Ukraine Part 2: Playing chicken with Kiev

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

52 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Not only that, but it is hugely disruptive to Ukraine's economy, as nobody wants to invest in businesses that might be rubble in a few months.  Russia is demonstrating that they can bully Ukraine without stepping over the border at all.  That sounds to me like a very Putin move. 

An excellent point.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Not only that, but it is hugely disruptive to Ukraine's economy, as nobody wants to invest in businesses that might be rubble in a few months.  Russia is demonstrating that they can bully Ukraine without stepping over the border at all.  That sounds to me like a very Putin move. 

The confounding thing here is then what is Putin's endgame?  He can't keep > a hundred thousand troops deployed like this forever.  So if NATO/Ukraine don't budge on his demands and then he eventually desists you'd have to think a lot of people within his regime will wonder what the hell the point was.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

The confounding thing here is then what is Putin's endgame?  He can't keep > a hundred thousand troops deployed like this forever.  So if NATO/Ukraine don't budge on his demands and then he eventually desists you'd have to think a lot of people within his regime will wonder what the hell the point was.

But if the goal is to bully Ukraine through a show of force, then even a small concession from Ukraine could be sold as a win.  Not a big win, but not everything is.  Everything I've read indicates that Putin and Russia in general do not want to get embroiled in a long run conflict in Ukraine.  So long as Putin can avoid that, he'll be able to sell the idea that this was all a win. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But if the goal is to bully Ukraine through a show of force, then even a small concession from Ukraine could be sold as a win.  Not a big win, but not everything is.  Everything I've read indicates that Putin and Russia in general do not want to get embroiled in a long run conflict in Ukraine.  So long as Putin can avoid that, he'll be able to sell the idea that this was all a win. 

Possible, but I still can't identify what a "small concession" would be.  OTOH, there certainly are "smaller" incursions Russia could make as an alternative to a full-scale invasion that likely would not be met with as much resistance from the west and Putin could cite as a victory, sure.

[Iskaral Pust]

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

Possible, but I still can't identify what a "small concession" would be.  OTOH, there certainly are "smaller" incursions Russia could make as an alternative to a full-scale invasion that likely would not be met with as much resistance from the west and Putin could cite as a victory, sure.

He needs some concession from NATO in order to not look weak.  So after the US basically ignored his demands, he’s amping up the outrage and rattling the saber even harder. The best play here is to just refuse to acknowledge any validity in his demands and then wait for him to climb down.  An outright war isn’t a good outcome for him either.  He wants NATO to agree to isolate Ukraine so he can subvert their govt in his own time.  He thought he could bluff his way to that, but no-one else is even playing the game with him.

[Maithanet]

I think that the concession he's going to get is something from Ukraine about not joining NATO for X years.  That's something that Ukraine can offer and Putin could point to as a meaningful win. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Iskaral Pust said:

The best play here is to just refuse to acknowledge any validity in his demands and then wait for him to climb down.  An outright war isn’t a good outcome for him either.  He wants NATO to agree to isolate Ukraine so he can subvert their govt in his own time.  He thought he could bluff his way to that, but no-one else is even playing the game with him.

Agreed.  Short of an invasion or a smaller incursion, Putin has backed himself into a corner and the US/west has been absolutely right to stand firm.  I suppose it would be best for all if the US/NATO/Ukraine could find a small concession that would allow Putin to save face and stand down, but again I honestly can't think of what that would be.  That's the problem with making such unrealistic demands.

Just now, Maithanet said:

I think that the concession he's going to get is something from Ukraine about not joining NATO for X years.  That's something that Ukraine can offer and Putin could point to as a meaningful win. 

Sure, that's clearly the most intuitive way hostilities could cease and if Ukraine is willing to do that, great.  I just don't view that as a small or minor concession, and it certainly doesn't appear Ukraine does either.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sure, that's clearly the most intuitive way hostilities could cease and if Ukraine is willing to do that, great.  I just don't view that as a small or minor concession, and it certainly doesn't appear Ukraine does either.

