War: Russia vs. Ukraine?

[Azuresun]

So...this is a thing now.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-warns-citizens-about-black-gay-people-if-they-flee-country/ar-AA12IcRd?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fdfff4f12212491196e391dd16bded71

It reminds me of a WW2 Japanese propaganda poster that listed the evils of the US, and included both the Ku Klux Klan and black people.

[Oniya]

I'm wondering how many far-right Americans are looking at that ad and going 'SEE?!?'  It reminds me of the whole thing where accepting someone who isn't like you as an equal equates to subservience.

[Thufir Hawat]

I always knew those vegetarians couldn't be trusted...they don't even like bacon! 

I've always been suspicious of vegans that don't like cheese and cheddar, personally . I mean, there are times when I stop the meat (not out of any ideology or diet, just because I don't feel like eating any meat, or any meat but fish)...but giving up cheese is beyond me !

[Sara Nilsson]

sometimes i wonder what us vegetarians ever did to deserve all the hate, fir every annoying vegetarian i always met two annoying meat eaters.

but that ad speaks of how insulated they must be if anyone believes it but then i look at fox news watchers who lice in this country and think blm burned down entire tonws

[Annaamarth]

*Quotes Dashenka*

"Playing poker with Putin" is not an assignation of blame, it is a statement describing the current situation.  Stating that stakes are getting higher is not an assignation of blame, it is a statement describing the current situation.  Dashenka may have her biases, just like anyone else, but calling her pro-Putin or describing that as a botski talking point seems presumptive.

Many of us within this thread are fond of watching Beau of the Fifth Column, who frequently refers to diplomacy and foreign affairs as a giant international poker game where everyone is cheating.  This is an apt analogy.  Biden and NATO are absolutely at the poker table with Russia, doing their best to show Putin's entire hand to Ukraine since before the invasion.

Personally, I align with Beorning and Thufir vis a vis Putin's goals - a return to Imperial Russia, born under the aegis of Putin the Great.  Fault for this war lies at Russia's feet, but refusing an out for Russia in general - and Putin specifically - means no resolution to this war for at least six months, possibly years - during which time the people of Ukraine and Russia both suffer.

I am not predisposed to a great deal of sympathy towards Russians, though I'm glad the mobilization has shocked them out of their programmed lethargy - but I am against the idea of "shared responsibility" or "collective blame."

So, let me revise my earlier statement - The fault for this lies at the feet of the Russian government.  The people may be at fault for that, but they are reaping their own rewards there - shattered freedoms, a shattered economy, and increasingly shattered illusions.  To punish the people en masse for that seems extraordinarily cruel to me - and often self-defeating, as in the example of refusing asylum seekers.  After all, every potential Russian conscript taken from Russia weakens the war effort, and every potential Russian worker taken from Russia weakens the war economy.

Punish the government, and that will trickle down to the people.  I would love to see the country returned to that brief time after Gorbachev stepped down as Supreme Soviet and before Yeltsin had murdered Russian democracy in the crib, rather than the oligarchical structure it's had since Black October.

I'm really starting to like Finland's PM:

https://twitter.com/RikhardHusu/status/1578308226709590017

Concur, wholeheartedly.

[Dice]

I didn't think I would be back in this thread but... The rail bridge out of Crimea is on fire and one of the toad spans has collapsed.

If you don't understand what this means, in short, Putin has to put up or look weak as fuck now.

[Thufir Hawat]

I am not predisposed to a great deal of sympathy towards Russians, though I'm glad the mobilization has shocked them out of their programmed lethargy - but I am against the idea of "shared responsibility" or "collective blame."
(...)
Punish the government, and that will trickle down to the people.  I would love to see the country returned to that brief time after Gorbachev stepped down as Supreme Soviet and before Yeltsin had murdered Russian democracy in the crib, rather than the oligarchical structure it's had since Black October.

