Itoh, I do think it gets across, coarsely, a point about the sentiment scape. Russian people's tolerance of Ukrainian suffering can't be taken for granted. Kievans haven't attacked them, or given Russians much reason to hate them. Hate is a necessary ingredient for that kind of war.
Not when there is control fraud. Very few Americans hate Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Yemenis, Afghans, Palestinians, Vietnamese, etc.
'Bad and distracting'. Yes.
I just got these:
The thing about western democracies is that they respond to public sentiment. If the populations are seething with anger, they will want blood. Especially the Americans.
They’ll fortify heavily and the moment any Russian steps onto NATO member soil, they’ll be repelled though.
NATO is about mutual self defense, not invasion. Ukraine is caught in the middle between Russia and NATO.
People sometimes have hard lines that are surprising, and will cause them to do things that no rational person would do. Militaries and organizations do too.
War causes confusion, stress, anxiety, etc. which magnifies everything.
It doesn’t require ‘sane putin’ to push a button for someone somewhere to THINK it makes sense for him to and push the button in their exhausted and freaked out state of mind.
Putin didn’t start this invasion because he was bored.
Dictators generally do things because their internal power base demands something, but that is rarely visible to us, so we don’t know if a series of hardliner generals need this, or the base of paranoid hardline folks is getting angsty and he knows if he doesn’t appease them he is in trouble.
Near as I can tell, the senior leadership has already seen the writing on the wall re:getting frozen out of the west (sanctions and other stuff), and is seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.
They probably see this as now or never. We don’t know how desperate the leadership or Putin may be.
Ukraine, like Poland has historically been caught in the middle of these kinds of things, which sucks. it also isn’t their first time.
AFAICT nobody is suggesting putting troops on the ground in Russia. Nobody in the west has any desire to conquer Russian territory.
There's a big spectrum between "stand back and watch" and "march troops to Moscow". Obviously "supply Ukraine" is already in progress. "Bomb Russian logistics convoys in Ukraine" could be too. Hell, the west doesn't even have to admit it. "We have no idea why your tanks are flaming wrecks, maybe their car warranty has expired?"
Will there be any major infra attacks? On who, by whom?
The anon thing is cool and all - but many suspect that is intelligence agencies masquerading, but who knows about that..
I just hope this thing cools down and fast...
It’s easy for that to get way out of control, very very quickly.
I generally agree, but there are emotional limits to this kind of thing. Americans have historically been very willing to commit airplanes and bombs to righteous causes, but marching to Moscow would be a very different matter. I assume the same thing is happening with Russia's conscripts: "Why the fuck are we doing this?"
Russia has switched in the last 10 years (20?), to a large extent, from a conscript to a volunteer and mercenary force.
Not that the US (with occasional other Allies) hasn’t done similar, they just aren’t in this case.
and it COMPLETELY backfired on him...
Which I think ties to my other theory ;
What if the reason it is backfiring in such a spectacular way, is that, perhaps, Putin was not playing along with the WEF great reset agenda. While Putin was planning the Crimean Copy for grabbing Odessa, the NWO took this as the opportunity to knock him out of the way?
IMHO, that was never in the cards, because an effective amphibious assault would have required obscene and internationally-outrageous damage to civilians and shipping. Or unexpectedly optimistic progress on the Crimean front, which by its positioning needed to fight north and east. Odessa would have added west.
Yes. History has shown that you need to stop conquerers at the earliest opportunity. Famously, both Western Europe and Russia made deals with Hitler, thinking they had bought peace.
> Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right?
Those are some of the Russian talking points, FWIW. It has nothing to with such movements; Russia just uses them (and creates them to a large extent) as excuses to invade - following the exact tactics of many conquerers throughout history: 'We have people living across the border!' Many Americans live in the north of Mexico, and many Mexicans live in southwestern US. We could do the same with every border in the world, just about. And then there are the Russians living in the rest of Europe, who no doubt need protection. What about Cyprus and London?
If they didn't (create and) use those excuses, they'd create and use others.
