Ukraine 13: Pavlov's Bellum

[A Horse Named Stranger]

27 minutes ago, Toth said:

If this turns out to be true, it's at least some relief: https://ukranews.com/en/news/851256-germany-will-train-ukrainian-military-to-use-heavy-artillery-and-provide-ammunition-for-it-media

So Germany may soon start training Ukrainians in PzH 2000s, but the vehicles themselves will be Dutch. Well, one step at a time I guess...

Well, not to defend the sheer patheticness of Scholz (don't blame me, I voted for the (party of) the lady with the shambolic campaign, and I've never been a big fan of my former mayor in any shape or form), but it's worth keeping in mind the absolute omnishambles of a state the German army is in. So him claiming, we can't send anymore heavy equipment to Ukraine might actually be kinda true. 

I'll leave some non-paywalled English language Spiegel Online links. Below.

The Scholz Problem.

German dithering a problem of Bureaucracy?

And for good measures an interview with Steinmeier

[Clueless Northman]

6 hours ago, Darzin said:

The Tajik military doesn't bother with draft cards or enticing impoverished minorities rather they hire  impressment gangs who drive around vans and trucks and abduct young men off the street. During the draft season you'll see noticibly less young men around as they are in hiding.

Well, it worked well for the Prussian army in Barry Lyndon's time.

[Makk]

Igor Girkin (the guy in charge of separatist forces when the Malaysian Airlines flight was shot down) has written a scathing opinion on Russia's chances. Even though he is designated as a war criminal it's interesting getting a Russians opinion on the current state, especially from a guy who probably knows the area and situation as well as any Russian. Highlight is the line..."At the same time, the frontline near Donetsk can be held by the enemy with relatively small numbers thanks to excellent engineering equipment, developed over years, while our genius politicians were 'chewing Minsk snivel'" 

Translation can be found here

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1516918731515084801?cxt=HHwWgoC-kZTjlo0qAAAA

[Loge]

Here is a teardown video of a Russian reconnaissance drone. True high tech made in Russia.

 

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Loge said:

Here is a teardown video of a Russian reconnaissance drone. True high tech made in Russia.

Absolutely amazing that they use a Canon 800d/Rebel T7i. Not even a full-frame camera. And it seems that they just use it to record video footage that they then download when they recover it, as the only cable it's attached to is to supply it power. The other lens(s) must be connected to some sort of transmitter, but high-quality footage (BTW, the 800D doesn't do 4k footage) needs the drone recovered before they can access it, and of course it's not real-time. I guess the thermal imaging cam and the other lens provide the real-time video.

Like, it's not a terrible solution, as the fellow says -- it's cheap, it's reliable, the body provides some weatherproofing without adding too much weight -- but it's a joke that Russia has touted this as a 100% Russian solution, and the quoted cost is crazy. Yes, military budgets tend to inflate things for a lot of reasons, but they've overstated the cost substantially. 

ETA: Looking more closely, there's a loose ribbon that sort of looks like an SD card interface shape, so maybe that plugs in and transfers live footage to the processing unit... not sure, though. I don't see any signs of HDMI or USB ports being used to that end, anyways, which would be the more natural way to transfer live footage.

 

[Werthead]

Additional Ukrainian counter-attacks towards Kherson, apparently aided by partisan activity from the direction of Melitopol. A Russian train full of supplies out of Crimea was apparently destroyed and some local commanders were ambushed behind the lines. Oleksandrivska has been retaken, a small town on the coast due west of Kherson (confusingly, there's another town of the same name way north of Mykolaiv, but it's not that one).

Russian claims that Ukrainian forces are pulling back from Severodonetsk, but it's unclear if that is accurate. Heavy street fighting in Popasna with some Russian advances but it's going slowly.

Ukraine assessing it now has much more significant heavy equipment in-theatre than it did a few weeks ago and this is already making a difference. However, some estimates are that Ukraine may have now "received" more intact, usable equipment from Russia than any other country.

Putin has congratulated Shoigu on the successful capture of Mariupol, bar only the steelworks. Rather than constantly attacking the steelworks, the Russians have decided to lay siege and not let anyone or anything in or out.

