Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

...What I mean is there are multiple levels to the conflict. On the broader level, as you say, there is a conflict between what Russia wants (for Ukraine not to join NATO or the EU, and ultimately for it instead to join their 'Eurasian group' or whatever it's called (can't remember)), and what Ukraine wants...

I think the simple part is not what Russia wants, or what Ukraine wants, or any of the other myriad local differences and allegiances. The simple thing is that Putin the individual needs to preserve his status and illicit, stolen wealth.

That status is threatened by a closing in of Democracy around Russia's borders and by the prospect (however unlikely) of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU (both pretty unlikely, IMO).

Putin also benefits if a short term "get behind the nation" type of feeling emerges in Russia at a time of tension/conflict. Equally sanctions, isolation and economic woes hit the people of Russia and make him unpopular. He ruthlessly kills, arrests,  poisons, disappears to Siberia, threatens, steals from any fledgling opposition. He's a gang-leader, a KGB hard man, a brutal tyrant.

So the rest of the world needs to decide how they deal with him. Mostly we/they've decided to take money or Gas or whatever because we want or need it, and leave him alone until such times as he does something "beyond the public appetite to accept" and then we take some fairly minimal measures and then revert back to how it was.

The problems won't go away until he's gone from power. And we know how he's changed all the rules to allow himself to stay in charge until 2036 or whenever it is. He's not going, unless in a coffin/internal power grab from within his own ranks.

The world has no taste or will to fight a war. Putin is happy to invade and all the other undermining, sabotage, incursions, cyber war etc. within the East.

He's got his army on the borders of Ukraine and his Oil and Gas bargaining chip.

We need to work out whether we want to play or fold, basically. But we can't get our stuff together, collectively.

All the other stuff is kind of a level down, or more. 

[ender4]

24 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

 

Norwegian gas can quite easily replace Russian gas. Norway deliberately keeps production at a level which makes them earn the most. The same goes for Qatar. I'd love for you to show some kind of sources for why neither can upscale their production. Norway's promised to deliver 2 billion cubic meters more only this year.  They are only exporting to the UK from two of their 119 fields. With the right incentive they could easily increase production many-fold.

Going off topic onto gas prices.  At the current level of gas prices, why doesn't Norway just massively increase production.  The price wouldn't decrease by much due to all the other Russian issues and they could probably take a bigger market share, keep European countries growing rather than going into recession or trying to cut usage of gas, and they make more money from a greater supply. I'm sure Europe would exclusively buy from Norway rather than Russia if Norway could supply.   Or does it just take too long to increase production? 

[Panto_Villan]

20 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Yes, I'm perhaps using too much shorthand. What I mean is there are multiple levels to the conflict. On the broader level, as you say, there is a conflict between what Russia wants (for Ukraine not to join NATO or the EU, and ultimately for it instead to join their 'Eurasian group' or whatever it's called (can't remember)), and what Ukraine wants, though an important thing to remember is that public opinion is very divided about this in Ukraine; many people do not want to join either the EU or NATO (certainly joining the latter used to do very badly in polls) while others want to join one or the other or both. Public opinion is also very geographically divided east-to-west. This division is what causes the issue with the Donbas provinces, which is what I'm trying to get at in the quoted post.

I think you're being a bit too dismissive in calling them 'a trojan horse': obviously these breakaway governments are heavily supported and supplied by Russia, but it is also true that local political opinion is strongly in favour of devolution of power to the region, of Russian language rights, and of a non-combative relationship to Russia. The Minsk deal - which as you say Ukraine has refused to implement - was agreed by both Russia and Ukraine, so it should and almost certainly will form the basis of any longer-lasting agreement. That could be a federal Ukraine (a la the USA or Australia where individual regions/states/provinces have their own governments as well as the national) or a non-federal Ukraine with exceptions just for these regions (a la Catalonia and the Basque country in Spain, or Scotland, Wales and NI in the UK). One of the many issues with getting to that point is sequencing, as Russia wants a political agreement before they stop supporting the separatists (as they fear Ukraine simply will not do the promised devolution) and Ukraine wants control of the border before they do the devolution. To be honest both countries are justified in suspecting the other of being capable of backsliding on the agreement, so this is a big challenge. But again, the reason I focus on these two provinces is that I suspect that if a] the political status of these two provinces is regularised, and b] it is clear that Ukraine will not be joining NATO any time soon, that Russia may back off.

