[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine--Act 3: Ride of the Valkyries

[Verbose]

So "might is right", only "now primarily economic might is right". Doesn't sound like an ethical argument either.
Won't help when half the planet (economically too, mind) is in another group, which is the way things are going.

If that is what YOU think...

But rather, IF dealing with an adversary that thinks precisely in terms of only hard power, then yes, nothing except hard power will convince them of much of anything. (Am reminded of de Gaulle's speech to the French on July 18 1940 – to paraphrase him being very careful to insist France had not been defeated due to any moral inferiority, but simply been bowled over by a "greater mechanical force", the solution to which would be an even greater mechanical force to counter it. That's what Ukraine needs against Russia now, and if it gets it, Russia has slim prospects of repeating what it is doing, which is why it would simplify things endlessly.)

Any kind law-based, in its premises at least fair and equitable, international political system has to be first created, then maintained. It's like things like free trade, only more so, that doesn't just happen by itself. Which means if we are going to have a world that is based not just "the right of the grasping fist", then sufficient power to maintain it is necessary. And to the extent that such an order has enemies, they will also try to thwart and even end it. Which is also what we are looking at. If such a system isn't maintained and invested in, it fails eventually.

Then there might be small comforts in observations over time of how autocracy untempered by some actual justice has very poor survival prospects (the ancient Greek made that observation). But for the now we are probably in for a ride where hard power, nukes and what not, is the main currency of international politics. Frankly it depends a bit. If Russia gets away with what it wants to do in Ukraine, and sets that as a new precedent, then we are likely really in for it. Otoh China might still be on the fence about all this – since after 24 Feb things have shifted radically, and fast, in ways that are unlikely to have been to Beijing's actual liking. China is actually quite dependent on things like international trade working, and if that snags up, then things can become quite difficult for China rather fast. This shift was not expected. Will China carry or drop Russia in the end? It is clearly loathe to do either, but a decision might become necessary at some later point.

 

[Kyriakos]

What I think is that, unless Russia is defeated conventionally AND then decides it's ok and doesn't nuke Ukraine etc, the only outcome of this war is de facto annexation of everything Russia already controls and possibly (according to how things go) the rest of the Black Sea coast. At the same time, months of (more) war would mean a worse economic situation in Eu, people freezing in countries that already are hit from before, US selling a lot of weapons to eastern europeans but also Germany (and Greece, we somehow also need F35 now, despite refusing to be part of programs to co-build them before) and ultimately more US military in Europe for as long as this still can be sustainable.

The dream that Russia will collapse and some interregnum will rise (even if it is just Ukraine tied to the Eu), will remain just that: a dream not based on anything.

 

[keli]

The dream that Russia will collapse and some interregnum will rise (even if it is just Ukraine tied to the Eu), will remain just that: a dream not based on anything.

I'm glad the SU collaped in the early 90s. This is why the Eastern Block could join the EU and NATO and this is why our countries are much more prosperous and free. I wish Ukraine the same. Sometimes miracles can happen by themselves. But sometimes a coordinated effort is required for them to be materialized. We are doing our part (although we should do much much more).

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm glad the SU collaped in the early 90s. This is why the Eastern Block could join the EU and NATO and this is why our countries are much more prosperous and free. I wish Ukraine the same. Sometimes miracles can happen by themselves. But sometimes a coordinated effort is required for them to be materialized. We are doing our part (although we should do much much more).

From an entirely practical viewpoint, one has to wonder how there is no plan for Russia threatening use (IF it comes to fail conventionally, which hasn't happened by now, it still controls 20% of Ukraine) of nuclear weapons against Ukraine (Ukraine, not US or Germany etc). The complete absence of any plan for something which is promoted all the time by Russia itself (even yesterday Lavrov spoke of risk of nuclear war again) is a bit enigmatic, as if it makes sense to act like Russia will out of character (180 degree turn) just give up if it fails conventionally, because... reasons?
At least enigmatic if one assumes what is going on currently (I don't mean the war here, I mean weapons and monetary support of Ukraine) isn't just to have US sell a lot more weapons to Eu that it did in recent decades, and then leave when it is convenient.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How do you know there is no plan if Russia decides to use nukes?

