Ukraine 21: On the Attack with a Giant Phallic Spear

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I suspect this is Lukashenko again trying to appease Putin whilst appearing tough but not actually going into open conflict with Ukraine. That would be moronically stupid. Ukraine has had fairly strong forces along the Belarusian border for the entire war and kept them unengaged, so they are relatively fresh. Belarusian morale and appetite for war is completely nonexistent, senior Belarusian generals have indicated they would not support open conflict with Ukraine, and a third country getting involved would open the doorway for fourth and fifth countries etc. The chances of Lukashenko being toppled would exponentially increase if he ordered troops into Ukraine.

Sadly, moronic stupidity and international politics have been hand-in-hand companions as of late. 

[Werthead]

I can see Putin hitting on this idea of invading Ukraine via Belarus down the western border to try to cut off the border with Poland, which would massively inhibit supplies of weapons and armaments. It's the sort of thing that might work in a video game or on a board game, but in real life would be unsustainable and would likely fail miserably, and the risk of something going wrong and armaments landing on Poland would be high, and Poland might be very happy to retaliate against Belarus (rather than Russia).

[3CityApache]

18 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The chances of Lukashenko being toppled would exponentially increase if he ordered troops into Ukraine.

There were also rumors Lukashenko has been lately explicitly threatened by Russians he can be removed or even eliminated if he doesn't comply with their demands, so he may be simply weighing his chances here.

[Werthead]

Just now, 3CityApache said:

There were also rumors Lukashenko has been lately explicitly threatened by Russians he can be removed or even eliminated if he doesn't comply with their demands, so he may be simply weighing his chances here.

True, but Russia needs Belarus as a bulwark to the west and Lukashenko is very experienced and very good at tapdancing his way through Russian demands (he comes across as a bumbling idiot, but bumbling idiots don't stay in charge of a country for 30 years).

He has in the past floated the idea of a Belarus-Russian union with the head of Belarus being in line for the premiership of Russia, so I wonder if Putin has agreed to entertain that idea (Lukashenko is only two years younger than Putin but does at least look in better health).

[kiko]

Anyway. The dastardly Ukrainians have destroyed all the bridges to Belarus. What can a dictator do?

[Wade1865]

This morning's attack is a consequence of hitting Vladimir's bridge -- obviously; though I wonder if Volodymyr expected such a heavy response. And the strikes against those bridges along Belarus's borders is in anticipation of a resumption of hostilities from that direction (subject to ongoing mobilization, training, and deployment), sometime after winter.

While the Belarusians provide non-combat support and safe haven, the Russians will attack, but more so threaten to attack, from the north. Additionally, Vladimir will continue to posture his nuclear threat, which is rattling not only Ukraine but also the US. Under these conditions, the intent is to dislodge or weaken Ukrainian combat power in the newly annexed southern provinces, allowing Russia to entrench and maybe even retake territory.

***

Events occuring in other areas (NK's saber rattling; the PRC's ongoing intentions toward Chaiwan; the energy crisis, now worsened by OPEC+; and the inevitable expansion of the BRICS economic bloc and consequent move towards regionalization, which will further degrade US global dominance) will compel Uncle Joe to compel Volodymry to accept a de facto peace regardless of how significant the loss of territory and resources is.

[Werthead]

This attack was visually impressive (in the sense of getting eyes on the news, not it being a good thing) but militarily not really significant. Russia fired 85 missiles in the initial wave, almost 50% of them were shot down and the rest hit militarily worthless targets across the country. The death toll is currently around a dozen, all civilians from the sound of it, but that could rise.

In opposition to that, we're hearing of several thousand Russian soldiers killed and thousands more injured or captured in the last few weeks in the offensives around Kherson and Lyman alone, along with dozens of tanks destroyed and several of Russia's most advanced aircraft.