> why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia?
We have no evidence that it's desired. But most of all, countries aren't smartphone brands - 'I'm tired of Apple, I'm switching to Samsung!' There's a reason that you ever (hardly ever?) hear of such a thing happening. We already have neighboring conquerers using the excuse described above; now we give a big carrot to neighbors fomenting rebellions. And the chaos of international borders changing, with all the geopolitical issues and crises involved. The clearly better solution would be people moving themselves to the other country.
'Technically', yes, but that's not the problem at stake here. That's what everyone assumed was the problem at stake before Thursday.
If it was about the Donbass provinces, Russia would just be invading them. (It already has, they have been largely 'rebel'-controlled for a very long time - an invasion would have been more of a formality than a practical change in the status quo.)
Instead, it's invading them, and the entirety of Ukraine, including all the parts that have very few ethnic Russians.
'Russian national self-determination' is just the excuse for a land grab in the west.
Russia will either have to capitulate (which will likely result in Putin’s ousting and likely death), or get stuck in a intractable guerilla war that will be quickly impossible to prosecute due to economic issues.
It’s very, very unlikely Putin or anyone else could nuke the Ukraine due to both proximity, cultural history, and lack of any conceivable threat from Ukraine that could justify it.
Even obliterating Kiev through traditional means would be very, very difficult to do - it has a lot of history for Russia and many Russians have strong emotional ties there. Desertions, defections, and insubordination would be difficult to counter.
It will cost lives, but all available options will. That Russia has been pretty blatant here will make it easier than if they’d been subtle.
It's easy to talk about how other people should resist an invasion to the death, but if I were living in Ukraine right now, I'd either be getting the hell out, or strongly prioritizing survival.
For people who have to actually live with it[1], a bad peace is in most cases preferable to a good war. That's why so much political effort goes into avoiding war in the first place.
[1] States, unlike people, have a vastly different view on war. A state can often cease to exist because of a war, even if the people it governed don't go anywhere. What is an existential struggle for a state or an ideology is often not one for its subjects... But the subjects are the ones who have to fight for the state.
I have kids who will (relatively) shortly be military aged, and have been through some really shitty life experiences that have surprising corollaries to this situation.
I personally am 'not of fighting age', but know that despite how wise it would be personally, I would have to take up arms in this situation.
I hate war. My family does too. But what you are describing (and the individual incentives), while 100% true, with a strong and hungry adversary lead to a situation where the society overall will be conquered, and everyone's individual situation will be worse.
Sometimes far, far worse. It's the short term safe option that feeds into the long term disaster.
Overlooking corruption because confronting it is too painful often leads to the same outcome - suffocating corruption everywhere.
That it is possible for some to live in those situations doesn't take away from what is truly being lost.
Because it almost never stops at whatever border they thought crossing would keep them safe. Giving in means they'll take more, and more, and more - and be stronger each time they do.
The kind of hunger this type of diseased mind and government has can never be sated. Only stopped.
Good fences make good neighbors, because firm boundaries that are firmly defended keeps everyone honest and normal people from turning into opportunists and predators.
Something that happens surprisingly easy for a very large portion of the population when enabled.
If no one is going to stand and protect what is theirs when something like that happens, they won't have it for very long. And when a lot of people in a society won't do that, that society won't last for long.
Zelensky knows better than most what he is dealing with - his grandfathers siblings were murdered in WW2 by the Nazis for being Jewish. But Ukraine overall has long experience being abused by Russia, especially USSR Russia.
He's putting his ass on the line and leading the way he is, because he truly knows the stakes and what he is dealing with, and has the courage to face it, and the love for himself and the people to do what needs to be done to keep them truly safe.
If you research the Holodomor, understand the impact that the years behind the iron curtain had on eastern Europe, and the crushing of the East German (and many other countries) spirit and it's long term consequences, you might better understand the stakes.
If you think Putin is going to be better than Stalin and the rest, that is very, very unlikely.
And if you think these refugees are going to be safe one border over - I appreciate the optimism. For those staring something like this in the face, understand, but appreciate what they're really facing.
