Bakhmut Is Gone: An Aerial Look at the War’s Destruction
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The news today of Russian freedom fighters “liberating” a Russian settlement around Belgorod is the most interesting thing to happen in a while. Keep an eye on that one.
The argument here is that Russia is in the same boat, but Ukraine is acting rational and think this is the place where they have the best odds at winning the war. The ratio of “their losses” versus “our losses” is better for them than they can get elsewhere, and at the rate of progress Russia made, they won’t run out of land soon.
Of course, whether they’re right isn’t 100% certain. From what I read, Russia is losing relatively more inexperienced soldiers than Ukraine, and those are relatively easy to replace.
They lost it inch by inch and paid a very high price. Why do you think they sent some of their best units there, like the “Da Vinci Wolves“, and lost good chunks of them, including, incidentally, said unit’s founder and national hero “Da Vinci“? This is not a secret, the obituaries are all public.
So the Ukrainians took heavy losses. For the Russians it was much worse. The Ukrainians has managed to build up an enormous defense around the city and the Russian offense has been effectively halted, and for what? So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while?
The Ukrainians will push back now. My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut, forcing the Russians to surrender the city(or whats left of it).
A claim that is repeated ad nauseam, but entirely without evidence. Reminder: At the beginning of the year the BBC had a count of 20k. You can double or triple that if you like but it’s never going to be close to what (pro-)Ukrainians claim.
Also: The number of Wagner fighters gets way exaggerated. They were at a numerical disadvantage till the end.
managed to build up an enormous defense around the city
That’s not how it works. They spent years turning Bakhmut into a giant fortress city. (They even wrote that stupid song about it.) They fought tooth and nails over it. They rotated dozens of brigades through it, an untold number of men. But it just was not enough.
This is not their last shot at a defense in the region, but it was their best.
offense has been effectively halted
What offense? Only major Russian operation so far this year was Bakhmut. They are not in a rush.
So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while?
Couple months ago, per Zelensky, Bakhmut was strategically vital and not to be lost. Let me guess, a ruse? “Dumb orcs hehe”
The Ukrainians will push back now.
Oh, they will almost inevitably do something, somewhere. But the fact that they managed to retake a lightly-defended area that one time gives people all kinds of crazy ideas. Sure, they will probably manage an advance somewhere (at great cost, of course), get stuck after a couple days … and then what? Think Putler’s just going to nope out of the war because Twitter NAFOids are in ecstasy?
My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut
How? With what units? Not only did they send their best units to Bakhmut, they had to send some of their fresh, Western-trained ones too. Which were under strength in the first place.
> Oh, they will almost inevitably do something, somewhere. But the fact that they managed to retake a lightly-defended area that one time gives people all kinds of crazy ideas.
That lightly defended area was 12000 km.
While the Russians have depleted their forces, the Ukrainians have spent the winter training on modern military equipment from the west. As one example of many, take a look at this: https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-brigade-was-trained-in-s...
So far nothing the Ukrainians have used comes close to the above mentioned brigade. The Russians don’t have anything to match. In addition, they have one massive advantage which is the continuous support of the U.S. intelligence services, nothing the Russians have come close.
I don’t doubt the Russians are continuously improving their strategy and tactics - not hard considering how badly they’ve been doing since the war started.
Massed artillery fire, millions of shells, thousands of armoured vehicles, and so on.
A couple of glorified regiments, green ones at that? That’s not it. No matter the quality of the gear and training.
The West is not prepared for industrial warfare, and inexplicably to me they are barely trying to change that. Massed hot air but not much to show for it.
(And besides, the fact that in Bakhmut the Ukrainian army with plenty of Western gear and training got beat by Wagner plus artillery support alone should get you to question the notion of qualitative superiority. And I just don’t understand how people can come to the conclusion that the Russian forces in Ukraine are depleted when they’ve at least doubled in size, and gear just keeps pouring in.)
Ultimately, we don’t have to fight here, by all acounts Ukrainians are going to show us in a few days what they can or cannot do. And then we’ll see.
Those who paid attention saw column after Ukrainian column get mauled by VDV artillery. There was indeed a moment where Ukraine took some land but in the end nothing came of it but pain.
But certainly they did keep on the pressure (plus some other things), and so in the end Russians made the militarily prudent but politically very difficult decision (causing a period of widespread doom and gloom among supporters of Russia) to leave in good order. Ukrainians were apparently as surprised as almost anyone else.
* I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force.
It’s because he’s here to try push public opinion about why Ukraine is losing, he is not here to engage in honest arguments. Look through his post history and you will seem summarily dismiss any evidence Russia has worse casualties or is in anyway losing this war.