These attacks have a strong PR purpose to make people feel fear and hopeless about the situation, but when you step back and view the big picture, they're not really going to change anything. The Russians remain on the defensive and continue to lose ground, at least for now.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

Intimidating the West through terror bombings and nuclear threats indeed seems to be the strategy now for Russia. Weakening the resolve of the West so they stop providing guns to Ukraine and start applying political pressure to get them to accept a deal instead.

I very much hope, and think, that it’s too late for that though. Germany are building several new LNG terminals to be able to receive large container ships of fossil gas from the US, Nigeria and other places. Norway are already supplying as much as they can. Europe is ridding themselves of the dependence on Russian gas at a record pace. The US never had it in the first place. The nuclear threat, while worrisome, will probably not work either. Most world leaders realise the risk of allowing nuclear blackmail to pay off. 

All we have to do is keep supplying Ukraine with all we got and hope they continue to win.

[Padraig]

56 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Events occuring in other areas (NK's saber rattling; the PRC's ongoing intentions toward Chaiwan; the energy crisis, now worsened by OPEC+; and the inevitable expansion of the BRICS economic bloc and consequent move towards regionalization, which will further degrade US global dominance) will compel Uncle Joe to compel Volodymry to accept a de facto peace regardless of how significant the loss of territory and resources is.

Really?  I would have thought that the US abandoning Ukraine would just encourage China, North Korea etc.  It would show that the US is toothless.

At least it doesn't sound like Belarus are putting boots on ground.  This is just sound and confusion.  While Russia has been bombing civilian targets since Feb.  Just more tragedy today.

[Wade1865]

9 minutes ago, Padraig said:

Really?  I would have thought that the US abandoning Ukraine would just encourage China, North Korea etc.  It would show that the US is toothless.

At least it doesn't sound like Belarus are putting boots on ground.  This is just sound and confusion.  While Russia has been bombing civilian targets since Feb.  Just more tragedy today.

Padraig -- not abandon, but stabilize the region under a condition of "peace", and subsequent militarization (e.g., NK vs SK; PRC vs ROC; Israel vs the Ummah; et al). The sooner, the better; before NK and the PRC miscalculate and go too far.

Although it would seem to grant Russia a degree of victory as a surviving competitor to the US, in reality it would effectively and indefinitely marginalize Russia, compelling it to focus only on a portion of Ukraine while ceasing all other imperial ambitions. More importantly, of course, the US will get additional benefits like military sales, weapons platform testing / experience under conventional war conditions, maintaining European dependence, and so on.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

This morning's attack is a consequence of hitting Vladimir's bridge -- obviously; though I wonder if Volodymyr expected such a heavy response. And the strikes against those bridges along Belarus's borders is in anticipation of a resumption of hostilities from that direction (subject to ongoing mobilization, training, and deployment), sometime after winter.

While the Belarusians provide non-combat support and safe haven, the Russians will attack, but more so threaten to attack, from the north. Additionally, Vladimir will continue to posture his nuclear threat, which is rattling not only Ukraine but also the US. Under these conditions, the intent is to dislodge or weaken Ukrainian combat power in the newly annexed southern provinces, allowing Russia to entrench and maybe even retake territory.

***

Events occuring in other areas (NK's saber rattling; the PRC's ongoing intentions toward Chaiwan; the energy crisis, now worsened by OPEC+; and the inevitable expansion of the BRICS economic bloc and consequent move towards regionalization, which will further degrade US global dominance) will compel Uncle Joe to compel Volodymry to accept a de facto peace regardless of how significant the loss of territory and resources is.

North Korea is about as dangerous, internationally, as an angry toad.  In general, it is less developed countries that are suffering most from high energy costs, not the US.

[Werthead]

The international geopolitical situation, large-scale, has not really been great for Russia. It has failed to live up to its CSTO obligations to both Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, and the former has been hugely critical of Russia and said it no longer believes the CSTO is worth the paper it's written on. Kazakhstan has criticised the invasion and has moved closer into China's orbit as a result, and Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan seem to be leaning that way as well.

