Ukraine 13: Pavlov's Bellum

[broken one]

8 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Well, Russia's nuclear forces obviously would.

It's about conventional forces, of course.

7 minutes ago, Werthead said:

If Russia manages to convince China of the benefits of an anti-NATO alliance needing to be formed, then that would change the equation as well (North Korea and Syria would join such an alliance immediately, and Iran...

I am not an expert on geopolitics nor an augur, but this (like "the worst thing which may happen") does not seem very probable.

 

[Werthead]

Shoigu has made his first appearance in some weeks, saying that Russia's military operation is now aimed at liberating the Donetsk and Luhansk republics. He criticises the west for "dragging out" the operation by supplying equipment to the Ukrainians and accusing them of wanting to "fight to the last Ukrainian standing." If we treat this literally, it sounds like Shoigu thinks (or wants people to think) the operation will end in the Donbas.

Weather reports of heavy storms and rain in the coming 10 days. This will be an extreme disadvantage to Russia, limiting air strikes and reconnaissance and inhibiting ground offensives. However, Ukrainian counter-offensives may also be blunted.

Ukrainian counter-attacks east of Kharkiv seem to be gathering pace and have achieved successes in the past 48 hours. The idea here seems to be to get behind the main Russian thrust at Izium and disrupt lines of communication and supply. Completely severing those lines could collapse the entire northern wing of the Russian offensive. There are 22 BTGs in the Izium area, representing the heaviest concentration of Russian forces in the smallest area yet seen. Being able to bring them under attack and cut them off before they can advance south would be a significant achievement, especially if it causes demoralisation and panic.

Some signs that Ukrainian forces previously held in reserve on the SW front have now been redeployed to the Kherson area. Increasing Ukrainian counterattacks in the Kherson area.

[Toth]

3 hours ago, kiko said:

I think as a pacifist you absolutely believe in the good in all people. So what Russia is doing is an aberration. So it might be better to roll over to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and then wait for the forces of good to sort it out. Probably Russian are not mordor orcs but just temporarily misguided and will soon come to their senses (guided by our loving care and understanding) and apologize.

This is a very positive world view but as usual if you think in absolutes, you will probably fail. I'm reasonably sure that Russians love their children too, but don't think this is the time to prove it.

Oh that reminds me, I also had someone who went on and on about how the Russian soldiers have a responsibility for their own actions and should refuse as a solution for deescalation. As if the hierarchy and group culpability in a military works like that...

Then again, another exchange I had with someone who was just... constantly absolutely scared out of her mind about a nuclear war and held endless rants about how we should not do anything because Putin is insane and would blow us all up the moment he starts loosing.

And another who went full on Koiner in "Maßnahmen gegen die Gewalt" who replied to a question about whether he would give up his home and his children to his neighbor who demanded it 'for security' with "Gladly, I'd even go into a Gulag if that means he'd not murder anyone" after holding endless rants about how we shouldn't put any money into the military and Ukraine should surrender so that we can focus on climate change.

All three examples in a Green party forum btw. Thankfully those (and a couple of Chinese agents) are like 7 to 1 in the minority, just... very annoying to deal with. All in all I'm quite happy how firmly the Greens seem to be rooted in reality and aware of the gravity of this situation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Toth said:

And another who went full on Koiner in "Maßnahmen gegen die Gewalt" who replied to a question about whether he would give up his home and his children to his neighbor who demanded it 'for security' with "Gladly, I'd even go into a Gulag if that means he'd not murder anyone" after holding endless rants about how we shouldn't put any money into the military and Ukraine should surrender so that we can focus on climate change.

The people willing to turn over the world to a person they think is a madman baffle me.  If he is truely mad why are they of the belief acceding to his demands will make him behave rationally?  Their actions may be cowardly, but rational, but if the Russian dictator is mad why would he behave rationally to their acquiescence to his irrational demands?

[Werthead]

Lavrov has now said (in an interview with Indian television) that the renewed military operation is focused on liberating the Donbas only and also ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Obviously could be a bluff or just positive rhetoric aimed at a country they are still on friendly terms with.

