Ukraine: It’s starting…

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

OK, I'm just spitballing here, but what if we just gave Russia back to the Mongols, and give Crimea to the Turks? The Mongols ruled most of what is now Russia at one point, and the Crimean Tartars are a Turkic people after all, and The Crimean princes were apparently in the Ottoman line of succession, so I think that puts everything in a neat little bow. I just solved the Ukrainian Crisis, you're welcome.

Why are you limiting yourself to the Middle Ages? Whoever can prove descendance from the Scythians should inherit Ukraine. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, GrimTuesday said:

hat if we just gave Russia back to the Mongols,

Give it to the Norsemen, who vikinged and ruled what started to be called Russia, because they were known as the "Rus", before the Turki tribes or the Mongols arrived.

https://www.history.com/news/vikings-in-russia-kiev-rus-varangians-prince-oleg

The Scythians would work too; one might believe much of the population of Ukraine was descended from them, unless, of course the nazis and Stalin killed them all, which isn't unlikely, looking at the 20th C millions of the population outright murdered and starved to death.

[Kalbear]

Another good article on what putin and Russia are thinking - and they've told us.

I think my best analogy here is China and Taiwan. It doesn't matter if we think China has a legitimate claim or not, just like it doesnt matter that putins views are deeply ahistorical. All that matters is that it will be a guiding principle of Russian foreign policy going forward, and the rest of the world has the choice to accept it or to oppose it.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/2/23/22945781/russia-ukraine-putin-speech-transcript-february-22

[Zorral]

Yes.  The rest of the world, excluding China?, seems to think we should oppose Russia's plans, in some form(s) or another -- even if not waging outright shooting war -- but certainly versions of cyber -- especially as Russia has been for a long time and is currently, right this minute, waging cyber war, particularly in Ukraine.  So, where from there, since Russia doesn't care?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What would the Russians do if we started moving NATO troops into Ukraine?

[Zorral]

Shoot.

[Ghjhero]

LNR and DNR just announced they are formally, documents and everything, “inviting in” Russia to help defend them from Ukrainian aggression. All the OSINT accounts I follow on Twitter I trust are talking as if shit is going to hit the fan tonight. Godspeed to Ukraine if that turns out to be the case. I hope they give the Russians hell. 

[Werthead]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What would the Russians do if we started moving NATO troops into Ukraine?

Difficult to say. Putin did say last week that he did not plan on attacking NATO forces, but Ukraine is not in NATO and Putin might argue that NATO forces on Ukrainian soil are invaders and he will destroy/evict them but not proceed beyond Ukraine's borders.

It's also worth noting that the current forces NATO can muster in a hurry to put into Ukraine would be pretty small, and it would take a fair amount of time for Germany, France, Italy and Britain (the countries capable of putting tens of thousands of troops into the field) to mobilise. Russia has very large conventional land forces on immediate deployment and probably twice as many forces that could be readied in a few weeks. Putting NATO troops into Ukraine risks them being thrown back pretty quickly.

But Putin knows that in a drawn-out conventional war between Russia and NATO, Russia loses and Russia loses badly. He'd probably have to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, or count on the US not being able to deploy enough troops to Europe quickly enough to stop the Russians causing immense damage. The nuclear risk could also escalate badly, since neither side are used to monitoring each other for nuclear launches or judging the situation: remember that WWIII was averted over Abel Archer solely because a Russian radar team made the call that the USA launching one single nuclear missile at Russia was completely illogical and therefore it was likely a mistake, which turned out to be the case. Modern teams, having almost zero Cold War experience, might be far more likely to make mistakes.

It's hard to see it happening, though. One possible scenario is that Russia advances to the Dneiper and cuts off the entire eastern half of the country. That gives them the rebel territories and it unleashes a major humanitarian crisis erupts, with hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced westwards, but it also gives them a buffer to NATO territory. The EU and NATO might conclude that if Russia is not advancing, then securing western Ukrainian territory - particularly Lviv - as a humanitarian rallying point might be a good idea, even if it causes friction with Russia, versus the problems of letting such a massive tidal wave of refugees into the rest of Europe would cause. Hungary - which has been very quiet throughout the whole crisis, and some in NATO and the EU fear that Orban wants to pull Hungary out of both organisations and rejoin the Russian axis - has sealed its border with Ukraine already.

