Ukraine 13: Pavlov's Bellum

[Lykos]

Please do not continue with the style of last posts of the former thread. State your opinons on the news, not other posters .

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Yah beat me to it:

@SeanF

My last reply was lost when the thread locked.  I was saying that the desire for peace and negotiation in Ukraine is not cowardice in my earnest opinion.

The use of Nuclear weapons by the Russian dictator is an existential threat that makes the world much worse than it is even today. 

However, I also believe the advocacy for open negotiations with the Russian dictator is dangerous as well.  Once the Russian dictator realize that if he shakes his nuclear lunchbox at the other powers they will accede to his demands… he’ll start there… every time.

Granting the Russian dictator what he wants in Ukraine is as much an existential threat to the world as is a nuclear exchange.  

I ask again is anything more valuable than Peace?  I think we know the answer to that question.

[Luzifer's right hand]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yah beat me to it:

 

@SeanF

My last reply was lost when the thread locked.  I was saying that the desire for peace and negotiation in Ukraine is not cowardice in my earnest opinion.

The use of Nuclear weapons by the Russian dictator is an existential threat that makes the world much worse than it is even today. 

However, I also believe the advocacy for open negotiations with the Russian dictator is dangerous as well.  Once the Russian dictator realize that if he shakes his nuclear lunchbox at the other powers they will accede to his demands… he’ll start there… every time.

Granting the Russian dictator what he wants in Ukraine is as much an existential threat to the world as is a nuclear exchange.  

I ask again is anything more valuable than Peace?  I think we know the answer to that question.

Peace obviously loses much of its value if it means enslavement, torture and murder for the population of occupied territories. Every meter that is not under Russian control reduces suffering imo.

It might be better for the rest of the world in the short term but I doubt it will be better for most Ukrainians.

[kiko]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I ask again is anything more valuable than Peace?  I think we know the answer to that question.

The thing is that many people, including me, don't see any chance I can peace except by utterly diminishing Russia's capabilities to threaten the world and especially their neighbors.  This includes as far as I understand:

-calling their bluff regarding Finland and Sweden 

-degrading their military capabilities with sanctions and pressuring their allies 

-stop funding them as much as possible

-most importantly stay unwaveringly supportive to Ukrainian fight for survival 

 

Basically the very unfortunate knowledge that those who want peace must prepare for war.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

With the Moskva now in the loving embrace of the Black Sea will the Russians try to use diplomatic pressure to allow other Russian missile crusiers to pass the Bosphorus to replace the Moskva?  If the Turks refuse, could the Russians try to force the Bosphorus?  Would an effort to force the Bosphorus be cause to invoke Art. 5?

[Gorn]

@Rippounet

In the last thread you frequently talked about the Soviet Union and Putin's Russia as if they are interchangeable. They are not. One was a Marxist-Leninist state, the other is a fascist kleptocracy. Putin's role model isn't Lenin, it's Denikin. He and his cronies looted Russia's and Ukraine's common people to an unimaginable extent. Medvedchuk's Ukraine properties that were recently seized (that he as a politician had no way of acquiring legally) included 32 apartments, 23 houses and 26 cars, and that's just a minor part of wealth of one of Putin's lesser courtiers. Why do you feel obliged to defend these people?

Next, like many of the Western left, you seem unable to recognize imperialism when it is coming from a non-Western source. Russia is not fighting a defensive war, no matter what lies they try to spin. They are fighting an imperialist war of aggression. They annexed a part of a neighboring state, what other evidence do you need?

You also seem to deny the agency and independence of Ukrainians and painting them as mere puppets of Western interest. It was Ukraine who demanded protection from NATO, and it was NATO who slammed the door in their face. They are fighting to prevent themselves from being taken from their homes in the night and murdered, to prevent their wives from being raped, to prevent their children from being kidnapped and taken into Russia, to prevent cities in western Ukraine from being razed the same way cities in the eastern part are. The only moral and ethical stance for the West is to provide them with any help they ask for (short of nukes), and to respect their right to negotiate their fate for themselves. Biden or Macron or any other western leader has no business of calling Putin and proposing truces, it's up to Ukraine's democratically elected leaders to do when and if they decide it should be done.