Might this analysis be too optimistic, and might Russia choose to bring down the government and install a puppet regime, or might they even invade western Ukraine beyond the Dnieper river? Unfortunately it has to be considered *possible*, even if I don't think it is *likely*. All the more reason for extreme diplomatic caution, as that would be the worst possible outcome for everyone.

Yeah. So my phrase “Trojan horse” was intended to communicate Putin’s view rather than the political sentiments of the people on the ground.

I don’t disagree too much with you overall, but a few points I’d make - I think pro-EU (but not pro-NATO) sentiment was higher than you think from the early 2000s onwards. Maybe less so in the Donbas, but I think overall support for EU affiliation was approaching 50%. Support for both NATO and the EU is obviously much higher post 2014 in the face of Russian aggression though, and I don’t think there’s much pro-Russian sentiment left outside the Donbas even if there used to be. Unfortunately for him, Putin has managed to unify Ukraine.

Secondly, I think you’re being a little optimistic about what Russia is after. As part of the ongoing negotiations they were offered a 30 year guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO, but they weren’t interested. Similarly I think Putin is interested in the Donbas primarily because of the political leverage it gives him, not because he cares about the territory itself (hence why Crimea was annexed but the Donbas was not). That’s not to say there’s not a lot of genuine pro-Russian sentiment there, just that I don’t think Russia would be happy to settle for control over that region if they “lose” the rest of the Ukraine.

FWIW I don’t think Putin actually will launch a full-scale invasion. I think he’s aware it’ll be costly and ultimately counterproductive and he can just squeeze some diplomatic concessions or annex the Donbas and take the easy victory. But I think he certainly would like to!

[Panto_Villan]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think the simple part is not what Russia wants, or what Ukraine wants, or any of the other myriad local differences and allegiances. The simple thing is that Putin the individual needs to preserve his status and illicit, stolen wealth.

That status is threatened by a closing in of Democracy around Russia's borders and by the prospect (however unlikely) of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU (both pretty unlikely, IMO).

Putin also benefits if a short term "get behind the nation" type of feeling emerges in Russia at a time of tension/conflict. Equally sanctions, isolation and economic woes hit the people of Russia and make him unpopular. He ruthlessly kills, arrests,  poisons, disappears to Siberia, threatens, steals from any fledgling opposition. He's a gang-leader, a KGB hard man, a brutal tyrant.

So the rest of the world needs to decide how they deal with him. Mostly we/they've decided to take money or Gas or whatever because we want or need it, and leave him alone until such times as he does something "beyond the public appetite to accept" and then we take some fairly minimal measures and then revert back to how it was.

The problems won't go away until he's gone from power. And we know how he's changed all the rules to allow himself to stay in charge until 2036 or whenever it is. He's not going, unless in a coffin/internal power grab from within his own ranks.

The world has no taste or will to fight a war. Putin is happy to invade and all the other undermining, sabotage, incursions, cyber war etc. within the East.

He's got his army on the borders of Ukraine and his Oil and Gas bargaining chip.

We need to work out whether we want to play or fold, basically. But we can't get our stuff together, collectively.

All the other stuff is kind of a level down, or more. 

Everything you say about Putin is correct there, but I think when most people here talk about Russia it’s just shorthand for Putin. The two are inseparable right now, as you say yourself.

However, I actually think the West has been pretty clear about what we’re doing. We’ve already said we won’t fight him for Ukraine, but we’ll impose severe economic costs if he attacks it and beef up the NATO forces on his borders going forward. Meanwhile we’ve been offering talks so he can easily take a step back from war without looking weak, letting him claim another diplomatic victory over the West.

