Ukraine 15 - Si vis pacem, para bellum

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I wonder why it never occurred to them, given their emphasis on The Great Patriotic War, that today’s Ukrainians would show the same fighting spirit as their grandparents did.

Probably because they thought that Russia would be greeted in Ukraine as heroes who were liberating their fellow Russians and fake Russians. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

17 hours ago, Werthead said:

On one of the Russian state media shows a couple of days back, a Russian politician said that that the Ukrainian army is "the second-best army in Europe" and is basically "Russian in character." The Russians are having a hard time defeating them because "we are fighting Russian soldiers and officers." There was some of this early on in the war but it quickly evaporated, but now seems to be coming back. 

Well it’s better than saying they can’t beat down drug addicted neo-nazi bumpkins like they often portray Ukrainians as.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The apologia that says its wrong to arm Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion.  The apologia that says we should pressure Ukraine to concede territory it doesn’t want to concede.

You can argue it isn’t apologia but it functions as such because it empowers the Russian Dictator and rewards his agression while Chomsky claims it is “promoting peace”.

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-lets-focus-on-preventing-nuclear-war-rather-than-debating-just-war/?amp

Obviously Putin bad for conquering Ukraine—but isn’t NATO bad too for giving aid to Ukraine?

Both sides bad.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well it’s better than saying they can’t beat down drug addicted neo-nazi bumpkins like they often portray Ukrainians as.

The Russian army is the second best army in Ukraine.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The apologia that says its wrong to arm Ukraine to repel the Russian invasion.  The apologia that says we should pressure Ukraine to concede territory it doesn’t want to concede.

You can argue it isn’t apologia but it functions as such because it empowers the Russian Dictator and rewards his agression while Chomsky claims it is “promoting peace”.

https://truthout.org/articles/chomsky-lets-focus-on-preventing-nuclear-war-rather-than-debating-just-war/?amp

He never says that it's wrong to arm Ukraine, he's talking about how he's worried about the US and NATO escalating this into a longer and larger conflict.  Is it really that controversial to say there [should be] limits on the aid they can receive? 

 

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's very much an outlook that denies agency and sovereignty to Ukrainians.  And, when reading his comments about the assassination of Heydrich, one that transfers blame, from those who commit aggression, to those who resist it.

I agree the stuff about Heydrich is a stupid abalogy and a terrible example of trying to mitigate conflict.  I am not so sure calling for limits on military aid is denying Ukraine agency though.  If they ask for a no fly zone, are they being denied agency?

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lake said:

he's talking about how he's worried about the US and NATO escalating this into a longer and larger conflict. 

By? What has the US and NATO done to make that a legitimate worry?

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Russian army is the second best army in Ukraine.

With the way the war’s progressing and how Russia’s economy is crumbling this may no longer be meme.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's very much an outlook that denies agency and sovereignty to Ukrainians.  And, when reading his comments about the assassination of Heydrich, one that transfers blame, from those who commit aggression, to those who resist it.

It always reminds me of people who blame women for making abusers mad.

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

He never says that it's wrong to arm Ukraine, he's talking about how he's worried about the US and NATO escalating this into a longer and larger conflict.  Is it really that controversial to say there [should be] limits on the aid they can receive?

It's controversial to say that arming the Ukrainians escalates this into a longer and larger conflict. Because if you stop and think about that, what is the alternative? That the conflict would be shorter and smaller if the Ukrainians were not equipped well enough to stop the Russians, i.e. if the West would just let the Russians win. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's controversial to say that arming the Ukrainians escalates this into a longer and larger conflict. Because if you stop and think about that, what is the alternative? That the conflict would be shorter and smaller if the Ukrainians were not equipped well enough to stop the Russians, i.e. if the West would just let the Russians win. 

Precisely.

It equates to apologia for the Russian invasion because Chomsky says, at the end of the day, we shouldn’t provoke the Russians by giving Ukraine the means to fight back against the Russian invasion.  He calls giving Ukraine that ability “risking World War III”.

[broken one]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

He never says that it's wrong to arm Ukraine, he's talking about how he's worried about the US and NATO escalating this into a longer and larger conflict.  Is it really that controversial to say there [should be] limits on the aid they can receive?

