Russia to Withdraw Troops from Kherson
bbc.com
bbc.com
[1]: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-confli...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_War
[3]: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641...
For example, his first video: "All Bling, No Basics"[2] does a good job explaining why the Russian military had such a difficult time during the early part of the conflict compared to the predictions by most of the analysts at the time.
Just be aware that his shtick is hour long power point presentations.
---
As a man unfortunate to spend 13 years in the country, I can only confirm that Western Kremlinology has zero basis in reality.
The Russian Government has made an announcement they are evacuating.
The Ukrainian military have stated they're not seeing it actually happen on the ground.
They have been saying for some days they suspect it's a trap, and Kherson has not really been evacuated.
This announcement could well be just more encouragement to dive in, from the Russians.
But its decision to pull back across the Dnipro river was treated with caution by Ukrainian officials.
"Actions speak louder than words," said presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak.
"We see no signs that Russia is leaving Kherson without a fight... [Ukraine] is liberating territories based on intelligence data, not staged TV statements."
They want the Ukrainians fighting to take ground around Kherson and then spend months fighting street by street (as russians have failed to do in Bakhmut) all under pre-sighted Russian artillery sitting pretty on the south side of the Dniepr.
They don't want to blow the dam, or give up Kherson, they want to embroil the ukrainians in a grind like the ukrainians have done to them (and continue to do) in bakhmut, with a prize the ukrainians want (the liberation of Kherson the city and the region).
If you're not sure watch Shoigu's announcement of this - one of the most scripted and least convincing 'military' discussion the russians have publicized. The butchers sending drafted men to their death's as meat with nothing but AKs, no training or medicine, and who slaughtered civilians wholesale throughout ukraine are now talking about how much they care about their men and civilians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ZdW2lRq94
It's a deadly joke, but some Western media outlets are too excited for a big headline and will print anything that they think people will click on. Asking the ukrainians matters less than getting the headline first. I've already seen headlines that say "RUSSIA RETREATING FROM KHERSON" which aren't true. Russia says they will retreat from kherson, but aside from stripping every washing machine and kiddy train in the region, they have not retreated.
As a naturalized USA citizen with Russian citizenship, this war has been on my mind 100% of the time since it started.
My brother (in Russia) is as they say "Zed-turbo-patrioting" and I am (in USA) horrified at the elaborate seppuku my former country is committing, it's like a (not a very slow train wreck). And my cousin is trying to send me her teenage son so him the hell out of there. Challenging family dynamic to say the least.
The Russian army is a clay-legged colossus. All the money for it's weapons has been stolen and turned into fancy real estate and shiny yachts and parked offshore. Rusty AKs, WW2 era artillery, and purchases of Iranian (!?!) weapons? WTF!
If China wants to go help itself to a chunk of Siberia, nobody is going to be able to stop it.
Regardless of who controls the USA chambers of power, the support of Ukraine will continue, whether financial or via weapons. The money USA and the west has spent on this war is an INCREDIBLY GREAT bargain, I mean, it's f*ng cents on the dollar to utterly annihilate the historical strategic enemy AND! not spend a single soldier? It's brilliant. And the weapons are getting tested. It's like a public field test of superiority of western weapons, the world is watching, and there will not be any Russian weapon system sales anymore...
What does that mean?
Ukraine, for their part, likes to just paint a simple Ukrainian flag.
As for Ukrainian vehicles, they can be often seen adorned with white crosses in the more recent photos.
A tongue-in-cheek joke in Russia is that these aren't actually Z and V, but rather Ꙁ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze_(Cyrillic)#History_and_shap...) and Ѵ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhitsa), both a part of the historical early Cyrillic alphabet, symbolizing the return to "tradition".
Turbo-patriot is a term very frequently used to describe the people who are super extra patriotic in their support of the Putin and the war being prosecuted
In what sence?
- Defense contractors are making a lot of money, again with full public approval
- USA is gaining a lot of influence in Europe through its actions
- Russia is being taken down a peg
It's really a very easy and obvious win for the US establishment from all sides
It's thanks to Russia attacking another country and ruthlessly killing, raping, and torturing other people.
Russia also has state-backed PR but it doesn't work that well because it is them who invaded another country.
there are many ongoing conflicts in the world, Syria and Libya for example. They don't receive that much attention.
* Years passed, and it's still not clear to what the West could do (or have done).
that's depends how you define full-scale invasion. Russia carries bombing campaign in Syria for 7 years already, with many iranian/turkish/hesbola troops on the ground.
ruZZia throws at Ukraine everything it has except weapons of mass destruction i.e. nuclear, chemical and bio.
The number of ballistic and cruise missiles, including capable of carrying nuclear weapons, fighter jets, tanks, artillery (rocket and otherwise) in use is astounding.
This is a full scale war in invading other country not a "conflict".
so far both Libya and Syria received much more damage than Ukraine, where conflict is mostly localized on 20% of territory.