However, I can't believe that Putin has put at least 30,000 troops (possibly to be augmented by Belarus's armed forces, but they only have around 40,000 troops total in their army, and I doubt they want to send reservists into hostile territory) on Ukraine's northern flank, able to menace Kyiv at will, if he's not planning to use them, at least as a contingency.

[gruff one]

56 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Shoot.

You nailed it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Difficult to say. Putin did say last week that he did not plan on attacking NATO forces, but Ukraine is not in NATO and Putin might argue that NATO forces on Ukrainian soil are invaders and he will destroy/evict them but not proceed beyond Ukraine's borders.

It's also worth noting that the current forces NATO can muster in a hurry to put into Ukraine would be pretty small, and it would take a fair amount of time for Germany, France, Italy and Britain (the countries capable of putting tens of thousands of troops into the field) to mobilise. Russia has very large conventional land forces on immediate deployment and probably twice as many forces that could be readied in a few weeks. Putting NATO troops into Ukraine risks them being thrown back pretty quickly.

But Putin knows that in a drawn-out conventional war between Russia and NATO, Russia loses and Russia loses badly. He'd probably have to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, or count on the US not being able to deploy enough troops to Europe quickly enough to stop the Russians causing immense damage. The nuclear risk could also escalate badly, since neither side are used to monitoring each other for nuclear launches or judging the situation: remember that WWIII was averted over Abel Archer solely because a Russian radar team made the call that the USA launching one single nuclear missile at Russia was completely illogical and therefore it was likely a mistake, which turned out to be the case. Modern teams, having almost zero Cold War experience, might be far more likely to make mistakes.

It's hard to see it happening, though. One possible scenario is that Russia advances to the Dneiper and cuts off the entire eastern half of the country. That gives them the rebel territories and it unleashes a major humanitarian crisis erupts, with hundreds of thousands or millions of people displaced westwards, but it also gives them a buffer to NATO territory. The EU and NATO might conclude that if Russia is not advancing, then securing western Ukrainian territory - particularly Lviv - as a humanitarian rallying point might be a good idea, even if it causes friction with Russia, versus the problems of letting such a massive tidal wave of refugees into the rest of Europe would cause. Hungary - which has been very quiet throughout the whole crisis, and some in NATO and the EU fear that Orban wants to pull Hungary out of both organisations and rejoin the Russian axis - has sealed its border with Ukraine already.

However, I can't believe that Putin has put at least 30,000 troops (possibly to be augmented by Belarus's armed forces, but they only have around 40,000 troops total in their army, and I doubt they want to send reservists into hostile territory) on Ukraine's northern flank, able to menace Kyiv at will, if he's not planning to use them, at least as a contingency.

I just wonder if it is still possible to deter Putin?

[Werthead]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I just wonder if it is still possible to deter Putin?

I don't see how. His speech on Monday was basically saying that Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist and its existence is a historical fiction.

However, he's also indicated he's only sending troops into the two rebel provinces and wants to keep a line of dialogue open. That could be standard Putin obfuscation but he does seem to be de facto recognising there is a government in Kyiv to talk to.

I think, unless he's far more stupid than the last twenty-five years have suggested, that Putin is somewhat worried about this. It's a gambit, the biggest he's ever taken, and he should be acutely aware it could blow up in his face quite badly. Thousands of Russians coming home in body bags could galvanise internal dissent, and for all the propaganda, it does seem that Putin is genuinely not as popular in Russia as he once was, and the popular support that existed for claiming Crimea simply does not exist here. He's also risking his own very successful prior military strategy of using local forces backed only by sharp, brief Russian interventions from the air or special forces to achieve strategic goals, because Russia's ability to afford and sustain long-term, continuous losses is not fantastic (especially of high-value assets, like top-tier tanks or aircraft). He can't do that in Ukraine and I think the concern of another Chechnya is there, and it's unclear if he or the regime can survive another conflict on that level (at least 200,000 dead and possibly twice that).

