Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[Davkaus]

Edit: AWOL beat me to Petrov, but there's also the case of Vasili Arkhipov.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/cold-war/refused-to-launch-nuclear-missiles.html?edg-c=1

Quote

 

The fact that you can read this is because of a man who said “no” due to an accident. In doing so, he literally saved the world. And his reward? To be insulted.

On 15 October 1962, President Kennedy went ballistic at the discovery that the Soviets were trying to balance out NATO by building a nuclear missile site in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis began the next day, ending 13 days later to a collective sigh of relief. Everyone believed that nuclear annihilation had been averted through diplomatic means.

But it’s actually Deputy Commander Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov we have to thank.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Davkaus

[PussEKatt]

Maybe the Russian people should listen to the words of this song ?!

 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

I'm not sure about Russia. People just do what they're told,  no questioning. 

In the Russian military? That really isn't happening, there are stories of soldiers running away from battle (or even before battle) most days. There are stories of whole battalions confined to barracks (or worse) for refusing to fight in the "special Operation"

One of the reasons Russia is losing so many top line officers is that they are needed on the front line to actually get the NCOs and soldiers to do anything.

Faced with death, the Russians seemingly want to live a lot of the time

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

One of the reasons Russia is losing so many top line officers is that they are needed on the front line to actually get the NCOs and soldiers to do anything.

 

They are structured completely differently to "us". Their "model" requires the senior commanders to determine basically every action and step and to be in place to do that. That's different to our military, where people lower down the food chain are much more empowered and able to take decisions and so on. That's why they lose so many high-ups.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

They are structured completely differently to "us". Their "model" requires the senior commanders to determine basically every action and step and to be in place to do that. That's different to our military, where people lower down the food chain are much more empowered and able to take decisions and so on. That's why they lose so many high-ups.

Yes it's that too but it's part of the reason why they are structured like that, they don't trust the low ranking officers and the NCOs to actually make those decisions nor do they trust that they will actually fight. The two things are interlinked

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Yes it's that too but it's part of the reason why they are structured like that, they don't trust the low ranking officers and the NCOs to actually make those decisions nor do they trust that they will actually fight. The two things are interlinked

The whole society is set up that way. Do not think for yourself or question authority. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Yes it's that too but it's part of the reason why they are structured like that, they don't trust the low ranking officers and the NCOs to actually make those decisions nor do they trust that they will actually fight. The two things are interlinked

Not completely - for conscripts yes, but for the more elite forces, not so much (as I understand it), though it may be partially true. Like with French industry (which is in my experience in a way similar) the hierarchy is more formal in terms of "everyone looks to the boss", whereas with the UK, different people will feel they can speak up, suggest, contribute etc. while still abiding by the structure. It's just a different culture as well as the stuff around not trusting the professionalism or abilities of lower ranks.

[Genie]

 

[Panto_Villan]

19 hours ago, KentVillan said:

One thing I do worry about is the tendency to want to humiliate Russia.

Yes, it's great that everything is going wrong for Russia, but this could be the prelude to even more hardline figures on the Russian side pushing for increasingly aggressive actions, not just in Ukraine but across the region.

I don't know what the solution is... rolling over for Russia was never an option, and they've brought this on themselves. But just thinking realistically for a moment, these national humiliations often fuel paranoid, resentful, violent politics.

I'm very worried about the direction this is going to take over the next 10-20 years, even if this ends up being contained in the short term.

One thing that’s worth considering on this topic is that Germany and Japan probably represent the best case scenarios for enemies defeated in a terrible war subsequently rejoining the world order and devoting themselves to peace rather than war (possibly to a fault).

Both those countries were utterly humiliated in WW2. They were subject to occupation by the victors and their wartime leaders were put on trial and forced to answer for their crimes, which led to the populations as a whole coming to terms with what their country had done.

Occupation of Russia is sadly not going to happen but the more Russia is humiliated on the battlefield the more chance Russia as a whole learns that it’d be far better for the average Russian to exist inside the Western system like Ukraine wants to. If the war ended today with the current losses and territorial borders, I think most Russians would consider it a success (at least partially because they have a distorted view of what’s actually happening due to the propaganda).

