You're the one that contradicted my point that these votes are significant (to the war), saying that's nonsense. — boethius

???

Now your outraged by the idea it doesn't matter if the elections are fraudulent or not. So, seems pretty significant events to you after all. — boethius

A sham referendum is a sham referendum. It's basically propaganda.

The significance in terms of these votes, whatever you think of them, is that it is the step to formal annexation of these territories by Russia, and, again, regardless of whether other countries recognise that or not, it will become Russian territory for Russia. — boethius

Oh boy.

Just stop and think what you are saying @boethius: "it is the step to formal annexation of these territories by Russia, and, again, regardless of whether other countries recognise that or not, it will become Russian territory for Russia."
This is all pure 100% Russian propaganda.

Sovereignty over any territory isn't called by the one who declares it, it is given by other sovereign states. So you saying "regardless of whether other countries recognize that or not" doesn't make sense.

Nonsense?

Obviously these votes will basically exclude the possibility of any negotiated settlement with Ukraine. — boethius

That's the attempt... a desperate attempt to regain justification for the annexation of Ukrainian territory and make them part of Holy Mother Russia. The elections are nonsense, a fraud, sham referendums.

Doesn't matter if you think the votes are legitimate, or fraudulent, or whatever; it's the most significant thing happening today and, presumably if the votes conclude as basically everyone expects, results in a dramatic shift in Russian policy. — boethius

Lol.

Oh really, it doesn't matter if the elections are fraudulent or not to you? Right. :rofl:

Fraudulent elections that are a scam arent in any way important. Only shows that Russia uses similar tactics as Stalin''s Soviet Union did.

Just to think of it, holding elections in a territory that is a battlefield, and not basically defined in any way just what territory and what people are part is taking the referendum. It's absolutely crazy, but if you want to make these attempts from Putin to be somehow credible, then attempt to do it, I don't care.

We already knew this from the gaffe that the Russian intelligence director made as he confused the acknowledgement of the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics to them joining Russia. (Which Putin was mad about)

Of course, the most significant thing happening today is the referendum votes to join Russia. — boethius

Which, of course, is absolute nonsense and should be remarked as it.

I've heard that the voting will be done "online". So no reason even to stage people for this theater. The Crimean elections, and then there was genuine support for the annexation, had to be orchestrated as likely free and fair voting wouldn't have got the results needed (even if there was a substantial amount of yes-votes).

Let's hear Putin himself:

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.

“The epidemic of collapse has spilled over to Russia itself,” he said, referring to separatist movements such as those in Chechnya.

There is no contradiction, if you read the above. It's not a wavering opportunist speaking, this comment from 2005 (I think) shows clearly the way how Putin has thought all his reign.

we're not talking about Putin, we're talking about "Russian identity". I'm resisting that idiotic sweeping generalisation. — Benkei

Then add to it "Russian national identity", if it's so puzzling to you what I'm talking about.

Because we aren't talking about Russian cuisine, which I love btw, which also has a part in the Russian Identity.

we're not talking about Putin, we're talking about "Russian identity". I'm resisting that idiotic sweeping generalisation. — Benkei

Well, do notice that I have emphasized, many times now, that I am talking about the identity that official Russia has, and what Putin and his followers cherish. It is an imperial identity, if you think of it for a moment. Fortress Russia. A Zapadnik might hold other views, but Zapadniks are not in power in Russia.

The Kremlin conducted a campaign against radical nationalists in the 2010s, and as a result, many of them are currently imprisoned - However, the Kremlin scaled nationalism down out of fears that prominent figures such as Igor Girkin began to act independently, following a brief period of stirring activism that resulted in Russian men volunteering to fight in Donbas in 2014 and 2015, according to Lipman. In Lipman's view, the Kremlin's aim is to prevent emotions that "might get out of control and motivate people to act independently — Wiki

Yes, Putin is a politician. I assume that Ernst Röhm was a devoted Nazi and totally in line with the ideology of the party, yet for 'some reason' Hitler killed him.

Nationalism, or basically jingoism, works for Putin. Yet if the Soviet Union would be still around, I guess KGB officer Vladimir Putin would be devoted still to that cause. Again, there's no contradiction.