[Clueless Northman]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I just wonder if it is still possible to deter Putin?

Honestly, I don't think it's ever been possible since this crisis began, which is why I don't get what Ukraine and US strategies were.

 

As for NATO troops in Ukraine, it could go both ways. He might spare them on purpose, or he might consider them as mercs or volunteers who are out of their jurisdiction and can be spanked and killed.

It would be worth it to keep in mind that there's probably a good third of people in Western Europe - be it UK, Germany, Italy, Spain or France - who are totally opposed to waging war and dying for Ukraine. If you think the truckers in Ottawa were a dangerous mess, just let Western Europe officially join war against Russia and see how Paris and the other capitals will look like. Geee, one has to wonder what will happen in the USA in protest to such a war. The only saving grace here is that Russia has always been and still is utter shit at marketing and public relations and just can't package its message to the West, and don't even seem to care much, so the current Russian moves are quite hurting them.

[Kalbear]

I think it would be possible to deter Putin. You put troops in. A lot of them. That has so far been a line that Russia has been very unwilling to cross. 

Now, it'd prove Putin right - show the naked imperialism of NATO, show how NATO is arming Ukraine, etc. Who cares? It'd work. But it also has a possibility of risking an actual big-ass war, and once you start putting armed forces in harm's way you lose a lot of actual control over the situation.

(and before you ask - it would deter Putin, but that doesn't mean war wouldn't follow. It's very easy when you have multiple armies nearby to make mistakes and start firing or mistake things as enemy action). 

Beyond that, as I've been saying there really isn't a way to deter Putin and Russia because this is their stated goal and has been a stated goal. The only way to stop this would be to stop Ukraine from having a pro-EU government. That is the first major thing that started all of this - not Russian weakness, not unwillingness to act, but simply no need to invade Ukraine, any more than Russia needs to invade Belarus now. And from 2017-2020, Russia had a US ally that was attempting to massively undermine NATO, forcing Ukraine to bribe in order to get aid, and was actively taking Russia's side - naturally Russia wasn't going to jeopardize anything then.

[Padraig]

13 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

The only saving grace here is that Russia has always been and still is utter shit at marketing and public relations and just can't package its message to the West, and don't even seem to care much, so the current Russian moves are quite hurting them.

Russia does have its fans in the West but i'm not sure how it could spin this conflict.  Sure, it feels hard done by after the collapse of the USSR but there is no nostalgia in the West for the USSR.  And this supposed victimhood has too many similarities to post-WW1 Germany for people to think following that path is a good idea.

There is no interest at government level of putting troops on the ground in Ukraine, so people's views on the matter aren't particularly important.  I suppose it is possible that a major invasion would change government views but if it did, it would be largely too late.  Russia would have succeeded or not by the time the West did move troops in. (Although, I imagine people would be more sympathetic towards putting troops on the ground after a major invasion.  But as I said, too late).

24 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

Honestly, I don't think it's ever been possible since this crisis began, which is why I don't get what Ukraine and US strategies were.

I don't understand that.  The US could only do what it has done (given troops weren't an option and it clearly didn't want to accept Russian aggression).  Similarly Ukraine.  I suppose Ukraine could have announced that it wouldn't join NATO, accepted Russian control of Crimea, allowed the Donbass be de facto independent/part of Russia, said it would cut most of its ties with the the EU and join the Eurasian Economic Union instead etc.  And maybe Russia would have stood down?  But really, how could Ukraine accept all that?

That Vox article was right when it said this...