Finally, please don't repeat the mistake that the western left did with Milosevic in the 90s, merely because he led a party with the word "socialist" in its name. This time, Putin isn't even pretending to be a left-winger. He's not an anti-imperialist, he's a textbook definition of an imperialist.

I respect you as a boarder, and I find myself in agreement with 90% of the things you write. Please, please, please don't be a Tankie. You are better than that.

[Werthead]

Interesting. Peskov now confirming that destruction of the Azov Battalion is a key aim of the special operation. Interesting because it's something they've effectively already done or should be able to accomplish very shortly (since most of the battalion is in Mariupol and under constant attack).

Another big article on logistics and maintenance, including notes that even the tyres on very expensive artillery and missile platforms seem to be showing signs of extreme problems.

Interesting thread on the prospects for Ukrainian offensive action, noting it is complicated by a lack of hard data on Ukrainian losses or current capabilities.

Quote

 

With the Moskva now in the loving embrace of the Black Sea will the Russians try to use diplomatic pressure to allow other Russian missile crusiers to pass the Bosphorus to replace the Moskva?  If the Turks refuse, could the Russians try to force the Bosphorus?  Would an effort to force the Bosphorus be cause to invoke Art. 5?

 

Yes, Russia bombing Turkish positions in the Bosphorus or Turkey would almost certainly result in Turkey invoking Article 5.

However, Russia and Turkey have solid relations after many years/decades of political strife. Both Russia and Turkey are reluctant to raise tensions, with Turkey enjoying greater respect in negotiations than almost any other people. Russia is turning a blind eye to Turkey supplying drones to Ukraine whilst continuing cooperation with Turkey (including joint patrols) in the Syrian theatre.

The loss of the Moskva is a huge problem because Russia does not really have an equivalent ship to replace it with (Russia has not really built any decent new surface ships since the 1980s) and risks stretching its naval capabilities thin elsewhere. The logical thing to do would be to not antagonise Turkey with new ship movements and simply keep the missile cruisers back near Crimea and continuing bombardment from there. The other surface ships they had supporting the Moskva should really pull back as well, as they are no as longer well-protected against this kind of attack.

The main military advantage would be relieving the pressure on Odesa and allowing forces near there to join the Kherson offensive. However, it's unlikely Ukraine will strip Odesa too much due to the proximity of the small forces in Transnistria.

[Werthead]

Bizarre report that Oleshky has been occupied by Russian forces.

What's bizarre about that is that Oleshky is four miles south-east of Kherson, on the other side of the river. The Russians literally passed it to take Kherson about 45 days ago. Apparently the Russians never bothered occupying it and the people there have nervously just been going on as normal. Some theorising that Oleshky will be used as a fallback position and Russia may abandon Kherson without a fight to establish a much stronger defensive position behind the Dnieper. Some reports that all the Russian military units in the SW are concentrated in Kherson-Oleshky-Hola Prystan, with nothing behind them north of the Crimean border. That could change - some satellite suggestions of more troops arriving in Crimea via the Kerch bridge - but things looking dicey down there (for the Russians).

Putin talking at length about the restoration of business as normal energy supplies, noting that Europe does not have viable alternative sources (he notes that American supplies will be slow to arrive and expensive) and he is concerned by "export logistics." He does seem worried about Germany closing the tap and their recent comments about having built up a 6-month storage buffer if that does happen (and the assumption Germany will do that instantly in the result of a major Russian escalation in Ukraine).

[Maithanet]

28 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Interesting. Peskov now confirming that destruction of the Azov Battalion is a key aim of the special operation. Interesting because it's something they've effectively already done or should be able to accomplish very shortly (since most of the battalion is in Mariupol and under constant attack).