If the war goes on for any length of time, though, all the mass death and destruction that comes to fighting a modern war in urban areas will take place. See - literally any war zone in history, but I'd like to draw particular attention to Chechnya. It wasn't the peacetime repression that killed two hundred thousand people, there, and displaced half a million more. It was the war.
Your entire family fought in wars, but how many of them have lived in the middle of one? There's a staggering difference of perspective between bringing war to foreign soil (which, if your family has been receiving purple hearts, they've been doing), and living through one fought in your back yard.
Not meaning to sound hostile, but what you just wrote has been the goal of Putin's strategy with subsidizing the separatists all along. It's to create the appearance of a genuine resistance movement that's really just an arm of the Russian military. It's Putin's MO.
Part of the reason for this recent invasion is because the typical espionage and information warfare that has brought Putin success started failing.
So one way or another this will end in short order. Or it will be WW3 (not necessarily nuclear, but it's a risk).
"After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia."[0]
[0] Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
Wow, that's literally the worst take I've heard on this.
- Russia has food to spare, exports tons of wheat, and has declining population
- Russia produces tons of energy and exports tons of oil and gas
- Russia already has several year round ports in the Black Sea. You think upgrading one of them to whatever they wanted is more expensive than waging fucking war?
- How much of a speed bump do you think a "demilitarized and neutral" Ukraine would be to forces that are doing a land invasion on the largest nuclear power? Also, Baltics are already in NATO, and the drive from there to Moscow is same distance on similarly flat terrain. Also, Finland and Sweden might join NATO too now thanks to this war. Also, nobody is ever doing a land invasion on a nuclear Russia. If the nukes didn't even assure that, nobody would keep spending billions on maintaining them.
You seem him calling on the Ukraine military to overthrow the government (which is probably not a great sign of how well his “demilitarize Ukraine” operation is going)? That option isn't available on only one side of the conflict.
If anything, Russia is probably safer than most other countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II_after...
The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army trivially in the field.
Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes for what they've done thus far re Ukraine). The Russian state will suffer no other losses post agreement, it'll be a neutral peace.
This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start.
As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder.
Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
Not any I've seen. Could you link to some actual, recognized experts who say that?
Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
The specific thing OP was talking about that I think people agree with is,
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
Generals have called for No-Fly Zones, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/27/breedlove-nato-commande...
I don't think anyone wants NATO and Russian forces to fight one another. At least, not officially.
PB: I am actually a proponent of it [a no-fly zone]. But let me now tell you why it will probably not happen, because the reality of a no-fly zone is, it is an act of war. There are a lot of people who don’t understand no-fly zones. You don’t just say, “That’s a no fly zone.” You have to enforce a no-fly zone, which means you have to be willing to use force against those who break the no-fly zone. The second thing, which nobody understands, is if you put a no-fly zone in the eastern part of Ukraine, for instance, and we’re going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft. So that means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. And you know what that means, right? That is tantamount to war. So if we’re going to declare a no-fly zone, we have to take down the enemy’s capability to fire into and affect our no-fly zone. And few understand that. And that’s why, if you talk about a no-fly zone, it is a very sober decision because many in the world would interpret it as an act of war.
FP: Yet, in spite of all of that, you said you would actually support the idea of a no-fly zone?
PB: Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation? Are we just going to watch? I mean, a friend recently said, “This is like biblical times, and the whole Colosseum is watching the lions and the Christians, and they’re pulling for the Christians, but they just watch.” So the question is, is the West going to tolerate Russia doing this to Ukraine? What if the Russians do what they did in eastern Syria and they drop barrel bombs and make rubble of cities and terrorize citizens and force them on the road and make them refugees across Europe? Where is the line that Russia crosses in its inhumanity such that the rest of the world reacts?
The analysis I was reading and where it was coming from was their experience in Syria where American and Russian forces have come into contact. But there's an asterisk here. They were Russian solders, but they were disavowed Russian soldiers acting under the Wagner group at an arm's length relationship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american...