This is industrial warfare. The primary (not only) goal is to destroy the enemy army. Ideally with short/long supply lines (“Why are the Dnieper bridges still up?”), in favorable territory. Yes, this is as ugly a thing as it gets. Hundreds of thousands of men are dead and hundreds of thousands more will die in all likelihood. That’s how it is. And no side is innocent in this.
And, again, people don’t want to hear it but Russia is doing well enough.
The original, mostly post-soviet Ukrainian army of 24th Feb. is all but gone. More than half of their officers are confirmed dead (obituary and all), most of their original heavy gear is destroyed. Gonna avoid discussing overall casualties here but it’s a lot. People are going to be shocked when/if the numbers ever come out.
This is why in the West it’s all about begging for and donating of gear, and the training of fresh troops. Because Ukrainians need it.
And their “second army”, post-soviet gear from outside is also mostly gone. Willing donors are all but depleted, too.
And this is why, after much reluctance, Western tanks are now in Ukraine. But the West does not have all that much to give. And they are not really producing either.
So, unless things change drastically soon, there will be no “fourth” Ukrainian army.
And then Russia will cross the Dnieper again.
Or maybe not. Because the situation is much more serious than most of us Westerners realize. Our leaders are playing with nuclear fire, whether they know it or not. But not because Russia is losing. Because the West is all but at war with a nuclear power and when/if that threshold is crossed Russia is not going to wait for US forces to deploy in Poland or whatever, or worse. They don’t want this but they are prepared for it. They want to avoid it but they are not bluffing. As they keep warning us.
Finally, given the complexities and constraints of the system, “F-16s for Ukraine”, if it actually happens, will at very least mean even more NATO crews in Ukraine and in fact probably takeoffs from Poland and Romania. It’s not certain that Russia will consider this the threshold crossed, but you bet they’ll give an unambiguous response.
And, I should add, there are some difficulties but for Russia Russia is right there, and mostly safe. Ukrainians talk big and pull the occasional stunt but they know better than to attack Russia proper.
Russia claims that the Donbas (and Crimea) is “Russia proper”, and also, well, just now: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/22/europe/belgorod-ukrainian-for...
There’s a reason they hide the work of SBU, GUR and also certain Western countries under monikers like “Russian Volunteer Corps”. And why these attacks are, all things considered, rare and their effect negligible. We might, however, see significantly more of that in the near future and Russia could finally be forced to respond overtly.
Considering that the Crimean bridge exploded, and that many airbases and other military facilities in Crimea keep exploding with no consequence, I take that as Russia would do nothing if Ukraine hit Moscow itself?.
There’s also the multiple attacks that have taken place against Russia proper using either drones helicopters or missiles and nothing happened again.
> There’s a reason they hide the work of SBU, GUR and also certain Western countries under monikers like “Russian Volunteer Corps”.
There are no western countries fighting for Ukraine at this moment just volunteers.
It’s also par for the course to hide things like intelligence activities behind not the regular army, like Russia did in 2014.
> And why these attacks are, all things considered, rare and their effect negligible. We might, however, see significantly more of that in the near future and Russia could finally be forced to respond overtly.
Sure they are negligible mostly but they have also take a lot of aircraft including strategic TU bombers, this outside the fact pro Ukrainian forces currently occupy part of Belgorod at the moment.
Still no overt response.
There’s lots they could do but they won’t because they can’t.
* Declare it war instead of a SMO although I think in reality this doesn’t change anything
* Try and take Kyiv again although I don’t think they will because I don’t think they can
* Test a nuclear weapon Russian territory as a warning. No idea why this hasn’t happen but my guess is it just bolsters support for Ukraine.
My point is the exact one you’re making despite multiple hits on Russia proper there’s no response because they are doing everything they can realistically.
Not only did they absolutely intend to take Mikolaiv - they were expecting to positively waltz their way through it, on their way to waltzing through Odesa, where their countrymen were surely waiting to welcome them with thronging parades, offering bread, salt and flowers.
Genuinly curious, because this is the first time I read this. How do you see the taking of Odessa by Russia as very likely? It's their main port, I don't see how Ukraine would be able to survive without it.
The west cleared the floor with massed russian equipment, twice, maintaining 1:100 attrition rate while crossing an ocean.
But the rest of the post is not far off. ukr is on the back footing, and fog of war is very unidirectional, which means we're consuming propaganda, and its best not to form opinion out of it.
> plenty of Western gear
one fact tho remains, which is that we haven't seen yet combat footage from ifv and tanks delivered, so ukr forces are not yet fully committed, which seems positive.
a little revisionary take. Bakhmut is the only one they want to talk about out loud, all the other attempts fail so bad its treason even mentioning them in the motherland. One example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2022%E2%80... and whatever 10th Tank Regiment was doing around there last month losing another commander and tons of armor for zero progress.