Thing is, as almost any Russian that lived through the period would tell you, you can't be both "against collective punishment" and "for returning Russia to the 90ies" . Thing is, the 90ies were, for Russians, some of the worst years in memory - lawless, economic hardships, no social stability.
How much of that is propaganda (including involuntary one, the free 90ies press actually enjoyed informing the public about crimes that might have been kept away from the public's attention before...) and how much is reality is supposedly arguable. But one thing is for sure, the period is remembered as the "terrible 90ies".
Keep in mind that Putin actually became immensely popular by putting a stop to the whole lawlessness that characterized the 90ies. That should tell you how bad it was at the time .

All of this is theory. The facts are that the sanctions that are meant to cripple the Russian economy in order to impede the war effort, simply cannot avoid targeting ordinary people to some extent (people depend on the economy!), even though there are more targeted sanctions against the Russian leadership.
But the leadership also has more financial reserves, so they're actually likely to be the last to feel the strain, not the first. And they can engage in corruption to get more money that you can't account for, so you can't sanction them, either.

But, sorry to break it for you, the West basically doesn't have other options, short of ditching Ukraine to its fate...is anyone advocating for this ? And even if anyone was, that's not a viable long-term option, either. Not unless you want to start by unraveling the whole of the current international system.

[gaggedLouise]

I didn't think I would be back in this thread but... The rail bridge out of Crimea is on fire and one of the toad spans has collapsed.

If you don't understand what this means, in short, Putin has to put up or look weak as fuck now.

And Kyiv has effectively claimed responsibility, not that there was ever much doubt about that.

This is a very reckless move, I would say.

[Annaamarth]

Thing is, as almost any Russian that lived through the period would tell you, you can't be both "against collective punishment" and "for returning Russia to the 90ies" . Thing is, the 90ies were, for Russians, some of the worst years in memory - lawless, economic hardships, no social stability.
How much of that is propaganda (including involuntary one, the free 90ies press actually enjoyed informing the public about crimes that might have been kept away from the public's attention before...) and how much is reality is supposedly arguable. But one thing is for sure, the period is remembered as the "terrible 90ies".
Keep in mind that Putin actually became immensely popular by putting a stop to the whole lawlessness that characterized the 90ies. That should tell you how bad it was at the time .

I did say before Black October, yes?  That was when Yeltsin did his thing in 1993.

Before that the economy was a shambles, yes, and inflation was terrible.  One doesn't shift from a planned economy to suddenly not overnight without issue - but the opportunity was taken to enrich the wealthy and further entrench the oligarchal class during Yeltsin's tenure, especially after the legislature was out of the way.

Putin took that and brought "order" after six more years of Yeltsin's presidency after Black October.  I don't pretend that the time before was rosy - it wasn't.  I also don't pretend that levying sanctions against the Russian government doesn't punish the people of Russia by proxy - it absolutely does.  The poorest classes always suffer first, as you said.

When I say that I disagree with the idea of "collective punishment" I mean I am against the idea of punishing Russians, as a group, as individuals for the actions of the Russian government.  By this, I don't mean "let's not sanction the oligarchs" - those are individuals targeted individually, and that's fine.  By this, I don't mean "Don't sanction Russia, it's bad for the citizens!"  That's true, but also not what I mean.

I mean that I think e.g. "Hey, this Russian suddenly seeking asylum to escape the draft?  Fuck that guy, he should'a spoken up sooner, kick him back into Russia and let him suffer for his share of the responsibility of the actions of the Russian government" is wrong, bad, and shortsighted.

I think the sanctions have shown efficacy and should continue, and I think it sucks that the Russian people need to suffer for that, but it is what it is.  I think the best way for the sanctions to stop is for Putin to recant his illegal and unrecognized referenda, for Russian troops to go home, and sure - let's have no-shit refereda in the regions in question, see what they want - internationally observed and excluding anyone who moved into those regions during Russian occupation from outside of Ukraine.

If that was on the table as part of peace?  Sure, I'd support it.  I don't think Putin would ever allow it though, so here we are.  Putin started a war of conquest - if that means that Ukraine turns around and "conquers" land that was legally Ukraines to begin with?  Fuck 'em.

