Jump to content

Ukraine War 6: what the hell are the Russians thinking?


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, karaddin said:

At this point I just can't imagine trusting peace negotiations because I'd expect Russia to take a breather to try sort out logistics issues etc and then declare war again as soon as they're ready. Putin has made it pretty clear that he doesn't consider deals made with an entity he views as illegitimate to be binding in any way.

I cannot agree.  It's not that I find Putin trustworthy (I do not).  If Russia pulls out, they are not going to be able to just give it another go in a few years - the situation has changed.  Anti-Russian sentiment is ascendant in Ukraine, and they will just be using that time to build defenses and make occupation more difficult.  The US/EU will definitely continue to give Ukraine weapons and (hopefully) help rebuild their infrastructure and economy. 

In contrast, the Russian economy is falling apart and they will be getting no assistance to get back on their feet.  I expect the Russian economy will be smaller in 2025 than it was in 2019 as a result of this war.  A lot of the equipment Russia is losing on the battlefield is Soviet era stuff, and Russia will have to replace those with modern equipment (which are dramatically more expensive).  Even the stuff that hasn't been destroyed in this war is worn out and needs replacing.  Russia will struggle to do that, even if they neglect all other domestic spending in favor of the military. 

Thus, I think that in any hypothetical invasion in 2025 or 2028, the military gap between Russia and Ukraine will be smaller than it is right now.  Russia might go in with better strategy and logistics, but that still won't change the overall balance of forces, and Russia would have little hope for overall success. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

It appears the "Z" painted on Russian vehicles is rapidly becoming the new symbol for fascists in Russia.

I hope we don't have to remove a letter from our alphabet because of this shit.

Between this and Qanon, the right-hand side of the alphabet is starting to look a bit sus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to see whether the UN can set up peacekeeping operations so troops could be sent into Ukraine, but apparently that is the role of the Security Council of which Russia has a veto role.

I think COVID and this conflict (among others in recent past) have soured me a fair bit on the role of the UN. From the WHO's missteps to the fact that some countries can hold the Security Council hostage through veto, its utility in the world is becoming smaller and smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I was trying to see whether the UN can set up peacekeeping operations so troops could be sent into Ukraine, but apparently that is the role of the Security Council of which Russia has a veto role.

I think COVID and this conflict (among others in recent past) have soured me a fair bit on the role of the UN. From the WHO's missteps to the fact that some countries can hold the Security Council hostage through veto, its utility in the world is becoming smaller and smaller.

veto power of the super powers has always been one of those unfortunate necessities.

UN was designed as a stage for states to talk/negotiate. If the security council were to condemn a state (let's say the US (who have also used their vetos in the past)), then there's a fair chance for it to throw out its toys saying: screw you guys I am going home. You want all the big boys at the same table, their interests take priority. 

Unfortunate, but like I said, sorta necessary to keep them all onboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

If Russia pulls out, they are not going to be able to just give it another go in a few years - the situation has changed.  Anti-Russian sentiment is ascendant in Ukraine, and they will just be using that time to build defenses and make occupation more difficult.  The US/EU will definitely continue to give Ukraine weapons and (hopefully) help rebuild their infrastructure and economy. 

Agreed.  Obviously a "ceasefire" is one thing, but the verification of a resolution will be in the withdrawal of forces.  As discussed the other day, once that happens the status quo has changed and Putin will be significantly weakened, regardless of what he says.

15 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

its utility in the world is becoming smaller and smaller.

I don't think this is anything new.  And yes, it's primarily because of the extreme difficulty of getting the permanent members on the security council to agree to do much of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with @A Horse Named Stranger The UN is deliberately limited. It is not an attempt at a proto world government. It was set up that way so as to avoid what happened to the League of Nations. By design it cannot stop a major country doing something, so it cannot stop Russia invading Ukraine any more than it could stop the US invading Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I was trying to see whether the UN can set up peacekeeping operations so troops could be sent into Ukraine, but apparently that is the role of the Security Council of which Russia has a veto role.

I think COVID and this conflict (among others in recent past) have soured me a fair bit on the role of the UN. From the WHO's missteps to the fact that some countries can hold the Security Council hostage through veto, its utility in the world is becoming smaller and smaller.

It’s an incredibly long shot but can the General Assembly of the UN strip a permanent member nation of the Security Council of its permanent status?  Better yet can it strip all permanent members of their Vetos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s an incredibly long shot but can the General Assembly of the UN strip a permanent member nation of the Security Council of its permanent status?  Better yet can it strip all permanent members of their Vetos?

I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty sure the only way for the general assembly to kick out a permanent member of the security council is to kick them out of the UN altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s an incredibly long shot but can the General Assembly of the UN strip a permanent member nation of the Security Council of its permanent status?  Better yet can it strip all permanent members of their Vetos?

Doing anything like that would almost certainly result in multiple countries leaving the UN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DMC said:

I have..no idea what your point is.  What does this have to do with who the west/US would prefer as a third party mediating Ukraine/Russian negotiations?  How is any of this different if that third party is Israel instead of China or the Saudis or Turkey?