I guess it sort of depends on how long that time period is, but even if Russia were a total nonfactor, Ukraine would have a lot of trouble getting into NATO.  Definitely not something that is happening anytime soon, and I think Ukraine knows it.  So offering Russia something not to do something that you already know isn't going to happen doesn't seem like much of a concession.  It makes Ukraine look weak (sorta), but they are in a weak position, so that isn't exactly news. 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

even if Russia were a total nonfactor, Ukraine would have a lot of trouble getting into NATO.  Definitely not something that is happening anytime soon, and I think Ukraine knows it.

Yep, this is why if Ukraine wants to do that I'm all for it.  Everybody knows Ukraine isn't joining NATO anytime soon.  Like I said, I just don't view that as a "minor" concession - or at least it's a concession we've already discussed at length.

[Clueless Northman]

4 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I think that the concession he's going to get is something from Ukraine about not joining NATO for X years.  That's something that Ukraine can offer and Putin could point to as a meaningful win. 

Assuming Zelensky can actually survive such a move...

 

4 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

He needs some concession from NATO in order to not look weak.  So after the US basically ignored his demands, he’s amping up the outrage and rattling the saber even harder. The best play here is to just refuse to acknowledge any validity in his demands and then wait for him to climb down. He thought he could bluff his way to that, but no-one else is even playing the game with him.

That would be it, if NATO and Western people were actually his intended audience. What if they're not? What if his plan was either to have some significant concessions, or to be able to show that "we can't negotiate with the West"? You have to be realistic about these things: Outside the West, plenty of people and countries will consider Russia to be a bit shady and not the most reliable partner, sure, but outside the West, pretty much every single country will consider, no, actually will know with absolute certainty that the West (or basically the USA, but actually the same goes for EU, it's just that it's not as obvious because US actions and negotiations are always way more "in your face" than EU) can't be trusted to fulfill its obligations and won't respect any treaty or deal in the long run, and will sooner or later drop it when it's convenient. So, this isn't Putin playing to get a deal with the West or even trying to convince Western audience - this is Putin making a show for the "Global South" peanut gallery, the one which is way easier to convince of the general duplicity of all great powers (even if it includes Russia and China).

[DMC]

45 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

So, this isn't Putin playing to get a deal with the West or even trying to convince Western audience - this is Putin making a show for the "Global South" peanut gallery, the one which is way easier to convince of the general duplicity of all great powers (even if it includes Russia and China).

I don't think anyone is suggesting Putin is trying to convince a western audience - of course he isn't.  But I also don't think he's trying to convince the "Global South" of anything either.  His posturing here - and thus his need for either concessions or some type of results - is almost entirely about intra-Russian concerns.  Whether you want to say that means those inside the regime, the Russian public, or some combination of both, I think that's his audience.  Maybe China a bit too, but I don't think that's a large concern.

[Werthead]

18 hours ago, DMC said:

Sure, that's clearly the most intuitive way hostilities could cease and if Ukraine is willing to do that, great.  I just don't view that as a small or minor concession, and it certainly doesn't appear Ukraine does either.

The Ukrainian government I think is seeing this as much as an opportunity as a danger. They realise they have a much stronger hand than they had in 2014 and their international support is much bigger. They know they are in danger of invasion, but they also know that there is a nontrivial chance that Putin is playing an absolutely massive bluff. It they can ride it out and if Putin can back down without Ukraine making an concessions, then Ukraine looks much tougher and a more viable partner to do business with for the West and NATO, even if NATO membership remains off the table for some years.

One of Putin's calculations might be that from hereon out - or starting rather seven or eight years ago and accelerating rapidly recently with the Turkish military aid deal - Ukraine will close the gap in any military stand-off with Russia and a Russian incursion into Ukraine becomes decreasingly likely to be something that can be undertaken quickly or easily. The nightmare scenario is for Kiev to suddenly crush the Donbas uprising (or, far worse, complete a negotiated settlement) and the Russians cannot easily respond without committing to a major operation far beyond their preferred levels. Thus Russia has to fight a straightforward (if not costless or bloodless) war now which is well within its capabilities or it may be in danger of fighting a much tougher war years down the road against a much tougher opponent.

