Ukraine 10: Lviv free

[Werthead]

I think the problem isn't that Putin isn't what he's been called, but he's a single point of failure and having a human being as a single point of failure is a bad idea. Him waking up in the morning in a bad mood or not might be the difference between Russia's last remaining stock of anthrax being dropped on Kharkiv or not, just as Trump was thin-skinned enough that his mood dictated major policy shifts, potentially with catastrophic results.

I think we're so used to dealing with large and bureaucratic governments - even the USSR government was a plurality, at least post-Stalin - that the idea of dealing with a single person with their foibles as maybe being the difference between life and death for thousands of people on a global scale (as opposed to a regional one, like Hussein and his ilk of dictator) is not normal.

The US bad cop versus the Turkish/European good cop approach isn't necessarily a bad idea though.

Some intelligence this morning reporting that Russia is indeed switching its reinforcements and resupply efforts to Donbas, and they seem to be thinking that Russia will either secure the entire Donbas regions (Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts in full) and then sue for a deal, or just unilaterally declare victory, or if they succeed in good time might consider taking the entire eastern part of the country beyond the Dnieper and "doing a Korea." Ukraine is aware of that danger and seems to be stepping up efforts to deny that, including taking Kherson and maybe working on knocking out resupply routes from Crimea and switching to insurgency tactics inside Russian-occupied territory.

[HoodedCrow]

Yes, when it’s down to one guys caprice, it does matter what that state of Putin’s mind is.  He is acting like a typical abuser, though, and is likely at his most dangerous when “his” property is trying to leave.

[Varysblackfyre321]

9 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Second, why should the US continue to coddle and mealy-mouth Putin any longer?  For the last two decades Putin has periodically invaded other nations in series, and all we did was wag our finger and say, "Tut-tut, that was naughty."  And the end result was what we have here in Ukraine.

 

If he isn’t thoroughly humiliated to the point even whispering words like  “Ukraine”  “Russian empire” in his presence sends tremors of revulsion down his spine he’s going to keep trying to expand through military force into any of his neighbors that don’t have sufficiently pro-Russian kleptocracies in control.

Even if such exploits wouldn’t end with the people of Russia benefiting in the long run.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Wilbur said:

I am OK with Biden's comments.

First of all, it is so refreshing to hear a US President state the plain truth for once.  Putin is very likely a war criminal, and he does need to be removed from power for the sake of all humanity.

Second, why should the US continue to coddle and mealy-mouth Putin any longer?  For the last two decades Putin has periodically invaded other nations in series, and all we did was wag our finger and say, "Tut-tut, that was naughty."  And the end result was what we have here in Ukraine.

Let the Europeans play good cop, that is just fine.  They can negotiate and help Putin save face, or the Turks can rub his back and make him feel better - whatever.  As far as I am concerned, my tax dollars are well spent having Joe Biden channel the spiritual milieu of Harry Truman and Andrew Jackson at the Kremlin.

It might feel good or be refreshing to hear that kind of talk but it's stupid- if Putin thinks he has no way out of this he's only going to resort to more desperate and dangerous behavior.  If he thinks he's a condemned man on the international stage it's only going to increase the chances he uses WMDs.  It's taking away diplomatic tools.  

It's also putting Biden in a position where he has to either walk something back now (which he did), walk it back later, or stick by it potentially complicating any future peace negotiations.  

 

[Werthead]

Interestingly, and maybe not coincidentally, the UK this morning became the first Western, pro-sanction country to say that the sanctions could be lifted if Russia withdraws from Ukraine, and proposed a series of mechanisms so sanctions can be eased off over time but "snap sanctions" can be reimposed if Russia re-invades or commits further violations.

[SpaceChampion]

12 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

So is he saying Russia may eventually break up due to its economy becoming and more crippled? Or at least some of the autonomous and semi-autonomous oblasts, the ones ethnic minorities are the majority may seek independence?

Not based on ethnicity, religion or ideology, he is saying.  Mainly economics and geography and self-preservation. I followed a link to one of his articles on "How Did Russia Get So Big?" and it explained the history more.   The short of it: the governors will be blamed for economic collapse, so they will hoard what they have, gradually ignoring central commands from Moscow.  Sugar for example is being hoarded in one oblast right now, everywhere else it is gone.

Russia needs to have raw exports to trade for everything else they need, and rail links are critical for delivering that.  But rail is one of the things that will degrade quickly (~six months) because they switched to a western style of bearing that they cannot make themselves.  Rail is uniquely important to Russia because they have entire cities that didn't exist before the Trans-Siberian was built.  The country wouldn't exist all the way to the Pacific without rail, which is less than 200 years old.