Yes it is. The problem will not disappear with Ukraine's loss and/or territorial concessions. Let them lose and we just postpone what's unavoidable. Do we want Russia to have several dozen millions of indoctrinated zombies more? Minus, of course, those who will be exterminated as polticaly incorrect. The later we cope with this, the more victims and destruction it will take. 

I have absolutely no problem to believe in informations on what Russians do to Ukrainians. Mass rapes, mass graves, "filtration". To me it is enough not to stop. I live 30km from border with Belarus, just on the traditional route Russian armies enter Poland since XVIII century. Cannot stop thinking the place I live could be Bucha.

I do not get it. "Hitler bad, never again", but now we should not escalate? It is the same shit.

[DMC]

Well it appears 93 year old Chomsky has finally found a friend in 98 year old Kissinger.  Henry Kissinger: Ukraine Should Give Up Territory to Russia to Reach Peace:

Quote

Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger has said Ukraine should accept giving up part of its territory to reach a peace deal with Russia, and end the now three-month-long war immediately.

Talking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, on Monday, 98-year-old Kissinger said that failing to restart negotiations with Russia and continuing to antagonize Moscow could have disastrous consequences for Europe's stability in the long term.

 

[Winterfell is Burning]

For Kissinger, mass murder and rape and complete submission to the big powers by less powerful ones is just "the way things are". No man has done more to make the US hated worldwide, perhaps not even Bush and his Iraq invasion gang.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

If you have lost faith in what the Public Intellectuals are saying about the Russian-Ukraine War, I give you Slavoj Žižek: 

"We must stop letting Russia define the terms of the Ukraine crisis"

Quote

A question like ‘Did US intelligence-sharing with Ukraine cross a line?’ forgets the fact that it was Russia that crossed the line – by invading Ukraine

 

[Werthead]

The tank situation is appalling, although some observers pointed out in that thread that Russia probably still as at least a few hundred T-90s, 80s and 72s left, but they're held in reserve for operations elsewhere. Bringing in T-62s is something of a sign of desperation (they're literally 60 years old, and unlike the T-72 were not in service for so long as to undergo thorough modernisation and upgrades to make them at least quasi-applicable on a modern battlefield), as modern AT weapons will go through them like toilet paper. But then modern AT guns are taking out T-90Ms like they're made of toilet paper anyway, so maybe they've worked out it doesn't really matter.

The T-62 is also primitive enough that Russia might be able to better maintain, repair and service them with their existing spare parts, whilst they're simply going to run out of the electronics needed to keep T-90s going.

A huge problem is that the T-62 does not have an autoloader, so you need at least one extra crewman per tank, which is not going to help the manpower situation.

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

I wonder why it never occurred to them, given their emphasis on The Great Patriotic War, that today’s Ukrainians would show the same fighting spirit as their grandparents did.

One of the most interesting things about the Russian view of the war is how they 100% conflate Russia and the Soviet Union. During the German invasion, the Soviet Union lost significant amounts of territory, but relatively little of it was Russia itself: the encirclement of St. Petersburg in the north and then when the German armies advanced out of Belarus towards Moscow in late 1941. Then in the spring of 1942, the German armies advanced out of Ukraine to Stalingrad and were then beaten back over the course of 1943.

Belarus and Ukraine were almost completely overrun, and recently-conquered territories like eastern Poland and the Baltic States, but Russia lost a relatively small amount of its territory in the west. And an enormous amount of the casualties sustained by the Red Army were Belarusian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, etc. That's not to say that the Russians themselves did not sustain huge losses and suffered under Nazi war crimes, but other parts of the Soviet Union suffered as well. It is interesting how often that is forgotten, even by those who should really know better.

[James Arryn]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The tank situation is appalling, although some observers pointed out in that thread that Russia probably still as at least a few hundred T-90s, 80s and 72s left, but they're held in reserve for operations elsewhere. Bringing in T-62s is something of a sign of desperation (they're literally 60 years old, and unlike the T-72 were not in service for so long as to undergo thorough modernisation and upgrades to make them at least quasi-applicable on a modern battlefield), as modern AT weapons will go through them like toilet paper. But then modern AT guns are taking out T-90Ms like they're made of toilet paper anyway, so maybe they've worked out it doesn't really matter.

The T-62 is also primitive enough that Russia might be able to better maintain, repair and service them with their existing spare parts, whilst they're simply going to run out of the electronics needed to keep T-90s going.