And Kyiv has effectively claimed responsibility, not that there was ever much doubt about that.

This is a very reckless move, I would say.

Was it more or less reckless than Putin making the historical decision of annexing land that his nation did not, actually, control or have the power to control?  I think this is a perfectly measured response.

[Dashenka]

And Putin invading Ukraine to de-nazify the country was what exactly?

Not reckless? Justified?

[Annaamarth]

And Putin invading Ukraine to de-nazify the country was what exactly?

Not reckless? Justified?

Right?

Also,

@Thufir, if it helps, when I say "collective responsibility" I'm referring to the kind of group or mutual responsibility practiced by various authoritarian nations and within most militaries - круговая порука is the Russian, I think, and it has very specific connotations there (I believe - confirmation or refutation from Dashenka would be lovely).  The 80's era Russian protest song  Скованные одной цепью - Forged with one Chain, roughly? - is a good example of the idea I'm talking about, or any sort of action where a terrorist attack by a member of an ethnicity or nationality is considered justification for targeting noncombatants who are guilty only of sharing that ethnicity or nationality.

My word choice is specific and, again, sanctions ain't that.  We're on the same side there.

[gaggedLouise]

@Annamarth: Kiev wants NATO to be forced/dragged /morally shamed into openly stepping onto the battlefield in some sense - instead of standing behind the curtains, marking time and hauling lots of arms and sanctions to Ukraine. That's been part of their game plan for a long time, but the West has resisted.

Striking a key target that's sitting right on the straits between Russia and Crimea is most likely going to lead to return strikes both against Ukraine and against NATO (because they could never have carried this out without serious NATO assistance and advice). We will see how happy Pentagon, NATO and Brussels are about that.

[Dashenka]

Yes but that's what everybody wants. All out war.


If you suggest diplomacy you're pro-Putin apparently. So all out war it is.


I've got my chickencoop cladded in led already, just in case.

[gaggedLouise]

Yes but that's what everybody wants. All out war.


If you suggest diplomacy you're pro-Putin apparently. So all out war it is.


I've got my chickencoop cladded in led already, just in case.

*handles Dasha some iodine pills*

I thought we could try to be sensible here...

[Beorning]

@Annamarth: Kiev wants NATO to be forced/dragged /morally shamed into openly stepping onto the battlefield in some sense - instead of standing behind the curtains, marking time and hauling lots of arms and sanctions to Ukraine. That's been part of their game plan for a long time, but the West has resisted.

Striking a key target that's sitting right on the straits between Russia and Crimea is most likely going to lead to return strikes both against Ukraine and against NATO (because they could never have carried this out without serious NATO assistance and advice). We will see how happy Pentagon, NATO and Brussels are about that.

I admit I'm failing to see how it is different from what Ukraine and NATO have been doing until now. It's not like NATO isn't supplying Ukrainians with weapons and training - that is public knowledge. And it's also pretty obvious that NATO is assisting them with planning and intelligence. All of this wasn't reckless - but blowing up the Crimea bridge is?

And, of course, this *is* a big loss for Russia. Without that bridge, Russia's supply lines to Crimea are crippled - which is bad news  for them from the military standpoint. And it's also a propaganda loss, especially as this comes a day after Putin's birthday...

So yeah, that could piss Putin off. But... how could Ukraine even win this war without pissing him off? It's impossible. Every and each Ukrainian success is going to piss Putin off.

[midnightblack]

Striking a key target that's sitting right on the straits between Russia and Crimea is most likely going to lead to return strikes both against Ukraine and against NATO (because they could never have carried this out without serious NATO assistance and advice). We will see how happy Pentagon, NATO and Brussels are about that.