This is standard ru attack https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1660706066726887430 followed by mopping up prisoners by AFU https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1660707781391839232
Its been over a year and ru are still passing tanks burned on a mine because nobody would mine sides of the road, right? Bilohorivka https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1660374809316937729
6th time a charm? apparently not https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1660562311432531968
To make Russia lose much more forces in the attack. It's a simple gambit — lose 1 soldier to make enemy lose 2 (or more).
Makes sense to lose an unimportant and pretty small piece of territory like that. Doesn't make any sense to retake it with reverse proportion of losses.
I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon, because far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda and Hollywood-informed notions of how and why wars are fought.
Edit: the Russia being out of ammo thing was an internal politics thing of Prigozhin claiming Russia MoD was not supplying Wagner with enough ammo. It was not a western talking point. Nor was it particularly true.
This, not AI, is why debate is becoming increasingly worthless.
For those who have been following, it's pretty clear it's been disastrous for Russia.
And since I can already hear the response that it's all on Putin's shoulders, I should remind you that we're the ones printing hundreds of billions in USD, sending veritable mountains of arms and aid to spin the woodchipper even faster.
> If they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them.
Or how to he thought the Russian military was "too gentle" (after the countless reports of rape, torture and murder of the civilian population).
Stop listening to Russian propaganda, or those who repeat it.
How exactly? Given that it was chosen and started by Russia, and the initial fightback of the first few days done by Ukraine, what US decision do you want rolled back?
If the Russian and US positions were reversed in NATO, the US would attack Mexico the moment NATO decided to arm them.
> far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda
Your comment makes it sound like military aid to Ukraine in the NATO sphere was primarily spurred by short-sighted, media-driven, populist frenzy in the US. My impression, as someone who does pay attention to the war, is that these decisions were made rationally by elected leaders across numerous countries as a direct result of Russia's blatant disregard for international law, and that there was plenty of support in the EU for military aid even without the US's involvement. "The media" is not the causal factor for practically anything in this war.
> sounds like outright coping
Who is coping? Are you under the impression that US/EU/NATO military leadership were certain that Bakhmut would be a piece of cake, and that they're now scrambling to justify Ukraine's commitment when this turned out not to be the case? Moreover, do you believe that whatever the population is "hyped up" about at any given moment has any bearing on their decision-making? I've certainly seen no evidence of any of this; in fact, the majority of public comments from US military leadership regarding the war seem to be on the side of tempering expectations. The only people I see "coping" are war junkies in Reddit discussions, whose opinions have no bearing on... pretty much anything, really.
(1) there was never a mea culpa over Iraq, though there should have been, and
(2) while it would also be nice for the lying aggressors to admit they were, well, lying aggressors in this war, Putin’s not going to do that any more than Bush the Younger did.
> "President Bush heads to Moscow this week for his first summit meeting there, one that his advisers call a historic start to Russia's integration with the West... By breeding and experience, Mr. Putin may be the most Westernized leader in Russian history... The American view, as espoused this month by one senior Bush administration diplomat, is that the summit meeting 'really puts the Russian-U.S. relationship on a firm course of long-term partnership, even a long-term alliance.'"
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/20/world/in-czar-peter-s-cap...
It's curious how little interest the media has in examining why this one-promising 'alliance' failed to materialize, and instead broke apart, with arms control treaties torn up by both sides and escalating belligerence as bad as the worst episodes of the Cold War, such that an outbreak of nuclear war is now an ever-present risk. Any cursory news search will reveal that both Russian and American nuclear forces have moved to what looks like a hair-trigger status, as evidenced by various large-scale nuclear drills, public statements, etc.
Some plausible issues are economic conflicts over who gets to sell fossil fuels to European markets (and where that oil money ends up), the general desire of military-industrial interests in both countries to keep military spending intact, and the general political opportunism involved in nationalistic chest-beating and demonizing of the enemy, etc.
It made me think how post war Ukraine is going to be a potential target/victim of Chinese imperialism / evergrande style construction projects
Lend-Lease terms make it near certain they will largely, specifically, be American, since the debt from that can be paid either directly or by hiring US firms for reconstruction, and the latter obviously gets more back for Ukraine.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/28/zelenskyy-blackrock-ceo-fink...
After Russia's invasion in Ukraine and completely crazy propaganda which painted LGBT-friendly country with a Jewish president as literal Nazis I don't have any other choice but to confirm that Russia has been doing literal genocides in regions that wanted independence since 1995.
