Ukraine (Topical thread)

[Deesse23]

Ukraine and Crimea are strategically important to Russia, not only since the 21st or 20th century. The fact that Ukraine is gravitating towards NATO by itself only makes matters worse. This is and was (!) not acceptable to any strong russian leader.

You gotta ask yourself one question now (punk ): Does Putin think of himself as a strong russian leader?

[abaris]

I have read that Ukrainians are feeling those ties much weaker now since the proxy war in the Donbas and the seizure of Crimea. If there's any other correction you think should work on my view, I'm all ears. The American media is covering this as a superpower confrontation, but giving little airtime or ink to the local views on the ground in Ukraine. Perhaps your media has a different angle I'm unaware of, but should take into account.

No, our media doesn't have a different view either. There are numerous editorials and commentaries about it, but nothing concrete. It's like being between a rock and a hard place, but I don't take sides on this matter. I neither like Putin nor the Selensky government very much, but I can walk in the Russian shoes and understand that they can't tolerate another NATO member at their doorstep.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ukraine and Crimea are strategically important to Russia, not only since the 21st or 20th century. The fact that Ukraine is gravitating towards NATO by itself only makes matters worse. This is and was (!) not acceptable to any strong russian leader.

You gotta ask yourself one question now (punk   ): Does Putin think of himself as a strong russian leader?

Right. I get that he's trying to recapture the glory days. The question is, is he trying to live a champagne life on a Coca-Cola income? If he invades Ukraine, he's still got to guard the Polish frontier and the Chinese frontier. Right now the Russian Ground Forces have about 400,000 active-duty troops, and an unknown amount of reserves. This is a conscript force, which may present morale problems, and the Russian Ground Forces have seen fit since 2019 to engage upwards of 400,000 "contractors" to round out their ground forces.

It follows that the combat value of these forces may be questionable. Does Russia intend on fighting an insurgency with them? For how long? These are the questions Putin and his advisors are almost certainly asking themselves, amongst others.

As I noted, if Putin decides to attack, there's no realistic way Ukrainian independence survives. But insurgencies can and do exact costs that make such a move very dangerous. The Soviet failure in Afghanistan was one factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin is no doubt aware of that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I have read that Ukrainians are feeling those ties much weaker now since the proxy war in the Donbas and the seizure of Crimea. If there's any other correction you think should work on my view, I'm all ears. The American media is covering this as a superpower confrontation, but giving little airtime or ink to the local views on the ground in Ukraine. Perhaps your media has a different angle I'm unaware of, but should take into account.

No, our media doesn't have a different view either. There are numerous editorials and commentaries about it, but nothing concrete. It's like being between a rock and a hard place, but I don't take sides on this matter. I neither like Putin nor the Selensky government very much, but I can walk in the Russian shoes and understand that they can't tolerate another NATO member at their doorstep.

I'm not invested in Ukraine joining NATO, and it appears the response it arouses makes the project unworkable. Whether NATO should offer that promise at gunpoint is another thing altogether. One's foreign policy should not be conducted under the guns of a hostile power.

[abaris]

ote]



It follows that the combat value of these forces may be questionable. Does Russia intend on fighting an insurgency with them? For how long? These are the questions Putin and his advisors are almost certainly asking themselves, amongst others.

Not really, if the patriotism card is played. There's that old Goering quote when he talked to Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

That's nothing but true. It works everywhere, even in the USA, as we could observe since 2002, and the sentiment in Russia is such that the whole world is against them. They didn't desert in masses when they were sent to Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, they didn't with Chechnya in two wars and they certainly wouldn't with Ukraine.

[SYZ]

Ukraine and Crimea are strategically important to Russia, not only since the 21st or 20th century...

Ukraine has an agreement with Russia for access to its 18 major deep-water Crimean ports—such
as Sevastopol, Odessa, Ilyichevsk and Yuzhniy—for another 25 years. It may come to regret that.

(Sevastopol is the only warm water port available to Russia.)

[Deesse23]

Ukraine and Crimea are strategically important to Russia, not only since the 21st or 20th century...

Ukraine has an agreement with Russia for access to its 18 major deep-water Crimean ports—such
as Sevastopol, Odessa, Ilyichevsk and Yuzhniy—for another 25 years.  It may come to regret that.

(Sevastopol is the only warm water port available to Russia.)

Throwing a steak to a hungy shark in the hopes it will leave your shore....

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's nothing but true. It works everywhere, even in the USA, as we could observe since 2002, and the sentiment in Russia is such that the whole world is against them. They didn't desert in masses when they were sent to Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989, they didn't with Chechnya in two wars and they certainly wouldn't with Ukraine.

In the last fifty years, the US has been tired out by three insurgencies, and the Soviet Union by one, despite appeals to patriotism. That's because patriotism might swell the enlisted ranks, but it doesn't pay for weapons and operations. The Soviet troops didn't desert en masse in Afghanistan, but the Soviet population sure as hell got tired of body-bags and shortages.

Patriotism only goes so far.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Throwing a steak to a hungy shark in the hopes it will leave your shore....

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.