 

[Verbose]

From an entirely practical viewpoint, one has to wonder how there is no plan for Russia threatening use (IF it comes to fail conventionally, which hasn't happened by now, it still controls 20% of Ukraine) of nuclear weapons against Ukraine (Ukraine, not US or Germany etc). The complete absence of any plan for something which is promoted all the time by Russia itself (even yesterday Lavrov spoke of risk of nuclear war again) is a bit enigmatic, as if it makes sense to act like Russia will out of character (180 degree turn) just give up if it fails conventionally, because... reasons?
At least enigmatic if one assumes what is going on currently (I don't mean the war here, I mean weapons and monetary support of Ukraine) isn't just to have US sell a lot more weapons to Eu that it did in recent decades, and then leave when it is convenient.

No one can make a contingency plan for something like that. Even talking about what a response might be is dangerous, because anything stated might feed delusional hopes in the Kremlin that it is actually going to succeed in intimidating someone the west like this – the EU perhaps, the US would be the big hope of course. This is all part of the new landscape of containment and intimidation anyway. But it isn't really a sign of Russian strength, rather that it is kind of running out of options.

Russia is doing this because it is pretty much the only at least hypothetically potent threat it has, that it hasn't already tried to leverage. But it is an insane proposition. It's why all these ideas about Putin "being ill" have probably been put about. Classically it would have been a "crazy Ivan" play, but Putin's situation is not based on him being emotional, much less insane, but rather an image of cool and calculating. If one is going to intimate that Putin "might do it" then claiming he is ill, even dying, is preferable – he is then not supposed to do it because he is "crazy", but due to the more relatable factor that he is "mortal", like everyone else. But then that is the human condition anyway, and so it is unclear why Putin would push the Button simply because he has realized his time is limited (if he somehow didn't already know before)? In any case what it does is just to play on general human fears.

Otoh there has been rather less talk of late of Putin's supposed "illness", and the nuclear threats aren't very effective. He really has to fire the damn things to make them effective. Until he does, it is literally all empty threats. Once he fires, then it is again a completely new, much nastier, situation still unknowable in its details – also for Russia. Nukes are a "weapon of last resort" and if you try to make them a weapon of some kind of "general resort", then that invites new forms of perversity to your gambit. But you really have to nuke someone/something, or it is not credible. The threshold for this, even with a decades of Russian media eroding it, is still insanely high.

 

[Kyriakos]

If it was just a "crazy Ivan" plan, you wouldn't see Putin himself, Lavrov and other notables speak of it so many times.
Besides, I don't see how nuking Ukraine will automatically make US use nuclear weapons - and if it doesn't, what is the point? nukes sort of evaporate any conventional forces there.
It's ok to assume the other side is bluffing, but then it'd better be bluffing, or you will look like an utter moron (obviously not you or other posters here, I mean proponents in high positions in countries).
I also see no reason why Russia will just do a u-turn and abandon everything, instead of using nukes against Ukraine - what more is there to lose, would China boycott it? At worst Turkey will be forced to let US/tied warships through the straits, which will allow @r16 to (at least briefly) enjoy a fireworks show.

By the way, Verbose, nukes are only a last resort if you use them against another nuclear side. Otherwise they can be (and have been) also a weapon of convenience.