Twenty years after, when the chickens of the foreign policy had come home to roost in Donbass of 2014, someone nicknamed "golergka" thinks that everything that contradicts his worldview must be a "completely crazy propaganda".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen_in_Chechnya
[2] https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=una+unso&form=HDRSC3&fi...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_National_Assembly_%E...
Do you want to actually read the Wikipedia article about UNA that you linked to? UNA barely got 0.5% during 1994 elections and that was their best year.
In other words what youre saying is that actions leaders of some nationalistic organization that does not represent 99.985% of Ukrainians is representative of Ukraine? That is absurd!
Which kind of like saying, "Well gosh, a lot of Irish folks in Boston supported the IRA back in the 70s-80s. Which means, you know, the United States supported the IRA!"
American support for the IRA was a lot higher, AFAICT, than Ukrainian support for anyone aligned against Russia in Chechnya was.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with Crimea and Donbass in 2014 -- is equivalent to saying that Russia as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the terrorists in Baghdad/Kabul -- is equivalent to saying that Iraq/Afghanistan as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
In other words, the person registered "77 days ago" loses their entire awareness of role reversal in an attempt to fit reality into their botched worldview. It would be nice to hear, at least, what Ukraine did do to prosecute the so called fringe group that was threatening foreign relations of the entire state, but that would be too much for you to answer. Especially in the light of knowing that UNA-UNSO got integrated into the governing body of the country [1]. Let me guess: "they are still the minority". Great coping nonetheless.
And on and on, in circles we go ...
Russia has 140 million people. How many of them are in favor of their government? Shouldn't some of them find their way to Hacker News?
Plus ideologically the people who support Russia most vocally online are Western tankies, and I don't think those guys would do well here.
Pure mindfuck all the way down, in any case.
Because as a troll, your goal certainly isn't to be popular. It's to dilute the narrative, and wear people down. For which getting dogpiled is just par for the course.
Meanwhile we have distinguished political science professors being dismissed without rebuttal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=1s
The recent piece in Harper's does a good job of laying out "the other side" i.e. realism and historical context against the "Putin is a delusional Hitlerian madman bent on dominating Europe" theory: https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/
On the current trajectory though, the west's belief in its own eschatological hegemony looks like it's already collapsed the "unipolar moment" of the last 30 years and there's a good chance of us continuing to climb the escalation ladder into World War 3, so the narrative that none of the sowing of this conflict was remotely our fault is providing an important psychological bulwark to steel everyone's nerves for what we may reap.
First hand experience.
people continue to not understand the way Russia wages war - since the time of Napoleon, Russia has embraced scorched earth and brutal attrition
this is why Zelensky is talking down the value of the city, he knows too
The city previously held strategic value.
They didn’t die trying to retake it (since it hadn’t fallen to need retaking, until arguably very recently, though even that is disputed), they died trying to pin the Russian Army/Wagner down and kill them (and did kill vast numbers of them) to prevent advances elsewhere. Just as the Ukrainian effort now to encircle the Russian forces that are still fighting the Ukrainian forces in and around the citiy is not because control of the rubble matters, but because cutting off and removing from combat the Russian forces in the rubble matters quite a bit.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJnf_DDTfIVAddjHY3ss1...
It's called fixing. War involves, many times, sending people to certain death in a hopeless situation to provide room for manouvre and force generation.
Russia spent 9 months on this offensive. They got Bakhmut and lost immense combat power. Now Ukraine is readying a counter offensive.
Ukraine is the new Syria, the conflict will probably never end.
However, you're right that this is going to be a long war. At least as long as it has been going on already. And then it will probably turn into a frozen conflict like North/South Korea or "Turkish" Cyprus.
The last Ukrainian counter offensive reclaimed vast swaths of lands. It’s not unreasonable to think they could get in range of shelling Crimea.
here's an appetizer for you: the Brusilov Offensive in WW1 was only a strategic operation inside a single war and Russia lost more men in that alone than have ever died on behalf of the US in all wars
It is just plain wrong that Russia won by sending more people to the meat grinder than the enemy. Im fact, deep battle, refined during the fighting at the Eastern Front in WW2, is one of the more successful maneuveur warfare doctrines out there, especially in wast territory.
Not that the current Russian army seems to be very good at applying that doctrine at the moment. But that is a different story.
As far as research goes, Wikipedia is free to use for everyone.