And besides the ethnic/race angle, it's also happening right on the doorstep of NATO, and is being perpetrated by the main adversary NATO exists to counter.
Unfortunately, I feel that may be an understatement. My fear is that the Russian Federation may not exist after ~April of next year. That it will splinter into many nuclear armed states.
A more realistic (but still very unlikely) outcome is a power vacuum if Putin is deposed, which will be filled by another aspiring dictator just like him.
Definitely a serious cause for concern, but not uncharted territory. Remember this already happened to the Soviet Union, and ultimately things were arranged so only one nation inherited those nukes. It may happen like that again.
To be fair, it's a culmination of decades of NATO military R&D, planning, recon, etc. These weapons are finally being used for what they were created for, stopping a Russian invasion. It's just a shame MANPADS preclude A-10 tankbusting, considering all the Cold War era tanks Russia is using.
Edit: don't hate on me for stating the obvious. I'd like to see Putin tried in The Hague.
no politician gets what she/he wants. They can only go upwind. The structural forces - like strategic interests - are forcing the decisions on them. They can move one inch left or right, but that's about it. It doesn't matter if this is a democracy or regime. You can observe it now, when Biden is continuing Trump's policies like trade tariffs on China.
No one wants a war, but if the stability of the system depends on it you are forced to act. I think this war is similar to Opium Wars. Without the trade British Empire would have serious problems.
The world is decarbonising and more than half of RF income comes from natural resources. Putin needed a better position to secure the future of Russian Federation. He tried to use the argument of force in a 3 day war, but the gamble didn't work.
If it doesn't lead to nuclear war...
Wouldn't it be better for him to nuke the world and at least rule his bunker?
Republicans (including McCarthy) were saying that if they win they were going to shut down (or at least greatly reduce) the funding. Maybe since they don't seem to be winning the Senate and their margin in the House will be thin they'll forget about that plan?
As someone with north Chinese parents - this isn't as fantasy as you might think. We refer to eastern Siberia as "the lost country", and most Chinese believe China has a legitimate claim to it.
But beyond historical claims, there is a much much more compelling reason for Chinese expansion into a collapsed Russia, and that is easily visible on Google Maps.
The border is heavily developed on one side and completely undeveloped on the other. .....and China needs space to grow.
The only thing holding China back is the strategic anti-US alliance and Russian nuclear weapons.
If Russia collapses and disarms...
Neither of these countries was really prepared for a showdown with the West, and all assumed the plan was to wait out the expected financial collapse of US dollar, using BRI and similar platforms and new organizations. This is still on-going, but RF has basically demonstrated that it sits along the BRI's end points in Europe (meaning it can trivially disrupt it), and has left 2 difficult choices for its allies, specially for China: to break from RF (which guarantees China will remain 2nd tier in global pecking order behind the "Anglo-Saxons" [1]), or, let its future be partly determined by the decisions of Putin's Russia. This is how Russia is addressing it's potential collapse [3]: if it happens, it will take down regional rivals [2] down with it. India may turn out to win big by default ..
[1]: basically, Russia's line to them is: if we go down, then you are completely defenseless against the West.
[2]: Russia's historic relations with Turkiye, Iran, and China were generally adversarial.
[3]: meaning the recent decisions of RF were imo forced escalations (under pretext of Ukraine) that address not only their western front but also their eastern front insecurities. If there had been no war but rather a period culminating in a victorious China (via economic means) then Russia would be completely at the mercy of China, and reduced to energy provider for the end points of BRI: China and EU.
OMG, you're right, I saw this:
https://goo.gl/maps/JMUwEHBixEgieHMb6
Zooming in the area reveals a thick pattern of cultivated fields in the China side, but far fewer in the Russia side.
https://www.standingwellback.com/russian-ww2-radio-controlle...
https://twitter.com/TheStudyofWar/status/1590549998894448640
> The flooding isn’t enough to push artillery out of range, so the damage would be to all the settlements on the south side (which are not minor, but are claimed by Russia) and to the nuclear plant up river that could loose cooling water. It would seem like more of an own goal, flooding the south side — the left bank — more than any damage to liberated Kherson.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/20/2130299/-A-3D-Lo...
They want the Ukrainians fighting to take ground around Kherson and then spend months fighting street by street (as russians have failed to do in Bakhmut) all under pre-sighted Russian artillery sitting pretty on the south side of the Dniepr.
They don't want to blow the damn, they want to embroil the ukrainians in a grind like the ukrainians did to them in bakhmut, with a prize the ukrainians are unlikely to turn down.
A brief look at the map will show that holding Kherson is basically impossible and a huge risk for Russia. It has a single bridge across the Dneiper and it's on the outskirts of the city. That's the only supply/retreat line forces defending the city have.
There's no good options. Defend the city then Ukraine attacks the supply line. Defend the supply line then Ukraine attacks the city. Try to do both and risk losing everything.
It’s like they’re naive children. And theres even have other articles talking about how misinformation, intentional confusion and bluffing has been a huge part of the war.