I bet the average Russian doesn’t believe their army has committed war crimes. I really doubt any peace where that continues will hold for any length of time.

[Awol]

Remember folks it was totally an accident that sank Moskva..

 

[Straggler]

 

Putin is going to completely Aladeen this war up.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Straggler

[KentVillan]

3 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

One thing that’s worth considering on this topic is that Germany and Japan probably represent the best case scenarios for enemies defeated in a terrible war subsequently rejoining the world order and devoting themselves to peace rather than war (possibly to a fault).

Both those countries were utterly humiliated in WW2. They were subject to occupation by the victors and their wartime leaders were put on trial and forced to answer for their crimes, which led to the populations as a whole coming to terms with what their country had done.

Occupation of Russia is sadly not going to happen but the more Russia is humiliated on the battlefield the more chance Russia as a whole learns that it’d be far better for the average Russian to exist inside the Western system like Ukraine wants to. If the war ended today with the current losses and territorial borders, I think most Russians would consider it a success (at least partially because they have a distorted view of what’s actually happening due to the propaganda).

I bet the average Russian doesn’t believe their army has committed war crimes. I really doubt any peace where that continues will hold for any length of time.

Flip side to that is that Germany’s humiliation in WWI arguably caused WWII. It’s hard to predict the future.

[NurembergVillan]

On 15/04/2022 at 21:46, ciggiesnbeer said:

Not really. We made Germany pay reparations. Which is a good idea here as well. The mistake with post WW1 Germany was allowing it to be strong after and letting it rejoin the world economy. We should be harsher in Russia. Keep them poor and backward. Its not our concern how much they suffer. Its nothing compared to the death and misery they have caused in free countries.

We should stop trying to help and focus more on punishing. The carrot and stick does nothing. So just use the stick and keep the carrot.

I'm not great with history so will apologise in advance if my understanding is wrong here.

Living in Nuremberg, I went to the Reichsparteitagsgelande (the old rally grounds and offices, now a museum) on a number of occasions.

One of the things I think I remember reading was that the level of reparations being demanded after WWI had caused economic devastation for the average German.

The NSDA were able to weaponise this suffering in two ways - 1) convincing the population that a big chunk of their poverty was being caused by the rest of the world out of spite; 2) the remaining cause of their poverty was the Jews and Sinti/Roma peoples.

In those days that all felt plausible to the public and so resentment became support for fascism and WWII became a foregone conclusion.

Feel free to correct me on this!

[Mr_Dogg]

23 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said:

I'm not great with history so will apologise in advance if my understanding is wrong here.

Living in Nuremberg, I went to the Reichsparteitagsgelande (the old rally grounds and offices, now a museum) on a number of occasions.

One of the things I think I remember reading was that the level of reparations being demanded after WWI had caused economic devastation for the average German.

The NSDA were able to weaponise this suffering in two ways - 1) convincing the population that a big chunk of their poverty was being caused by the rest of the world out of spite; 2) the remaining cause of their poverty was the Jews and Sinti/Roma peoples.

In those days that all felt plausible to the public and so resentment became support for fascism and WWII became a foregone conclusion.

Feel free to correct me on this!

It's safe to say, without much argument, that the treaty of Versailles hugely contributed to the early success of the nazi party.

[Awol]

Though legally allied to NATO, Germany behaves like it’s a partner of Putin. This is going to have lasting effectives beyond this war, both within NATO and in EU discussions about a common security policy. Berlin’s post-invasion Damascene conversion from decades of idiocy seems to have been entirely contrived to take the heat off their indefensible position. 

 

 

[KentVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Though legally allied to NATO, Germany behaves like it’s a partner of Putin. This is going to have lasting effectives beyond this war, both within NATO and in EU discussions about a common security policy. Berlin’s post-invasion Damascene conversion from decades of idiocy seems to have been entirely contrived to take the heat off their indefensible position. 

