Putin may be planning to pummel Kyiv into submission
axios.com
axios.com
It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast
>According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine. However the government in Kiev sharply rejects the demand for neutral status.
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-ukraine-ge...
There is an actual war. Russia wants something that the Ukrainian government sharply rejects. They are in range of multiple cities and gave evacuation notices days ago. What do you think will happen next? Why wouldnt the next step be Grozny? Because the western public is outraged and appalled? Because those things dont happen in todays day and age? There can be no NATO intervention without triggering WW3. Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach.
If Ukraine continues to resist the very likely result is that it will burn. Feelings and stories dont change any of that. Russian artillery will likely turn house after house, street after street and city after city into rubble. Not some individual shelters, not some tv stations. Everything.
Ukrainians will die over the unwillingness to just take what ever demands Russia has now instead of in what ever time it takes to install a puppet regime in the rubble. And while some are forced to stay there due to conscription, quite a lot seem to be caught up in a nationalistic fever and delusional belief that "the West will stand with them".
The only thing the west will do is ship outdated weapon to give Russia their Vietnam. Which unfortunately for the Ukrainian people will be fought in their hometowns.
edit: Or answering it shorter, Outrage doesnt justify loosing touch with reality. Which already was the initial statement
They don't want to submit to tyranny and they don't want to be ruled by Moscow, let alone Putin. I wouldn't either, and i don't get who would. Why would they submit to the invader actively slaughtering their neighbours, friends, countrymen?
Most of them are aware that Russia cannot win. They cannot hope to occupy and rule Ukraine if Ukrainians don't want them to. Why submit then?
Russia not able to win would look like Syria. Syria is a failed state propped up by Russia and Iran carved up by superpowers with the local population at their whim.
We also dont live in 2000 anymore. As far as i am aware Ukraine didnt get any noteworthy anti air shipments. Stinger are useless for anything except passenger planes and some older helicopters. You wont shoot any jets down with it. And once doctrine switches back to standard artillery bombardment there isnt going to be much else to shoot at.
All of this not mentioning drone warfare and the ability to identify what they deem hostile elements. Russia is only limited in how cruel they are going to get in this. Of course they can win, it could just become very very horrible.
If you think this conflict will look like Titos partisans if escalated further, think more Grozny combined with the treatment of the Uyghurs.
edit: Think about that way, getting rid of everyone who still holds your opinion, that
>Most of them are aware that Russia cannot win. They cannot hope to occupy and rule Ukraine if Ukrainians don't want them to. Why submit then?
after a few months of classical bombardment is by now a trivial task. Same with the larger group who would do something about that. And even if you somehow could hide creating refugee waves is a very attractive geopolitical tool for Russia.
It is that bad.
No, because of the nazi orcs.
Sooner or later the civilized world will have to intervene.
Sooner would be much better though. What are they waiting for? Russia to bomb Ukraine into an unlivable wasteland and have ~40 million refugees move west?
Sanctions have material impact. Military supplies have material impact.
Twitter/Reddit/HN/Facebook outrage does not have material impact.
Outrage is a driver of change.
>It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality.
I tried to convey that it seems to me that some people, some willfully some in an emotional tailspin some simply distracted, care more about the story then its implications in reality.
edit: Meaning that while it isnt mutually exclusive, it seems to be the reason some people do it. Which isnt surprising since its an emotional reaction that requires effort and the will to keep out of a rational consideration. Its a behavior i keep noticing but havent found a good description for yet. Sorry for the confusion.
Oh yes we would be able to stomach that. Better we start right now. Rig up production of solar/wind/thermal energy at a war-scale level, deploy faster than anything else. Heck if not when, this is the time to become independent from oil producing dictatorships.
Show russia what an agreement is worth, when they say "humanitarian corridors are opened" followed by bombing them.
By now we all see that Russian words are less than farts in the wind, meaningless blabber with no face value.
This all was the reason why they resisted in the first place, they have good memories of brutal Russian oppression from all of 20th century. Why should they give up everything now? Doesn't make any sense.
edit: I get that this sound snarky, but it will hopefully drive home the point. Unless you have a 3rd alternative to agreeing what ever the man with the nukes understands under "demilitarization and denazification" and joining a death cult with mandatory membership i dont really get what i can tell you.