[IFR]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The people willing to turn over the world to a person they think is a madman baffle me.  If he is truely mad why are they of the belief acceding to his demands will make him behave rationally?  Their actions may be cowardly, but rational, but if the Russian dictator is mad why would he behave rationally to their acquiescence to his irrational demands?

Even if you're crazy, why start a nuclear holocaust if you get everything you want?

They probably believe the choices are between some unknown but ultimately finite period of tyranny versus the end of civilization.

And to be fair, it's not impossible that Russia will use nukes. It's highly improbable. So I suppose individuals that advocate that the world should roll over for Russia have a distorted sense of risk assessment.

[Toth]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The people willing to turn over the world to a person they think is a madman baffle me.  If he is truely mad why are they of the belief acceding to his demands will make him behave rationally?  Their actions may be cowardly, but rational, but if the Russian dictator is mad why would he behave rationally to their acquiescence to his irrational demands?

That's why I got instantly reminded of that Bertold Brecht story about Koiner and the agent when I read that exchange. I read it in school and was just as infuriated back then as I was yesterday. In the story Mr. Koiner (Brecht's self-insert) is asked his opinions about violence. He says that he rejects it, but notices the people getting nervous about it: Behind him stands 'the violence' who asks him to repeat what he just said. Koiner says that he supports violence. Afterwards the crowd asks whether he has no spine and Koiner replies that he indeed doesn't have a spine to smash because he intends to outlive the violence, then expands upon that with a story about a guy, Mr. Egge, who got a visit from a government agent who tells him that he is now taking his apartment and that he has to serve him for all time. The agent asks whether the Mr. Egge agrees to this and he doesn't reply, but still serves him faithfully and silently for seven years, until the fattened agent suddenly dies. The guy then hurls his corpse out to the garbage and says "No".

I still vividly remember how I and my classmates were baffled at that story and argued that it must be intended as a satire of "internal dissent" while our teacher advocated (in hindsight probably correctly) that Brecht intended this as an example of successful resistance. This example of Mr. Egge doing everything the dictator wants him to do, but at least being unhappy about it, hoping that one day he will disappear on his own and then claim he was never on his side in the first place (after all, we all know all Germans turned out to be secretly against the Nazis...). Completely disregarding that the Nazis, who the agent was intended as an analogy of, had to be removed through violent outside intervention and without that help Mr. Egge and his children and grandchildren would likely still suffer under some kind of fascism. Of course, Brecht argues from a personal POV in which 'the agent' was just part of an untouchable oppressive government that can't be toppled by ultimately meaningless individual acts of resistance that would only achieve to get you killed, but this only highlights that you should do everything in your power to prevent such a government from taking hold in the first place. Be it the election of a fascist... or the invasion of one. It must be opposed as long as you still have the means to do so.

So yeah, this mindset only makes sense if you treat fascism as both unbeatable and still somehow going away on its own without violence. Quite a comfy position to have, I'd say.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

1. Russia may make much more bellicose threats than before to reduce NATO interference. In an extreme case, they may even consider a limited naval operation to take Gotland and put NATO in the Baltic on the back foot before Sweden and Finland can join the organisation. There may also be a maximal escalate-to-deescalate element to this. If Russia then proceeds to show signs of losing these engagements as well it will consider using tactical nuclear weapons.

Yeah, at this point I don't know how well they would fare against the Swedish navy given their performance off the Ukrainian coast. Back in a 2007 wargame, a Swedish Gotland-class submarine ran circles around an entire US Navy battle group, "sinking" the USS Ronald Reagan.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

30 minutes ago, Toth said:

That's why I got instantly reminded of that Bertold Brecht story about Koiner and the agent when I read that exchange. I read it in school and was just as infuriated back then as I was yesterday. In the story Mr. Koiner (Brecht's self-insert) is asked his opinions about violence. He says that he rejects it, but notices the people getting nervous about it: Behind him stands 'the violence' who asks him to repeat what he just said. Koiner says that he supports violence. Afterwards the crowd asks whether he has no spine and Koiner replies that he indeed doesn't have a spine to smash because he intends to outlive the violence, then expands upon that with a story about a guy, Mr. Egge, who got a visit from a government agent who tells him that he is now taking his apartment and that he has to serve him for all time. The agent asks whether the Mr. Egge agrees to this and he doesn't reply, but still serves him faithfully and silently for seven years, until the fattened agent suddenly dies. The guy then hurls his corpse out to the garbage and says "No".

