Ukraine 8

[Fez]

Latest round of US aid announced today by Biden

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/16/fact-sheet-on-u-s-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

Quote

 

The new $800 million assistance package includes:

800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems;

2,000 Javelin, 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, and 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems;

100 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems;

100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns, and 400 shotguns;

Over 20 million rounds of small arms ammunition and grenade launcher and mortar rounds;

25,000 sets of body armor; and

25,000 helmets.

 

 

[broken one]

3 minutes ago, Gorn said:

A problem with deals is that they require a trustworthy negotiating partner on the other side, and the Russians aren't one. Budapest Memorandum was also supposed to be a binding deal that would guarantee security to Ukraine.

I agree that russia is absolutely not trustworthy but afaik memorandum is more like a letter of intent than biding agreement.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Gorn said:

A problem with deals is that they require a trustworthy negotiating partner on the other side, and the Russians aren't one. Budapest Memorandum was also supposed to be a binding deal that would guarantee security to Ukraine.

The thing that will keep Ukraine safe is not a treaty but the expectation the Russia will get smacked down even harder next time.  If Ukraine and Russia agree to a peace accord broadly along the lines outlined on the previous page, then Ukraine would have a stronger position in any future conflict than they did in Feb 2022 (at least for the next 5-10 years).  And that is without any security guarantees from the US/UK/Turkey, which would further disincentivize Russia from another invasion attempt.   

If you look on a longer timeline, is it possible that 20 years down the line Russia might think they could do better?  It's possible, but nobody knows what the world will look like that far in the future, and 20 years of peace has got to sound pretty good to Ukraine right about now. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sell Ukraine A-10’s…

[DMC]

I really don't see how Israel or Turkey providing "security guarantees" makes much sense at all.  Does anyone expect them to actually hold up to that - on their own - if the Russians invade with two hundred thousand troops again?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

If the US had planes and short range missiles in Ukraine they could threaten a great deal more of Russia than they can from the Baltics. 

Again, I don't see why. The US can have planes in the Baltics right now, and all of those countries are as close or closer to major metropolitan areas and ports of Russia than Ukraine is. Moscow is almost precisely the same distance from Kyiv and Vilnius, as an example. You trade what, the safety of Volgograd for the safety of St. Petersburg? I don't see how that's particularly important. 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

??  Do you think Russia is going to give this another go in the next couple of years?  Feels pretty unlikely to me.  The peace treaty they're negotiating is pretty clearly a loss disguised as a win to save face for Putin, but it's no secret that Russia just got it's ass kicked.  As a result of this invasion: 

I think Russia will absolutely do so if they can. My position remains the same as it did before - that Russia has a specific national interest in Ukraine being a Russia satellite or actually Russian. That is their goal. That has been their goal since 2014, that has been their goal since Putin announced his manifesto about Ukraine, that has been their goal for 30 years.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. 

Russia did absolutely get their ass kicked. Here is my guess, however: they saw how successful they were in 2016 with manipulation of US politics. They successfully got the entire Republican platform to announce that their goals were to remove US sanctions, recognize Crimea and call Ukraine effectively a hostile nation. And they weren't trying all that hard to do it! It only cost them a few million bucks, some hackers time, and tiny slaps on the wrist. My guess is that they'd be fine with US security guarantees because they think they can make the US back out of those pretty easily come 2024.

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

How does it make it easier if the US is guaranteeing the peace?

The only way that can make sense is if Russia thinks it can eliminate the USA, somehow (either directly in conflict or by hoping the US disintegrates in social chaos or Trump gets back in), or if they are genuinely not planning to overthrow the treaty, or maybe they can cause a false flag attack and blame Ukraine.

 Any of those! But my bet would be on Russia expecting the US to flipflop in 2024 and put in Trump or someone just as easily manipulatable as Trump. And right now that looks not unreasonable! Russia can afford a bit of time to wait. Not too much - Ukraine will be built up more - but Russia can go on a significant war footing, learn more lessons, and go into Ukraine next time not even remotely thinking that they'll just drive in and decapitate Kyiv. The US still - right now - has major news outlets and politicians clamoring to find out what is on Hunter Biden's nonexistent laptop. There is a ton of bullshit on secret biolabs and bioweapons. Tucker Carlson is railing on how the US is contributing to the loss of lives by propping up the Ukraine government and military. 

Again, when someone tells you who they are, believe them. 

Russia has said for the last 30 years that they absolutely want Ukraine to be a proxy state, and if it is not that is a direct threat to them. This is a ridiculous, stupid, myopic position that is also 100% sincerely held. It is not a reasonable thing to think that this peace treaty will be the end of those views. 