Russians used to live in the north because the river passages were the only way to get to the Urals.  With the Trans-Siberian, like Canada most of the population hugs the southern border.  The north depopulated long ago.

 

[DMC]

13 hours ago, Wilbur said:

Second, why should the US continue to coddle and mealy-mouth Putin any longer?  For the last two decades Putin has periodically invaded other nations in series, and all we did was wag our finger and say, "Tut-tut, that was naughty."  And the end result was what we have here in Ukraine.

Let the Europeans play good cop, that is just fine.  They can negotiate and help Putin save face, or the Turks can rub his back and make him feel better - whatever.  As far as I am concerned, my tax dollars are well spent having Joe Biden channel the spiritual milieu of Harry Truman and Andrew Jackson at the Kremlin.

I don't think Biden calling Putin a "pure thug," "murderous dictator," "butcher," and a war criminal is "coddling" Putin.  Also, I think the substantive differences between the west's response now compared to the last two decades is very clear.  But calling for regime change is different - especially considering what usually happens to leaders that US presidents push to be removed from power.  The potential benefits of "playing bad cop" in such a way, or at least the likelihood it yields any benefits in terms of altering Putin's behavior, are far outweighed by the potential costs and risks.

Also, I definitely do not want Biden to be channeling the likes of Harry Truman and Andrew Jackson.  Particularly when it comes to major foreign policy decisions.

[Zorral]

Most def NOT Andrew Jackson!  Who committed illegal, undeclared war more than once.  Not to mention actively buying and selling slaves, driving them coffles through the Natchez Trace, as well as owning many himself.  Not to mention the breaking of treaties and the Trail of Tears, and causing the worst and longest financial depression the USA ever experienced until the 1930's because he frackin' knew nothing about how money and banks operated, since in the slave owning south they had neither.  All financial value -- including credit --was housed in the bodies of human beings.

[Werthead]

Zelensky has confirmed - in an interview with Russian media, which apparently the Kremlin is trying to stop - that Ukraine is willing to adopt a confirmed neutral status, with legal guarantees and confirmation of it being a non-nuclear state. He has also agreed to protections for the Russian language.

The status of Crimea and the Donbas can be discussed but only if certified by a referendum.

[Kalbear]

Good example of how the invasion was decidedly NOT about just taking Donbass:

 

 

 

 

[Werthead]

11 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Good example of how the invasion was decidedly NOT about just taking Donbass:

No doubt a clerical error (cough).

[A True Kaniggit]

I take it all parties understand “neutral” for Ukraine  would just be a polite fiction.

Russia invaded, and made it clear they are an enemy.

Ukraine may not join Nato formally for political reasons, but we all know what’s what. 

[Werthead]

32 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I take it all parties understand “neutral” for Ukraine  would just be a polite fiction.

Russia invaded, and made it clear they are an enemy.

Ukraine may not join Nato formally for political reasons, but we all know what’s what. 

To be honest, I think that's the point. Ukraine would stay out of NATO, meaning if Russia chose to invade again, NATO would not come to the rescue. However, I assume everyone knows (even if they pretend otherwise) that Ukraine would rearm heavily behind the scenes, and any future Russian invasion would face a far harder time.

The question is to what extent is the fiction of a negotiated "victory" for both Russia and Ukraine - Russia can argue it won by achieving its goal of making Ukraine neutral, Ukraine can argue it won by surviving the onslaught with its independence intact - desirable for both sides. That might give us the best clue to future Russian intentions. If Russia accepts such a situation, it may mean they are far less set on invading other countries, if they're willing to accept such a result from Ukraine (bearing in mind that getting such a result from a NATO country would be impossible without negotiations that also limited Russia in some fashion).

[Makk]

There will also be legal definitions of what western defense/offence/intelligence is allowed. There is actually a legitimate reason for Russia to be aggrieved by neighboring countries having missiles pointed at them in close proximity, Airbases in quick striking distance, or Surveillance equipment to monitor their deployments and transmissions. The US for instance will not tolerate any military hardware on Cuba at all.

Edit: I'm not particularly optimistic for any peace agreement to be reached any time soon. I cannot see Ukraine ceding any territory (it would leave a very bitter taste in my mouth if they had to). They have complicated it by stating they would have to hold a referendum before any deal was signed which I strongly suspect the people will go tell Putin to FO (although they might just follow Zelenskyy if he guided them). And Ukraine is currently slowly starting to push the Russians back. If the West starts supplying Ukraine with offensive arms such as advanced tanks and more drones, they could actually win decisively from here.