I need to read up on how the no-fly zone was set up in Syria, but IIRC there were active clashes between American hardware and the Russians.
But that was a different context. It was a space far away from Russia's borders. It's another kettle of fish and it's not a good idea to do what was done in Syria here.
I apologize if I sounded too firm earlier, this is not my place of expertise. I am not an expert on geopolitics or foreign policy. It's not my area. I just like to read.
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.
He seized all the oligarch's assets for himeself and his cronies, then requires % and payment in every endevour...
Just like Xi...
---
I personally thought he was just going after getting eastern Ukraine in order to obtain Odessa for the port.
I'd like to get confirmation on the bombing of the US Biolabs, though.... even though after it was reported that they were bombed, the US removed the documents from the site which talked about the US funding the joint Biolabs
Thankfully all the documents were archived prior :-) [0]
Now I am really unsure where the heck this is heading -- these are some really unprecedented events...
Is it that the world saw that the Bear was actually weak and everyone is turning on Russia because he was not playing along with WEF and the Great Reset?
So they need to knock russia out?
---
[0] https://newspunch.com/us-embassy-quietly-deletes-all-ukraine...
Displaying disregard for reputation, morals, etc. is a common negotiating tactic in everything - in professional business, kids selling baseball cards, interational relations, family squabbles. That's what anger is: A display that you are willing to act out and cross lines.
Don't believe it; it's just a tactic. Ironically, it indicates the opposite to a degree: By making the display, they show that they care about what you think. For professional communicators like Putin (and anyone else in international relations) it's not a mistake:
The Russian government invests enormous effort in their reputation, from their public propaganda to social media disinformation campaigns. It's not at all because they don't care - they care very much. Every government ever needs legitimacy, the consent of the governed, who outnumber the government leaders a million-to-one. (They also need sufficient international relations to trade, to receive essential goods, and not to be destroyed.)
In first 2 days, they used pretty much everything against city outskirts.
You think Putin is afraid losing sleep? He already tried to bomb the Kiyv dam multiple times, he wants to destroy the city plainly, and simple.
https://uacrisis.org/en/the-russian-occupiers-tried-to-blow-...
If Kiyv dam is breached, it will flood the Zaporizhna nuclear plant.
That may all sound dated, but bear in mind the M4 rifle used by US troops is based on a 60s design and the Abrams M1 tank is basically a 70s design. The Russian forces have been comprehensively re-equipped and resourced over the last decade and have experience from operations in Chechnya and Syria.
New ammo is more reliable of course, but old works well enough if you have a gun to use it in.
It would be really good news, but that's totally unbelievable.
My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
That could have complicated logistics for the invasion.
>Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles along the route?
Yes, and civilians are doing whatever they can to stop them.
>My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
Yes. It's true, and more are coming.
Hard to know for sure, since this is an information that really affect morale on either side (Knowing that you still have airplanes and that the Russians don't control the sky is really good for Ukrainian morale, and vice versa).
Why would they think that and more important why wouldn't they plan for a non ideal outcome.
Ukraine is a huge country, bigger than iraq with more people, how could you be so sure?
But then again my expertice comes from playing Command & Conquest.
Expecting to catch your opponent off-guard with a quick assault might work, but not if you give them a four-month notice beforehand…
Adding more trucks can even make the issues worse, since they need their own fuel, spare parts, maintanence staff, drivers, military police to provide security, etc. You basically have to use the rocket equation when accounting for logistics
> So would Relikt-style ERA and soft-kill infrared defenses work against the Javelin? There’s simply no way to know for sure, unless Moscow were suddenly to invite Washington to test its anti-tank missiles against its best tanks in a friendly competition. But given that relations are too frosty for the United States to participate in Russia’s annual tank biathlon, don’t count on that happening.
Guess now we know.
What does this mean??
I’ve been seeing some neat icons of Ss Javelin and NLAW making the rounds. Good stuff.
The funny thing about the Javelin is that launching it looks like a dud - the first stage is basically an elaborate unboxing.