Because it is groups who aren't "the West" -- i.e. France, the UK and the USA -- though I think states like Germany and Poland are certainly being impacted right now too -- who are being impacted right this second, and who will be most impacted however it plays out.  Whenever it plays out it is Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries who are already impacted due to the availability of, and the price, of bread and heating oil and fuel.

Our nations should do all we can to assist the Ukrainians and the truce/peace/talks efforts -- but we shouldn't be there, hogging the media spotlights, whether in Russia (particularly!), Anatolia, Kazakhstan, etc. Let us shut and listen and be helpful -- you know, like allies, whether for BLM, #Metoo, etc., should. Anyway, that's how I'm seeing it, especially as we've got plenty of Putin allies here -- shyte even had a Putin puppet running the US for a long time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zorral said:

Our nations should do all we can to assist the Ukrainians and the truce/peace/talks efforts -- but we shouldn't be there, hogging the media spotlights, whether in Russia (particularly!), Anatolia, Kazakhstan, etc. Let us shut and listen and be helpful -- you know, like allies, whether for BLM, #Metoo, etc., should. Anyway, that's how I'm seeing it, especially as we've got plenty of Putin allies here -- shyte even had a Putin puppet running the US for a long time.

I don't know why you're under the impression that because I said the west would prefer Israel to the other candidates meant they'd be "hogging the spotlight" in any way, shape, or form.  I was just opining on who I thought they would prefer to act as the mediator (specifically in response to the notion Israel wouldn't be a desirable mediator due to their potential interest in blowing up the Iran-revival negotiations) - nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-07/russian-shelling-destroys-ukraine-atomic-lab-built-with-u-s

Quote

Russian forces destroyed an atomic-physics lab under international safeguards in Ukraine’s second-largest city, the head of the world’s nuclear watchdog said...

 

Rafael Mariano Grossi, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that a neutron generator at the Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology was destroyed during a Russian attack but the inventory of radioactive material at the site was small and monitors detected no radiation release. 

“We cannot go on like this,” said Grossi, noting that the facility was built in collaboration with U.S. Argonne National Laboratory located outside Chicago.

I don't know what other research facilities exist in Ukraine but at this point we shouldn't disconsider any type of hazards that the Russian could "accidentally" unleash upon the world up to and including the creation of a mini black hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@IheartIheartTesla - I feel ya. I think that between Republicans in the US circa 2010 on and Ukraine invasion we're seeing how much of the world is governed not by laws or treaties or anything particularly binding, but instead on basic norms. Things that were largely unthinkable are just...done now, and the reprisals are pretty weak if not nonexistent. 

For quite a while - probably 30 years, maybe longer - we've had the expectation that if wars occurred, they were between non-major states and at best would be proxies of the larger powers (like Syria or Iraq). The notion of one of the major powers actively fighting in a war while being on the UN AND not having major UN support was a pretty crazy notion to think of, though in retrospect probably this norm was utterly shattered with Iraq anyway. Putin has violated this along with several other things, because why not? It ain't like the US is showing the world how to work here either. 

Ultimately this ends up with needing force, one way or another, or it needs acquiescence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I think Iraq pretty much shattered that notion (Kofi Annan declared it an illegal war and the entire world just shrugged). But in retrospect it doesnt seem that unlikely that a permanent member of the security council could invade another sovereign nation - China and Taiwan come to mind. In that case too, the UN cant do much, and I dont believe the US has a treaty with Taiwan, so the situation is not that dissimilar.

I still think an international body where nations gather together is a great idea, but perhaps not one forged in post-war times with different circumstances necessitating some of the rules in its Charter. A 'new UN' made in the 21st should look different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The examples of the UN's powerlessness extends to their infamous and abject failure responding to the Rwandan genocide and even more tepid response to the Darfur genocide.  They couldn't even agree on calling what happened in Darfur genocide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

 But in retrospect it doesnt seem that unlikely that a permanent member of the security council could invade another sovereign nation - China and Taiwan come to mind. In that case too, the UN cant do much, and I dont believe the US has a treaty with Taiwan, so the situation is not that dissimilar.

Technically speaking, even though it's been acting as an independent small nation for a long time, Taiwan is the same sovereign nation as China, still stuck in a civil war. Actually, Taipei officially claims even wider territories than Beijing.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s an incredibly long shot but can the General Assembly of the UN strip a permanent member nation of the Security Council of its permanent status?  Better yet can it strip all permanent members of their Vetos?

Since you obviously consider Russia here, let me just mention that little overlooked detail that this way lies World War III and most probably nuclear holocaust. Just saying. Either you boot them all or they all stay in - at the very least USA, China and Russia would make a huge fuss (understatement of the century) if anyone is expelled but not the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like this may actually end up happening. And, while maybe it won't help too much in November (not to turn this to US politics), I think it is good if Republicans get on record supporting the policy that increases gas prices and it's not just Biden that can be "blamed."

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...