Anything the Russians proclaim can only sensibly be taken with extreme skepticism. This is most likely an attempt at a trap
Because the Ukranians have been running a fairly successful counter-offensive and pushing within artillery range of the city. It's quite clearly an untenable position for the current state of the Russian army.
They're not going to be dumb about it; any withdrawal will show up on satellite, and will take time. Ukraine isn't likely to rush on in recklessly.
It's just an informational warfare, psychological games. They say it loud to keep attention to them, not to Ukrainian officials. They say it to appear as those who control the situation, like it's their "goodwill gesture". They want to remove the idea that Ukrainian army controls the war from the informational space. It's them who must be in the center of attention of all media, not their enemies.
They've been prepping defenses on the left bank for most of a month.
Can they afford fresh forces? Can they afford to replace the hardware they've already lost?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
> The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance, prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.
There's no reason to believe any new one would be better respected by Russia; it'd be just an opportunity for Russia to rest, rearm, and invest in propaganda efforts.
Honestly I think if Putin pulled out he'd be fine -- most of the opposition is dead, running scared, or on his team. A lot of Russian assets have been frozen, though, and if he wants to get those back he'd have to walk away from his 2014 gains, or else justify why all of that $$$ is gone.
Win it, ideally.
> Ukraine's position is more righteous here.
No shit.
As long as we keep sending bullets and shells and missiles and training new soldiers, Ukrainians seem willing to defend their sovereign rights. Anyone saying Ukraine should give up, in any way, is doing the kremlin's job, whether they realize it or not. Putin is the only one who benefits
It's not just a smear, there's actual history behind the moniker (https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/rachel-maddow-explains-orig...)
For sure. More revealing is what's said internally about their own.
"There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump." - Kevin McCarthy
McConnell's no MAGA, but he's not really in full control of the Party any longer.
How do we know there wasn't a big GOP win?
The election outcome of several Senate seats is still unknown at this moment, and at least one is going to a run-off, so I doubt this was central to their decision making.
Despite Russia's now openly admitted US election interference, I don't think they have more foresight into actual election outcomes than the US itself does.
I'm not discounting your logic, though. Clearly the GOP has expressed intent to reduce US support for Ukraine. It's just too early to apply the logic to the situation on the ground.
I guess it depends on how you define "big". A supermajority in the Senate was never in the cards. A majority, however slim, would still be (per my own definition) a big win for the GOP.
> They'd need unity on fucking Ukraine over; it seems unlikely all ~51 would be on board here given the popularity of the Ukranians in the war in the US.
I think this is partially because Americans haven't felt the brunt of increased energy prices caused by the war to the degree that Europeans and others have.
If/when that impact hits, the fact that half the country listens to media personalities that are openly supportive of the Russian side and are happy to suggest that appeasing Russia would bring down energy prices, suggests to me that public opinion could change pretty quickly.
And I'll give the GOP credit for one thing: they have listened to what their base voters actually wanted (regardless of the morality of it) and they changed their tune.
I'd love to be wrong, but doubt many people are willing to put the Ukrainians rights to peoplehood over the price of gas at the pump.
> I think this is partially because Americans haven't felt the brunt of increased energy prices caused by the war to the degree that Europeans and others have.
European polling remains very strongly pro-Ukraine, despite already massive hits to energy costs. 62-14 in the UK (https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-continues-support-britain...), 70-21 in Germany (https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/ger...). Those costs are easing now, as well, as Europe has successfully filled up significant reserves and had a very mild November.
I agree, but Europeans are willing to stand their ground despite high energy prices because an uncountered Russia is literally an existential issue for them. They will keep their thermostats at 18C this winter if that's what it takes, just like Americans sacrificed at home during WW2 after the war came to our territory.
But that's not the case in the US today. Biden knows this, which is why he went hat-in-hand to the Saudis asking them to increase oil production (only to get double-crossed shorty thereafter).
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/US_oil_p...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/US_Natur...
> pointless bloodbath needs to end
Yes, it does, right after Ukraine's territory is restored and the 1M or so people that have been relocated to Russia are returned home.
One of the lessons of WWI was heavy-handed reparations create more even larger problems. It took WWII to clean it up the mess, and while the de facto military dictatorship that emerged under the Kaiser was was bad, the Nazi replacement was far, far, far worse.
What is important is that whatever end this comes to puts an end to wars of territorial conquest like this. They make little sense in the modern world, and are an absurd waste of life and wealth. After the war, Ukraine will become a NATO country, and the west will invest heavily in rebuilding and GDP will grow. So long as the people of Russia tolerate totalitarian rule, they will live with stagnant growth and dim future. If the people of Russia can once again open up, maybe that future will be different.
Any of the debates have been on the _method_ and _extent_ of support, not _whether or not to support_. Both red and blue have had objections to types of aide being sent for legit national security concerns (for instance, classified fire control systems on 155mm artillery).
More meat into the grinder.
[1] https://twitter.com/IntelRepublic/status/1590348327123845123