I took that as a good sign, since that is one of the few things that Russia has actually achieved.  Russia has always been vague about what "denazification" means, and often it is just shorthand for "anti-Russia".  But the Azov Battalion is indeed neo-fascist and it has been mostly destroyed in Mariupol.  If Russia wants to call that a big win, then they are welcome to declare victory and head home. 

[Loge]

26 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The loss of the Moskva is a huge problem because Russia does not really have an equivalent ship to replace it with (Russia has not really built any decent new surface ships since the 1980s) and risks stretching its naval capabilities thin elsewhere. The logical thing to do would be to not antagonist Turkey with new ship movements and simply keep the missile cruisers back near Crimea and continuing bombardment from there. The other surface ships they had supporting the Moskva would really pull back as well, as they are no as longer well-protected against this kind of attack.

The Black Sea fleet has three fairly new frigates and a number of corvettes, also quite new. Looks like their anti-aircraft missiles don't have the same range as the Moskva's, though, so they'd have to get close to the coast to be effective on shore. Not sure what Russia could use to replace the Moskva. They have its two sister ships still, but those are stationed far away and belong to different fleets. 

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, Loge said:

The Black Sea fleet has three fairly new frigates and a number of corvettes, also quite new. Looks like their anti-aircraft missiles don't have the same range as the Moskva's, though, so they'd have to get close to the coast to be effective on shore. Not sure what Russia could use to replace the Moskva. They have its two sister ships still, but those are stationed far away and belong to different fleets. 

Yup, I meant to say they don't have anything in the Moskva's weight class built since the 1980s (but then they probably don't need to). They do have newer cruiser missile destroyers and frigates, and several very new submarines.

The Black Sea Fleet also has several ships on loan from other forces (including 3-5 amphibious assault ships from the Baltic Fleet that were slipped in before the invasion began).

[Zorral]

Argument for the US Treasury to seize the perhaps up to 100 billion of Russian reserves banked in the US for Ukraine's assistance. Citation links are w/in the article, but NYT so subscriber paywalled.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/opinion/russia-war-currency-reserves.html

Quote

 

.... An obvious solution is staring us in the face: President Biden could liquidate the tens of billions of dollars the Russian central bank has parked in the United States as part of its foreign exchange reserves; by some estimates, those funds may total as much as $100 billion. These assets are already frozen at the Federal Reserve and other banks thanks to Treasury sanctions banning transactions with the Russian central bank. With new details of Russian atrocities making the prospect of lifting those sanctions increasingly untenable, those funds have, in effect, been seized indefinitely. Liquidating them now would not only be likely the fastest way to increase American aid to Ukraine without further burdening and fatiguing American taxpayers. It would also send a potent signal that the United States is committed to making even the world’s most powerful states pay for their war crimes.  ....

.... Since the reserves in question are Russian state property — unlike the assets of oligarchs — they are not shielded by the usual protections our legal system affords private property. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against government seizure of property “without due process of law” applies only to “persons” — not foreign governments — as the Supreme Court suggested in 1992 and multiple federal courts have since held. Protections against the “taking” of property without “just compensation” likewise apply only to “private property,” a category that clearly excludes Russia’s sovereign reserves, even if they are conveniently parked within the United States and in dollars. ....

.... To challenge the seizure and liquidation of its assets, the Russian government would have to look not to the Constitution but to a more obscure body of law which shields governments from liability in certain circumstances: “sovereign immunity.” But that immunity protects foreign assets only from judicial process — not from liquidation by the combined action of Congress and the executive branch. And as a mere creation of Congress, as the Supreme Court emphasized as recently as 2016, such immunity cannot survive a congressional enactment like the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Congressional Republicans might push back, claiming that any such seizure would constitute a grand expansion of presidential power at Mr. Biden’s behest. But the act’s clear grant of authority should alleviate any genuine concerns. So too should the clear precedent of similar moves by presidents of both parties who have seized the central bank assets of human rights violators like Venezuela, Iran and Iraq. ....