Really it’s Putin that needs to decide whether he’s going to play or fold.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

How about the Norwegian PM literally saying their increased production can’t replace Russian gas?
 

Did you even read the article I linked, btw? Do you disagree with it in some way?

You seem to be the only person I’ve encountered who is convinced that Ukraine can win a war against Russia. You’ve provided no evidence for it, you’ve just repeated that claim over and over but I’ve not seen a single credible source saying it’s possible.

Where have I said the Ukraine would win? I don't think they would, neither do I think it'd be a quick victory for Russia. It'd probably end in a year long war akin to Afghanistan-Soviet with Putin losing face. Your reuters article is talking about right now, it is fairly obvious that Norway can't just step in on short notice and cover for Russia. Norway could ramp up their production by a whole lot if Co2 quotas allowed. The thing is that Russia is not bound by climate agreements like Norway and hence they've been delivering more. Several upgrades to the system would make Norway the number one producer for gas for the whole of Europe, not just the UK.

Norway's gas is also far 'cleaner' than that of Russia and Qatar, it pollutes less per cubic metre than most other gas in the world.

Putin's power is dependent on constant wins. I don't think he would risk it with Ukraine. Russia hasn't been involved in a protracted big scale conflict since the 80's, and public opinion plummeted because of it. It'd not be good for Putin.

[blandy]

49 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Really it’s Putin that needs to decide whether he’s going to play or fold.

Well, yes, it is. But we need to be clearer, much clearer in putting our cards on the table, to continue the analogy.

We'll do some unspecified sanctions that may be nasty doesn't really cut it. Last week Biden was saying a small invasion might be OK, FFS.

[HanoiVillan]

Just now, blandy said:

Well, yes, it is. But we need to be clearer, much clearer in putting our cards on the table, to continue the analogy.

We'll do some unspecified sanctions that may be nasty doesn't really cut it. Last week Biden was saying a small invasion might be OK, FFS.

That literally is 'putting our cards on the table' though. In other words, our bottom line is we're prepared to do almost nothing militarily, and some sanctions maybe but definitely not anything that will reduce gas supplies.

I'm glad Biden did that 'gaffe'. The Ukrainian government should pay attention to it, realise how thin their support is and how weak their position is, and use that to inform their next move. Better that they hear the actual depth of our commitment than lots of comments from Washington foreign policy think-tanks telling them how we'll admit them to NATO any day now, honest, when we definitely won't.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I think the simple part is not what Russia wants, or what Ukraine wants, or any of the other myriad local differences and allegiances. The simple thing is that Putin the individual needs to preserve his status and illicit, stolen wealth.

That status is threatened by a closing in of Democracy around Russia's borders and by the prospect (however unlikely) of Ukraine joining NATO or the EU (both pretty unlikely, IMO).

[...]

The problems won't go away until he's gone from power. And we know how he's changed all the rules to allow himself to stay in charge until 2036 or whenever it is.

The thing I agree with you about here is the prospect of Ukraine joining the EU and/or NATO, though I would go further than 'pretty unlikely' and say there's basically no chance for either for decades to come at best.

On the other points, it's not that you're wrong about Putin necessarily, but that focusing on him as a person rather than Russia as a nation places the emphasis wrongly on the former IMO. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by 'the problems' above, but this particular 'problem' - of Russia's relationship with Ukraine - won't go away even after Putin is in the earth. Simply, powerful countries take an interest in things that happen in their 'near abroad' and try to influence their neighbours to get what they want. If we did an absurd counter-factual, and imagined Russia was as powerful as the USA and vice versa, and then imagined that Russia had a military alliance that the USA considered diametrically opposed to its' interests, and then we imagined that politicians in Mexico were agitating to join that military alliance, we can see that the USA would not accept this calmly either. It's not that powerful countries meddling in the affairs of their neighbours is *good*, but that it is inevitable and can be seen all over the world. Similarly, focusing on Putin the person seems to push forward the idea that if Russia had a different leader, it might have a different attitude to Ukraine joining NAO, but this seems extremely unlikely.