I still vividly remember how I and my classmates were baffled at that story and argued that it must be intended as a satire of "internal dissent" while our teacher advocated (in hindsight probably correctly) that Brecht intended this as an example of successful resistance. This example of Mr. Egge doing everything the dictator wants him to do, but at least being unhappy about it, hoping that one day he will disappear on his own and then claim he was never on his side in the first place (after all, we all know all Germans turned out to be secretly against the Nazis...). Completely disregarding that the Nazis, who the agent was intended as an analogy of, had to be removed through violent outside intervention and without that help Mr. Egge and his children and grandchildren would likely still suffer under some kind of fascism. Of course, Brecht argues from a personal POV in which 'the agent' was just part of an untouchable oppressive government that can't be toppled by ultimately meaningless individual acts of resistance that would only achieve to get you killed, but this only highlights that you should do everything in your power to prevent such a government from taking hold in the first place. Be it the election of a fascist... or the invasion of one. It must be opposed as long as you still have the means to do so.

So yeah, this mindset only makes sense if you treat fascism as both unbeatable and still somehow going away on its own without violence. Quite a comfy position to have, I'd say.

Wow.  That Brecht story embraces a rather nihilistic perspective too… doesn’t it?  

[Toth]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow.  That Brecht story embraces a rather nihilistic perspective too… doesn’t it?  

Well, it kind of does, in the way that resistance only gets you killed, so it is better to conform. Then again, having read memos of actual resistance members, it obviously was encouraged for actual resistance members to appear happily embracing Nazism for the sake of not drawing unwanted attention for petty reasons, focusing on the big picture. Unfortunately that's not at all present in the Brecht story, there it's just about survival against a regime a single person can't beat, so why bother?

Of course it is insane to apply this mindset on countries, especially when there is a war of conquest going on.

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, Liffguard said:

If that ever stops being the case, if we reach a point when it does become in the interests of the Ukrainian people to offer concessions, or even some kind of conditional surrender, then I strongly suspect our governments in the west would not encourage that.

If you're right and there are countries which want to take that approach then the Russian atrocities have given them all the cover they need for that argument. Doesn't seem likely for now though as Ukraine seems (quite reasonably) enraged by Russia's actions and not likely to surrender any time soon.

[broken one]

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1516014664316039171?s=20&t=leqj_S7wr8_YYGWyLSGCng

[Werthead]

Fierce fighting in Kreminna, where a senior Luhansk People's Republic leader and the head of a notorious smuggler's ring was apparently killed.

Lavrov has expanded in his interview with Indian TV, saying that Russia is not pursuing regime change in Ukraine and never was in the first place, which is eyebrow-raising.

The Tadjik wing of the Taliban has apparently been advocating for an attack on Tajikistan on the grounds that the Russian troops assigned to help defend Tajikistan have been redeployed to Ukraine, leaving the border vulnerable. Apparently this is unlikely to happen,since Tajikistan's own military is still in play and the Taliban are trying not to antagonist Russia, and may even be looking to work with them in some capacity as the Afghan wing of IS steps up attacks across the country (including a possible bombing in Kabul in the last 24 hours).

[Maithanet]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

Reading various ideas and experts. It appears two outcomes are generally now believed to be plausible:

1. Russia advances as far as it can by around 5 May and then declares victory on those lines, holding its parade on 9 May. If all or most of Donbas is taken and the land bridge to Crimea is completed Putin announces completion of the successful operation and hails Ukraine's agreement not to join NATO and sign a neutrality pact (if that still holds) as a sign of victory. He believes the west will lift sanctions in a matter of weeks to months and, if they do not, that will be a sign of hostility and Russia will begin a military buildup in response (even if that's a bluff or he means it but it will take years). This will be seen by some as a VINO (Victory In Name Only) but it does achieve Russia's stated strategic goals before the operation and gives Russia room to start rebuilding as well as expending political capital in other theatres (the Balkans) to keep NATO off-balance. The results of the French election may play into this as well (Le Pen is seen as a potential ally). Russia is aware that many actors, including some in NATO, some Ukrainians and a lot of neutral countries, will accept this outcome as it restores peace in the meantime.