I get the impression that the Russians were not expecting the level of resistance and global solidarity they've seen, and they seem to be making more mistakes and looking more rattled and brittle then their normal, smooth talking of realpolitik gibberish hiding their true intentions. I'm reminded when they warned the US not to bomb Syria amidst threats of dire reprisals and the US ignored them and bombed Syria anyway, and Putin did jack shit to follow up, and ended up sounding hollow and cowardly. That was a minor incident soon forgotten in the West, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't been forgotten in Moscow.

[Zorral]

"U.S. Exposes What It Says Is Russian Effort to Fabricate Pretext for Invasion
Officials said Russia was planning a fake video showing an attack by Ukrainians on Russian territory or Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/03/us/politics/russia-ukraine-invasion-pretext.html

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — The United States has acquired intelligence about a Russian plan to fabricate a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine using a faked video that would build on recent disinformation campaigns, according to senior administration officials and others briefed on the material.

The plan — which the United States hopes to spoil by making public — involves staging and filming a fabricated attack by the Ukrainian military either on Russian territory or against Russian-speaking people in eastern Ukraine.

Russia, the officials said, intended to use the video to accuse Ukraine of genocide against Russian-speaking people. It would then use the outrage over the video to justify an attack or have separatist leaders in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine invite a Russian intervention.

Officials would not release any direct evidence of the Russian plan or specify how they learned of it, saying to do so would compromise their sources and methods. But a recent Russian disinformation campaign focused on false accusations of genocide and efforts in the Russian Parliament to recognize breakaway governments in Ukraine lent credence to the intelligence. ....

 

 

[Iskaral Pust]

I actually like that the US has pre-emptively accused the Russians of planning false-flag pretexts and disinformation campaigns.  It’s good to defang the viper, especially when it has a pretty predicted playbook.

I’m sure the propaganda machine holds sway inside Russia, but for the rest of the world it’s easy to spoil the illusion by pointing out how the magician is about to do the trick.

(And yet political disinformation is still disappointingly effective within the US electorate; that’s a whole other problem)

Edit: the only way to make this even better would be to widely mock and parody false-flag attempts and clumsy disinformation.  Sometimes the most effective way to disempower  soft power is to turn it into a joke. Arguing rationally against fear mongers and rabble raisers is not usually effective.

[Gorn]

21 hours ago, DMC said:

He can't keep > a hundred thousand troops deployed like this forever.

Why not? USSR kept over 300 000 deployed in East Germany alone indefinitely. And Russian "normal" peacetime deployment on Ukraine's borders is 60-80 000.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Why not? USSR kept over 300 000 deployed in East Germany alone indefinitely. And Russian "normal" peacetime deployment on Ukraine's borders is 60-80 000.

Right, and as I mentioned earlier, as long as Putin has his "manufactured crisis" he gets to enjoy higher fuel profits.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Sometimes the most effective way to disempower  soft power is to turn it into a joke. Arguing rationally against fear mongers and rabble raisers is not usually effective.

We've been doing this, along with telling the truth and facts, about the Ilks, forever in the US, and it's done not an iota of good.  These ilks superpower is utter immunity to feeling shame and embarrassment.

Fury and outrage, yes, they do feel.  Victimization, o do they ever.  But shame, embarrassment, gulit? Forget it.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Gorn said:

Why not? USSR kept over 300 000 deployed in East Germany alone indefinitely. And Russian "normal" peacetime deployment on Ukraine's borders is 60-80 000.

First, because (many of) the troops they have deployed are designed to be on high alert for temporary operations.  Keeping them in this posture strains and imposes a cost on the military:

Quote

The Russian troop buildup now includes 67 Battalion Tactical Groups, according to the assessment. That is an increase of nine BTGs from the previous assessment and represents nearly 40 percent of such Russian units. There are about 170 BTGs operational in the Russian army today, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu told the Tass news organization in August.

“A battalion tactical group is a temporary operationally flexible formation,” according to Tass. BTGs are “set up on the basis of a battalion and attached artillery, air defense, engineering and logistics support units for combat operations as part of motor rifle and tank brigades. Aviation groups, special operations forces and other units can also be attached to a battalion tactical group to accomplish assigned missions.”