For Russia to leave them alone, and however it takes. Russia's economy is falling apart, and their army is in brutally terrible shape. They couldn't possibly occupy the country, even if they manage to conquer it, which they don't seem to be able to do. So victory for Ukraine is certain, ultimately. It will take time and cost a lot of blood and destruction, but the alternative isn't great either - being subjugated by a brutal tyrant who has no qualms murdering those who oppose him isn't a walk in the park either.
They are the ones choosing to fight. Look at the polls. Look at the interviews. Look at all the people there voluntarily picking up arms to defend their country.
Russians, not Ukrainians.
Ukrainians will defend their country and the Russians won't have the stomach for a prolonged insurgency, just like in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan led to the fall of the USSR, and Ukraine will now lead to the fall and breakup of Russia.
What ever solution you propose will have a cost in Ukrainian lives and that cost is largely determined with what Russia is willing to do. With their ruthlessness reducing their casualties massively.
In retrospect, that was better than Ukrainian cities being absolutely destroyed.
The rest of us are very keyboard brave with Ukrainian lives - telling them to fight to the end. ...but you would not be so brave if you had to live through this yourself.
There is exactly one way of ending this, only difference is how much Ukraine is willing to pay in blood and resources before they sign.
And then they hurt you anyways.
Imagine yourself saying the same thing to Jews and WW2.
proof?
I am sure the Kremlin has a working back channel to the Pentagon these days.
https://twitter.com/PentagonPresSec/status/15013364457299681...
Threats were made, I am sure.
Lets admit we have no clue what is going on behind the scene.
If you play the tit-for-tat ratcheting up escalation game with Putin then all of humanity is going to lose that one.
Right now its somewhat restrained since his generals won't want to launch nukes at NATO over the aid that has been given so far. When you cross a certain line so that Putin can argue that NATO bases in Europe are the proverbial dagger pointed at the heart of Russia and they must go so that Russia doesn't fall, then its much more likely that you've handed him the rationale for a tactical nuclear strike that his generals will follow.
I wonder how you picture NATO intervention without WW3, could you explain? IMO Nato intervention means a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces.
Also I don't agree with your second point. 'Any sanctions left' here means actually more than the entire packet of sanctions that the West has taken so far. The West spends hundreds of billions each year on Russion gas and oil. Sanctioning this would seriously hurt the Russian economy and Putin's war chest. Yes, it would also hurt the European economy, but surely many magnitudes less than a WW3.
I meant its not possible. You cant have a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces in Ukraine without triggering ww3. So the hope that NATO might intervene is badly misplaced in my opinion.
>Yes, it would also hurt the European economy, but surely many magnitudes less than a WW3.
Yes, another bad wording, thank you. Add an "and any...". I think the oil sanctions are unlikely solely because the European economies wont be able to handle the impact.
And with no NATO intervention (due to ww3) and no sanctions on oil(due to economic impact), i dont see much margin for actions left. Am i missing something?
I hope the poles manage to get some jets to them.
It’s also not clear where they would be able to operate form since most airfields have been destroyed or damaged with long range missiles.
It would delay the inevitable at most.
It would also send a signal that it's far from over.
The problem now is that the world can't meaningfully intervene because we didn't say beforehand that we would. We should have set up the no-fly zone with western weapons before there was further invasion. Now it's off limit because it means open conflict with Russia. Russia would not have invaded underneath NATO air supremacy AND it would not have taken the first shot against a french plane over Ukraine.
He did not need an invitation, after all, right?
Even a destroyed city can fight on - Stalingrad is a great example of that.
You now have an immutable hard border on one side of your country, are knee deep in sanctions which will not evaporate and another giant nation ready to take advantage of your poor position on the other side because they’re the only people who will even touch you with a 20 foot long stick. On top of that you have to now commit resources to permanently securing a whole another country which doesn’t want you in it and is being supplied with superior weapons from just about everyone else on the planet.
Putin just sold the whole nation into poverty, slavery and decay.
This is what we generally call a galactic scale fuck up.
We imposed sanctions after the invasion of Crimea too, those eventually went away. In time these will too.
I don't expect the West to be so well behaved that it can go on very long without cheap oil and gas.
It’s just an impossible and sad situation.
The West/EU/NATO doesn’t court. And they’re extremely careful about generating the impression or sending a message that they’re actively pulling countries into their “sphere of influence”.
For the process of inclusion to work there has to be undeniable proof that it is a democratic process that shows that the people of that country actively want membership. Poland managed to pull this off in the 90’s when Russian influence was weak and memories of Soviet influence were vivid. And even then the process was slow and difficult - the “West” is a demanding club to join.
> NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. [1]
[1] Item 23: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
It's also not so difficult to imagine that this was a response within a larger picture of two-way communication at the time. All the above says is 'welcoming aspirations' - basically 'we're happy that you want to join the club, you will be allowed in in the future if you stay on track'.
This position from Nato (linked above) set in motion a chain of events starting with the Georgia war a few months later. In order to join Nato, Georgia needed to regularise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia, and Saakashvili understood that this declaration indicated that if he were able to do so, then Georgia would be able to join Nato (some say this was told to him explicitly by US officials, but there's no hard evidence of this that I'm aware of).
In parallel, Russia understood the importance of maintaining the status quo in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to prevent Georgian accession to Nato.
Reports about the start of the war indicate South Ossetian separatists held a flame close to a powder keg, and Georgia exploded. Whether Russia was involved or not at this stage is unclear, but what happened next was a small Georgian armed force entered South Ossetia (and later Abkhazia) to impose Georgian control. Russia saw the potential implications of this, and fought back, ostensibly 'protecting Russian citizens', but in actuality, more likely to be trying to maintain the instability in these breakaway regions.
After just under 2 weeks of fighting, Russia rolled up to Tbilisi, and having achieved both their stated objective ('protecting Russian citizens') and the likely true reason for the invasion (stopping Georgia controlling South Ossetia and Abkhazia), agreed to a ceasefire, and eventually withdrew.
So, how does this impact on Ukraine, and what context does this add?
Ukraine leased a port in Sevastopol (Crimea) to the Russians, on which the contract was due to expire in 2017. As a result of the conflict in Georgia, Ukraine indicated that they would not want to renew this contract. Given Russia's size, it's quite surprising how little access they have to the seas, because most of their coastline is to the north, where only Murmansk is able to operate year round. As a result, Sevastopol is a critical strategic location for Russia, and so I suspect that this is when planning began in earnest for military intervention by Russia in Crimea. However, this also marked a turn away from Russia and towards the EU.
Now, a couple of years after the Georgia conflict, Ukraine elected a new president, Viktor Yanukovich. Yanukovich was not a new face in Ukrainian politics. He had previously won a presidential election in 2004, which was later annulled due to alleged fraud, and he lost in the re-run (the peaceful 'Orange Revolution').
Although there were fears about fraud in the 2010 election, it seems that these did not materialise, and Yanukovich was the legitimate winner of the election (although questions still remain about his funding and spending). Yulia Tymoshenko, his main rival, is quoted as saying that she and her party will never recognise Yanukovich as the legitimately elected president of Ukraine. In 2011, Tymoshenko was found guilty of embezzlement and sent to prison.
At this point, it's important to understand that more than 45% of the vote share went to Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko was seen as a left-leaning, euro-centric candidate, versus Yanukovich who wanted to dine at both tables. Almost half of the country felt as though the 'wrong side' had won the election, and their leader had been jailed (whether Tymoshenko was a political prisoner or not is a completely different essay).
In late 2012, the EU indicated that Ukraine needed to take several significant steps to improve various parts of their economy, judicial system, electoral system, and other items, which became an action plan in early 2013. Indications from the EU were that if Ukraine implemented these measures, they would be invited to sign an association agreement in late 2013, and Yanukovich was working actively to get these measures implemented.
However, additionally, the EU required Tymoshenko to be allowed to receive medical treatment outside of Ukraine. Further, a loan from the IMF which would help Ukraine meet the EU's financial criteria was predicated on Ukraine increasing gas bills by 40%.
This was not accepted by the Ukrainian parliament, and many in Ukraine felt as though the EU kept moving the goal posts deliberately, and were not negotiating in good faith. Ultimately, Yanukovich said that he wanted to explore other options, rather than joining the EU, and this is what triggered the Euromaidan protests.
Consequently, Yanukovich was ousted, and Ukraine continued to pursue EU association, eventually signing the agreement in March 2014. Yanukovich's period of active opposition to the EU was limited to winter 2013-2014 (although there are arguments he may not have been working in good faith before this, it's hard to tell definitively).
This was almost immediately followed by the annexation of Crimea by Russia, as they (probably correctly) felt as though the new administration in Ukraine were much more anti-Russia than previous administrations. It's hard to tell exactly why things have come to a head recently, but all of this is part of a story which is at least 20 years old, without even looking back through the 90s towards the collapse of the Soviet Union.