I'm not the one making sweeping claims about Russian identity based on a few speeches by Putin or even the existence of nationalism in a country. It's pretty clear Putin has been using nationalist sentiments as a political tool. First he cracks down on it, then he employs it, then he puts the breaks on it because others are getting to popular. And if some support is enough to support claims of the existence of Russian identity as you're doing now then equally showing there's some lack of support proves the opposite. — Benkei

By "cracking down on it" you mean restarting the war against the Chechens? That is totally in line with the imperialist cause. Putin obviously tolerates minorities, as long they don't want to separate from the Empire. That is natural for an Empire.

And making "sweeping claims" "based on a few speeches"?

How about actions and implemented policy, Benkei?

Starting from the annexation of Crimea.

It isn't just rhetoric. I think moves like that (annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war) put the counterarguments to the "sweeping claims" category.

It contradicts the facts and still you maintain it by equivocating the acquiescence to existing power by a population that has barely any agency, with support.

Jesus. — Benkei

Jesus yourself, Benkei!

How many Belarussians love their leader? Not a lot, but he is still in power. Are there Turks that don't like Erdogan? Sure, but he is in power also. Must there be someone that is OK with their leaders in both countries? Naturally.

There is absolutely no contradiction in that official Russia is, and Putin and his followers are imperialistic and that in the same time there are Russian who are against the war in Ukraine and who don't want to participate in that war.

I don't understand how you can see a contradiction there. I've met enough Russians who aren't for Putin to know that.

Germany being Germany, which is nice.

Germany is ready to take in Russian deserters, ministers signalled Thursday, amid reports of people fleeing the partial mobilization ordered by President Vladimir Putin.

"Deserters threatened with serious repression can as a rule obtain international protection in Germany," Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said, according to excerpts from an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper.

"Anyone who courageously opposes Putin's regime and thereby falls into great danger, can file for asylum on grounds of political persecution," she said.

Separately, Justice Minister Marco Buschmann tweeted using the hashtag "partial mobilization" that "apparently, many Russians are leaving their homeland -- anyone who hates Putin's path and loves liberal democracy is welcome in Germany".

The Russian identity is imperialistic. The official one and that upheld by Putin and his followers.

And as we know, not all Russians support this. Haven't for a time as many have fled to places like Georgia even before this mobilization. That the Russian National Guard has more troops than the Russian Army ground forces tells you something just what Putin is afraid of. (National Guard is for domestic safety, previously been Ministry of Interior troops)



Still, the fact is that enough do support Putin. Even if that might be changing.

Every nation has it's ardent "Trump supporters". If there is a Trump around and in power.

So why are posters here wanting to deny it? — apokrisis

It's far too annoying for many that sometimes the US President and elite can utter something that is totally right and justified. As if that makes somehow the criticism about other issues less valuable.

Just look at what people said on this thread before February 24th. The time when the US was saying that Russia was going to attack Ukraine starting from page 2. Just to take it in the most obvious and clearly stated comment:

The ultimate bad actor in this whole situation is the US, and anyone who looks at Russia being an active 'bad guy' with Western powers merely 'reacting' to Russian agression has no fucking idea what they are talking about. — Streetlight

For some, everything bad comes from the US and only this should be said. Period.

Hence talking about Russia, the idea of Russia or what Putin thinks about Russia is meaningless.

I just don't see much justification for reaching for this "physics says that's impossible" line. — Srap Tasmaner

It doesn't make it a non-physical event. I am of the opinion that if something cannot be explained by physics, it's likely that our understand isn't yet correct or we simple are asking wrong questions.

But especially in what we consider a "paranormal event", let's say for example a near death experience where somebody has been (obviously wrongfully) declared dead and then wakes up and tells about the experience, it's hard to refute the feelings of that person. The discussion is basically sidetracked. Or if you are seriously ill and the doctors don't give you much chance to live, and then you are visited by a "healer" (why not, if modern medicine doesn't do the trick) and then, what do you know, you get better. If the "healers" bizarre medicine worked on you (and hasn't worked on many others), why wouldn't you think it still works sometime?

Perhaps we the topic isn't so loaded if we would think about issues that are called to be miracles.