It is interesting to note that the most successful offensive land operation of the World War II was the Soviet offensive in August 1945 in Manchuria against the Japanese Kwantung army [0]. Within two weeks the Soviets (1.5M soldiers) annihilated Japanese army of about 1M soldiers and conquered the territory of the size of Western Europe. This together with American nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major factors in Japan finally surrendering (better be occupied by Americans than Russians).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria
The continued reason for Russia to take Bakhmut at that point is largely attributed to inter-service rivalry within Russia: Wagner was hell-bent on taking it, to prove greater competence than Russia military (conscript or professional) forces. Ukraine continued fighting to defend it because it gave them such favorable casualty ratios, although it has been suggested that the casualty ratio became unfavorable to Ukraine in the past few months. (Whether or not it was still a good idea for Ukraine to continue contesting Bakhmut rather than withdrawing entirely is a question that has no clear answer right now, and will be hard to properly assess likely until well after the war is over. Fog of war is hard!)
This was a real functioning city of 75,000 people. They did nothing except exist. Now it is ruins. What are you bringing to the world? What are you accomplishing? Do you think this city is liberated?
Even if you buy into the full Russian story of Ukraine "shelling Donbas for 8 years", do you see anything in Donetsk that could possibly compare to this? You've destroyed more in a year of war than Ukraine would have shelled in three centuries of skirmishing with the Donbas.
By that argument essentially no war, ever, is on the right side of anything. Perhaps that's your position, but I'm sure some folks would differ and believe sometimes war is justified.
If war is sometimes justified, then the argument comes down to goals and values. Russians, apparently, value "unification" and strategic buffer zones more than the world believed, and it might even be the West's fault this is such a protracted war.
for example see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKpU1fEiTjQ (nb: "today" is Dec 2022 in this)
Would love to hear a rebuttal to both the Professor's and Editorial content that demonstrates that Russia isn't the only one who should be demonized here.
Where the fuck do you people get this from? PG has explicitly states downvote to disagree is just fine here.
You can look at it like the Battle for Fallujah. It was horrible and bloody - but in the global narrative of eliminating islamic extremists that pose a threat to the west the battle was sort of seen as an unavoidable
I'm not trying to make a moral equivalence between the two - just explain how one horrible thing in the context of something bigger might feel inescapable
Fallujah has a population of 275,000. Bakhmut will never again have more than a handful of people.
It's not the lack of moral equivalence, it's the lack of any equivalent whatsoever.
- damaged more than half of the residences and destroyed a quarter of them (air strikes)
- shot and killed unarmed protestors
- used cluster bombs
- used white phosphorous
- used depleted uranium
- left the area with increased cancer, birth defects and infant mortality
When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine. After the war started Finland joined NATO and it is the longest border between NATO and Russia and nobody from Russia said anything about that.
>> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process
> https://www.dw.com/en/russia-putin-addresses-ukraine-nato-te...
> https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text
>> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
Specifically between the government in 2008 and the post-Maidan government, during which there was an arguable auto-coup followed by a definite revolution?
Yeah, there is a pretty severe discontinuity, not least of all on policy toward both NATO and Russia. Also, even insofar as the post-Maidan government might be seen as in general continuity of the pre-Yanukovych government that had sought NATO membership, NATO’s decision not to extend a MAP in 2008 in direct response to Putin’s objections, cooled Ukrainian interest, even in the pro-Western faction, because NATO was seen as unwilling to stand up for Ukraine against Russia. Putin had already won on NATO expansion before launching the war.
I think the poster has some point though, in that it is not all Ukrainian factions that have been pushing for this, and was perhaps not them as much as western powers which prevented this concession (their policy is influenced by their more powerful neighbours and backers!)
In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible."
I never "justified" Russia's actions.
You were replying to a comment that’s clearly referring to current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO at the time of the invasion.
> In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible.”
Yes, obviously things are different now. Ukraine may very well be the next step in the NATO expansion that Putin has imposed upon himself.
This was superseded by the new constitution that was adopted in 1996 as the Ukrainian SSR no longer exists this document no longer applies.
But I’m curious if you are saying that Ukraine is forced to follow this why isn’t Russia forced to follow the Budapest memorandum in which in pledged along with other nuclear powers at the time not to invade or threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Ukraine adopted a policy of seeking to join NATO after the current Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014.
Immediately prior to the war it had focussed on seeking to join the EU, but had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO.
What a funny twist. I thought islamic extremists pose treat to non-islamic civilian population, and to a large degree to the moderate islam followers.
As for the buildings, they will be re-built, look at today's Grozny.
[1] https://twitter.com/CheburekiMan/status/1660124734871453697/...
As I said, all this wouldn’t and shouldn’t have happened had the Ukrainians really believed in the principle of autonomy and of subsidiarity. Happily for them as soon as they’ll join us in the EU they’ll get right on to that.
Noone said Russia is right, neither the Americans.