One thing that is fairly certain: Putin was likely not looking to be drawn into a protracted war, and was hoping for a similar outcome to Georgia: achieve political objectives (likely regime change) and then withdraw quickly. Given that this is no longer an option, and he has not achieved any of his objectives, I agree with the premise that the most likely next step is the 'Groznification' of Kyiv, unless Putin can meet his goals through diplomacy.
You have the timing backwards.
> In April 2005, Viktor Yushchenko returned to Ukraine's military doctrine the mention of Ukraine's strategic goal - "full membership in NATO and the European Union." The new text read as follows: "Based on the fact that NATO and the EU are the guarantors of security and stability in Europe, Ukraine is preparing for full membership in these organizations."
So it’s the other way around. Of course that doesn’t make it less sad.
Their communication is very subtle and succinct.
It’s the same with Taiwan. They do not deny China’s claim to Taiwan, but that is logically not equivalent to saying they accept China’s claim to Taiwan. They use language that is convenient for the politicians of those countries to appease their constituents while maintaining the status quo and pushing the can down the road.
Biden said he agreed in principle to meet if Putin has not already invaded Ukraine. That’s a weirdly structured sentence if you think about it. In plain English, the sentence seem logically equivalent to “only if”, but if we are focused on pure logic, then Biden can still meet Russia despite Russia having invaded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Intensif...
I'm sure there are many other issues as well.
"If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, *we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied*. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose."
---
Putin (And perhaps more Dugin or other Orthodox "influencers") now seem to think that the mere existence of a liberal ukraine (say, Gay parades in Kyiev) is an existential threat, regardless of whether it would ever spread to Russia proper.
That changes the balance between a "them" and "us". To Putin this means there can be no status Quo. The russian Empire can't be humiliated by having a liberal /"westernized" part that also happens to be a historical cradle of Russian culture.
If the premise of Russia(n leadership) is that it's better that there is no world at all than a world where Russia isn't an traditionalist empire including Ukraine, then the situation is MUCH harder to defuse than anything during the Cold War.
This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of defeating the enemy public opinion.
The only thing you can hope to do is counter-battery artillery or airstrikes, but both of those are vulnerable to shelling and airstrikes and one requires flying into enemy territory.
I suppose the other option is a good old medieval-style siege where you literally starve the cities out (add biowarfare for extra Hague points), but statically camping outside a city is not very safe unless it's the only enemy city.
If US + NATO open war on Russia it may cause hundreds of thousands of deaths (or more) even if nuclear weapons are not used.
What I don’t understand from the West was this arrogant attitude that it is unilaterally a losing hand for Putin, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma?
Even if he is acting to his detriment, it may be very well be the most optimal of moves he could make ( in his calculus ).
The idea of him being a madmen has been fluctuating in and out, but that’s only if you look at the outcome. If you consider all the outcomes, it might very well be rational ( morality is not necessarily part of the rationale ).
The old saying is that real generals think about logistics, not tactics. The implication is that it is logistics for their troops that is the concern.
Now I see that the true strategic advantage for a nation under attack is not only to have a fighting force that is dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attribution, but to also have a population that are dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attrition.
Every man is given a rifle and a helmet.
Moreover, every citizen is given a water sanitizer, energy dense food, and a shelter.
An Iron Dome was actually ordered by Ukraine but Israel blocked the transaction.
South Korea was poorer than North Korea in 1950.
I'm willing to bet $100 that if Russia only takes some regions from Ukraine and does not touch the rest in any way, by 2050 the remaining parts of Ukraine will be at least 2x as prosperous as the parts of Ukraine taken over by Russia and probably also at least 2x as prosperous as Russia itself.
This is pure blackmail, and it won't stop here.
It’s just the first time in history that the whole world sees the horrors of war streamed live.
Which is a good thing I guess, there’s a whole new generation now that might learn ‘never again’ without actually having to go through the experience.
Edit: Of course we always had the news, but a reporter showing the aftereffects from a safe distance are a bit different from the single soldier streaming the images of the Russian warship before telling them to go fuck themselves.
In Vietnam, Americans (a small minority) collected ears of those they killed. The Viet Cong held barrels with rats to stomachs and burned the other end, forcing rats to eat through stomachs.
In Rwanda, neighbors killed neighbors with their bare hands.
In World War 2, +150,000 civilians were wiped instantaneously.
In former Yugoslavia, neighbors lined neighbors up and executed them.
There is no war without war crimes. And as usual, it’s the citizens that suffer, rarely the elite.