[abaris]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.

So what's the alternative? Risk a nuclear war with Russia?

I'm sure, Putin would sell Western support for Ukraine for lifting certain sanctions. Barring the Crimean, of course, since that would rob Russia of it's black sea harbor.

[Minimalist]

The Soviet troops didn't desert en masse in Afghanistan,

Of course not.  Where could they have gone?

[Thumpalumpacus]

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last.

So what's the alternative? Risk a nuclear war with Russia?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect Putin is overplaying his hand. I don't think it butts up against a risk of nuclear war, though. I'd turn the screws on Erdogan in order to render Russian gains in ports nugatory, and put the pipeline on the table too. As much as Europe needs Russian fossil-fuels, Russia needs European money.

Do you gave a solution in mind? I'd love to hear it.

[Cavebear]

So what's the alternative? Risk a nuclear war with Russia?

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect Putin is overplaying his hand. I don't think it butts up against a risk of nuclear war, though. I'd turn the screws on Erdogan in order to render Russian gains in ports nugatory, and put the pipeline on the table too. As much as Europe needs Russian fossil-fuels, Russia needs European money.

Do you gave a solution in mind? I'd love to hear it.

I think Biden is playing the bad situation in Ukraine as well as possible. NATO is not going to a land war with Russia. But Russia is economically weak and would suffer VERY badly with heavy sanctions. He is "Fearless Leader" there but still is responsible to keep the money flowing. If the flow trickles, he has contenders in spite of decades of suppression.

Putin is playing a combination of Risk and Chess, I understand that he is spectacularly good at that, but it can only continue so far. Russia is not the former Soviet Union.

I don't know enough about the military land forces of NATO and Ukraine and other former Soviet nations combined, but I'm pretty sure Russia couldn't beat them all.

But there is always WW3 if someone is crazy enough.

[abaris]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect Putin is overplaying his hand. I don't think it butts up against a risk of nuclear war, though. I'd turn the screws on Erdogan in order to render Russian gains in ports nugatory, and put the pipeline on the table too. As much as Europe needs Russian fossil-fuels, Russia needs European money.

Do you gave a solution in mind? I'd love to hear it.

I haven't got any solution other than the hope of Blinken and Lawrow coming closer to one at their meeting in Geneve.

But you have to understand one thing. For you and any other American, this is a remote conflict. For @Deesse23, @Szuchow and me, this is right on our doorstep. Maybe 500 kilometers removed, the same region that gave us Tschernobil and it's fallout all over Europe, for anyone old enough to remember.

[Deesse23]

We have survived the cold war, without going nuclear at all (albeit, it was close at times). I dont see why/how we should go nuclear now.
What we also have learned is that local "hot" wars are very, very possible in any kind of setup (anyone remembering ex-Yugoslavia, even closer to our central european doorstep?). Thus, a war in the Ukraine is very unlikely going nucear at all, but not at all impossible to happen at all.

Now for the likelihood. Manpower (as brought up by Thump) never was a concern to russian leaders, at least not since Peter the Great vs. Charles XII of Sweden. I dont think Putin will be concerned all too much with death counts or ratios at all. Since we have established that he is a smart cookie, he will play his cards carefully tho. I am sure he has a risk/reward analysis going in his head (Bismarckian style). Thus i dont think an all out conventional war is even very likely. My suspicion is that Putin very likely knows that Urkaine has some value to him, but that its not everything to him. Thats the card he will not show to the west. Thats his part of playing poker. We need to find out the value of Ukraine to him, and evaluate its worth to us, then we can play our hand accordingly.

What does Putin need? What does he want?
What do we need? What do we want?

[abaris]

What does Putin need? What does he want?

Without being able to look into Putin's head, I think, the answer is obvious. The lifting of sanctions and the acceptance of being a great leader on eye level with the Americans or the Chinese. So did Bush the elder say or even hint at something to that effect between 1989 and 1991? Did Gorbatschow demand something like that? The narratives differ between the West and Russia.

The other part of the question is harder to answer and I don't think anyone in the West has an actual answer, other than preventing Putin from taking over the Ukraine. There are too many national and regional interests at play to form a united plan.

[Cavebear]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect Putin is overplaying his hand. I don't think it butts up against a risk of nuclear war, though. I'd turn the screws on Erdogan in order to render Russian gains in ports nugatory, and put the pipeline on the table too. As much as Europe needs Russian fossil-fuels, Russia needs European money.

Do you gave a solution in mind? I'd love to hear it.

I haven't got any solution other than the hope of Blinken and Lawrow coming closer to one at their meeting in Geneve.

But you have to understand one thing. For you and any other American, this is a remote conflict. For @Deesse23, @Szuchow and me, this is right on our doorstep. Maybe 500 kilometers removed, the same region that gave us Tschernobil and it's fallout all over Europe, for anyone old enough to remember.

It IS "remote". But we still have a world-view. What happens in Ukraine matters. Sovereign borders matter as a concept, and people (who I will probably never meet) matter too. Freedom matters. And the world shouldn't be just about "power". It should be for all people to be as free and thriving as possible. And with help. We are all equal people. We need each other to help each other.