 

 

I think Germany's position is better understood as shortsighted selfishness. They were the same with Greece (etc) post financial crisis, and that had nothing to do with cosying up to Putin. Hungary's drift towards Putin was exacerbated by German exploitation of their economy, and again I don't think that was intentional on Germany's part... just shortsighted.

Most countries have a foreign policy of shortsighted selfishness, though. Brexit was very much in that vein. We're lucky that in this specific situation in Ukraine, we've landed on the side of the good guys (if you ignore the refugee crisis), but there are many other situations where we've been in Germany's shoes.

I wouldn't get too caught up in ascribing stuff like this to flaws in national character. Politics is messy and lots of bad stuff happens because it aligns somehow with someone's tactical objectives.

What sets great leaders apart is their ability to sacrifice a short term tactical objective for the bigger picture. Boris doesn't fall into this category. He is a friend to Ukraine because it's convenient for him politically.

[LondonLax]

6 hours ago, Awol said:

Though legally allied to NATO, Germany behaves like it’s a partner of Putin. This is going to have lasting effectives beyond this war, both within NATO and in EU discussions about a common security policy. Berlin’s post-invasion Damascene conversion from decades of idiocy seems to have been entirely contrived to take the heat off their indefensible position. 

 

 

From reading that article it sounds like part of the problem for Germany is that it doesn’t actually have much heavy kit available to give away without making itself vulnerable. Years of under investment coming home. 

[Panto_Villan]

10 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

I'm not great with history so will apologise in advance if my understanding is wrong here.

Living in Nuremberg, I went to the Reichsparteitagsgelande (the old rally grounds and offices, now a museum) on a number of occasions.

One of the things I think I remember reading was that the level of reparations being demanded after WWI had caused economic devastation for the average German.

The NSDA were able to weaponise this suffering in two ways - 1) convincing the population that a big chunk of their poverty was being caused by the rest of the world out of spite; 2) the remaining cause of their poverty was the Jews and Sinti/Roma peoples.

In those days that all felt plausible to the public and so resentment became support for fascism and WWII became a foregone conclusion.

Feel free to correct me on this!

Yeah, the terms of the surrender in WW1 certainly contributed to the outbreak of WW2. It’s still debated whether the Treaty of Versailles went too far or not far enough (there’s a whole section on that in Wikipedia by way of illustration).

The average German was told that they had been ruined by the Treaty by German nationalists. To what degree that was actually true was another matter. It’s been a while since I studied it but it’s not as clear cut as it’s made out.

Reparations were about a third of Germany’s post war deficit, and it’s true the French insisted payments continue even in the midst of hyperinflation (a terrible idea for obvious reason). But Germany had also taken out massive loans to fund the war on the assumption it could repay them from the spoils of war, and their industrial capacity survived the war intact while France (where the war was fought) was devastated. There’s probably a world where Germany demilitarised and the treaty was bearable.

Anyway, I think any time there’s regime change and / or a realisation that launching the war was a really bad idea there’s a chance for the country to start over - although it’s clearly not guaranteed to succeed. Neither of those conditions currently applies in Russia right now though. I feel like any off-ramp solution would just let Putin reconstruct his military (properly this time) and try again in a few years.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Panto_Villan]

11 hours ago, KentVillan said:

Flip side to that is that Germany’s humiliation in WWI arguably caused WWII. It’s hard to predict the future.

It’s worth drawing a distinction between humiliation on the battlefield and humiliation in a peace treaty. Germany’s humiliation after WW1 contributed to WW2.

Germany being humiliated in WW1 led to the Kaiser being overthrown and Germany (briefly) becoming a democracy. The humiliation worked fine in that regard, and this is what needs to happen in Russia - the outcome of the war needs to be enough of a humiliation that Putin is swept away, because there’s no chance of long term peace with him remaining in charge.

If that happens the sanctions can be steadily lifted provided Russia recognises it committed war crimes, etc. It doesn’t need to be permanent neutered provided it moves away from the current political setup.

Surely WW1 also provides a cautionary tale that if a strong and expansionistic defeated country wants to remain expansionistic, it shouldn’t be allowed to remain strong?

Edited April 17, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[bickster]

A thread worthy of reading