The reporting isn’t like that here either though. Here’s a video of the Sky News UK team getting ambushed: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sky-news-teams-harrowing-acco...
Ignoring my inner cynic, it is good that we, the European countries, help Ukraine and the Ukrainian refugees, very good. But yes, I think the West is very much used to start wars in far away countries where we can ignore the consequences in our daily lives. Now someone else started it, close to our homes, and all of a sudden we cannot ignore it anymore. Comes as quite a shock to some, it seems.
Not happy about this myself, we are all equal humans and it shouldn't matter how people dress, speak or religion they have, this reaction should be present in all cases of war.
Europe took in millions of refugees from a different continent.
Syrian/Afghan refugees took a longer route to Europe instead of Saudi Arabia. That's what an economic migrant does.
All the other social media covered wars were, well, covered by the parties fighting the West. Which is a different story.
>Ukrainian forces were engaged in clashes nearby, but not at the site where civilians were moving along the street. Outgoing mortar rounds could be heard from a Ukrainian position about 200 yards away.
>The shelling suggested either targeting of the evacuation routes from Irpin, something of which the Ukrainian authorities have accused the Russian army after a railroad track used for evacuations was hit on Saturday, or disregard for the risk of civilian casualties.
So the ukrainians were launching mortars from the area and civilians got caught in the crossfire ... it's not exactly russians blackmailing civilians. Still their fault I guess for invading in the first place but this is not exactly a war crime, the ukrainians knew they were also firing from a civilian position.
Edit: there's also evidence of Ukrainian soldiers being in the same street, because keep in mind all the videos of the aftermath don't match always the videos of the shooting either. In some of the videos in which we don't see any Ukrainian soldiers, the russians seem to be shooting warning shots in the air, while in those with confirmed casualties there seem to be Ukrainian soldiers in the same street (meaning there was probably a crossfire situation)
It's also likely the reason the Russian advance stalled. Neither party really wants to go through that hell
Then the blame should be on who started the "warfare".
Unless they expected a surrender ( which seems to be the case - they had advanced paratroop drops and logistics and rations drastically unprepared for a longer term battle,potentially with the help of special ops murdering Zelensky), why even go there then? Nobody sane starts a war with the idea of long term destructive urban fighting. Especially live streamed urban fighting. There's nothing for Russia to win there, so if that was really their plan, it's even stupider.
Its unimaginable how brutal that war was, no wonder why there was so much opposition back then, sadly nobody was tried for war crimes ugh.
The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose.
Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.
> ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-pol...
Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war.
Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China.
It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...
1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption.
So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.
Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest.
> 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week.
How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
They sort of ended up sanctioned. You're right, there's nothing official, but no unconstrained buyer wants to touch energy exports from Russia.
Russia is struggling to sell its oil to unconstrained buyers [1]. Sure, Europe, in winter, with no ready alternative, is still buying, but that's about it it seems.
Also, while it's true global oil prices are sky-high, the rise in Russian oil is far more muted. Basically, there are many kinds of oil sold around the world (Brent, WTI, and many more). They usually move largely in lock step, as to a reasonable extent you can substitute one for another. But recently Urals is sold at a massive discount - because no one wants to touch it.
> How do you know this?
There are plenty of soft indications. Troops only given rations for 72-odd hours. Attempts at airborne strikes that are very rapid, but doomed to fail terribly with any but minimal resistance. Reports of Russia looking to "source" new troops - from Russian reserves, and Syrian, hmm, volunteers? All suggests the current length of the war exceeds plan A and plan B.
Of course Russia might still win a long, hard slog of a war, by bombing everything that moves...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-has-not-sanctione... [2] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/urals-brent-pric...
Getting paid dollars for oil and gas doesn't do you much good when you can't spend those dollars on anything. Imports into Russia have stopped over the past week.
> How do you know this?
The propaganda leading up to the 'Minor peacekeeping action in the Donbass' certainly didn't sound like he was getting everyone ready for a forever-war.
> e.g. in Chechnya
To most Russians - even the warhawks, the war in Chechnya (much like the Winter War of 1939) was seen as a debacle and an utter embarrassment.
I mean, it's entirely possible that the war will end this week, and my second point is moot. But it's looking like it's quite possible that it won't.
This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"?
> Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational.
Being rational as defined by your personal ideology is what economic models postulate when they assume rationality.
I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable.
This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions.
The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
You're assuming an occupation of all of Ukraine is the endgame.
Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”.
Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
> The seven characteristics of life include:
> responsiveness to the environment;
> growth and change;
> <<ability to reproduce;>>
> have a metabolism and breathe;
> maintain homeostasis;
> being made of cells; and.
> <<passing traits onto offspring.>>
Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder.
I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist.
There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
Plus, the former head of Mi6 warned not to try and corner Putin, since if he were to be personally severely threatened, he wouldn't hesitate to turn to using nuclear weapons and take the whole world down with him if he were to ever be ousted form power by the west.
Never gonna happen because:
1) The majority of the Russian population is still supportive of him, thinking they're fighting to liberate Ukraine from nazis and that the western sanctions are in place because the west hates them, rather than consequences for their leaders' war crimes
2) Like the former head of Mi6 said, Putin is so mad that if threatened, he's more likely to be ok with seeing the whole world get nuked, instead of going down like Gaddafi did, which is why the west is going so soft on him.
That's ok. Putin doesn't have a big red button, he actually needs a lot of people to be ok with committing a suicide, and it is likely they won't.
And nuked world might be better than world in which Russian can do what it wants.
And the humanitarian corridors Russia recently designated lead to Belarus and Russia, which is not where the people want to be. The Russian effort to "help the civilians" are just deeply cynical PR and misdirection.
They are. I think the count is up to two million or something.
> Russia is obviously going to win.
That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians.
> The logical thing to do is to leave, suffer but be sure that your kids will have it better. But I reckon this isn't about logic?
Or it is about logic, but your "logic" is too shallow of an analysis.
Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles.
Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, they're done for. When their cities are reduced to rubble from the shelling, there will be nothing left fighting for, as you can't live and raise kids in wasteland that's been reduced to rubble.
> Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy.
A developed country is 1 bombing campaign away from becoming a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare...
Ukraine is a huge country, cities are a great environment for insurgents. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option Ukraine's planning. That they didn't have to resort to that kind of warfare yet is quite surprising if you ask me.
We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.
Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them.
Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.
The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off.
Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.
They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully.
I'd like Ukraine to win, but if you listen to the former head of Mi6 and US military experts, they don't give Ukraine much chance of actually winning, as they're severely outgunned and outnumbered vs Russia, despite aid from the west. Despite taking heavy losses, Russia's use of tried and tested WW2 style of encircle the big cities and slowly pummle them into submission with artilerie, and endless cannon fodder plus ruthless trained killers form Chechnya, seems to be working for them slowly but surely.
And the sanctions are mostly affecting the average Russian who can't buy iPhones, Ikea furniture anymore or use Paypal, but it has no effect on Putin's war machine or on his grasp of political power in Russia. Banned western goods will still come into Russia through Serbia and Kazakhstan anyway, as they're not sanctioned countries and have liberal trade policies with Russia.
At this point, they are losing equipment much faster than they can produce new one, no one can churn out a dozen new military helicopters in 2 weeks. This alone will be a major source of attrition. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are getting very efficient weapons from the West and they are being replenished constantly. If Russia could have prevented the inflow, they would have done so.
Sieges of big cities are a messy, protracted affair that may take years (see: Sarajevo, Leningrad). They consume enormous resources - e.g. Leningrad was besieged by 750 000 Germans. Russia isn't capable of supplying a much smaller task force right now.
What makes you think that they could mobilize "endless cannon fodder" (e.g. five million men or so), equip them with something more efficient than AK-47s, throw them into the theater and supply them with fuel, ammo and food if they are struggling to supply a mere 180 000?
Some people say that Russians are holding back and preparing winning push.
Some people say the Russians will just try to hold what they gained so far (which is few minor cities, despite maps colored red) and try to achieve their objectives in negotiations.
Hard to say what will happen.
If you analyze the actual situation, they're stalling there for good reason, nor because they can't go further. They're setting up permanent bases there so they can resupply easier, setup a field hospital and a service center for vehicle repairs. It will make next offensive much more efective, in theory.
Both of those things can be true at the same time.
In the case of Palestinians especially, finding easy citizenship elsewhere is not simple.
To the point you're making though, I don't think it's so straightforward in all cases. If you're not well off and your life is being completely uprooted either way, it's a much more complex calculus than just, say, going to Poland.
The men are staying and fighting. The men who were in our country have gone back to fight.
Fuck Putin
https://visitukraine.today/de/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man...
It's not. It's going to be a repeat of Afghanistan for them.