At the same time I doubt Putin is going to back down any time soon, he is in a real mess and when the war does eventually end it is going to be extremely difficult to explain away all the losses. If sanctions remain in place it will be even worse for him. The only real hope is that Russian morale is at breaking point over the entire country and Putin doesn't have any choice other than to pull out. But his generals won't even be telling him the truth, he won't be aware exactly how bad it is for his army.

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I take it all parties understand “neutral” for Ukraine  would just be a polite fiction.

Russia invaded, and made it clear they are an enemy.

Ukraine may not join Nato formally for political reasons, but we all know what’s what. 

A “neutral” Ukraine was never on the table so long as Russia thought they could easily brute force Ukraine into submission and the leadership would seek to improve its country’s standard of living(which would entail courting the west.) 

the only question was would it be an ally to the west or a puppet to Russia.

 

[Kalbear]

 

[Alarich II]

8 hours ago, Makk said:

There will also be legal definitions of what western defense/offence/intelligence is allowed. There is actually a legitimate reason for Russia to be aggrieved by neighboring countries having missiles pointed at them in close proximity, Airbases in quick striking distance, or Surveillance equipment to monitor their deployments and transmissions. The US for instance will not tolerate any military hardware on Cuba at all.

The problem here is that Russia also has all these: airbases in quick striking distance, surveillance equipment etc. and in recent years they have - in contrast to their neighbours - actually used those assets against their neighbours. So to be aggrieved now, that their neighbours are preparing to defend is a bit rich. 

And wrt to Cuba: this crisis was 60 years ago and it concerned the deployment of nuclear missiles to cuba, not just any military hardware. And yet, 60 years later, Russia has deployed its nuclear SRBM system Iskander to the Kaliningrad oblast, basically putting Warsaw, Prague, Berlin, Kopenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tallin, Riga and Vilnius within range of their tactical nukes. And they are openly using it as a threat against Europe. We (Europeans) live with that and we're not turning this into some Cuban missile issue, but really, Russia should stfu about European anti-missile defences, threats to their national security and whatnot. 

[Werthead]

Face to face talks in Turkey this week, expected to focus on Ukraine's confirmation that it will be neutral, referendums over territory etc.

I suspect Russia's position will be as above, that they can't sign a peace deal if the Ukrainian people can then just reject it five minutes later (which would be a problem in any peaceful, non-wartime negotiations as well).

Meanwhile, the railway sabotage phenomenon is spreading to Russia itself. Someone tried to blow up a relay cabinet near Kaluga yesterday.

3 hours ago, Alarich II said:

The problem here is that Russia also has all these: airbases in quick striking distance, surveillance equipment etc. and in recent years they have - in contrast to their neighbours - actually used those assets against their neighbours. So to be aggrieved now, that their neighbours are preparing to defend is a bit rich. 

And wrt to Cuba: this crisis was 60 years ago and it concerned the deployment of nuclear missiles to cuba, not just any military hardware. And yet, 60 years later, Russia has deployed its nuclear SRBM system Iskander to the Kaliningrad oblast, basically putting Warsaw, Prague, Berlin, Kopenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, Tallin, Riga and Vilnius within range of their tactical nukes. And they are openly using it as a threat against Europe. We (Europeans) live with that and we're not turning this into some Cuban missile issue, but really, Russia should stfu about European anti-missile defences, threats to their national security and whatnot. 

Yup, these things go both ways. If NATO is to withdraw military assets from Eastern Europe, that's fine but Russia then has to withdraw military assets from its border regions or Kaliningrad as well, which I very much doubt they are interested in doing.

That is the problem: Russia is basically angling to have superiority over its neighbours and make them do what it wants, not true equality.

[mormont]

I imagine the Russian position is that it's not the same thing, having Russian units within Russian borders vs. having American units in third countries that border Russia. The Russians have a different outlook here: they see NATO as just a way of America (and to a lesser extent the UK, France and Germany) being able to project military threat across Europe and right up to the Russian border under a fig leaf of 'alliance'. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

I imagine the Russian position is that it's not the same thing, having Russian units within Russian borders vs. having American units in third countries that border Russia. The Russians have a different outlook here: they see NATO as just a way of America (and to a lesser extent the UK, France and Germany) being able to project military threat across Europe and right up to the Russian border under a fig leaf of 'alliance'. 

Russia is claiming it should have the authority to tell any nation that borders Russia what military may and may not be stationed inside those nations.  That’s always going to be problematic.