I doubt there will be much of any Russian escalation beyond what we've already seen. With the way the situation has been turning around, Putin would have already engaged additional resources if they were available to him. It's not very clear to me how effective the attack even was, for that matter. The bridge might still be usable for most purposes. And regarding escalation scenarios, the truth is that when I heard a retired US general (think it was Petraeus but I might be misremembering) suggesting that a US response to a nuclear strike in Ukraine would involve eliminating the Black Sea Fleet and all Russian bases in Ukraine, "effectively ending the war" (I believe I'm quoting the exact phrasing here), my reaction was "so uh... if you could do it then, it means you could do it at present, so why don't you just end it now so we can all move on with our lives?". This whole disaster has been dragging on for way too long already and way too many people are suffering because of one man's frustrations.

[Oniya]

Key word there is 'retired' - Petraeus is armchair general-ing like Jimmy Johnson covering the Super Bowl.  Yes, he's got more knowledge than any of us, but he is not privy to all the information that the active Pentagon staff has at their fingertips.  The way that he might have responded fourteen years ago (when he last saw active service as head of the Multinational Force in Iraq) or even ten years ago (when he was Director of the CIA) can't possibly take into account the information that is still currently classified.

[gaggedLouise]

I admit I'm failing to see how it is different from what Ukraine and NATO have been doing until now. It's not like NATO isn't supplying Ukrainians with weapons and training - that is public knowledge. And it's also pretty obvious that NATO is assisting them with planning and intelligence. All of this wasn't reckless - but blowing up the Crimea bridge is?

And, of course, this *is* a big loss for Russia. Without that bridge, Russia's supply lines to Crimea are crippled - which is bad news  for them from the military standpoint. And it's also a propaganda loss, especially as this comes a day after Putin's birthday...

So yeah, that could piss Putin off. But... how could Ukraine even win this war without pissing him off? It's impossible. Every and each Ukrainian success is going to piss Putin off.

NATO has wanted some sort of deniability, an insulating wall: "we're not really a fighting partner in this war, no no, we're just supporting Ukraine and acting as the umpire".  Even if NATO and the US admit they are far from impartial, they have wanted to keep up a claim that they are not belligerents. But over the last few months, it's become harder and harder to keep this a credible claim.  The Ukrainian armed forces are 90% funded, armed and supplied by NATO, they are receiving training from NATO as well as logistics assistance and help with picking targets for both manned offensives and missile strikes. Even if it's Ukrainian officers and commanders pulling the triggers, they are often doing it in alignment with NATO personnel and from NATO advice. 

There's been several reports in western news outlets saying that NATO, especially the US; has reserved a veto on what targets Kyiv could pick. Ukraine has long wanted to strike targets deep within Russia, and to get more long-distance missiles to be able to do this, but the US has resisted because of the risk it would escalate the war. Effectively there's been an internal tug-of-war between Kyiv and Washington: what kind of targets do we get to go for and what are the ultimate goals here - what's the endgame? In my opinion, these two are not really united about what game plan they wanted and what the final goals are, with this war or after it, but they don't want to give those differences away in public.

Kyiv has wanted NATO pulled in openly into the war because it would make Ukraine as good as a NATO member already, it would provide them with the vast resources they need to fight Russia, and it would also oblige the US to morally defend anything Ukraine might do, because you never accuse a key ally in a war of making the wrong moves vs the enemy (well, Kyiv has done that several times, not mincing their words, about Germany but then they don't view Germany as a true ally...). As long as Kyiv are just framing it as"we are fighting Mordor!" they can hold off most questions in public about just where they want this conflict to land, and what happens if they are unable to drive Russia out of Crimea and the Donbass. If they don't have NATO fully on board, this would get much harder to sell, so the logical way for them to get a long-term bond would be to "force" NATO in as an open belligerent in the conflict. But is that what most people in Europe or even the US really want?

[Humble Scribe]

The pictures look like only one side of it collapsed. How structurally sound the other side is now remains to be seen, but it may well still be usable, possibly for reduced loads. The railway bridge also looks ok apart from having lots of burned out oil cars on it, and presumably repairable. Per this tweet from the Ukrainian defence minister I'm assuming it was mainly just a Ukrainian "fuck you" to Putin on his birthday.