> The logical thing to do is to leave
That's logical only for a coward. Many people won't give in to a bully, especially when they're winning. (Independent sources are saying 5800 dead orcs on 3 March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... )
please, grow up, this is an actual human war we're trying to discuss. live in reality. there's no orcs and hobbits and wizards here.
i can only stomach about 30 seconds of reading the comments section on reddit before running into mindless stuff like this.
No, they are simply under permanent military occupation, with no end in sight, no path to enfranchisement. At best, they are living in an apartheid state. At worst, they had a war declared on them, and they aren't even permitted to surrender.
If some third party invaded the United States, and kettled Americans to live in isolated enclaves and ghettos, with no freedom of movement, national sovereignty, or pathway to assimilation into the occupier's new nation, that occupier might be subject to the occasional rock and rocket attack, too.
Most of them are living much much better than in any neighbor country.
Most do not have that right, despite being born there, and having no other home country.
That some of them are enfranchised is a fig leaf over an apartheid state.
The rhetorical sleight-of-hand that you are obscuring is that most Arabs living in Israel are not, and will never be allowed to become Israeli citizens. This is despite both being born, and living on a territory that is very clearly under the military control of the Knesset.
It's either an indeterminate military occupation, or its apartheid. I don't care what you want to call it, but you have to pick one or the other, because in 2022, Palestine simply does not exist as a free, sovereign nation. It's either a civil territory of Israel, or occupied by Israel.
To this day I don't know where I stand in this conflict, since I understand many of the subtleties of the conflict.
But that part is clear, Palestine <<is>> under attack.
Israely is knowingly "salamy tactic-ing" Palestine. They're slowly chipping away at their regions. They're destroying Palestine through administrative abuse.
It's like slowly being crushed by one of those car compactors.
I have no idea what the correct reactions in this situation is.
https://www.jns.org/eu-unpublished-report-finds-palestinian-...
I'm just saying that if you were a member of a population that's being squeezed out of their land, day by day, in a country that at best, if you try to integrate, treats you like a second hand citizen, you can't say for sure what your reaction would be.
You could try to pretend it would be a peaceful reaction, but you can't say for sure. Nobody can.
"squeezed out of their land". The Hamas got untouched territory. They could have build a paradise there. Nobody wants this part of the land. So again why send rockets? There is simple no reason - only to stay in power and get the donations.
Just building settlements. So providing homes for people does't justify rockets and violence in my opinion. Settlements can be removed later if it is unacceptable for a Palestinian state to have some jew's
And the Palestinian government like <<any>> sovereign state on this planet, is allowed to decide who builds what where.
Again, salami tactics. Brilliant strategy, but awful from a humanitarian point of view. How to strangle another country, kill it by a thousand paper cuts.
Sheikh Jarrah is only one of many cases.
> Just building settlements
That's a very weird way of putting it. Illegal settlements, in lands that don't belong to Israel, so it's not up to Israel to decide what to do with it. It's obviously a population displacement tactic - then there'd be Jews there, Israel can claim the lands, and if Palestine does decide to remove them, Israel will cry genocide and step in.
Hamas use terrorist tactics and are a terrorist organisation. That doesn't in any way change the apartheid-like regime Palestine is under, and the unfairness of all the terrible treatment Palestinians suffer at the hands of Israel. And Hamas' tactics are understandable ( but unsupportable) - what are they to do to fight against Israeli atrocities, expulsions, blockade, apartheid? Submit and accept living in ghettos ? You can't blame them for making a different choice.
But this is still a very impoverished part of the world. Income per capita is ~$2k / yr.
So, most simply don't have the means to leave. I think most are counting on being able to just stay out of the way and waiting for this to "blow over".
I’m long past the point where I’d be fine calling their bluff, but the same thing does not seem to be true for our elected leaders (probably why I’m not one of those).
What do you personally stand to lose if you call the bluff and it’s not a bluff?
As much as I’d like to hate on the politicians, this isn’t a repeatable game where the outcomes average out.
At least in this way other people who didn’t volunteer their life are spared.
As such, there haven't been any "pushing of boundaries" unless you presume Russia gets to decide what independent nations like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc. may or may not do.
Yes and Russia doesn't deny that either. The request was for NATO to stop allowing countries like Ukraine to volunteer. Is that unfair ? Yes, it is a bully move. But that was the bully's request, and the West's stance is, effectively, we don't negotiate with terrorists. It's the attitude of: whatever, we do whatever we want. That's also fair, but don't be surprised why Russia proceeded, because they can have the same sentiment: whatever, we do whatever we want. The magnitude of recklessness is outsized, but the direction is the same.