 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I really don't see how Israel or Turkey providing "security guarantees" makes much sense at all.  Does anyone expect them to actually hold up to that - on their own - if the Russians invade with two hundred thousand troops again?

Yeah, also this. Especially given how cozy both countries are with Russia. I don't think for a second that Erdogan is going to back that up with actual Turkish troops, and I think it would be very easy for Russia to convince them to do something else or fabricate enough bullshit that Turkey would say 'welp, Ukraine is not doing this in good faith, we're out'. 

[Zorral]

Sending billions to rebuild Ukraine if Russia plans to invade again within the next decade is just throwing away the money -- though we do KNOW, judging by history -- much if not all of it will end up in private pockets w/o having done much if any good to regular Ukrainians.  Why yes, our 21st history with throwing billions into other nations has taught cynicism, irony and distrust and outright disbelief.  Also suspicion, such as much of the money will end up in Turkey, Israel and Russia somehow.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

They successfully got the entire Republican platform to announce that their goals were to remove US sanctions, recognize Crimea and call Ukraine effectively a hostile nation.

No love for the republicans but I don’t think their official platform has shifted to include such things.

 

[Zorral]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No love for the republicans but I don’t think their official platform has shifted to include such things.

 

As Kal says, when They tell you who They are, believe Them.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I think Russia will absolutely do so if they can. My position remains the same as it did before - that Russia has a specific national interest in Ukraine being a Russia satellite or actually Russian. That is their goal. That has been their goal since 2014, that has been their goal since Putin announced his manifesto about Ukraine, that has been their goal for 30 years.

When someone tells you who they are, believe them. 

Russia did absolutely get their ass kicked. Here is my guess, however: they saw how successful they were in 2016 with manipulation of US politics. They successfully got the entire Republican platform to announce that their goals were to remove US sanctions, recognize Crimea and call Ukraine effectively a hostile nation. And they weren't trying all that hard to do it! It only cost them a few million bucks, some hackers time, and tiny slaps on the wrist. My guess is that they'd be fine with US security guarantees because they think they can make the US back out of those pretty easily come 2024.

I fully expect Putin to continue to want Ukraine within his sphere of influence.  But Putin won't be around forever, he's already 70 and this isn't exactly a low-stress job.  It's possible that his successor will also want Ukraine in it's sphere of influence, but it's also quite possible he (it'll be a he) won't think it is worth the trouble, given the lessons of 2022.

I'm not really sure what the thrust of your argument is at this point.  Trying to bring Ukraine to heel has failed and cost Russia dearly.  Anti-Russia sentiment in both Europe and the Republican party is way stronger now than it was in 2016.  In the short term Ukraine will be stronger militarily than they were last month.  Of course it's still possible that conservative lickspittles like Trump and Johnson will roll over for Putin, but it's not guarantee.  Trump is already walking back his praise of Putin because he knows he's going to get hit on that issue in the 2024 primaries.  It is very realistic that the next Republican President adds Russia to the list of things that are responsible for everything bad in America, right there with China, liberals and abortion.  And if so, any Russian invasion of Ukraine is even riskier in 2025 than it was in 2022 (and it was a pretty stupid gamble this time). 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Are the Russians denying this or are they simply saying nothing?

Idk, but the latest I heard were the Russians were using it as a site to launch attacks and using the patients and doctors as human shields.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk, but the latest I heard were the Russians were using it as a site to launch attacks and using the patients and doctors as human shields.

Lovely…

[Padraig]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Interesting. So I wonder where the areas are that Peskov and Lavrov see as possible compromises.

That's astonishing.  I presume the borders of the Donbas are still to be defined?  That's the only particularly negatitve thing (given everything).

Ukraine got connected today to the main European grid for electricity (alongside Moldova), which is nice.  In fact, pre-invasion the ability of Ukraine to join the EU was a long way in the future.  A couple of decades at best.  The EU has been in no rush to expand in recent years.  But this trauma has brought forward that timeline.  It still wouldn't be a simple thing (there are a lot of things to do, to join the EU) but countries are going to feel a lot more amenable now to Ukraine.

Assuming Ukraine has the right to join.

And assuming Putin is not just playing us all again.

[Varysblackfyre321]

22 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As Kal says, when They tell you who They are, believe Them.

But they haven’t had a unified message on who they are least in regards to loving Russia.

Even Trump felt pressure  to given a token “Russia bad” after gushing about how wonderful and genius they are.

32 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Sending billions to rebuild Ukraine if Russia plans to invade again within the next decade is just throwing away the money --

Of course it isn’t it beefs them to better protect themselves should an invasion come again and helps give pause to Russia for any future plans of invasion.

37 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Why yes, our 21st history with throwing billions into other nations has taught cynicism, irony and distrust and outright disbelief.  Also suspicion, such as much of the money will end up in Turkey, Israel and Russia somehow.