It takes a world to help as nation survive...

Yeah, what happens in Ukraine will probably not affect my life very directly. I'm getting older; I'll die. But I still care.

[Cavebear]

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I suspect Putin is overplaying his hand. I don't think it butts up against a risk of nuclear war, though. I'd turn the screws on Erdogan in order to render Russian gains in ports nugatory, and put the pipeline on the table too. As much as Europe needs Russian fossil-fuels, Russia needs European money.

Do you gave a solution in mind? I'd love to hear it.

I haven't got any solution other than the hope of Blinken and Lawrow coming closer to one at their meeting in Geneve.

But you have to understand one thing. For you and any other American, this is a remote conflict. For @Deesse23, @Szuchow and me, this is right on our doorstep. Maybe 500 kilometers removed, the same region that gave us Tschernobil and it's fallout all over Europe, for anyone old enough to remember.

I remember Tschernobil (though I had to figure out the phonetics to get it). I remember The Cold War. I remember MAD ("mutually-assured-destruction" for the younger members). I an only 4+ years younger than Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And THOSE were weak bombs.

What still scares me is that what "can't ever happen" CAN happen. Any mad desperate fool could do it. THAT is what scares me sometimes.

[Deesse23]

What does Putin need? What does he want?

Without being able to look into Putin's head, I think, the answer is obvious. The lifting of sanctions and the acceptance of being a great leader on eye level with the Americans or the Chinese. So did Bush the elder say or even hint at something to that effect between 1989 and 1991? Did Gorbatschow demand something like that? The narratives differ between the West and Russia.

The other part of the question is harder to answer and I don't think anyone in the West has an actual answer, other than preventing Putin from taking over the Ukraine. There are too many national and regional interests at play to form a united plan.

Re: Bismarck

2022: Russia asking the west for guarantee not to accept Ukraine in Nato
1870: France asking Prussia for guarantee that no Hohenzollern will be on the spanish throne
hmmm...  
Back then, the king of Prussia didnt want his relative in Spain anyway. Maybe the west does not want/need to have Ukraine join Nato anyway.....but to Putin Ukraine is somehow important, lik spain was to France. This may can be used as leverage...

If Putin basically wants to be back in the G20 (or was it G7? idk), more so than Ukraine, then maybe grant his wish....but make him guarantee for Ukraine...something like that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But you have to understand one thing. For you and any other American, this is a remote conflict. For @Deesse23, @Szuchow and me, this is right on our doorstep. Maybe 500 kilometers removed, the same region that gave us Tschernobil and it's fallout all over Europe, for anyone old enough to remember.

Yeah, that's kinda why I asked you upthread about your views. I'm pretty aware that y'all are going to be more immediately affected, dumb American though I am.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Manpower (as brought up by Thump) never was a concern to russian leaders, at least not since Peter the Great vs. Charles XII of Sweden. I dont think Putin will be concerned all too much with death counts or ratios at all.

I wasn't arguing that he'd care about casualties. I was arguing that he's got a relatively small army which has to protect huge borders, including one with Poland which would be a vital holding in any hypothetical war over Ukraine, and one with China that runs over 2,600 miles.

My suspicion is that Putin very likely knows that Urkaine has some value to him, but that its not everything to him. Thats the card he will not show to the west. Thats his part of playing poker. We need to find out the value of Ukraine to him, and evaluate its worth to us, then we can play our hand accordingly.

What does Putin need? What does he want?
What do we need? What do we want?

Right, this is about making the correct estimation of what he's willing to do and what he will not do over the country.

[Minimalist]

We have survived the cold war, without going nuclear at all (albeit, it was close at times). I dont see why/how we should go nuclear now.

Miscalculation or over-reaction to a false alarm would be the best bet.  Once the shooting starts people up and down the line get hyper-sensitive.

[SYZ]

I found THIS site to be of interest, along with the accompanying map:

[adey67]

Manpower (as brought up by Thump) never was a concern to russian leaders, at least not since Peter the Great vs. Charles XII of Sweden. I dont think Putin will be concerned all too much with death counts or ratios at all.

I wasn't arguing that he'd care about casualties. I was arguing that he's got a relatively small army which has to protect huge borders, including  one with Poland which would be a vital holding in any hypothetical war over Ukraine, and one with China that runs over 2,600 miles.

My suspicion is that Putin very likely knows that Urkaine has some value to him, but that its not everything to him. Thats the card he will not show to the west. Thats his part of playing poker. We need to find out the value of Ukraine to him, and evaluate its worth to us, then we can play our hand accordingly.

What does Putin need? What does he want?
What do we need? What do we want?

Right, this is about making the correct estimation of what he's willing to do and what he will not do over the country.

I don't trust the fucker ever since the Novochok poisonings, he's a ruthless ex KGB thug who has zero problem disappearing political and other rivals he is unpredictable and dangerous.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't trust the fucker ever since the Novochok poisonings, he's a ruthless ex KGB thug who has zero problem disappearing political and other rivals he is unpredictable and dangerous.

Of course.