Countries it was previously friendly or friendly-neutral towards Russia have taken advantage of its weakness to improve their own standings, particularly Turkey and Azerbaijan. India and China have both been happy to benefit from cheap Russian energy, but both regard the situation as destabilising. Having both been neutral towards the conflict early on, both have moved to criticising the conflict, and India has gone much further by blaming Russia for starting the conflict and urging Putin, personally, to withdraw. China has urged de-escalation and has refused to recognise the breakaway republics and the annexations.

Saudi Arabia has cosied up with Russia a bit, but Saudi Arabia has to realise that abandoning its long-standing alliance with the United States and the west in general would be foolish. It would lose the huge military support for its operations in Yemen, without which it cannot sustain the conflict. Russia is in no position to step into the breach at the moment. China might, but long-term Saudi has to realise that they would risk becoming an outpost for Chinese ambitions in the Middle East, instead of the regional hegemon they clearly wish to become. Saudi Arabia also has to recognise that if the Iranian situation does turn into a full-blown revolution and a more western-friendly government comes to power (not a given), Saudi being an ally of the west becomes useful in that case. A future Saudi-Iranian coalition, with even Israel as a possible partner, would be a very formidable bloc in the region, and a useful counterweight to the EU, Russia and India. I think Saudi Arabia's current friendliness towards Russia is opportunistic and is a rebuke to the Americans for what they see as interference, but probably not a major, long-term geopolitical shift.

Counties in Africa are, to a very large part, angry with the invasion because of the strains it puts on their food supply. Ghana has even said that every person killed in Ukraine directly might be matched by an African just as much killed by Russians due to lost food supplies.

[Wade1865]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

North Korea is about as dangerous, internationally, as an angry toad.  In general, it is less developed countries that are suffering most from high energy costs, not the US.

SeanF -- no; regionally NK is a dangerous military threat and capable of causing overwhelming numbers of casualties, which SK and Japan take seriously, along with the US given Her continuing military presence in northeast Asia. Moreover, it would be foolish to forget the Korean War and how it turned out. Ultimately, disregarding NK as a soft, bloated amphibian would be equivalent to Russia miscalculating Ukrainian will and capacity.

On energy, you're looking at the situation myopically, as if US consumers at the gas pump are the only consideration of the USG. Remember, the EU / NATO, core US allies, is not a set of developing countries but are in fact developed, and will suffer substantially (directly / indirectly). Until alternative energy sources are solidified, I'd expect them to suffer through the winter of 2023/24. That said, the effects of the energy crisis (especially given the recent OPEC+ maneuvers, which deepened ties amongst the BRICS, including Russia!) on our allies is of primary importance to the US-dominated world order.

[Kalbear]

I hear people saying that countries have to recognize the futility or stupidity of action x and therefore won't do it.

I'rll point out that those countries are not being run by game theorists, they're being run by people, and people do stupid shit based on emotions all the time.

Example: dissolving khasoggi in acid was bound to piss off the west and make us Saudi relations worse. They had to know that it wasn't a good move. And yet they did it anyway because they really wanted to.

[Gorn]

I mean, if you can't dissolve your opponents in acid on a whim, then what's the point of being an absolute monarch anyway? Takes all the fun out of it.

[Gorn]

Now seriously, having the power to do whatever they feel like doing in a given moment to whomever they want is pretty much the main personal motivator for people like Putin and MbS.

[Wade1865]

5 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Example: dissolving khasoggi in acid was bound to piss off the west and make us Saudi relations worse. They had to know that it wasn't a good move. And yet they did it anyway because they really wanted to.

KalVsWade -- hahaha, MBS doesn't give a shit, and he'll survive any US reaction given the KSA's energy dominance and leadership role. Not only did MBS ensure the killing of the journalist, he also ignored Uncle Joe's increasingly desperate phone calls; disrespected him when he visited SA, hat in hand; and coordinated the reduction of 2 million barrels of oil a day, providing Vladimir needed (indirect) financial support. In other words, MBS pimp-slapped Uncle Joe several times, and got away with it.