Quote

But it does mean that simply reducing Russia’s motivation to one clear grievance — fear that Ukraine may join NATO or a simple aggressive desire to seize Ukrainian land — is a mistake. In Putin’s mind, these factors are inseparable in a complex historical and ideological narrative.

All the US and Ukraine could do was hang tough and hope Russia backs down.   Sometimes, you have to try to stand up to the bully.

I do find it interesting that so many articles say that Putin is "sincere".  Sure, I suppose that is interesting to a degree.  But it doesn't make what he is doing any less vile.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Russia does have its fans in the West but i'm not sure how it could spin this conflict.  Sure, it feels hard done by after the collapse of the USSR but there is no nostalgia in the West for the USSR.  And this supposed victimhood has too many similarities to post-WW1 Germany for people to think following that path is a good idea.

I mean, Tucker Carlson got quoted by RT verbatim. So it's definitely working. It's also working for them since they got Trump to say how clever Putin was. 

If Putin can get Trump re-elected he will have won far more than he could ever have gained from Ukraine, and it'll be worth it and then some. 

3 minutes ago, Padraig said:

That Vox article was right when it said this...

All the US and Ukraine could do was hang tough and hope Russia backs down.   Sometimes, you have to try to stand up to the bully.

I do find it interesting that so many articles say that Putin is "sincere".  Sure, I suppose that is interesting to a degree.  But it doesn't make what he is doing any less vile.

I think that this is an important thing to consider. If someone is insincere the motivations are not the same as the stated goals, and if you can figure out what those motivations are you might be able to appease or redirect in a different way. If we thought Putin was just, say, going after natural gas we could consider a carrot approach to expediting the pipeline and a stick approach of cutting off energy markets. 

But that's not the case. Putin sincerely believes Ukraine should be part of Russia, IS part of Russia, and must be part of Russia. And a lot of Russian politicians view this the same way. It is a vile, ahistoric, ugly thing - but it is also what they believe, and therefore we must treat those as the goals they have. Which seriously limits the effective deterrents and changes the scope of what we must do.

[Kalbear]

 

yeesh

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I just wonder if it is still possible to deter Putin?

Kidnap the bear he rides around on and hold it at gunpoint. That will deter him.

[Werthead]

I've been reasonably impressed with Zelensky's handling of the situation over the last few weeks. He's been resolute but measured, has chided the West for sensationalism (even when he knew they were effectively right), he's been down on the front lines with the troops, he's made diplomatic overtures at every turn (leaving the country to go to Munich was a calculated risk, but appealing to the Western leaders in person proved effective) and he's basically now making a call to the Russian people directly, bypassing Putin and the state.

 

[Werthead]

Russia has just issued a civil aviation notice closing the airspace along Russia's entire border with Ukraine

Ukraine has ordered a ground stop at all airports in the east of the country. Some reports the runways at those airports are already being rendered unusable. Seems to be a move to stop Russian aircraft landing on the runways.

Roadblocks are also shooting up inside the major cities including Kyiv.

Apparently the Ukrainians have had a long, long time to think about what to do should Russia attack and, as perhaps minimal as those measures can be, seem to be implementing contingency plans.

Also, reports of explosions over/in Dontesk and a possible power outage in Kharkiv. Sounds like confused and slightly panicky reporting.

[Werthead]

Reports coming in of a massive cyberattack on Ukrainian government websites and resources. Six websites completely down, others slowed to a crawl.

DO NOT visit Ukrainian government websites, apparently there are some nasty viruses floating around there.

Interestingly, flight transponder watchers reporting that two Turkish military aircraft have crossed into Ukrainian airspace and headed towards Kyiv airport, which is still open. Speculation they are planning to evacuate the Turkish embassy in Kyiv.

ETA: Reports of massive GRAD (mobile missile launcher, basically modern Katyushas) bombardments on Ukrainian positions in Donetsk. No direct video, but some from miles away with audio of constant explosions.

Japan has just announced a raft of sanctions against Russia.

Blinken has said he believes a Russian attack against Ukraine is effectively now underway and will be obvious before the end of the night.