There's also the question of how much Ukraine wants to continue fighting to retake places like Kherson, Mariupol, Izyum and Melitopol.   If the spring offensive which just started has modest gains but no breakthroughs, then Russia is going to hold a substantial portion of Ukraine and they are going to want to keep most/all of that territory.  Ukraine has made recent statements about making no territorial concessions at all (including Crimea and the Eastern areas already controlled pre-invasion).  If that is really their position (they could just be posturing), then Russia accepting a VINO is a non-starter.  If Russia agrees to give back Crimea and the Donbas then that's not VINO, that's straight defeat. 

And while I would love to see the Russians utterly vanquished, I just don't see that as very likely.  I hope that if Russia is ready to accept a VINO that Ukraine is ready to end the fighting.  But I freely admit that decision is up to the Ukrainians, not me. 

Quote

 

2. Russia is repulsed in Donbas or does not achieve much more than it has already, or if Ukraine mounts successful counter-offensives (especially if they retake the land bridge to Crimea or cut off Crimea again). Russia is unable to present even the vaguest idea of a VINO. Russia will then declare general mobilisation and go "all-in" with a fresh offensive in a few months to take not just Donbas but all of Ukraine. Russia may make much more bellicose threats than before to reduce NATO interference. In an extreme case, they may even consider a limited naval operation to take Gotland and put NATO in the Baltic on the back foot before Sweden and Finland can join the organisation. There may also be a maximal escalate-to-deescalate element to this. If Russia then proceeds to show signs of losing these engagements as well it will consider using tactical nuclear weapons.

Mobilisation is considered risky for the regime but also others: if it triggers widespread public disorder in Russia, Russia may abandon the idea and consider the use of WMD to subdue Ukraine.

 

The problem with that plan is that I actually think Russia is getting diminishing returns in its saber rattling towards the West.  Europe and the US are less afraid of Russian conventional forces than they were two months ago, and if your only card is threatening nuclear war, that is actually a fairly weak position (unless your country is under direct threat of invasion, which Russia is not).  Nuclear weapons prevent you from being a weak power, but it does not guarantee that you are a strong one so long as your opponents have them as well. 

If Russia paused their offensives and undertook a massive mobilization campaign then NATO would use that time to flood Ukraine with an absolutely obscene amount of weapons.  While at the same time Russia is running out of modern tanks and missiles and lacks the ability to easily make more.  Unless there is a dramatic political reversal (Le Pen winning would be a start) I don't really see how a Russian summer offensive is going to go any better than the winter and spring offensives did. 

[Werthead]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

There's also the question of how much Ukraine wants to continue fighting to retake places like Kherson, Mariupol, Izyum and Melitopol.   If the spring offensive which just started has modest gains but no breakthroughs, then Russia is going to hold a substantial portion of Ukraine and they are going to want to keep most/all of that territory.  Ukraine has made recent statements about making no territorial concessions at all (including Crimea and the Eastern areas already controlled pre-invasion).  If that is really their position (they could just be posturing), then Russia accepting a VINO is a non-starter.  If Russia agrees to give back Crimea and the Donbas then that's not VINO, that's straight defeat. 

And while I would love to see the Russians utterly vanquished, I just don't see that as very likely.  I hope that if Russia is ready to accept a VINO that Ukraine is ready to end the fighting.  But I freely admit that decision is up to the Ukrainians, not me. 

The Ukrainians will see a declared victory that leaves Russia in control of a huge swathe of new territory (even if limited to Luhansk and Donetsk and the land bridge, which is a lot but not the whole country or "Novorussia") as a springboard and platform that will allow Russia to resume the offensive later on, whether that's six months or six years or whatever. Russia could cut Ukraine to pieces, bit by bit, over several years or even decades. Ergo, Ukraine cannot accept such an outcome. That's not even mentioning that it leaves millions of Ukrainian citizens behind enemy lines to the not-so-tender mercies of the regime, and they've already seen the outcome of that elsewhere.

