Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[turvontour]

26 minutes ago, Genie said:

Some outcomes of this war from the BBC link @sidcow posted:

 Amid the fog of war, it can be hard to see the way forward. Here are some potential outcomes. Most are bleak.

1. Short war

Russia ramps up its military operations with devastating attacks. Thousands die, Kyiv falls, Ukraine's president is killed or flees, and Russia installs a pro-Moscow puppet regime. This would be an unstable outcome, vulnerable to insurgency and future conflict.

2. Long war

Perhaps more likely. Maybe Russian forces get bogged down, with low morale and poor logistics. They may struggle to control even captured cities. Over time, Ukraine's forces become an effective insurgency, while the West continues to supply weapons. Perhaps after many years, Russia eventually leaves.

3. European war

Putin could send troops into ex-Soviet republics like Moldova and Georgia, that are not part of Nato. Or there could just be miscalculation and escalation. Putin might take a risk if he felt it was the only way to save his leadership - if he faced defeat, he might be tempted to escalate further.

4. Diplomatic solution

By already agreeing to talks - even if they haven't made much progress - Putin seems to at least have accepted the possibility of a negotiated ceasefire. If the war goes badly for him, Putin may judge that continuing is a greater leadership threat than the humiliation of ending it.

5. Putin ousted

It might seem unthinkable. Yet the world has changed in recent days. If the war is disastrous for Russia, there may be the threat of popular revolution. And if those who have benefited from Putin no longer think he can defend their interests, such an outcome may not be implausible.

 

I read this on the bbc site last night. I dont think I've ever seen the BBC put anything like this before, in the tone it's written.

Thousands die, Ukraine president is killed or flees etc.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, nick76 said:

Yet it’s still likely that Russia will take the country eventually.  While you don’t agree with the point, Russia most likely still get what they want and yes they will be slightly crippled by it but that’s no use the Ukrainians who will have lost and the rest of the world can walk away saying “at least we worked together to support them from afar”.

You're right that Russia is likely to take the country and win the war and get at least most of what they want. But if the only alternative to this is taking extreme risks that could lead to a nuclear hot war, then there is no other alternative beyond what we are doing now. 

Solidarity isn't much, but it isn't nothing either, and unlike a no-fly zone it probably won't lead to a nuclear escalation. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

Avoiding WW3 whilst providing Ukraine with as much aid as is possible.

Rock and hard place, in many respects.

I think one thing I've really learned over the years is that people are completely resistant to the idea of a situation in which there are no good options, and all you can do is try to find the least worst. People often fight tooth and nail against that realisation. 

[nick76]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Solidarity isn't much

Makes us feel better of course but doesn’t do much for the Ukrainians who die, lose their home, lives and loved ones and would likely include Zelensky eventually you would assume.

[Genie]

Zelensky should make a video explaining what is going on, then anonymous should beam into into every house in Russia.

[nick76]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Our goal (policy) is for Ukraine to be an independent sovereign state free from outside interference and military invasion. 

Of course! Not doing well are we…Next

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Our strategy is to increase the costs of Russian aggression so much that Putin’s regime breaks and he is ousted, or the Russian economy  collapses rendering the state incapable of prosecuting the war against Ukraine. 

Great, probably not going to happen though…Next

1 hour ago, Awol said:

His target is Ukrainian society, our target is Russian society. He is using high explosives, we are using financial sanctions. 

Given he doesn’t care as much about Russian people as he does about Ukraine and has a firm grip on Russia…him personally and his cohorts can out bomb hurting quicker than the sanctions….Next

1 hour ago, Awol said:

The military equipment we are putting into Ukraine allows them to fight more effectively, prolonging their resistance and giving time for our main effort  (the economic war) to be effective.

According to the documents released he was planning to take over Ukraine in 15 days, we are just half way into that and he’s getting closer to the main cities.  You have to think another week and he’ll be further ahead….Next

1 hour ago, Awol said:

As has now been done to death, these are our only options to help Ukraine

Not our only options, just the only ones we want to think of without getting our hands dirty…Next

1 hour ago, Awol said:

and, if that takes longer than hoped, to keep the Russian military tied down and bleeding there so it cannot be used to attack a NATO ally. 

Ahhh so we don’t care that much about Ukraine, their people and democracies we just don’t want him getting close to someone where we are obliged to do more than economic sanctions because of our NATO commitments.  I get it!

[magnkarl]

I agree with most that the only way forward here is to supply Ukraine with as much aid and weaponry as possible, ideally drones and anti-air (like the irone dome in Israel) for their Western territories. We need to make this war so costly for Putin that nothing short of a full withdrawal and riots in Russia will do. This is the chance to get rid of one of the worst dictators of our time, a chance to get Russia into the next century and a chance to show China what agression against a peaceful nation does to your economy. 

So far 'the West' has done everything right. We called Putin's plans several times before he executed, we wrecked his economy and now Ukraine is getting rid of much of his most expensive equipment, army, and airplanes. 

As an added side bonus, if Putin goes, so does Belarus' only ever 'President', Chechnya's horrid warlord and one of the dirtiest sellers of oil in the world.

