Jump to content

Ukraine: Holding


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

The BBC reports that Russian news outlets are saying Ukraine hit its own TV tower.

I get that I am not on the ground and I have to sift through news to find truth, and that I should be skeptical... but having a hard time accepting "Ukraine is hitting themselves, it is not I who am hitting them."

It helps to have hundreds of thousands of troops and thousands of pieces of military equipment invading to provide context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

What happens when they commit all remaining forces? Is Putin crazy enough to try a tactical nuclear strike to shock them into submission?

I would think the U.S. will have satellite eyes on every silo and ship capable of launching a nuke, and be ready to intervene.  Probably the Chinese are watching for that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gorn said:

In what might be very important news, Russian marines (810th naval infantry brigade) have basically mutinied. Yesterday, they refused to perform amphibious landing in Odessa and the navy ships carrying them had to go back to Crimea. Today, we have this:

 

That’s the second time we’ve heard that.  Any confirmation other than Ukrainian sources.  I love the Ukrainians fiercely, but they aren’t above disinformation to demoralize Russian troops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

I would think the U.S. will have satellite eyes on every silo and ship capable of launching a nuke, and be ready to intervene.  Probably the Chinese are watching for that too.

How are satellites supposed to account for submarines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I mean, obviously when it's someone like Putin or Trump even pen to paper (let alone their word) is relatively meaningless, but if it ends hostilities and entails a public commitment, you take what you can get.

Sure, empty words and then the next time we find ourselves right back here? That's why I'm skeptical of any talks of a fast peace and quick roll backs. Russia has by its own unprovoked actions expelled itself from the international community of good will. It doesn't just get to walk right back in. Trust has to be established and Russia bears the sole responsibility of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

the next time we find ourselves right back here

This unification of powers resisting Putin's putsch in Ukraine might actually weaken and roll back the neo fascist international movement.  Perhaps wishful thinking, but it does seem Putin's is shocked at the reaction of the world to what he thought he was doing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, empty words and then the next time we find ourselves right back here?

Right back to what?  Under the hypothetical you're laying out, Putin tried to invade Ukraine, failed, and publicly agreed to pull all troops out and publicly commit to not attacking Ukraine again.  Acting like it's then going to be easy for him to try the exact same thing again anytime soon - even if he wants to - isn't realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sure, empty words and then the next time we find ourselves right back here? 

Peace is its own reward.

There are people dying right now that would appreciate "empty words", even if those won't satisfy the people who want blood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right back to what?  Under the hypothetical you're laying out, Putin tried to invade Ukraine, failed, and publicly agreed to pull all troops out and publicly commit to not attacking Ukraine again.  Acting like it's then going to be easy for him to try the exact same thing again anytime soon - even if he wants to - isn't realistic.

Define attack, because they may not be willing to invade like this again, and there's a lot of ifs in that scenario that are unknown, but would it not shock you if Russia hit Ukraine with a cyberattack a month after "peace" was brokered? 

59 minutes ago, Lord of Oop North said:

Peace is its own reward.

There are people dying right now that would appreciate "empty words", even if those won't satisfy the people who want blood.

Everyone should want a ceasefire. That's not peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to think that just about any agreement between Ukraine and Russia (outside of a temporary ceasefire for negotiations, obviously) would be contingent on Russia being willing to commit to not attempting another attack on Ukraine for a set period of time.  If not, why would Ukraine agree to it knowing that Russia could attack again at any time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Define attack, because they may not be willing to invade like this again, and there's a lot of ifs in that scenario that are unknown, but would it not shock you if Russia hit Ukraine with a cyberattack a month after "peace" was brokered? 

I don't think that's likely at all, but even if that was the case, so what?  The village idiot takes that trade of a potential cyberattack over the real lives that will be lost if hostilities continue - let alone the potential lives lost if such a hardline exacerbates Putin's aggression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Everyone should want a ceasefire. That's not peace.

Sure, if you say so.

And I say that taking hardlines doesn't lead to peace in most circumstances (not just war), and instead tends to lead to escalation.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

How do you think I feel about the word Aluminium?    Yes I know you guys also spell it differently.

I know this part is a tangent but I was really surprised to learn Aluminum came first and then the rest of the world changed it to Aluminium to align with element naming conventions. Shouldn't have been surprising given the American commitment to not updating things like this lol.

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, is there any actual evidence that his life is in serious danger?

There may not be concrete evidence we can point to that his life is in danger, but there certainly is that his hold on power is not as concrete as it has been in the past. Having to intimidate (with unspoken but only just unspoken threats of punishmnet) one of his senior officials into supporting his bullshit justifications in the press conference which is his announcement of said bullshit justification is not a sign of a dictator that is secure. They don't have to state the threats when they're secure. Similarly the generals during the "nuclear deterrence" statement also did not have the bearing of people confidently supporting their glorious leader.