A huge problem is that the T-62 does not have an autoloader, so you need at least one extra crewman per tank, which is not going to help the manpower situation.

One of the most interesting things about the Russian view of the war is how they 100% conflate Russia and the Soviet Union. During the German invasion, the Soviet Union lost significant amounts of territory, but relatively little of it was Russia itself: the encirclement of St. Petersburg in the north and then when the German armies advanced out of Belarus towards Moscow in late 1941. Then in the spring of 1942, the German armies advanced out of Ukraine to Stalingrad and were then beaten back over the course of 1943.

Belarus and Ukraine were almost completely overrun, and recently-conquered territories like eastern Poland and the Baltic States, but Russia lost a relatively small amount of its territory in the west. And an enormous amount of the casualties sustained by the Red Army were Belarusian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, etc. That's not to say that the Russians themselves did not sustain huge losses and suffered under Nazi war crimes, but other parts of the Soviet Union suffered as well. It is interesting how often that is forgotten, even by those who should really know better.

I think it’s pretty much understood that the Russian military mentality is one of the invaded, with lots of historical precedent, and their solution has always been to absorb/ create as many buffer states to give them time and space in the event of further invasions. And like virtually every nation whose outlook is primarily about military force, this allows for a society which fosters aggression and countless military adventurism if they are perceived to make the homeland safer. Rome conquered the works in self-defense, etc. 

So until they are required as buffers those neighbours will be semi-valued and integrated and w/e, but won’t fulfill their primary objective unless they either serve as buffers during an invasion or make Russia large enough that no one tries. 

[Werthead]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

I think it’s pretty much understood that the Russian military mentality is one of the invaded, with lots of historical precedent, and their solution has always been to absorb/ create as many buffer states to give them time and space in the event of further invasions. And like virtually every nation whose outlook is primarily about military force, this allows for a society which fosters aggression and countless military adventurism if they are perceived to make the homeland safer. Rome conquered the works in self-defense, etc. 

So until they are required as buffers those neighbours will be semi-valued and integrated and w/e, but won’t fulfill their primary objective unless they either serve as buffers during an invasion or make Russia large enough that no one tries. 

I think this is a fine historical argument but makes no sense in the context of a modern conflict. Any country that invades Russia itself is risking nuclear war, and even in a conventional-only conflict Russia would have overwhelming air superiority with huge air defences making it difficult for any enemy to gain air superiority (most foreign powers note that even their best stealth aircraft are going to be running unfavourable odds against modern Russian radars and upgraded S400s).

The idea of Russia needing territory in depth was sound, up to a point, in 1939, but makes little sense in 2022. Russia can simply obliterate whomever is trying to invade them.

[James Arryn]

Just now, Werthead said:

I think this is a fine historical argument but makes no sense in the context of a modern conflict. Any country that invades Russia itself is risking nuclear war, and even in a conventional-only conflict Russia would have overwhelming air superiority with huge air defences making it difficult for any enemy to gain air superiority (most foreign powers note that even their best stealth aircraft are going to be running unfavourable odds against modern Russian radars and upgraded S400s).

The idea of Russia needing territory in depth was sound, up to a point, in 1939, but makes little sense in 2022. Russia can simply obliterate whomever is trying to invade them.

We’re talking mentality, not reason. The U.S. spends more on their military than the next 7 nations combined but with the US being another war culture, we know they will continue to push to expand the military rather than fund reasonable things like healthcare. How do we know this if it’s unreasonable? Because it’s their mentality. 

[Maithanet]

26 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The tank situation is appalling, although some observers pointed out in that thread that Russia probably still as at least a few hundred T-90s, 80s and 72s left, but they're held in reserve for operations elsewhere. Bringing in T-62s is something of a sign of desperation (they're literally 60 years old, and unlike the T-72 were not in service for so long as to undergo thorough modernisation and upgrades to make them at least quasi-applicable on a modern battlefield), as modern AT weapons will go through them like toilet paper. But then modern AT guns are taking out T-90Ms like they're made of toilet paper anyway, so maybe they've worked out it doesn't really matter.

The T-62 is also primitive enough that Russia might be able to better maintain, repair and service them with their existing spare parts, whilst they're simply going to run out of the electronics needed to keep T-90s going.