If Russia was willing to negotiate in good faith after using the invasion as a "demonstration" of their ability and Ukraine was willing to give up Crimea, then some sort of negotiation that sees Russia return to February 23 lines as possible (Russia ever giving back Crimea and the republics within the line of contact is impossible, I agree). However, any chance of that seems gone now. Russia will not settle for just that a neutrality guarantee, and probably never would have done.

Ukraine has said several times it would look at Crimea and even the Donbas republics with the idea of a phased transition of ownership backed by UN-monitored elections, but Russia has never really been keen on that.

Quote

 

The problem with that plan is that I actually think Russia is getting diminishing returns in its saber rattling towards the West.  Europe and the US are less afraid of Russian conventional forces than they were two months ago, and if your only card is threatening nuclear war, that is actually a fairly weak position (unless your country is under direct threat of invasion, which Russia is not).  Nuclear weapons prevent you from being a weak power, but it does not guarantee that you are a strong one so long as your opponents have them as well. 

If Russia paused their offensives and undertook a massive mobilization campaign then NATO would use that time to flood Ukraine with an absolutely obscene amount of weapons.  While at the same time Russia is running out of modern tanks and missiles and lacks the ability to easily make more.  Unless there is a dramatic political reversal (Le Pen winning would be a start) I don't really see how a Russian summer offensive is going to go any better than the winter and spring offensives did. 

 

This is true, but NATO equipment is also being stretched. The US said last week that Ukraine was using the amount of handheld AT and AA weapons in a day that they can produce in a week, and the UK seemed to agree that it could not sustain the supplies needed indefinitely even with their factories working at full capacity.

NATO commanders have noted that this war is recalibrating their estimates of how many weapons they need to have in reserve in case of a prolonged conflict and how much industrial capacity would need to be spun up to maintain a full-time war effort. That's been a sobering revelation.

[Corvinus85]

13 minutes ago, Werthead said:

This is true, but NATO equipment is also being stretched. The US said last week that Ukraine was using the amount of handheld AT and AA weapons in a day that they can produce in a week, and the UK seemed to agree that it could not sustain the supplies needed indefinitely even with their factories working at full capacity.

NATO commanders have noted that this war is recalibrating their estimates of how many weapons they need to have in reserve in case of a prolonged conflict and how much industrial capacity would need to be spun up to maintain a full-time war effort. That's been a sobering revelation.

In terms of military lessons learned from WWII, the amount of expended munitions should be at the forefront.

[broken one]

29 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 US said last week that Ukraine was using the amount of handheld AT and AA weapons in a day that they can produce in a week, and the UK seemed to agree that it could not sustain the supplies needed indefinitely even with their factories working at full capacity.

The west can raise production capacity if it wants (and maybe even take advantage of it), while Russia cannot buy micro chips.

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

The problem with that plan is that I actually think Russia is getting diminishing returns in its saber rattling towards the West.  Europe and the US are less afraid of Russian conventional forces than they were two months ago, and if your only card is threatening nuclear war, that is actually a fairly weak position (unless your country is under direct threat of invasion, which Russia is not).  Nuclear weapons prevent you from being a weak power, but it does not guarantee that you are a strong one so long as your opponents have them as well. 

By saying, "WE HAVE NUKES, YOU KNOW" every week or so, Russia is constantly diminishing the deterrence value of its own nuclear arsenal. They managed to turn nuclear threats into a background noise to be ignored.

That is not a good thing. If they ever actually decide to actually use them, no-one else will take the threat seriously.

[broken one]

2 minutes ago, Gorn said:

 

That is not a good thing. If they ever actually decide to actually use them, no-one else will take the threat seriously.

distorted version of the fairy tale about the boy who cried wolf for fun 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

NATO commanders have noted that this war is recalibrating their estimates of how many weapons they need to have in reserve in case of a prolonged conflict and how much industrial capacity would need to be spun up to maintain a full-time war effort. That's been a sobering revelation.

In an actual NATO conflict there would be other weapons used. Handheld AT and AA would surely be less needed, with the USAF and RAF being involved. If the Ukrainians had that sort air support fighting on the ground would be much easier for them. US stealth bombers and fighter jets dealing with the Russian forces was not an option here, for obvious reasons.