[Toth]

20 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Putin has congratulated Shoigu on the successful capture of Mariupol, bar only the steelworks. Rather than constantly attacking the steelworks, the Russians have decided to lay siege and not let anyone or anything in or out.

This is literally turning into a small village in Gaul situation there, doesn't it? "Mariupol is entirely occupied by Russia. Entirely? YES, ENTIRELY! SHUT UP, THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!"

On a more serious note: I hope Ukraines efforts to organize a prisoner exchange in return of their release will be successful, even though it's doubtful at this point.

[Rippounet]

So Noam Chomsky recently gave an interview about the Russian interview of Ukraine (which, for the record, was promptly used against him in Israel).
https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-our-priority-on-ukraine-should-be-saving-lives-not-punishing-russia/

I'm relieved to find the points I tried to make in his interview, though needless to say, he articulated them much better than I ever could.

On the priorities:

Quote

Before proceeding with this discussion, I’d like to emphasize, once again, the most important point: Our prime concern should be to think through carefully what we can do to bring the criminal Russian invasion to a quick end and to save the Ukrainian victims from more horrors. There are, unfortunately, many who find heroic pronouncements to be more satisfying than this necessary task.

 

On the outcome of the conflict and on the paradox (cognitive bias?) regarding Putin being a "madman":

Quote

 

There are, basically, two ways for this war to end: a negotiated diplomatic settlement or destruction of one or the other side, either quickly or in prolonged agony. It won’t be Russia that is destroyed. Uncontroversially, Russia has the capacity to obliterate Ukraine, and if Putin and his cohort are driven to the wall, in desperation they might use this capacity. That surely should be the expectation of those who portray Putin as a “madman” immersed in delusions of romantic nationalism and wild global aspirations.

That’s clearly an experiment that no one wants to undertake — at least no one who has the slightest concern for Ukrainians.

The qualification is unfortunately necessary. There are respected voices in the mainstream who simultaneously hold two views: (1) Putin is indeed a “deranged madman” who is capable of anything and might lash out wildly in revenge if backed to the wall; (2) “Ukraine must win. That is the only acceptable outcome.” We can help Ukraine defeat Russia, they say, by providing advanced military equipment and training, and backing Putin to the wall.

 

 

On US responsibility:

Quote

 

The basic framework for a diplomatic settlement has long been understood and has been reiterated by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. First, neutralization of Ukraine, providing it with a status rather like Mexico or Austria. Second, putting off the matter of Crimea. Third, arrangements for a high level of autonomy for Donbass, perhaps within a federal arrangement, preferably to be settled in terms of an internationally run referendum.

Official U.S. policy continues to reject all of this. High administration officials don’t just concede that “prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States made no effort to address one of Vladimir Putin’s most often stated top security concerns — the possibility of Ukraine’s membership into NATO.” They praise themselves for having taken this position, which may well have been a factor in impelling Putin to criminal aggression. And the U.S. continues to maintain this position now, thus standing in the way of a negotiated settlement along the lines Zelenskyy outlined, whatever the cost to Ukrainians.

Can a settlement along those general lines still be achieved, as seemed likely before the Russian invasion? There is only one way to find out: to try. Ambassador Freeman is far from alone among informed Western analysts in chastising the U.S. government for having “been absent [from diplomatic efforts] and, at worst, implicitly opposed” to them with its actions and rhetoric. That, he continues, is “the opposite of statecraft and diplomacy” and a bitter blow to Ukrainians by prolonging the conflict. Other respected analysts, such as Anatol Lieven, generally agree, recognizing that at the very least, “The U.S. has done nothing to facilitate diplomacy.”

 

The bolded being essential here, because if it is true, then:

On 4/18/2022 at 3:27 PM, a free shadow said:

I keep getting more and more bewildered how you keep insisting you know better what is best for Ukrainians than the Ukrainians themselves, including loving their children more than them.

The sad truth may be that it is the US (and everyone parroting the American line) that has kept acting as if they knew "better what is best for Ukrainians than the Ukrainians themselves."