A huge problem is that the T-62 does not have an autoloader, so you need at least one extra crewman per tank, which is not going to help the manpower situation.

The theory is that Russia has some modern tanks left, but are wary of stripping away all of their tanks from border regions.  I can understand the concern about defending Russian territory with 50+ year old tanks.  So the plan is to use these T-62s for rear/guard duty in Ukraine to free up modern tanks for the front.  But if the occupation faces more organized resistance, then there will be plenty of Javelins smuggled into those areas, and those T-62s will just be deathtraps. 
 

Quote

 

One of the most interesting things about the Russian view of the war is how they 100% conflate Russia and the Soviet Union. During the German invasion, the Soviet Union lost significant amounts of territory, but relatively little of it was Russia itself: the encirclement of St. Petersburg in the north and then when the German armies advanced out of Belarus towards Moscow in late 1941. Then in the spring of 1942, the German armies advanced out of Ukraine to Stalingrad and were then beaten back over the course of 1943.

Belarus and Ukraine were almost completely overrun, and recently-conquered territories like eastern Poland and the Baltic States, but Russia lost a relatively small amount of its territory in the west. And an enormous amount of the casualties sustained by the Red Army were Belarusian, Ukrainian, Kazakh, etc. That's not to say that the Russians themselves did not sustain huge losses and suffered under Nazi war crimes, but other parts of the Soviet Union suffered as well. It is interesting how often that is forgotten, even by those who should really know better.

 

Well to the Russians, there is no difference between Soviet and Russian accomplishments.  Russia is the heir to all Soviet greatness.  The fact that the Ukrainians and Belarusians also fought bravely against the Nazis is just proof that they are in fact, true Russians. 

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

By? What has the US and NATO done to make that a legitimate worry?

Provided at least 64,5 billion euros to Ukraine (one of the latest numbers I've seen, from the German Kiel Institute).
I think many people will not perceive the magnitude of this number.

4 or 5 billion was concerning enough. With tens of billions? That's no longer a defensive war, but war, period. All the rhetoric about who's bad and who isn't goes to the bin. It doesn't exactly matter that the Ukrainians are willing participants, or that the Russians started it: the West is now waging a full-blown proxy war with Russia, that's now fact for the history books.
It's time to wake up to this reality and try understanding what it means.

It's no accident if people who have spent their whole life studying international politics (albeit on different "sides") are equally worried. They understand that such wars can be difficult to stop, and providing that much weaponry to Ukrainians is so irresponsible it borders on lunacy.
The US never learns, but Europe at least should now stop providing weapons.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

It's controversial to say that arming the Ukrainians escalates this into a longer and larger conflict. Because if you stop and think about that, what is the alternative? That the conflict would be shorter and smaller if the Ukrainians were not equipped well enough to stop the Russians, i.e. if the West would just let the Russians win. 

Nah. Whatever metric you use for a military invasion, Russia lost a few months ago. Now this is about the West winning - on its own terms too.

I don't know about the UK, but the over-use of moral language in the US has led Americans to seek a Ukrainian victory. It seems quite clear that Western (and, as a consequence, Ukrainian) objectives have changed, going from merely repelling the Russian invasion to keeping the entire Donbas and even re-conquering Crimea.
I don't think this kind of rhetoric really became dominant here in France. The media basically sought to respect the government's positions (which was all about negotiating), thus making the coverage of the conflict more nuanced. And there's been experts on minor media outlets that even present a far more nuanced picture.

Even if this is all a tactic to scare Putin and push him toward a cease-fire, it's still insane. And if it's anything else, it's basically starting a conflict that may prove existential for both sides. Which is why people who are experts in foreign policy are so worried: anyone who's spent years studying international politics knows for a fact that you do not want two belligerents to both see a conflict as existential.
It doesn't matter if it's "moral" to threaten Russia as it threatened Ukraine. It doesn't matter if it's "moral" for Russia to lose its military capabilities. The fact remains that you're creating a conflict with no foreseeable end, with the potential to either last indefinitely, or escalate.
No one in their right mind is supposed to want this.

I think the odds of Russia using nuclear weapons are now fairly high and rising. The question on my mind is now: what will happen next? What happens after the logic of the current events is taken to its logical conclusion? I have no clue.