and that was against a country that did not have a nuclear response.

Fundamentally most humans have a survival instinct and the concept of a nuclear war is one hell of a deterrent.

Don't assume that because Putin decides if he can't run the world the way he wants then he'll blow it to hell that everyone in the nuclear chain of command will agree with him.

Nor am I sure that Putin wants that anyway. He wants a legacy and right now that's not looking in good shape. He needs time (and adoring fans) for that to happen.

One side effect of SDI was its enormous cost. The USSR knew it couldn’t compete as it needed a western collaborative economy to do so. It has been cited as a contributor to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Putin threat to use new ‘weapons’ today (yesterday?) I thought might be in relation to a massive cyber attack say in the US more so than using nuclear weapons. There is much potential for damage there without firing a single weapon.

ITV news

UN mobilising team to evacuate civilians from besieged Mariupol steel plant

Wednesday 27 April 2022, 10:30pm

Injured Ukrainians attempt to recover in cramped conditions in Azovstal's basement.Credit: Mykhailo Vershynin
The UN has said its humanitarian office is mobilising an experienced team from around the world to coordinate the evacuation of civilians from a besieged steel plant in Mariupol.
UN secretary-general António Guterres and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed in principle to UN and Red Cross participation in the evacuation from the plant during a nearly two-hour, one-on-one meeting on Tuesday.
The sprawling Azovstal complex, which has been almost completely destroyed by Russian attacks, is the last pocket of organised Ukrainian resistance in Mariupol. An estimated 2,000 troops and 1,000 civilians are said to be holed up in bunkers underneath the wrecked structure.
UN deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq told reporters on Wednesday that the UN is trying to translate the Guterres-Putin agreement in principle “into an agreement in detail and an agreement on the ground”.
“And ultimately what we want is to make sure that a ceasefire would be respected that would allow us to move people safely,” he said

I can't begin to tell you how much I want these people to get out

Still on here (but mostly been lurking).

I do wonder though, if this is not precisely the correct role for Britain. Our job is to take the "extreme" West line - the things that ought to be said, but nobody else can say them. the US can't, it is too important, so it needs to be measured and careful. None of the countries that border Ukraine can, they are too vulnerable. Germany is too dependent on gas/oil and won't. France could, but won't. We are far enough away, and can always play bad cop to the US's good cop (when negotiating, usually the bad cop is the less senior person, so that the good cop can come in and overrule them if/when they judge it appropriate).
Given our role in spotting the issues and arming Ukraine (we didn't have to sack our heads of intelligence, like the French, we were the ones saying 1) that Putin was going to invade when everybody else was saying nah, and 2) that the Ukranians would fight, when everybody else was saying 3 days and it would all be over), we are the logical one to make the more extreme demands at this stage.
Ultimately everybody in the West and Ukraine wants Russia out of Crimea and Donbass. Whether it is possible, who knows, but somebody needs to stake out what are the fully desired options, so that the others look more reasonable when they concede. If that is Britain's role, iis it not a reasonable one for it to play? Everybody knows that we can't go in and make it happen, we are just not strong enough and we are a bit to far for reprisals (it would be mad to nuke us only, as the US would respond and nuke Russia, so they get the little fish and the US gets the big one, but short of nukes, what else can they do, we are not Poland).
So just wondering if the bluster is not exactly what is needed from Britain, so everybody else can sound more measured and reasonable and can potentially negotiate?