None of this has to mean he's on the verge of losing control, but the cracks are there and he does know it.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

[Kal saying he can empathize with Putin]

That would be a mistake. 

You're confusing empathy with sympathy. Kal isn't suggesting feeling a shred of sympathy or compassion, merely being able to imagine being in that position and the pressure you'd be under.

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

 - The West needs to make clear that they will remove sanctions and thaw out frozen assets quickly upon Russia signing a peace treaty.  If they just linger in place as a putative response to Russian aggression then sanctions won't help bring peace at all.   Even if sanctions disappeared tomorrow, the damage to the Russian economy is already significant.  And by next week, that will be even more true. 

...Thus, an off ramp is key....

The thing is even if the damage from the sanctions did disappear completely the second that they are lifted, Europe is not returning to the same status quo it was in before this happened and that's important to keep in mind. Yes it would be foolish to trust that Putin has learned his lesson and assume that just because they were chastened now, they won't try again - but Russia and Ukraine aren't the only pieces of this puzzle. Europe has absolutely taken a lesson away from it, and the changes to defense spending, military alliances etc that are coming out of this are going to ensure that Eastern Europe isn't going to be left vulnerable the way they were at the start of this year. He's not going to get this opportunity again.

ETA: In case my point isn't clear, absolutely keep an off ramp clear and take peace as soon as Ukraine gets & wants it. Any situation they accept isn't going to just be setting this up to be back here in 24 months completely unchanged, so we don't need to extend punitive sanctions as a deterrent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, briantw said:

I have to think that just about any agreement between Ukraine and Russia (outside of a temporary ceasefire for negotiations, obviously) would be contingent on Russia being willing to commit to not attempting another attack on Ukraine for a set period of time.  If not, why would Ukraine agree to it knowing that Russia could attack again at any time?

Any break in the current fighting allows more advanced weaponry to pour in from NATO countries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think that's likely at all, but even if that was the case, so what?  The village idiot takes that trade of a potential cyberattack over the real lives that will be lost if hostilities continue - let alone the potential lives lost if such a hardline exacerbates Putin's aggression.

I do, and I just used that as one example. Why should we assume Russia will let up if they are actually able to walk away from this thinking they've extracted something? Sure there may be short term relief, and to be clear we all want that, but it doesn't feel like it's solving the underlying issue.

32 minutes ago, Lord of Oop North said:

Sure, if you say so.

And I say that taking hardlines doesn't lead to peace in most circumstances (not just war), and instead tends to lead to escalation.

Who said anything about taking a hardline approach? I just don't think it's wise to quickly give in to make the issue feel like it's gone away.

22 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You're confusing empathy with sympathy. Kal isn't suggesting feeling a shred of sympathy or compassion, merely being able to imagine being in that position and the pressure you'd be under.

No, I'm not confusing the two. I can in a hypothetical sense empathize with what Putin might be feeling, but that does not mean I have to then accept his underlying premise. It's complete bullshit, top to bottom, and it's incredibly important to point that out and start all positions from there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I'm not confusing the two. I can in a hypothetical sense empathize with what Putin might be feeling, but that does not mean I have to then accept his underlying premise. It's complete bullshit, top to bottom, and it's incredibly important to point that out and start all positions from there. 

Kal said nothing about accepting his premise, its about predicting his behaviour and state of mind. This is the second time on this subject that there just seems to be a fundamental disconnect between how you think about other actors and how Kal (and myself) do, its quite confusing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I do, and I just used that as one example. Why should we assume Russia will let up if they are actually able to walk away from this thinking they've extracted something? Sure there may be short term relief, and to be clear we all want that, but it doesn't feel like it's solving the underlying issue.

No.  You know what solved the underlying issue?  Putin thinking he could walk all over Ukraine and being wrong.  Putin thinking the west wouldn't care and being wrong.  Putin, in the scenario you've presented, suing for peace and merely being offered a face-saving offramp to maintain some semblance of legitimacy among his own regime/people.  Please stop acting like such a scenario is simply returning to the status quo before a week ago.  It's not, and everybody knows it wouldn't be.

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I'm not confusing the two. I can in a hypothetical sense empathize with what Putin might be feeling, but that does not mean I have to then accept his underlying premise. It's complete bullshit, top to bottom, and it's incredibly important to point that out and start all positions from there. 

Empathizing with your adversary has nothing to do with accepting their "underlying premise."  It's a fundamental aspect to fully understanding the situation and making decisions in an informed/empirical way rather than based on the emotions of your own echo chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...