None of this is to say that Putin is alright actually or to deny his centrality to the situation, but that even when a country has a powerful single leader like him, it still has an idea of its' 'interests' that go beyond what that one man thinks.

That's why I don't see a future where Ukraine can join NATO, and why I think its leaders and population should take seriously the idea of being neutral - hardly a disaster for Austria, Finland or Sweden after all - rather than aligned with Russia's 'enemies'. Of course it's also true that Ukraine gets to choose, that is their right as a sovereign nation, but to go back to the first point above, they need to be clear that the choice is either on the one hand continuing to try to join an alliance that in any case won't admit them, at the risk of a military response from their neighbour, or on the other a negotiated settlement, which will be difficult and humiliating to get, but which could form the basis of a more lasting stability. Their right-wingers, hawks and nationalists will naturally demand the former; again, that is their right. But the choice is the choice.

[Panto_Villan]

30 minutes ago, blandy said:

Well, yes, it is. But we need to be clearer, much clearer in putting our cards on the table, to continue the analogy.

We'll do some unspecified sanctions that may be nasty doesn't really cut it. Last week Biden was saying a small invasion might be OK, FFS.

Yeah, agreed. That wasn't a particularly helpful comment from Biden!

41 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Where have I said the Ukraine would win? I don't think they would, neither do I think it'd be a quick victory for Russia. It'd probably end in a year long war akin to Afghanistan-Soviet with Putin losing face. Your reuters article is talking about right now, it is fairly obvious that Norway can't just step in on short notice and cover for Russia. Norway could ramp up their production by a whole lot if Co2 quotas allowed. The thing is that Russia is not bound by climate agreements like Norway and hence they've been delivering more. Several upgrades to the system would make Norway the number one producer for gas for the whole of Europe, not just the UK.

Norway's gas is also far 'cleaner' than that of Russia and Qatar, it pollutes less per cubic metre than most other gas in the world.

Putin's power is dependent on constant wins. I don't think he would risk it with Ukraine. Russia hasn't been involved in a protracted big scale conflict since the 80's, and public opinion plummeted because of it. It'd not be good for Putin.

I was talking about the article I'd linked previously on Russian air and missile superiority which was outlining why the war might be over almost as soon as it begins, and why things like anti-tank missiles and such aren't necessarily going to help Ukraine at all. It might provide a counterpoint to your view that the Ukraine is just as hard to invade as any other major country. I agree there's a chance Russia gets bogged down in Ukraine, but I can only see it happening in an insurgency after Russian wins. A war would be over relatively quickly one way or another; either the Russians steamroller Ukraine or they back off if it looks like they're not going to win (having inflicted massive damage on Ukraine).

I fully agree it wouldn't be logical for Putin to do it, but he might well do it anyway.

I just don't think you appreciate the gulf in scale between Norway and Russia in terms of gas production. Norway produces 5.7trn cubic feet of gas per year and has reserves of 72trn. Russia produces 22.7trn cubic feet per year and has reserves of 1,700trn. Russia actually only exports 7.2trn cubic feet per year but that's the largest export number in the world - Norway would have to go up to 13trn feet per year to make up the shortfall, which means they'd burn through all their reserves in about 5 years. I just don't see how you think the maths works. Even laying aside the amount of capital expenditure required to double to amount of gas wells you have.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Panto_Villan]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the other points, it's not that you're wrong about Putin necessarily, but that focusing on him as a person rather than Russia as a nation places the emphasis wrongly on the former IMO. I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to by 'the problems' above, but this particular 'problem' - of Russia's relationship with Ukraine - won't go away even after Putin is in the earth. Simply, powerful countries take an interest in things that happen in their 'near abroad' and try to influence their neighbours to get what they want. If we did an absurd counter-factual, and imagined Russia was as powerful as the USA and vice versa, and then imagined that Russia had a military alliance that the USA considered diametrically opposed to its' interests, and then we imagined that politicians in Mexico were agitating to join that military alliance, we can see that the USA would not accept this calmly either. It's not that powerful countries meddling in the affairs of their neighbours is *good*, but that it is inevitable and can be seen all over the world. Similarly, focusing on Putin the person seems to push forward the idea that if Russia had a different leader, it might have a different attitude to Ukraine joining NAO, but this seems extremely unlikely.