While it is almost a given that the majority of such instance where merely tricks and/or something other than psychic abilities/paranormal, I believe it is at least plausible a very small fraction of them could be real. — dclements

I think there can be, even if very rare, occasions and events that seem to be as some paranormal event happened or someone had psychic abilities. With people really believing it and not being some charlatans. Religious people would talk about miracles. These events have extremely low probability of happening, yet they happen. Somebody feeling that a loved one is in danger and does something to help the person and the person actually has been peril and the actions help that person. Or something like that. Totally possible.

The simple example that we can understand is winning in the lottery. Getting a multi-million win in a lottery is extremely improbable, yet enough play these games that someone wins it. Hence when we understand probability theory there's nothing astonishing in that one or two players get the big bucks as so many play. It would be for us something out of the normal if we would have only 5 people playing a lottery (like here getting 7 numbers right out of the numbers between 1 and 40, which has a probability of 1 to 15 million or something close to that) and one or two of them got the full jackpot. The probability would be so low that any Rand experiment, if happened to be conducted, would have serious problems to counter it.

So what's the error?

I think the simple fact is that we don't notice just how large the sample size is. If our story is some "Middle aged woman in Utah in 1932 had a psychic experience..." we can be sure that there have been a huge number of middle aged women and not only in Utah every year when the astonishing consequence of events hasn't happened. Yet people do dream of being in contact with others, alive or the dead, and then things turn out to be so. It's basically just like people who see omens of what the future will bring then look for those things they are waiting to see.

Or to put it another way: how many times your mother or grandmother has been worried that something has happened to you, when nothing has happened to you? Has that every happened to you?

people with no military training are being drafted. There was an interview on TV last night. Whatever Putin has in mind, it doesn't seem to be peace. — jorndoe

If you take all the people who have done their military service in the last five years, you are talking roughly about two million men (and some women). Yet just to retrain and arm 300 000 is not at all easy thing for Russia. Russia has not had any kind of system for reservists and for their refresher training. Hence it's going to take some time.

The multiethnic Empire of Russia survived because of the Soviet Union. The Soviet ideology hid this obvious fact as various people were simply declared to be Soviet.

Many don't understand the fact that Russia is a colonial power, because it had no oceans to cross when it invaded new territories. Yet the fact is that Central Asia or the Caucasus aren't part of Russia proper, but were linked to it like parts of Africa were linked to European imperial powers. And basically similar meddling is done now by Russia as France still exerts in some of it's former colonies (not all).

Nobody in Austria believes that the Austro-Hungarian Empire can rise again. In the Nordic countries, even if the states are in very good terms with each other, nobody is calling for the restoration of the Kalmar Union. In Russia it's different. The way to "make Russia great again" is through restoring the territory that formerly it held. Not things like improve the industries and education etc.

The idea of Russian is still quite close to what it was as an Empire and this is the real problem. I think the reason is that the Soviet Union collapsed peacefully, hence people like Putin think it was simply a mistake. A mistake that can be repaired. Yet it wasn't an unfortunate mistake. It's like a divorce: you cannot just assume that after having a divorce, in some time things will get back as they were and you will marry again.

The idea of Russia has been captured and dominated by an ugly cabal of jingoist thugs, who are used as a tool by the kleptocracy which rules Russia.

I meant that after the money has been spent needlessly inflating the size of the army and stockpiling the armament, there is no need to make any use of it for peace missions or anything actual deployment. This would only increase the deficit without generating any more bribes or political support (or so Trump seems to think). — Pierre-Normand

But remember... that isn't the case when he feels like the mission is justified and he will look good.

Trump was all eager to go after the IS. That's a classic "War on Terror" mission. And Trump got the Iranians to attack US bases with missiles as a response to his own actions (which btw. Trump didn't then respond to in fear of escalation). And lets not forget just how enthusiastic he was about telling Xi Jingping while eating dessert at Mar-a-Lago about the missile attack he made to Syria.

Trump has no values other than looking good to his supporters. Trump is a president who would instantly use military force if otherwise not using the military he would look like a "weak dick" to his USA chanting supporters.

Which is not what he's talking about. He's saying the West is pushing Ukraine to move military action into Russia (a bit unclear but I think he means Russia proper, excluding Ukrainian occupied land). Which is a lie. But the point he's making is that if that were to happen (the conflict moves until Russian soil), then he would authorise the use of nukes. It's literally in the text.

