War in Ukraine (Previously - Will there be War?)

Here is the only way of preserving this gain in the long term, locking to the Belarusian border. Mountains and broken country to the north would make this new enclave hard to attack. The star is Rylsk, the railway node that supplies this area. Otherwise the plan they divised is to drive about in Russia a bit and then withdrawing. Which makes more sense?

You're very belligerent all of a sudden, michaelc!

Plane, probably - and Bulgaria is part of Schengen for air-transport border controls.

So I'm guessing they probably aren't actually Russians.

They might, of course, have swum from Crimea...

...or overland from Turkey - www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-border-agency-triple-officers-bulgaria-turkey-frontier-2024-02-29/

Well I didn't think of it before but the answer probably is there were many Russians in Bulgaria before the war and even more now - driving up property prices in Sofia and elsewhere. Wife hasn't heard them enough but told me some of the common simple phrases are shared (or alternatively Bulgarians still use the Russian version for hello etc.). Only a few dotted around - I suspect 5 years ago it would have been 80% russians here....

Must admit I checked  that and you're about right.

Another question, would Russia missile its own territory?

I for one quite agree. Of course (in worst case?) that plan could just be driving around causing "mischief" .... I hope its something more substantial. Already its enough for Putin to publicly make a response. 


Had a quick look at a translated Russian paper (Izvestya) aimed at russians. This was the total text of the headline article (my highlight):


The losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) in the Kursk direction in one day amounted to 420 soldiers and 55 units of armored vehicles. This was reported on August 13 by the Russian Defense Ministry.



“Over the course of a day, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost up to 420 servicemen, 55 units of armored vehicles, including three tanks, eight armored personnel carriers, an infantry fighting vehicle, 43 armored combat vehicles, 31 vehicles, a multiple launch rocket system launcher, and an artillery piece,” the defense department said in a statement.



In total, during the military operations in the Kursk direction, the enemy lost up to 2,030 servicemen, 35 tanks, 31 armored personnel carriers, 18 infantry fighting vehicles, 179 other armored combat vehicles, 78 cars, four anti-aircraft missile systems, two multiple launch rocket system launchers and 14 field artillery guns.



The Ministry of Defense also reported that the operation to destroy Ukrainian formations continues.




The fact of the invasion into Russia is somewhat burried as you might expect but you'd think most Russians would know where Kursk is ! The numbers obviously exaggerated but presumably there must be some/significnt losses on the Ukranian side in any attack? 

1. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime under international law
2. Occupying approx 1000km² of mostly rural area and around 20-30 villages or so is not the same as attempting to enter and occupy an urban space of 13m people and around 2500km2.  With a force of about 10,000 which by then is a good distance from its own border safety.
3. Oh, you were suggesting 'razing' half of it, so it doesn't need occupationg. Even allowing for deliberate exaggeration on that, you'd need nuclear weapons to achieve that. Ukr doesn't have any. (They gave them away in exchange for a security guarantee.....)
4. Despite the paucity of Russian resources now, they'll have the cr*p bombed out of them well before they get close. 
5. Then they'll be surrounded
6. Then they'll be annihaliated. 
7. If on the other hand they started to get close, the West would have complete kittens and put a stop to it before they started. Especially if they are using western vehicles/weapons etc. 
8. And if they did by chance happen to get close and started lobbing substantive conventional artillery shells etc. - which will still be a relative pin prick - Russia will resort to more substantive weapons. Nuclear weapons would be on the table, citing Russian doctrine of first use IF the Russian state is at threat. The capital city amounts to that. 

other additional objections are available. As of course are other opinions.