More importantly, though, even if Russia did maintain this buildup indefinitely the benefits mentioned would wane, making it not worth the cost.  Once the buildup begins looking to be the status quo then its effect on raising fuel prices and destabilizing the Ukranian economy is negated.  It would be more akin to the > million North Korean troops at the DMZ or the thousands of Chinese missiles pointed at Taiwan.  That's not an ideal situation for Ukraine, obviously, as it isn't for South Korea or Taiwan either, but the latter's economies certainly aren't suffering on any indefinite basis due to the threat.

[Mr Fixit]

On 2/4/2022 at 2:25 AM, Clueless Northman said:

That would be it, if NATO and Western people were actually his intended audience. What if they're not? What if his plan was either to have some significant concessions, or to be able to show that "we can't negotiate with the West"? You have to be realistic about these things: Outside the West, plenty of people and countries will consider Russia to be a bit shady and not the most reliable partner, sure, but outside the West, pretty much every single country will consider, no, actually will know with absolute certainty that the West (or basically the USA, but actually the same goes for EU, it's just that it's not as obvious because US actions and negotiations are always way more "in your face" than EU) can't be trusted to fulfill its obligations and won't respect any treaty or deal in the long run, and will sooner or later drop it when it's convenient. So, this isn't Putin playing to get a deal with the West or even trying to convince Western audience - this is Putin making a show for the "Global South" peanut gallery, the one which is way easier to convince of the general duplicity of all great powers (even if it includes Russia and China).

 

Among the usual consensus, this post stands out to me as rather relevant to the wider picture. It's easy to simply dismiss Russian concerns and accuse them of duplicity and aggression. Modern society loves these kinds of simple one-sided interpretations and echo chambers. And it's not like this anti-Russian stance is without merit. I don't think Russia's really above-board in this situation. I do think they love their Soviet playbook a bit too much. However, what Clueless Northman said is worth considering. The West *does* have a tendency to break their promises and/or treaties when those don't suit them anymore. Just three examples with very far-reaching consequences:

1. The (in)famous verbal promise to Gorbachev that NATO won't expand east, that has since been confirmed by declassified files. NATO broke it not even ten years later.

2. The bombing campaign in Yugoslavia over Kosovo crisis in 1999 was concluded with UNSC Resolution 1244. That Resolution with its annexes stipulated the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo but provided for the return of under 1.000 soldiers and police officers in order to perform various roles, for example to establish presence at the border crossings. The Resolution also on several occasions mentioned that any later final settlement re: Kosovo status should respect Yugoslav territorial integrity and sovereignty with "substantial autonomy" afforded to Kosovo. Needless to mention, even after Milosevic fell and democratic pro-Western government took power a year later, no Yugoslav police or army was allowed back and the final settlement most definitely did not respect sovereignty of Yugoslavia.

3. Iran deal. Even after IAEA reports on multiple occasions confirmed that Iran was basically upholding its part of the deal, US unilaterally withdrew from it, jeopardizing everything that was previously accomplished in regards to nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East.

These and other things are grounds for serious concern for any country that finds itself in precarious position where US interests are involved. Again, I don't endorse in the slightest Russian saber-rattling (or their 2014 actions in Crimea and Donbass), I'm simply pointing out that the world is a complex place where all kinds of players are looking after what they perceive as their national interests. We all should carefully consider how and why those interests intersect and what's the best way to show modicum of respect to reasonable concerns other players may have before we sanctimoniously decide that WE=LAWFUL GOOD, THEY= CHAOTIC EVIL. It won't help us understand the world. Not really.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

1. The (in)famous verbal promise to Gorbachev that NATO won't expand east, that has since been confirmed by declassified files. NATO broke it not even ten years later.

There was nothing written within any treaty with the USSR that promised such a thing.

In any case The USSR is dead and has been for decades, the idea that treaties with them naturally apply to the current state of Russia is absurd.
 

Russia has nukes. It’s not a matter of trusting in the honorableness of the west to ward off an invasion—it’s just a recognition that the leaders of Ukraine, members of Nato, in general don’t want to die.

 

4 hours ago, Mr Fixit said:

WE=LAWFUL GOOD, THEY= CHAOTIC EVIL. It w

Recognizing the Complexity of the world can be reasonable.

But we don’t have to buy every excuse a dictator gives for a power grab as truly genuine or at least rational.