It’s inevitable that at least some of the money will go to things it shouldn’t.

Still the people on the ground, who’ve had their country wrecked need help. Not sending any money would just insure don’t have any significant chance at repairing themselves.

[Werthead]

I think there are a whole bunch of different issues floating around. One is Putin's age and/or health, which may have been behind the timing of doing this thing now. Or might have been a simple calculation, that Russia and Ukraine's relative strengths would continue to narrow in the future and may even reach parity (or at least Ukraine making it impossible to be conquered, just flattened, which it turns out may not have been too far off). That calculus has to still be in play (even moreso now), so Putin may feel that he has to double down and carry on right now. However, the offensive has run out of steam and it's going to be impossible to reinforce and resupply it in the short term, so it might not be simply possible to continue the offensive. So he ramps up with WMDs, which could spiral out of control (Putin loves being in control) or he does a deal, if only to buy time.

That amount of time is key. Russia needs to retrain its army, it needs to develop a massive logistics operation which currently doesn't exist and it needs to shift technology and tactics to counter the new Ukrainian tactics and weapons. These are nontrivial operations requiring years.

My take is that the deal buys time and Ukraine can make better use of the time than Russia.

[Kalbear]

44 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

No love for the republicans but I don’t think their official platform has shifted to include such things.

 

A fucking hem

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

That amount of time is key. Russia needs to retrain its army, it needs to develop a massive logistics operation which currently doesn't exist and it needs to shift technology and tactics to counter the new Ukrainian tactics and weapons. These are nontrivial operations requiring years.

He also might simply not being able to do that. The same internal security pressures that caused him to keep the army weakened in the first place are as true as they ever were; maybe even moreso if the army gets blamed for why things went wrong in the war.

[Kalbear]

38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I fully expect Putin to continue to want Ukraine within his sphere of influence.  But Putin won't be around forever, he's already 70 and this isn't exactly a low-stress job.  It's possible that his successor will also want Ukraine in it's sphere of influence, but it's also quite possible he (it'll be a he) won't think it is worth the trouble, given the lessons of 2022. 

As far as I can tell Russia and Putin are kind of fine with the 'lessons' here. The notion that Russia and Putin are suffering in some major way appear to be overblown, at least for now. If they were a democratically-led country this would be a disaster, if they had a major ability to have freer press this would be a disaster, but that ain't what it's about. 

38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm not really sure what the thrust of your argument is at this point.  Trying to bring Ukraine to heel has failed and cost Russia dearly. 

I think the 'cost Russian dearly' thing needs to be talked about too. Again, it really should cost Russia dearly, but at least so far I've not seen signs that Russia is somehow suffering, or at least suffering enough that they would be concerned. 

38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Anti-Russia sentiment in both Europe and the Republican party is way stronger now than it was in 2016.  In the short term Ukraine will be stronger militarily than they were last month.  Of course it's still possible that conservative lickspittles like Trump and Johnson will roll over for Putin, but it's not guarantee.  Trump is already walking back his praise of Putin because he knows he's going to get hit on that issue in the 2024 primaries.  It is very realistic that the next Republican President adds Russia to the list of things that are responsible for everything bad in America, right there with China, liberals and abortion.  And if so, any Russian invasion of Ukraine is even riskier in 2025 than it was in 2022 (and it was a pretty stupid gamble this time). 

Well, here's the thing - it was already a stupid gamble. Why did they make it?

We had a lot of people on the boards talking about how Putin would never do something this stupid, but Putin both said he'd do it and the Russian forces were set up to do exactly what he said he'd do. You're assuming a style of thinking and values that have been so far not demonstrated. This is clearly not about costs or gains in the same way you or I would be accustomed to thinking. 

So no, I'm not going to sit there and say that because it'd be stupid in the future for him to do it he won't do it, because he is already doing the stupid shit. Furthermore, he has said over and over that he's going to be doing the stupid shit and will continue doing the stupid shit until he gets what he wants or is stopped. 

As to Trump saying something on the campaign trail - he said he'd be tough on Russia too. So what? I fully expect him to campaign on being super tough on Russia and ensuring that what happened in Ukraine wouldn't obviously happen again. And then...he'll back out of NATO. Putin will tell him to get his troops out of the US or else, and he'll go and do exactly that and exclaim how Ukraine has biolabs, we're not nice guys, they're bad guys and nazis, fake news yadda yadda. 

And what, is Rubio or McConnell going to grow a spine? Is Tucker fucking Carlson? Give me a break. 

[Kalbear]

The other, other possibility is that they'll attempt more of a soft coup instead of a military invasion to install someone other than Zelensky and go for the corruption/sabotage angle.