 

[Snowygerry]

If it was just a "crazy Ivan" plan, you wouldn't see Putin himself, Lavrov and other notables speak of it so many times.
Besides, I don't see how nuking Ukraine will automatically make US use nuclear weapons - and if it doesn't, what is the point? nukes sort of evaporate any conventional forces there.
It's ok to assume the other side is bluffing, but then it'd better be bluffing, or you will look like an utter moron (obviously not you or other posters here, I mean proponents in high positions in countries).
I also see no reason why Russia will just do a u-turn and abandon anything, instead of using nukes against Ukraine - what more is there to lose, would China boycott it? At worst Turkey will be forced to allow ships in the straits, which will allow @r16 to (at least briefly) enjoy a fireworks show.

In such a case arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons would seem the logical response.

I doubt anyone wants to go there...

 

[Kyriakos]

In such a case arming Ukraine with nuclear weapons would seem the logical response.

I doubt anyone wants to go there...

Is this even doable? Don't nuclear facilities take a lot of time to build? (let alone the matter of moving nukes there without having them be hit before they can be set).

 

[Snowygerry]

Certainly doable - there are nuclear weapons today in nations that do not necessarily produce them themselves - in Turkey for example

That's the final step of the "escalation ladder" though - we are nowhere near that now.

 

[Verbose]

By the way, Verbose, nukes are only a last resort if you use them against another nuclear side. Otherwise they can be (and have been) also a weapon of convenience.

Well, that IS what Russia sorta says here. They are going to have to go from words to actions however. Until then it by definition is a completely empty threat. And as said, the threshold for this is huge. Of course, you can go "Golly gosh, we'd better do everything Russia wants, or else...", but then that is so very transparently what the Russian government hopes, that everyone is spineless and effete, and will just buckle to threats and intimidation.

 

[Zelig]

As uncharitable as calling people paid propagandists and notorious liars or more?

Two wrongs don’t make a right. And a third-party observer who isn’t keeping a running tally of who said what isn’t going to see the first wrong.

And, I already gave you an example of exactly how uncharitable it is, so there’s no real need to look for other examples of things it’s as uncharitable as.

(And, a mod can correct me, but I’d expect a post of “x is a paid propagandist.” to be removed.)

 

[REDY]

Much more effective than sending nukes would be for example sending body parts of kidnaped and prisoners.
Nuke cannot be obscured as some partisan accident or revenge from Donetsk for the audience.

 

[Snorrius]

This is the disconnect. I understand feeling helpless to oust Putin.

I do not understand not placing responsibility at Putin for invading. You lot place this squarely at Ukraine. Their actions caused Russian "intervention".

Back in 2014-2015 there was a very strong "grass root" movement to help a pro-Russian insurrection out. Ukrainians like to present rebel republic as solely creature of Russian government, but reality was quite different. Rebels got a lot of help though private channels. Leading right wing webmagazine was raising millions for their cause. A lot of groups from both side of political specter were involved. Even usually peaceful transhumanist movement, hoping for creating a transhumanist state (spoiler: it did not happen), was helping out with something I can not disclose. One might say, Russian government seized this opportunity, but, in general, direct government help was relatively low.

So, Russian government had several options. They could more or less do nothing and allow the insurrection in Ukraine to widen and fend off with the private help. They could pump money and armor into it. They could make a direct intervention. All of these decisions would be acceptable for those who supported Donetsk and Lugansk against the coup government and its Ukrainization policies, though, obviously, there was strong outcry, especially, from Russian political ideologue Dugin and his crowd to intervene.

But, eventually, the Russian government opted for very unpopular solution. They decided to quench the insurrection and make a treaty with Ukraine. This was not met favourable. Right wing was absolutely disgusted with it and made a lot of dissent. The government cracked down on right wing. Some field commanders wanted to continue warfare — they removed them this or that way. Dugin was furious — he was expelled from his job. And it was not well-received in Ukraine either.

It was a bad solution. It was a dirty solution. Back then, I was critical of Putin's choice on this, but eventually I understood. However bad it was, however dirty it was, however it reeked of betrayal — this was solution designed for peace. What was for Ukraine to do — is to seize this bad, dirty solution, implement Minsk agreements and heal the rift between West and East of the country.