If anyone in that relationship made an error, it was Uncle Joe; MBS achieved a very calculated and surprisingly successful political victory, securing his esteemed position permanently. Not only will MBS outlive Uncle Joe's administration, he will never genuinely suffer for it. When the next President assumes leadership of the US, MBS will pivot, and the US will show gratitude.

[Werthead]

It would be interesting if the USA and UK pulled all their technical advisors, military "advisors" (who, in reality, are basically conducting the air war on a day-to-day basis) and engineers for the Yemen War out of Saudi Arabia. The general consensus seems to be that Saudi would not be able to prosecute the conflict any more. Of course, that's unlikely to happen due to realpolitik, and the Saudis know that.

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

It would be interesting if the USA and UK pulled all their technical advisors, military "advisors" (who, in reality, are basically conducting the air war on a day-to-day basis) and engineers for the Yemen War out of Saudi Arabia. The general consensus seems to be that Saudi would not be able to prosecute the conflict any more. Of course, that's unlikely to happen due to realpolitik, and the Saudis know that.

Those of us with a more romantic view of world events and American foreign presence would shed no tears about a withdrawal from the Saudi regime.

Send those US military assets to Ukraine where they can work for good, not for evil.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

It would be interesting if the USA and UK pulled all their technical advisors, military "advisors" (who, in reality, are basically conducting the air war on a day-to-day basis) and engineers for the Yemen War out of Saudi Arabia. The general consensus seems to be that Saudi would not be able to prosecute the conflict any more. Of course, that's unlikely to happen due to realpolitik, and the Saudis know that.

Interesting, but as you say 'unlikely', which is to say it's not gonna happen at all. SA fighting Iran proxies in Yemen is in the US and Western interest in general. This, btw, would be a FAR better use of the Chomsky rallying against the US interest argument - the civil war is largely going on because of US support for SA, there's no clear moral superior here, it's an internal conflict and the war itself is costing thousands of lives simply because of famine alone. Why not get pissed off about that? Weird.

1 hour ago, Wade1865 said:

KalVsWade -- hahaha, MBS doesn't give a shit, and he'll survive any US reaction given the KSA's energy dominance and leadership role. Not only did MBS ensure the killing of the journalist, he also ignored Uncle Joe's increasingly desperate phone calls; disrespected him when he visited SA, hat in hand; and coordinated the reduction of 2 million barrels of oil a day, providing Vladimir needed (indirect) financial support. In other words, MBS pimp-slapped Uncle Joe several times, and got away with it.

If anyone in that relationship made an error, it was Uncle Joe; MBS achieved a very calculated and surprisingly successful political victory, securing his esteemed position permanently. Not only will MBS outlive Uncle Joe's administration, he will never genuinely suffer for it. When the next President assumes leadership of the US, MBS will pivot, and the US will show gratitude.

I think this might be true in the short term, especially if Trump comes back. I think that it's not true even in the medium term and is a highly risky thing to do. Republicans are not particularly positive as a whole on SA and haven't been for a while. Trump, of course, is super positive about them because money, but a lot of other Republicans could easily be turned against them - and Trump would also turn against them quickly if it suited him at all or if he felt that the crowd liked it. 

And relying on Trump as the thing that's going to get you something - even for 4 years - is not a great strategy. 

But beyond that I think that SA is in a bind and going into non-Western orbits this early may be very costly. While it's not going as fast as I'd like the reliance of SA and OPEC energy is going to drop, and that oil isn't going to be as useful; SA has to transition to a non-resource economy or risk being just a random desert. And if they want to go into Chinese orbit they're going to have to wean themselves off of Western things pretty fast. 

Also in the short term I think you'll actually see a response from Biden and democrats about SA. There's a lot of noise about it right now, and we're in the 'don't fuck with the Biden' mode.