It's up to Ukraine if they want to pursue NATO membership or any other agreement with any country or organization.
Russia has no say. It's not a negotiation between NATO and Russia. Russia isn't at the table. They can pine for old USSR glory all they want but nobody else wants that.
And the way Putin's been killing journalists and dissidents (in the UK no less), raiding the treasury, annexing Crimea, and other nonsense, I don't see them being invited to many negotiations in the future.
Well that attitude brought us to that point. Russia thinks that it should be at the table and it can prove it.
> And the way Putin's been killing journalists and dissidents (in the UK no less), raiding the treasury, annexing Crimea, and other nonsense, I don't see them being invited to many negotiations in the future.
Turkey is NATO member, do you know anything about Erdogan deeds? Or maybe that story when Saudi Prince DISMEMBERED that journalist in embassy and everyone were okay with it?
And it will leave with a bloody face.
> Or maybe that story when Saudi Prince DISMEMBERED that journalist in embassy and everyone were okay with it?
What have you been smoking? That blew up in MBS's face and lost billions in investments.
Whether that is true or not, it would have given more weight to Russia/Putin’s argument than stuff about Nazis.
Only relevant red line is border of sovereign nation. No NATO member was forced to join - they actually asked to join in order to prevent invasion like the one which is in Ukraine now.
> expansion of the West
Isn't is cynical to call it expansion of the West while no-one except Russia expanded beyond borders of Russia? It is just expansion of Russia.
Nope, no one is denying Russia's expansion, nor China or the next superpower.
The only hypocrisy would be recognizing Russia's expansion and not the West.
The conservative argument is that the world should be kept as is, and whoever makes the first move is to blame for breaking that balance. Putin thinks the West did it first, before this Ukrainian invasion. The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time
> The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time
Hardly the first. What has "the west" done that's remotely comparable to Crimea or South Ossetia? This isn't a story of mutual escalation, it's Russia taking as much as it can get away with.
Lead the pro-NATO coup in the closest Russia's neighbourgs, armed these countries with heavy weapons, encouraged them to fight Russia and promised to support this fight, then leave and watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other at the expense of Europe.
It didn't started in 2022 or 2014, it escalated for the last 30 years.
The Revolution of Dignity was about removing the Russian puppet. It was let by the people, who opposed orc control.
> armed these countries with heavy weapons
Friends help each other like that.
> encouraged them to fight Russia
As every sovereign nation should on their land.
> and promised to support this fight
Source.
> then leave
What NATO soldiers were there to leave?
> and watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other at the expense of Europe.
Disgusting point of view. Russians attacked! What were the Ukrainians supposed to do? Surrender to people who want them killed?
by the way
West destroyed Iraq, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Lybia, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Afghanistan, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Serbia, ask Serbians, what do they think of NATO
There is peace in Crimea, there is a peace in South Ossetia. Nobody is shooting. The life is poor, mostly because of the west sanctions, but people are safe.
Ask Croatians and Bosnians what they think about Serbs. Basically Serbia tried to do to them, exactly what Russia is doing now to Ukraine. Btw Serbia is starting to do pretty well comparing to when they were under USSR influence.
> There is peace in Crimea, there is a peace in South Ossetia. Nobody is shooting.
Nobody was shooting in entire Ukraine, before Russia decided to start stealing their country.
* Libya was given a no fight zone at the request of the people. It was a mistake, but the intentions were noble.
* Afghanistan started as a fair war. They gave aid to people who attacked a NATO country. It was completely fair to invade. Trying to nation-build it was a mistake though. But again, noble.
* Intervening on the side of the muslim terrorists in Kosovo was a mistake and some people in NATO (like us Romanians) opposed it (although our government supported it).
* The Russian occupied areas are hell holes. Transnistria is literally soviet.
Especially with Putin gone and a more moderate leader.
So then if troops had been put there first it would be Putin starting it, and even he might not be crazy enough to do that.
By wavering the west has gotten into a position where Ukraine is being destroyed.
And this I agree. So now maybe the United States will stop wavering on Taiwan.
The problem is that is equivalent to setting up a flag. The East views America as an imperialist, and this would be provocation of imperialist expansion.
[1]: https://www-capital-bg.translate.goog/politika_i_ikonomika/v...
As for headlines like this one, what's the basis?
And the rest of the article doesn't mention Falluja. wts?
oh, i forgot...Kyiv is a _civilized_ city.