They decided other way, and followed the route their president Poroshenko promised. "We will have jobs — and they will not. Our people will get welfare — and theirs will not. Our children will go to school — and theirs will sit in bomb shelters." They made ghettos out of LPR and DPR and sent hounds from Azov and Kraken batallions to pro-Russian cities to execute a purge of pro-Russian opposition.

This was their answer. During this eight years they treated people from Donetsk and Lugansk very rough. As Igor succinctly put somewhere on this thread, they designated millions of people as "traitors" and "punished them". My acquaintance from Donetsk moved to Russia to study in uni, and one day his father called him and said he should not return back, because their house was destroyed with rocket.

In parallel, instead of trying to find a common ground with Russia, Ukraine was walked on the primrose path by USA and UK. They made Ukrainians believe they will be able to win a war with Russia. Their ideologue Arestovich (a counterpart of Russian Dugin) said in 2019 that the full scale war with Russia will be in 2021. So, they were not saintly lambs. They made a choice for a confrontation with Russia and were preparing.

In 2014 Ukrainians could choose peace. Instead, they chose war special military operation.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is this even doable? Don't nuclear facilities take a lot of time to build? (let alone the matter of moving nukes there without having them be hit before they can be set).

Nuke tipped cruise missiles are easy to move around. Low yield nuke artillery is mostly about moving ammunition around. Airplanes have been carrying nuclear bombs since 1945. ICBMs are a different animal, but we are way past that as the preferred method of delivery.

 

[red_elk]

Two wrongs don’t make a right. And a third-party observer who isn’t keeping a running tally of who said what isn’t going to see the first wrong.

And, I already gave you an example of exactly how uncharitable it is, so there’s no real need to look for other examples of things it’s as uncharitable as.

(And, a mod can correct me, but I’d expect a post of “x is a paid propagandist.” to be removed.)

I'm glad that you decided to pay attention to people's attitude in this thread.
And chose to correct me, of all posters, for being uncharitable.

Nuke tipped cruise missiles are easy to move around.

Will trigger full exchange.

 

[Kyriakos]

How do you know there is no plan if Russia decides to use nukes?

If there is a plan, the public sort of should be told, if we are still living in democracies. I don't wish to be in nuclear war, and probably most in Netherlands don't either.
Instead the question is either not discussed (despite of Russian top officials bringing it up so often), or is dismissed as impossible (for unknown or conflicting reason, eg: "Russia crazy but not that crazy")
Only it's not "crazy" to use nukes (against a non-nuclear side) if you risk losing. US even used nukes callously, without being at risk of losing, so as to not not spend more months fighting Japan (and apparently that wasn't even the main reason Japan capitulated).

 

[saamohod]

Back in 2014-2015 there was a very strong "grass root" movement to help a pro-Russian insurrection out.

But the roots of the movement were in Moscow.

Ukrainians like to present rebel republic as solely creature of Russian government, but reality was quite different. Rebels got a lot of help though private channels.

The first "managers" of the rebels were literally agents from Russia (Girkin, Boroday). Tanks, Buks and Buryats that manned them were definitely not obtained via private channels.

Even usually peaceful transhumanist movement, hoping for creating a transhumanist state

They should consider creating transhumanist state on the territory of Russian Federation instead. Humanity will benefit immensely from it.

They made ghettos out of LPR and DPR

The containment of the tumor was 100% justified. And you shouldn't call them ghettos as they weren't isolated from their masters - Russia. We built fortifications and left them alone.

sent hounds from Azov and Kraken batallions to pro-Russian cities to execute a purge of pro-Russian opposition.

BS

During this eight years they treated people from Donetsk and Lugansk very rough.

Not nearly as rough as Russia treated Chechnya that decided to become independent.

and one day his father called him and said he should not return back, because their house was destroyed with rocket.

Sounds like Mariupol to me.