None of this is to say that Putin is alright actually or to deny his centrality to the situation, but that even when a country has a powerful single leader like him, it still has an idea of its' 'interests' that go beyond what that one man thinks.

That's why I don't see a future where Ukraine can join NATO, and why I think its leaders and population should take seriously the idea of being neutral - hardly a disaster for Austria, Finland or Sweden after all - rather than aligned with Russia's 'enemies'. Of course it's also true that Ukraine gets to choose, that is their right as a sovereign nation, but to go back to the first point above, they need to be clear that the choice is either on the one hand continuing to try to join an alliance that in any case won't admit them, at the risk of a military response from their neighbour, or on the other a negotiated settlement, which will be difficult and humiliating to get, but which could form the basis of a more lasting stability. Their right-wingers, hawks and nationalists will naturally demand the former; again, that is their right. But the choice is the choice.

I really need to bow out of this thread for a bit. However I'm interested why you think Russia is bound to be locked into an eternally antagonistic relationship with America in the future? Why do their interests have to oppose one another?

I personally agree with Blandy that the root of the issue is that Russia is failing because of Putin's corruption and cronyism, and there's actually no reason why a democratic and well-governed Russia could not be a law-abiding part of the global world order in the same way that countries like Japan or Germany that were once opposed to the US now are. That's not in the interests of the current ruling class though, unfortunately.

It's not like even wealthy developed countries like Britain and France are above posturing at one another with warships over things like fishing rights, so I'm not saying everyone has to hold hands and be happy forever. But I really don't think it has to be "us and them" to anywhere near the extent it currently is.

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm glad Biden did that 'gaffe'. The Ukrainian government should pay attention to it, realise how thin their support is and how weak their position is, and use that to inform their next move.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any consensus in Ukraine regarding joining NATO or even the EU. I understand there are debates and different views within Ukraine on this, and that Russia/Putin wants neither to happen.

But really, Putin has put an army on the borders with Russia and Belarus looking to all intents like an invasion force. This isn't in response to a specific thing Ukraine has done, or decided. It's entirely at Putin's personal action.

Russia/Putin has laid down a set of demands at the same time as massing these forces. There's no mistaking this as essentially "agree to my demands, or else..." - Most of those demands go beyond what is realistic, and they are made with the explicit threat of a military response if not met. He wants NATO troops out of nearly all of eastern Europe, even from NATO nations. No further expansion of NATO (regardless of any future activity Russia might undertake) and NATO to have to get Russia's permission to conduct exercises anywhere remotely close to Russia.

We know right now Russia is conducting similar exercises off Denmark/Sweden, Ireland and in the med.

So his demands are largely never going to be met. I'm sure he knows that. The key (I think) is that Ukraine be isolated from the West, and Russia to, by fair means or foul to drag Ukraine back under Russian control. But it is largely, IMO about him as an individual. Russia is not a genuine democracy where different political views or visions are able to be aired and debated and decided upon. Russia does what Putin wants.

[magnkarl]

42 minutes ago, blandy said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any consensus in Ukraine regarding joining NATO or even the EU. I understand there are debates and different views within Ukraine on this, and that Russia/Putin wants neither to happen.

But really, Putin has put an army on the borders with Russia and Belarus looking to all intents like an invasion force. This isn't in response to a specific thing Ukraine has done, or decided. It's entirely at Putin's personal action.

Russia/Putin has laid down a set of demands at the same time as massing these forces. There's no mistaking this as essentially "agree to my demands, or else..." - Most of those demands go beyond what is realistic, and they are made with the explicit threat of a military response if not met. He wants NATO troops out of nearly all of eastern Europe, even from NATO nations. No further expansion of NATO (regardless of any future activity Russia might undertake) and NATO to have to get Russia's permission to conduct exercises anywhere remotely close to Russia.