Chomsky could be wrong of course. It wasn't clear to me what Zelenskyy's position was exactly, but Chomsky addressed this in another interview:

Quote

https://www.turntoday.com/2022/04/20/noam-chomsky-jeremy-scahill-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/
NC: Yes, you’re absolutely right. If you look at the media coverage, Zelenskyy’s very clear, explicit, serious statements about what could be a political settlement — crucially, neutralization of Ukraine — those have been literally suppressed for a long period, then sidelined in favor of heroic, Winston Churchill impersonations by Congressman, others casting Zelenskyy in that mold. 
So, yes, of course. He’s made it pretty clear that he cares about whether Ukraine survives, whether Ukrainians survive, and has therefore put forth a series of reasonable proposals that could well be the basis for negotiation. 
We should bear in mind that the nature of a political settlement, the general nature of it, has been pretty clear on all sides for quite some time. In fact, if the U.S. had been willing to consider them, there might not have been an invasion at all. 
Before the invasion, the U.S. basically had two choices: One was to pursue its official stance, which I just reviewed, which makes the negotiations impossible and may have led to war; the other possibility was to pursue the options that were available. To an extent, they’re still somewhat available, attenuated by the war, but the basic terms are pretty clear. 

Quote

The explicit policy goes way back, but it was given a definitive form in September 2021 in the September 1 joint policy statement that was then reiterated and expanded in the November 10 charter of agreement. 
And if you look at what it says, it basically says no negotiations. What it says is it calls for Ukraine to move towards what they called an enhanced program for entering NATO, which kills negotiations; — this is before the invasion notice — an increase in the dispatch of advanced weapons to Ukraine, more military training, the joint military exercises, weapons placed on the border. We can’t be sure, but it’s possible that these strong statements may have been a factor in leading Putin and his circle to move from warning to direct invasion. We don’t know. But as long as that policy is guiding the United States, it’s basically saying, to quote Ambassador Chas Freeman, it’s saying: Let’s fight to the last Ukrainian.

Honestly, after W. Bush and Iraq (which so many here are so critical of), it really shouldn't be that hard to be suspicious of the "crazy dictator" narrative.

And so, back to the first point:

On 4/19/2022 at 12:35 AM, Padraig said:

You do know that is a win for Putin?  Sow enough doubt, the West will blink like it has done so often?

The primary concern of everyone pretending to care should be -should always have been- Ukrainian lives.

The question isn't whether it's a "win for Putin" but whether it's a win for Ukrainians. Period.

[karaddin]

13 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Honestly, after W. Bush and Iraq (which so many here are so critical of), it really shouldn't be that hard to be suspicious of the "crazy dictator" narrative.

And so, back to the first point:

The primary concern of everyone pretending to care should be -should always have been- Ukrainian lives.

The question isn't whether it's a "win for Putin" but whether it's a win for Ukrainians. Period.

Snipped out most of the post as I'm only responding to these two points. 1st - your post would have been a lot stronger without this, the two situations are miles apart. We've had over 20 years of Putin being the head of a former super power and major nuclear power. We are pretty familiar with his pattern of behavior and that he's absolutely a dictator with a very tight grip on power, and that he's acted in a ruthless but quite easy to understand manner up to this point. Any "mad dictator" conversation is a concern that his behavior is changing from something we can understand to something we cannot, not a justification for western lead regime change. It's not remotely analogous to Sadam.

2nd part - surely it's implicit that the "win for Ukrainians" needs to be one they see and accept as one. Maybe you're arguing against rhetoric that you're seeing elsewhere rather than against particular comments here, I'm not seeing anyone making the case we should strong arm Ukraine into continuing to fight. Just that while that is the decision they are making, we should be doing everything we reasonably can to help them defend themselves.

Perhaps you are intending your posts to be a criticism of Biden/the US government in the same vein as Chomsky, believing that their actions and statements are making it impossible for Ukraine to sue for peace with significant concessions to Russian even if they want to? The way you've framed your posts has come across, to me at least, like you are directly disagreeing with most people here though and advocating for forcing Ukraine to surrender whether they like it or not. The former doesn't jive with my read on the situation, but if it's accurate then I'd agree no one should be standing in the way of Ukraine negotiating peace.

[Heartofice]

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The primary concern of everyone pretending to care should be -should always have been- Ukrainian lives.

The question isn't whether it's a "win for Putin" but whether it's a win for Ukrainians. Period

Surely it matters to Ukranians whether Putin wins? Doesn’t it matter to whether they live or die as to whether he is allowed a victory from which he can then come back in a few years and do the same again?