Hey, don't look over there, look at Russia, they're the bad guys.
Whataboutism doesn't make something not true.
All of this could have been avoided if USA respected Russia's wishes regarding NATO expansion [0].
And also, Ukraine bombing Donbass region for many many years prior to the war, also didn't help for sure.
And I don't understand why the USA and UK still tried to push this war, with Boris Johnson personally visiting Zelensky when Ukraine was close to signing a peace deal with Russia [1]. Boris Johnson blocked the deal, but why? What did Boris Johnson believe was to gain here?
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/28/nato-e...
[1]: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch...
In this regard I think so yes. For stability in the world it's a better situation.
Exactly. To the extent that there's any validity in looking at the current situation between the US and its larger neighbors, it completely demolishes the idea that we should have some understanding or other respect for Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Based on it being "unavoidable", or "what else did you expect Putin to do?" or any of that crap.
As an American, that sounds ludicrous, and I cannot imagine anyone in the US supporting that plan with the enthusiasm that Russians currently support the invasion of Ukraine.
Not only would the US invade Mexico under this scenario, they would shock-and-awe roll it over.
The situation in Europe is completely different, with close to half of Europe having been under Russian domination for decades if not centuries. Once those countries got out, they decided that never again would this be possible.
There is also a misunderstanding of how NATO works. Countries in Europe have not been forced to join the alliance, but they have been quasi begging to join NATO to get protection from the Russian aggressor. The process of joining NATO requires a formal application and the unanimous agreement of all existing members, not just the US's (see Turkey's move to block Sweden's entry for a concrete example of how that works).
There is also the notion that NATO applicants must follow requirements, including [1]:
- a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
- the fair treatment of minority populations;
- a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
- the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
- a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
In other words, the values defended by NATO are values which I consider positive. An alliance of autocratic nations (say Russia and China) would be a very different one.
Finally, if you haven't followed the discourse in Russia, there really is a discussion there of taking back not only Ukraine, but the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, and other former soviet republics (and yes, even parts of Poland). That is taking, as in invading under false pretense, not the peaceful recreation of a union with the consent of said countries. Luckily Russia will be unable to do so, but the need for protection remains real.
[1]: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49212.htm#:~:text=...
Nah, it would play out exactly as it did with Hitler before WW2.
They would just keep taking countries until they were stopped.
Russia has done more for NATO's expansion the last year than all other countries have done the last decade.
To be honest, I am not sure what sovereign means at this point. For example it seems most European countries are just lapdogs of US interests. Which was especially clear when US bombed to German pipeline and Germany acts like nothing has happened.
Biden even stated this in a press conference with Olaf Schulz standing next beside him [0], but again there were more US officials making similar statements.
You can wait for “official” proof, while I am sure US officials weren’t making practical jokes.
———
They stated what, specifically? That they would literally bomb the pipeline?
You need to be at least a little more careful with these cognitive distortions you're pushing. Remember, in order for them to work - they need to be at least logically plausible, and in some way grounded in believable, every day reality.
Recall that this is a press conference essentially announcing that Germany agreed NordStream 2 will not open if Russia openly invades Ukraine, that Biden is (by this time) sitting on very reliable evidence saying that Russia is planning to imminently openly invade Ukraine, and the reporter is asking "okay, what if Russia doesn't openly invade Ukraine?", whereupon the answer is effectively "that's not gonna happen."
Wouldn't this be more like the US annexing Cuba, or really Venezuela, because of Russian/Chinese influence? I mean they are "Violent Socialist pedophiles invading our boarders and poisoning our children", and it's really American Oil put there by God anyway? Again, propaganda doesn't need to make sense when is serves a political and economic purpose.
My personal opinion is that dictatorships and democracies have a very hard time figuring each other out, which leads to great miscalculations. The dictator sees peoples elected representatives and decisions as great calculated moves, and seeks to threaten "the real power behind them". While democracies fail to plan (other than institutionally), but are driven by the beliefs of their populations, and need to be elected to make moves that are not "real politik".
Curious, do you think Russia is to blame at all for violating the terms of the Budapest Memorandum?
The Budapest Memorandum was predicated on adherence to all prior agreements Ukraine would never see sovereignty without in the first place [1]. Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990: >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990) <<
Putin had been successful in getting NATO to reject MAPs for Ukraine and Georgia before invading either (just before, in Georgia’s case), and that rejection had caused Ukraine to abandon NATO membership as a goal before Putin launched the war in 2014.
Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason. Putin’s war is literally the reason Ukraine has an intent to join NATO, not a response to that intent.
Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_Mechanized_Brigade_(Ukrain...