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Loge said:

The Black Sea fleet has three fairly new frigates and a number of corvettes, also quite new. Looks like their anti-aircraft missiles don't have the same range as the Moskva's, though, so they'd have to get close to the coast to be effective on shore. Not sure what Russia could use to replace the Moskva. They have its two sister ships still, but those are stationed far away and belong to different fleets. 

That’s why I’m very curious about the Turkish blockade of the Bosphorus to belligerents.  What could Russia offer Turkey to lift the blockade?  If the Turks refuse could the Russians try to force the Bosphorus?  Would forcing the Bosphorus constitute cause for Turkey to invoke Art. 5?

[Gorn]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s why I’m very curious about the Turkish blockade of the Bosphorus to belligerents.  What could Russia offer Turkey to lift the blockade?  If the Turks refuse could the Russians try to force the Bosphorus?  Would forcing the Bosphorus constitute cause for Turkey to invoke Art. 5?

Russia has no reason to try to force the Bosphorus, since the war in Ukraine is primarily a ground war. The current remaining forces of their Black Sea fleet should be more than sufficient to maintain the very limited role that navy is playing in this conflict.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

Russia has no reason to try to force the Bosphorus, since the war in Ukraine is primarily a ground war. The current remaining forces of their Black Sea fleet should be more than sufficient to maintain the very limited role that navy is playing in this conflict.

If the Ukrainians successfully sink more large ships?

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s why I’m very curious about the Turkish blockade of the Bosphorus to belligerents.  What could Russia offer Turkey to lift the blockade?  If the Turks refuse could the Russians try to force the Bosphorus?  Would forcing the Bosphorus constitute cause for Turkey to invoke Art. 5?

Russia could (if it chose) call Turkey's bluff and send the ships through the Bosporus with strict orders not to fire back.  Then there would be an open question whether Turkey would actually fire on them.  Turkey has said that they will (that's what closing the straight means after all) but it's possible they aren't willing to go there.  But that would be a mighty big risk for Russia to take, and most military commanders are uncomfortable putting their men in a dangerous position where they aren't allowed to fire back. 

However, if Russian ships fire on Turkey then Turkey will invoke Article 5, no question.  Even if Turkey fired first, that would make no difference.  Turkey has every right to defend its own waterways. 

[Werthead]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If the Ukrainians successfully sink more large ships?

Russia can only reinforce the Black Sea Fleet by pulling ships away from the Pacific Fleet - where Japan is tying them up with (empty) threats over the Kurills - or the Baltic Fleet, which is needed to deter NATO. The Northern Fleet is usually held back to defend the Arctic and Murmansk, so isn't really a source for reinforcements either.

The Caspian Flotilla can be called upon, but there are several practical problems there.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, Werthead said:

Russia can only reinforce the Black Sea Fleet by pulling ships away from the Pacific Fleet - where Japan is tying them up with (empty) threats over the Kurills - or the Baltic Fleet, which is needed to deter NATO. The Northern Fleet is usually held back to defend the Arctic and Murmansk, so isn't really a source for reinforcements either.

The Caspian Flotilla can be called upon, but there are several practical problems there.

Portage!

[Werthead]

Also, the Russians reinforced the Black Sea Fleet before the war began precisely for this reason, because they knew Turkey would close the straits. By concentrating your forces before that becomes an issue, you avoid it becoming a problem later on.

[Loge]

3 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Russia has no reason to try to force the Bosphorus, since the war in Ukraine is primarily a ground war. The current remaining forces of their Black Sea fleet should be more than sufficient to maintain the very limited role that navy is playing in this conflict.

Not true. The Russian navy blocks the port of Odesa and fires cruise missiles on targets all over Ukraine. And the Moskva provided valuable air defense. After all, Russia still hasn't won air superiority.