Putin has stated numerous times that Ukraine is Russian, what would prevent him from stopping long term making that a reality if he is allowed to get what he wants this time.

Point being , someone like Chomsky isn’t really that bothered about Ukrainians, one of his own translators came out and lambasted him for his comments, if you were worried about Ukranians you’d want to make sure Putin can’t ever do this again, because he will. The world already looked the other way after 2014 and before and one of the reasons Putin invaded was because he assumed the world would look away again. 

[Werthead]

I think Chomsky's positions are somewhat understandable from a humanitarian or pacifistic POV but flawed from any other.

There is a fundamental issue of allowing Putin to have a "cheat code" to win any conflict here. Russia is not and has not been under any kind of existential threat. Russia may be the single most immune country in the world to any kind of existential threat, bar possibly the United States (and maybe China). Russia's sheer size, its conventional forces (before this conflict wasted a large chunk of them, anyway) and nuclear arsenal render Russia effectively immune to attack. Ergo, there is no compelling economic, military or political reason under any rational terms for Russia to invade Ukraine, or anywhere else. Indeed, Russia would have been better off if it had not invaded.

What Chomsky is arguing is that Putin can undertake any aggressive action against any country and, as long as he says, "this is an existential threat to Russia" (although meaning him) and people thinks he believes it, he can get away with it and cannot be stopped, whether that's in Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland or anywhere else.

Following this line of reasoning logically ends badly for the rest of Europe.

[Ran]

Hogwash. Russia has repeatedly refused honest efforts to negotiate. It’s not because the US is twisting its arm or Ukraines, it’s one hundred percent Putin. Practically every world leader who has spoken with Putin indicates that he is completely closed off to reason. He has staked everything on “victory”.

Ukrainian lives matter… now, but also in the future. The world shrugged its shoulders in 2014, and gave birth to this in 2022. The victory Ukraine must achieve is one where Russia never dares encroach on their sovereign territory again, otherwise in a decade there’ll be another war just like this one, where Russia bites off more and more Ukrainian territory because it refuses to accept Ukraine’s right to self-determination. 

Ukrainian neutrality cannot be decided in the basis of Russian encroachment and brutality. Chomsky, in this, has lost the plot, believing the US is a puppet master when Zelensky has been unwavering on the subject of Donbas and Luhansk.

The US literally has zero say in what Ukraine does with its territory. His vision of this conflict is patently absurd.

[mormont]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

The primary concern of everyone pretending to care should be -should always have been- Ukrainian lives.

A statement like this is, in itself, so banal as to be meaningless. Of course it should. And of course it is, in almost all cases. The difference of opinion is not over whether the primary concern is Ukrainian lives, but over how best in the long term to preserve the maximum number of Ukrainian lives. Characterising the discussion as 'my side want to save lives, by implication your side don't' does nothing but make one side feel superior. Assume good faith: it's a better position.

[Werthead]

The UK position, which was reiterated strongly by Johnson yesterday, is that Britain and her allies will respect the Ukrainian position in negotiations. He stated that he believes negotiations will be dangerous and fraught, but ultimately if Ukraine and Russia agree on a peace deal that Ukraine finds acceptable, than Ukraine's partners should accept that. Liz Truss expanded on that idea a couple of weeks earlier, even suggesting a sanctions rollback plan be put in place so that sanctions can be lifted in stages after Russian troops leave Ukrainian territory, with a mechanism to reimpose them should Russia attack again later on.

The degree to which the USA would follow suit is unclear, but I believe it is probable that the US would respect the Ukrainian position, unless the USA believed doing so would expose the US to dangers unrelated to the specifics of the Ukrainian situation.

[karaddin]

If the position the US has taken which is being characterized as preventing diplomacy is simply saying "we will not veto anyone from joining NATO if that's what they want and meet the regular requirements, we are not going to ban Ukraine just because Russia wants to be able to bully them at it's leisure" then I think that's a much less reasonable interpretation of their position than is the norm for when they US is accused of this sort of thing.

Maybe it's because I'm a member of multiple minority groups but I've got a lot of time for refusing to throw a victim under the bus just because it will serve the greater good. The only way I'd want the US to reconsider that is if Ukraine is asking them to make the statement, and I didn't think that had happened.