[Humble Scribe]

Another crumb of comfort, if you're looking for one, is that in talks with EU leaders this week, "Chinese diplomats have removed their talking points blaming NATO for the conflict in Ukraine and made clear that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia would be viewed as totally unacceptable in Beijing." Presumably they have conveyed the same message to Putin, possibly in less diplomatic language. I suspect that will weigh much heavier on Putin's thinking than anything Ukraine or NATO says or does.

[firepyre]

Yes but that's what everybody wants. All out war.


If you suggest diplomacy you're pro-Putin apparently. So all out war it is.


I've got my chickencoop cladded in led already, just in case.

I think the issue with a diplomatic route at the moment, is that putin needs some kind of gain to get him to the table, but Ukraine and NATO(their backers) are unlikely to accept anything less than a total withdrawal.

The war started due to diplomatic impasse, between what the Kremlin wanted, and what Ukraine/the west would accept. I don't really think anything has changed there, that could result in successful negotiations, in which case there's very little point in holding them. Ukraine is even less inclined because any sort of ceasefire would kill it's momentum and allow Russia to consolidate it's gains.

That puts Russia in the awkward position of needing to escalate in order to negotiate, and probably legitimately threaten the west in order to improve their position... Which is fucking terrifying. I think china's recognition of this is why they're starting to soften. Nobody wins if russia continues to up the ante.

The alternative is that russia never formally agrees to peace talks. They just scale back the war effort and maintain an active front until something changes. I think this is probably what we're starting to see. Putin will be hoping he can consolidate and hold onto what he has, and then he'll probably just try to sit on it for a couple of years.

Tldr: I doubt there'll be any negotiations in the near future, until either a) the ukranian advance/western aid stalls out, or b) It becomes obvious that Russia can no longer hold it's gains. If B happens, I think there is a real danger of nuclear escalation.

I think this holds true with russia's mobilization too. Putin isn't getting soldiers ready for a big push, he's probably preparing for a protracted fight. Any sort of formal talks are basically an admission of how bad things are, but an ongoing war, while costly, is probably far more politically appealing to putin. He can just wait and see.

As for the bridge... While it's quite impressive that somebody managed to destroy it, I think it's a minor disruption at worst. More of an opportunistic annoyance than a legitimate strategic attack.

[Azuresun]

As for the bridge... While it's quite impressive that somebody managed to destroy it, I think it's a minor disruption at worst. More of an opportunistic annoyance than a legitimate strategic attack.

It triggered Putin enough to order the murdering of random civilians in Kiev, so looks like he felt it.

Also, just wanted to share this:

[MetroFallout]

It triggered Putin enough to order the murdering of random civilians in Kiev, so looks like he felt it.

Also, just wanted to share this:

Hate to nitpick, but Kyiv and not Kiev.

[Dashenka]

It triggered Putin enough to order the murdering of random civilians in Kiev, so looks like he felt it.

Why are we all surprised? Nobody wants diplomacy. Everybody wants to continue fighting. This is the result.


Corner the bear and he'll fight back. Panic and random or not.

Did people seriously think that Russia wouldn't strike back after all the land they lost and the bridge being blown up? I wonder.

Hate to nitpick, but Kyiv and not Kiev.

Kiev is the English spelling.

[Beorning]

Why are we all surprised? Nobody wants diplomacy. Everybody wants to continue fighting. This is the result.

But how the heck do you do diplomacy with a genocidal regime intend on wiping out a whole country and the national identity of its people?

It's not some border scuffle over a legitimately contested region. It's a war against an aggressor whose stated goal is to forcibly assimilate another country (a few other countries, actually). How do you negotiate with such a regime without doing a repeat of Munich 1938?

Also, if today's attacks by Russia were provoked by Ukraine's attack on the Crimea bridge, then... what do you propose? That Ukrainians defend themselves more timidly? So that they don't "provoke" Putin into more brutality? Come on...

Corner the bear and he'll fight back. Panic and random or not.

Well, if a rabid bear breaks into your home first and starts tearing your family into pieces, what choice do you have but to corner it and kill it?