The interesting bit about the lie is that it actually opens the door that allows him to "lose" while maintaining face. — Benkei

If you said yourself that it's a lie, then isn't believing a lie crazy?

Conquering territory from another country and calling it part of your country isn't the same as being attacked and defending the boundaries of your state that other countries have accepted to be yours. But for Putin, it is the same. Hence the need for those sham referendums in the occupied territories.

Where have I argued this not to be the case? — Benkei

You were comparing the US invasion of Iraq to the current events. Perhaps I didn't get your point. But the simple fact is that regime change and annexation of territories is a bit different. Yes, both are actions that Great Powers do (or try to do). However the latter is quite classical imperialism, whereas the former is more of neo-colonialism. As we can see from the case of Iraq, that regime isn't playing so well anymore to the tunes of the US. And in case of for example Serbia (where the US successfully assisted on regime change), it isn't an ally to the US but basically a friend of Russia.

I think the crux in that quote is what he means with Russia. If he meant including Crimea and Donetsk then following that premise, I guess technically not a lie because we're supporting Ukraine to reclaim their territory* (we reject the premise of course but I want to tease out the exact meaning) and much more worrying than if he meant Russia without Ukrainian occupied territory. I was hopeful he meant the latter but could be worse obviously. — Benkei

Crimea, Donetsk and Luhans are all occupied territories. Which Putin has said are part of Russia, basically. So that's my worry about him "defending Russian territory" with nukes.

He's an isolationist and, as such, isn't opposed to foreign interventions on the ground of them being unjustified but rather on the ground of them being costly. — Pierre-Normand

Trump is basically just a populist, if there is to be found any trace of an ideology behind the man (as narcissism and lust for power isn't an ideology). Whatever his base thinks, he will think. And for populism (The evil elites are against the common people) isolationism fits well, but it doesn't have ideological background as what is referred to isolationism.

He's just opposed to spending any of the money generated by those endeavors. All that money rightly belongs to the military-industrial complex and to the politicians (including himself) who accept their bribes, why spend any more of it? — Pierre-Normand

Uh...no. Trump was for the increase of the size of the military, so he isn't opposed to spending on the army.

And of course when we are talking about Trump, he will first have had totally opposing views, but his loyal followers don't care about that, as usual.

Just listen to this:

In my first response on this thread on page 2. I wrote:

Actually, I genuinely hope that this (or similar) threads aren't going to be very long or as long as the COVID thread. Everybody understands what would make this thread go on for long... I myself have commented the Ukrainian on the Biden adminstration thread two months ago (starting here), so it's not something out of the blue. — ssu

Actually now this thread is far longer than the original Coronavirus thread, which started before the epidemic had become a global pandemic with lockdowns. It has now 267 pages and this one is on page 313.

My hopes didn't become reality, which is sad. :sad:

My error here was in not realising there is a whole bunch of you Putin apologists pushing the crackpot idea that all the Russian set-backs have been part of a grand plan to achieve very minimal invasion goals. Every reverse is a feint followed by a tactical regrouping. — apokrisis

:clap: :up:

I guess we could have given them another 20 years and another couple trillion dollars to get our “allies” ready to stand on their own feet, but really, no amount of counterfactuals can justify more intervention there. — NOS4A2

Afghanistan was wrong from the start.

Iraq was wrong from the start.

At least with Iraq it was Trump that got finally the GOP to talk the truth that the reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 were bullshit.

Yet if you think so about Afghanistan, what's then different with Iraq? The US is still there. But the country is quite on the cusp of exploding again. Shouldn't then the US leave also there?

You can be both critical and supportive of organizations or countries depending on the subject or issue.

I have no trouble of being critical against NATO and the US especially when it came to the war in Afghanistan. That war was in every respect quite disastrous starting from the basic argumentation, which was actually far more insane than the Domino-theory of the Vietnam war: that we had to be in Afghanistan because otherwise it could be a safe haven for terrorists. The sheer stupidity of that line goes beyond my imagination. Then was the ludicrous implementation of the "War on Terror". I'm critical of my own government, when it came to that fiasco.