Their ideologue Arestovich (a counterpart of Russian Dugin) said in 2019 that the full scale war with Russia will be in 2021. So, they were not saintly lambs. They made a choice for a confrontation with Russia and were preparing.

Predicting the obvious doesn't mean that we chose Russian invasion. Nice try, but no.

In 2014 Ukrainians could choose peace. Instead, they chose war special military operation.

In 2014 Ukrainians could return back to Russian cattle farm, but we chose to flip you off.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If there is a plan, the public sort of should be told, if we are still living in democracies.

Not really, and not a requirement for democracy.

Democracy doesn't mean the public should be informed of all matters with regard to war.

Back in 2014-2015 there was a very strong "grass root" movement to help a pro-Russian insurrection out. Ukrainians like to present rebel republic as solely creature of Russian government, but reality was quite different. Rebels got a lot of help though private channels. Leading right wing webmagazine was raising millions for their cause. A lot of groups from both side of political specter was involved. Even usually peaceful transhumanist movement, hoping for creating a transhumanist state (spoiler: it did not happen), was helping out with something I can not disclose. One might say, Russian government seized this opportunity, but, in general, direct government help was relatively low.

So, Russian government had several options. They could more or less do nothing and allow the insurrection in Ukraine to widen and fend off with the private help. They could pump money and armor into it. They could make a direct intervention. All of these decisions would be acceptable for those who supported Donetsk and Lugansk against the coup government and its Ukrainization policies, though, obviously, there was strong outcry, especially, from Russian political ideologue Dugin and his crowd to intervene.

But, eventually, the Russian government opted for very unpopular solution. They decided to quench the insurrection and make a treaty with Ukraine. This was not met favourable. Right wing was absolutely disgusted with it and made a lot of dissent. The government cracked down on right wing. Some field commanders wanted to continue warfare — they removed them this or that way. Dugin was furious — he was expelled from his job. And it was not well-received in Ukraine either.

It was a bad solution. It was a dirty solution. Back then, I was critical of Putin's choice on this, but eventually I understood. However bad it was, however dirty it was, however it reeked of betrayal — this was solution designed for peace. What was for Ukraine to do — is to seize this bad, dirty solution, implement Minsk agreements and heal the rift between West and East of the country.

They decided other way, and followed the route their president Poroshenko promised. "We will have jobs — and they will not. Our people will get welfare — and theirs will not. Our children will go to school — and theirs will sit in bomb shelters." They made ghettos out of LPR and DPR and sent hounds from Azov and Kraken batallions to pro-Russian cities to execute a purge of pro-Russian opposition.

This was their answer. During this eight years they treated people from Donetsk and Lugansk very rough. As Igor succinctly put somewhere on this thread, they designated millions of people as "traitors" and "punished them". My acquaintance from Donetsk moved to Russia to study in uni, and one day his father called him and said he should not return back, because their house was destroyed with rocket.

In parallel, instead of trying to find a common ground with Russia, Ukraine was walked on the primrose path by USA and UK. They made Ukrainians believe they will be able to win a war with Russia. Their ideologue Arestovich (a counterpart of Russian Dugin) said in 2019 that the full scale war with Russia will be in 2021. So, they were not saintly lambs. They made a choice for a confrontation with Russia and were preparing.

In 2014 Ukrainians could choose peace. Instead, they chose war special military operation.

So in 2022 Russia did not decide on invasion. They had no say in it. It was completely out of their hands. They just had to invade.

Thanks for the effort.

 

[red_elk]

UN agreed to send investigators to Elenovka (town where Ukrainian POWs were killed in a missile strike)

U.N. chief launches fact-finding mission into Ukraine prison attack

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said on Wednesday he will launch a fact-finding mission into an attack in the front-line Ukranian town of Olenivka that killed prisoners held by Moscow-backed separatists.

www.reuters.com

Mission was requested by both Russia and Ukraine. Though Ukraine probably did not expect that Russia will allow it.