We know right now Russia is conducting similar exercises off Denmark/Sweden, Ireland and in the med.

So his demands are largely never going to be met. I'm sure he knows that. The key (I think) is that Ukraine be isolated from the West, and Russia to, by fair means or foul to drag Ukraine back under Russian control. But it is largely, IMO about him as an individual. Russia is not a genuine democracy where different political views or visions are able to be aired and debated and decided upon. Russia does what Putin wants.

Agreed. Though I don’t think Putin considered what would be the long term consequence of 2013-14 when he did it. It’s lead to a hugely anti Russian Ukraine with western military equipment and large portions of the parts of Ukraine that matters to move closer to the West and EU. I think he thought that no one would react again, so he was building up to his dream of reconquering Ukraine as a whole in Dec when he blinked too soon.

Why would NATO back down when he’s not got even a tenth of their combined strength? I’m wondering if his staff are just sycophantic and not actually telling him the truth or if he still believes he is a superpower. The threat of invasion has turned potential neutral buffer states against him. He’s trying to do what Stalin did to Poland in 42, without the tact and ability.

If he wants tension down he can start by not pushing all neutral neighbours right into NATO/Turkey/EU’s hands.

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Why would NATO back down when he’s not got even a tenth of their combined strength? I’m wondering if his staff are just sycophantic and not actually telling him the truth or if he still believes he is a superpower. The threat of invasion has turned potential neutral buffer states against him. He’s trying to do what Stalin did to Poland in 42, without the tact and ability.

Just on this, NATO has absolutely no desire for any conflict with Russia. None. It's not really a case of a direct 2 way disagreement between Russia and NATO, because of the third (and threatened) party, Ukraine, which is not in NATO.

So Putin wants 2 things - Ukraine back under his control and NATO to do the stuff I mentioned earlier. NATO (or essentially the leading nations in NATO) will (as you say) not meet his demands. But that still leaves Ukraine in the same place, in trepidation of Russian actions in both the short and longer term...and that means a stronger desire for them to join NATO, which kind of squares the circle and leads to the potential outcome that Putin doesn't want , and nor does he want heavy sanctions and nor can his troops stay deployed endlessly (particularly as it's winter and they've been there a while already).

The worry is he doesn't have an "out" to save face, and this is dangerous in the extreme. The diplomats may feel they need to throw him a bone, but I'm not sure what that might be that will satisfy him.

[Chindie]

Russian numbers station UVB-76, the Buzzer, has seemingly been hacked, over the last couple of weeks, with pirates broadcasting various meme-y songs, including a Rick roll, and sending meme images through the frequency could be seen on a spectrogram.

Which is cracking timing.

[bickster]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

Russian numbers station UVB-76, the Buzzer, has seemingly been hacked, over the last couple of weeks, with pirates broadcasting various meme-y songs, including a Rick roll, and sending meme images through the frequency could be seen on a spectrogram.

Which is cracking timing.

[tinker]

If they invade they are committing to a conflict that will most likely last year's and end with withdrawal from at least some of the Ukraine if not all of it with their tails between their legs, as we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Military forces can only defeat another army , they cannot change the opinions of the occupied population and in most cases they will polarise opinions against them. 

The worry is the disruption caused, populations displaced with the nearest boarders  being EU countries. The refugee crisis could worsen considerably. 

 

[Follyfoot]

Boris calling Putin over the weekend apparently asking him to get his troops to step down. Phew crisis averted 

[NurembergVillan]

5 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Boris calling Putin over the weekend apparently asking him to get his troops to step down. Phew crisis averted 

[trekka]

Oh how times have changed.

 

[Lichfield Dean]

10 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Boris calling Putin over the weekend apparently asking him to get his troops to step down. Phew crisis averted 

We're all doomed aren't we?

[Follyfoot]

48 minutes ago, trekka said:

Oh how times have changed.

 

“And i gave her a pearl necklace……”