Edited March 4, 2022 by magnkarl

[HKP90]

5 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Of course! Not doing well are we…Next

Great, probably not going to happen though…Next

Given he doesn’t care as much about Russian people as he does about Ukraine and has a firm grip on Russia…him personally and his cohorts can out bomb hurting quicker than the sanctions….Next

According to the documents released he was planning to take over Ukraine in 15 days, we are just half way into that and he’s getting closer to the main cities.  You have to think another week and he’ll be further ahead….Next

Not our only options, just the only ones we want to think of without getting our hands dirty…Next

Ahhh so we don’t care that much about Ukraine, their people and democracies we just don’t want him getting close to someone where we are obliged to do more than economic sanctions because of our NATO commitments.  I get it!

You kind of brush off nuclear war and the death of billions of people quite lightly there. 

 

[KentVillan]

9 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

A lot of this thread is a big reach quite honestly.

I understand that Putin is the bad guy right now but some of the things this guy says just glosses over dilutes his arguments. e.g. it has never been proven that Putin was behind the apartment bombings in '99. But Greg just equates that the night to the Reichstag fire. Thats a very big leap. There are similar leaps in the thread. So his ultimate premise/goal of equating Putin to Hitler is weakened by his poor observation of known fact.

Just to add, I think Hitler and Putin are both cnuts and @KentVillan is a great and interesting poster.

My point is that this Greg guy has posted a weak twitter thread though.

Yes that’s fair, he’s looking for parallels that maybe aren’t there.

What set Hitler apart was the Holocaust, and Putin hasn’t really done anything on that level… arguably it’s Xi’s China that is closest to committing those kinds of crimes in today’s world.

Moving back to the Ukraine situation, my biggest concern is that through sanctions and other actions, we don’t inadvertently weaken ties between the west and pro-trade, liberal democratic forces in Russia, China and India. It’s those connections that help to disincentivise future conflicts.

It’s one thing reducing energy / commodity  dependency on other states - that’s completely sensible. But tearing up trade in goods and services will impoverish people globally, with little political benefit.

So hard to get the balance right, especially with adversaries like Putin and Xi who are untrustworthy and difficult to read.

[nick76]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think one thing I've really learned over the years is that people are completely resistant to the idea of a situation in which there are no good options, and all you can do is try to find the least worst. People often fight tooth and nail against that realisation. 

I think it’s worse than that.  

I think people don’t want to face all the options on the table and it becomes about self preservation.  

We know what we are doing is the most we can do without doing options that we don’t want to consider.  

This option at the moment that AWOL sets out very well, is the the best we can do without doing the options we don’t want to consider.  It is the best option for us and I agree with him despite my response.

We have to hope it succeeds because doing more is going down a route we don’t want to consider.  The problem with that is that we know more could be done and if it fails Putin gets Ukraine and we basically walk away saying we done all we reasonably could.

It’s a rock and a hard place, there are more options on the table than people want to accept but we try to tell ourselves that the best we can do is what AWOL laid out.  We know we can do more, but we don’t want to so we gamble that this current strategy will pay off.

[nick76]

5 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

You kind of brush off nuclear war and the death of billions of people quite lightly there. 

 

I definitely didn’t brush that off lightly, well at least I never meant to and there is a very big range in there before you even get to nuclear war.  It isn’t just nuclear war or not…there are many options not including that.

[HKP90]

2 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I definitely didn’t brush that off lightly, well at least I never meant to and there is a very big range in there before you even get to nuclear war.  It isn’t just nuclear war or not…there are many options not including that.

If troops/planes from a Nato country fight directly with Russian troops, then unfortunately it does boil down to nuclear war or no war. Militarily there is no in-between. Unless you count proxy wars using non-nato countries like Ukraine, which is what we are already doing by giving them weapons. 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, nick76 said:

It isn’t just nuclear war or not…there are many options not including that

If you think that through, there really aren't

[PussEKatt]

6 minutes ago, HKP90 said:

If troops/planes from a Nato country fight directly with Russian troops, then unfortunately it does boil down to nuclear war or no war. Militarily there is no in-between. Unless you count proxy wars using non-nato countries like Ukraine, which is what we are already doing by giving them weapons. 

The reason we are giving them weapons is because they applied to join NATO and were vetoed by Russia.

 

[ml1dch]

11 minutes ago, nick76 said:

I definitely didn’t brush that off lightly, well at least I never meant to and there is a very big range in there before you even get to nuclear war.  It isn’t just nuclear war or not…there are many options not including that.

Given the implication of your post is that we should be providing a greater level of direct military assistance, what are those other options that you feel it could result in?

[PussEKatt]

@NoelVilla

A Russian is SG and has the right of veto

[HKP90]

Just now, PussEKatt said:

The reason we are giving them weapons is because they applied to join NATO and were vetoed by Russia.

 

Not sure the point. If they are not a member of NATO, article 5 does not apply. If they are it does, and given that we are obliged to go to war with anyone who starts on a NATO country, that would be two nuclear powers at war. In that case a first strike would be the only way to 'win' the war, which would result in a counterstrike. It would happen within minutes of war starting. 

[PussEKatt]

According to a docco that I watched a Russian is the secetary General of either NATO or the UN and according to this documentary the SG has been veto Ukrain joining NATO for ages

[tomav84]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60524865?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

Quote

China's rights holder will not show games over Ukraine support

for the avoidance of any doubt as to china's view on all this

[HanoiVillan]

44 minutes ago, nick76 said:

Not our only options, just the only ones we want to think of without getting our hands dirty…Next