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

If the position the US has taken which is being characterized as preventing diplomacy is simply saying "we will not veto anyone from joining NATO if that's what they want and meet the regular requirements, we are not going to ban Ukraine just because Russia wants to be able to bully them at it's leisure" then I think that's a much less reasonable interpretation of their position than is the norm for when they US is accused of this sort of thing.

Maybe it's because I'm a member of multiple minority groups but I've got a lot of time for refusing to throw a victim under the bus just because it will serve the greater good. The only way I'd want the US to reconsider that is if Ukraine is asking them to make the statement, and I didn't think that had happened.

Yes.  If Ukraine wants to make an official statement that they will forgo NATO membership (for X years or permanently), then they are welcome to do that.  But the US should not (and cannot be reasonably expected to) shut the doors of NATO based on Russian belligerence. 

If Chomsky (or Rippounet) wants to make the argument that this conflict happened because of US political machinations, I'm willing to hear it, but I haven't come across anything that is even close.  As I see it, Russia staked out some impossible positions as the starting point of negotiations (or perhaps more accurately "negotiations"), and then when they were not met, went forward with the invasion. 

[Werthead]

9 minutes ago, karaddin said:

If the position the US has taken which is being characterized as preventing diplomacy is simply saying "we will not veto anyone from joining NATO if that's what they want and meet the regular requirements, we are not going to ban Ukraine just because Russia wants to be able to bully them at it's leisure" then I think that's a much less reasonable interpretation of their position than is the norm for when they US is accused of this sort of thing.

Maybe it's because I'm a member of multiple minority groups but I've got a lot of time for refusing to throw a victim under the bus just because it will serve the greater good. The only way I'd want the US to reconsider that is if Ukraine is asking them to make the statement, and I didn't think that had happened.

Yup. Ukraine has said it is willing to sign a neutrality treaty and amend the constitution to remove the aspiration to join NATO from it. From that POV, I'm not sure what more Russia could want.

If they feel Ukraine is lying, then the USA could be lying as well if they turned around and said, "We'll veto Ukraine from joining NATO."

[Gorn]

In my eyes, Chomsky disqualified himself permanently on all foreign policy questions by his Milosevic apologism in the 90s and his Srebrenica genocide denial. I see his recent views haven't evolved much from that.

[DMC]

57 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Chomsky could be wrong of course.

He is, as per usual when he attempts political "analysis."  First of all, his premise doesn't even make sense.  "Official US policy," as he describes it, doesn't even contradict the "basic framework" of an agreement he lays out.  Again, it is certainly true that US policy is to not allow Russia to dictate who can and cannot join NATO.  That does not in any way preclude Ukraine from agreeing to any of the terms detailed.  If Ukraine wants to forge a neutrality pact with Russia that entails a commitment not to join NATO, that is fundamentally different than NATO saying Ukraine is barred from membership.

More importantly, the idea that Zelenskyy's attempts at peace have been "suppressed" is truly farcical.  Indeed, any attempt to deputize Zelenskyy into such an argument is absolutely ludicrous.  It is Zelenskyy that urged a no-fly zone, the US refused.  It is Zelenskyy that wanted Poland's jets, the US quashed the deal.  It is Zelenskyy that's asked for "unlimited military support" from NATO, and it is Zelenskyy that amplified the "madman" narrative to the extent that he's now warning the west to prepare for Putin to use nuclear weapons. 

These aren't "western media narratives" suppressing Zelenskyy.  These are his direct and repeated words -- and when it comes to that, it is again Zelenskyy who is not willing to agree to the parameters Chomsky wrongly claims Zelenskyy supports (secretly or something I guess):

Quote

Zelensky warned that the battle ahead in the Donbas “can influence the course of the whole war” and said his country has no intention of giving up territory in the eastern part of Ukraine to end the war during an exclusive interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper that aired Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Chomsky's political opinions have always been this manifestly untethered to reality, his unbridled invective against the US and the Kennedys posed as "analysis."  It's never been taken seriously and it shouldn't now.

[Gorn]

Why Noam Chomsky is garbage:

https://youtu.be/VCcX_xTLDIY

Holocaust deniers shouldn't be given the time of day, and neither should he.