That's not a fact. The Yanukovych government obviously didn't pursue NATO membership, and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal prior to the invasion that occurred shortly after that government came to power, reversing course only after the invasion.
> when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq
2003 was before 2008, when Putin succeeded in getting NATO to reject the Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, and it was this caving to Putin by NATO which is why even when a pro-Western government came to power in 2014 after Yanukovych, it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
You're wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_anti-NATO_protests_in_Feo...
> 2003 was before 2008 [...] it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
You're hilarious, on the one hand you don't like it when there's evidence of the subsequent alignment with the goal of joining NATO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36034020), on the other hand you don't like the evidence of the prior alignment either. I'm not sure what you argumnt is unless it's "we decide at the spur of the moment and no one can hold us accountable for anything neither in the past nor in the future".
> You’re wrong: [wikipedia link to 2006 anti-NATO protests]
You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right? So, your link has no value at all in discussing the post-Maidan government’s actions based in large part on the 2008 MAP denial.
> I'm not sure what you argumnt is
My argument is that Putin acheived his goal of stopping NATO expansion to Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008, by getting NATO to deny Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans, that this denial led to even the next Western-oriented government after the one that was in power at the time of the 2008 attempt fell, was replaced with a pro-Russian one (which, arguably, then executed an autocoup, and, undisputedly, was itself replaced in the Maidan Revolution) being quite clear about not seeking NATO membership until AFTER Russia, who had invaded Georgia in 2008, invaded Ukraine in 2014.
This demonstrates a couple things: first, neither the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 nor the Russo-Ukrainian War was based on the threat of those countries joining NATO, which Russia had successfully averted, leaving aside any questions of whether that threat was a legitimate casus belli in any case, and, second, in the case of Ukraine, its actually the cause of the intent to join NATO, which the government, having previously disclaimed it, adopted as a priority after the invasion.
Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?
Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.
I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_Union_referendum#U...
So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…
The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.
What Russia is doing right now in Ukraine is disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible.
Demonstrate exactly how it's ad hominem. I couldn't care less about you in the first place. You haven't refuted anything I said neither regarding the whataboutism, nor any other point I made regarding the conflict, so please do elaborate how exactly my points about your whining of whataboutism is ad hominem?
> you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.
Why would I discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own if your argument is wholly based on the idea of morailty and ethics of actions (the ones you call disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible) that are supposed to be applied equally to everyone? I want to see how you apply it universally across the board, and until that happens I call you a person with an agenda to propagandise.
But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s
Theres nazis in Ukraine just like how theres nazis in Russia and other countries what your point?.
As to what the video shows -- it was a local ceremony, not any kind of federal recognition of these fighters. So far there has not even been a legislative attempt to grant "hero" status to members of any of the fighting unites in WW II.
And that's the important point: all of these (in my view, quite nauseating) commemorations of either the pro-fascist political leaders, or of the various collaborating fighting units have been at the local, not federal level. Precisely because it remains such a painful and divisive topic.
And because by and large, Ukrainian society has moved light years beyond the events of these dark times. It is the regime in that large country to the north (and that of its smaller puppet state next door) that is continually trying to make everyone live in the past, as if WW II basically never ended.
One could say a lot more about it -- just as there are all kinds of things to say about how collaborationist history has been processed in all the other countries in Europe; including, last but not least, in the Soviet Union and modern Russia itself (in regard to its attempts to all but banish any mention of its notorious high-level cooperation with Nazi Germany from its history books).
One could, that is - provided there was an atmosphere of civility, and of respect for in discourse. Unfortunately this does not apply to the commenter you are responding to -- who, as we have seen, seems intent on dragging the discussion ever downward, into an endless cycle of intellectual evasion and ad hominem attack.
And in any case: none of this history has any bearing on the current conflict. And the whole narrative that it does, let alone that it justifies or explains the naked, old-school barbarism that has been inflicted upon Ukraine since early 2022, as is the subject of the original article in this thread -- is just bonkers.
Anyway you argument has essentially boiled down to “but they did it too”, which is a nice way to distract, but a really childish line of reasoning.
The Declaration of State Soveriegnty of Ukraine isn’t an agreement signed by Ukraine, it was domestic legislation of the Ukraine SSR regarding its future plans at the time, more than a year before the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine was passed.
Because as far as I know US made huge loans to the Ukraine. Billions and billions of dollars. If Ukraine could manage to win the war, US will want payback for the loans. And I think payback will be in the form of resources. Perhaps US based multinationals like Monsanto taking over farmland or other companies exploiting resources. As I understand Ukraine is a very resource rich country and US pretty much only bothers to fight in countries with plenty resources.
At this point US is still exporting oil from Syria. And I should note, the Syrian government doesn’t approve of US invasion in Syria, much like the Ukraine government doesn’t approve the Russian invasion in Ukraine.
US has been active in Syria now for many years.
I think the numbers of US presence is wrong though, I read there’s about 900 soldiers present right now.
It's not NATO that have been expanding. It's sovereign countries that wanted to join.
Why? Because they were afraid of exactly what happened to Ukraine.
This war proves them right.
1. While Russia warned against NATO expansion, it wasn't (and still isn't) in their power to do anything to stop it. Its actions have resulted in the expansion of NATO, a reasonably forseeable result.
2. NATO is a defensive only alliance, and can't be invoked for an invasion of Russia. If their concern is the ability of the US to store missiles and other military gear on its border, too late - the Baltics are already members. It would be an odd choice to invade purely based on the likely future expansion of an alliance that is designed to prevent you from invading its members.
3. NATO expansion or no, an independent, westward-leaning Ukraine is not an acceptable outcome. This would make NATO expansion irrelevant or at best an ancillary cause.
It's also worth noting it's not like this is the first time Russia has invaded and occupied one of its neighbours. AFAIK Georgia wasn't about to join NATO. We can't see counterfactual universes, but in my view an equally valid possibility is that NATO has stopped what is happening in Ukraine from happening in the Baltic states.
Overall the facts don't line up well with the theory that this is a response to NATO expansion, and therefore the US is to blame - it might be a factor, but more serves as a rhetorical justification Russia can use that it knows people in the US and UK can use domestically.
If you're a realist about international relations it's pretty easy to see why the UK and US might see it as in their geostrategic interest to prolong the war, and that might have been a factor. It's also worth noting there was a huge amount of public pressure for both to react. Either way, in their view, a longer war is worth it for a pro-western Ukraine, and Ukraine seems to agree. As for acting to prevent an agreement, that's largely speculation, but either way, the final choice was still Ukraine's.
It's worth noting that the Soviet equivalent to NATO was the Warsaw Pact, whose largest military operation was invading a member because they wanted to leave. While ostensibly a collective defensive alliance, like NATO, the Soviets treated it as a tool of binding its sphere of influence together, and it would not surprise me if the current Russian leadership sees NATO the same way, a tool by which the US government coerces its sphere of influence to do its bidding. (Needless to say, this is not an accurate view of NATO, but I suspect it is the view that Russia has of it.)
I don’t think that’s quite accurate (it seems, unless I’m mistaken, to conflate elements of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968); the Hungarian revolutionaries in 1956 declared an exit from the Pact but that invasion was pure USSR, not Warsaw Pact. Czechoslovakia in 1968 had reaffirmed its intent to remain in the Pact and faithful to Marxism-Leninism just prior to the Warsaw Pact invasion.
Nevertheless, that the Soviet Union invaded two Warsaw Pact members over insufficient perceived loyalty to the USSR’s direction seems to underline your general point of the difference between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, notwithstanding any quibbles of the precise details of either invasion.
> NATO is a defensive only alliance, and can't be invoked for an invasion of Russia.
NATO is a regional security alliance with a mutual defense commitment. Most of the operations for which it has been activated were not invocations of that defensive commitment, which has only happened exactly once.
No, the Russo-Ukrainian war that has been active since 2014 could not have been, and the reason I know this to 100% certainty is because the US and NATO did accede to Russia’s request to not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans to set the path for NATO membership in 2008, which was followed immediately (less than two months, IIRC) by Russia invading Georgia, and in 2014—with a Ukrainian government that had disclaimed interest in NATO largely because of the 2008 action—Russia following up with an invasion of large parts of Ukraine, starting the war.
If anything, NATO showing it was willing to abandon Ukraine and Georgia is what greenlit both wars.
From a state propaganda point of view, they have patriotically battled the Nazi Jew Gay Needle Freaks who, along with NATO and "the West", are plotting the extermination of Russia and right thinking culture, but are doomed to fail due to their degenerate beliefs. It doesn't need to make sense.
(Note that without a critical failure of theory of mind, a retort that the Russian charges against Ukraine are obviously false while the American charges against ISIS are obviously true is not meaningful. Can you say with confidence that growing up in Russia, you wouldn't have the same certainty that the Russian narrative is basically correct while the Americans are spouting self-serving propaganda? Is there some way you can imagine yourself convincing a Russian that American media is to be trusted without making your proposed chain of trust circular?)
Just because "cultural genocide" and "slavery" are both bad things does not mean they are on the same scale.
Also, to put it mildly "cultural genocide" is not applicable to the situation for multiple reasons.