However in the case of Ukraine, it is different. And if you don't there is any difference, then it's quite useless to have a discussion about it. If you do notice a difference, meaning that a collective defense treaty is to you (as to me) quite different from invasions of Third World countries followed by nation building, then by all means we can continue.

The inability of many of these USA haters to see that former Soviet countries and East European countries were totally justified and rational to seek the protection from an collective Western defense organization from a revanchist Russia is so telling. Yes, my country has made it's application too with a sound majority of my people (including me) favoring this.That people downplay the imperial aspirations of Russia and just view NATO enlargement as the cause for this war is actually telling.

During that time, there were several insurgencies, civil war and the rise of IS when they left. That's your idea of an occupation? Just being around seems a low bar. To me that was just a continuous conflict. — Benkei

They didn't actually leave. The "War on Terror" is still actually going on in Iraq. It just has been forgotten that some troops are still there.

(US troops in Iraq, 2022)

But sure, if that qualifies as an occupation than Russia's aim was to occupy Ukraine and to then have an insurgency on their hands and unsuccessfully try whatever the Americans were also unsuccessful at. — Benkei

I think it is beyond discussion(or debate) that Russia has imperial aspirations about Ukrainian territory as it is holding referendums to join more of the occupied territories to Russia. Annexation of territories and saying that they are an integral part of Mother Russia says the obvious to anybody with some understanding about history and the objectives of the people behind such talk.

This is a lovely piece of spin, it should get some sort of award... — Isaac

I think the prize should go to you by going so well along with the Kremlin line.

NATO isn't fighting in Ukraine, but it is surely (just as is the EU) supporting Ukraine. To put into context, the US has given aid to Ukraine since February until now I guess about 15 billion. The Ukrainian defense budget was last year I guess something like 5 billion dollars. And many NATO and still non-NATO countries (like mine and Sweden) are aiding Ukraine. And why not? Ukraine was an independent country attacked by Russia.

Yet for the US and Russia, this isn't anything new compared to the Cold War:

The fact is that the Soviet Union took part in the Vietnam war far more than NATO does now with Ukraine.

From July 1965 to December 1974, more than 6000 generals and officers and more than 4,500 soldiers were sent to Vietnam as specialists.

And yet even more, in the Korean war the Soviet Air Force and the US Air Force fought each other with both sides staying silent of it. (Actually the good performance of the MiG-15 and the Soviet pilots against the USAF made the Soviets to be complacent later during the Cold War.)

But feel free to regurgitate the Putin line here word for word: they aren't fighting Ukrainians, they are fighting to defend Russia from NATO aggression.

Perhaps it's best just to quote Putin himself:

“Today our armed forces are operating across a front line that exceeds 1,000 km, opposing not only neo-Nazi formations but the entire military machine of the collective West. NATO is conducting reconnaissance across the south of Russia. Washington, London and Brussels are directly pushing Kyiv to move military action to our country. They are openly saying that Russia should be defeated on the battlefield by any means.

Nuclear blackmail has also been used. We are talking not only about the shelling of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant – encouraged by the West – which threatens to cause a nuclear catastrophe but also about statements from senior representatives of NATO countries about the possibility and permissibility of using weapons of mass destruction against Russia: nuclear weapons. I would like to remind those who make such statements about Russia that our country also possesses various means of destruction, and in some cases, they are more modern than those of NATO countries. When the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we, of course, will use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people.

This is not a bluff. And those who try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons should know that the weather vane can turn and point towards them. Citizens of Russia can be convinced that our territorial independence and freedom will be provided, and I emphasize this one more time, with all means that we have at our disposal.”

See here

People who believe Putin and that Russia has been attacked by Ukraine/NATO, well, are crazy.

The thing is if he does drop one, even a so called "mini nuke", I don't see how NATO will not respond. They'd have to. But then that creates a self-feeding loop. — Manuel

I'd think the response would to increase the military aid. Have no limits like now.

I think the pressure to stop the fighting would certainly increase. You would see peace marches demanding the conflict to end. And that's basically what the "Escalate to de-escalate" strategy has as it's objective.

Furthermore, after being nuked, who the hell would condemn Zelensky for throwing in the towel if he goes for the immediate cease-fire on the lines that are held?

We have for a long time in our own preparedness taken into account this kind of situational development, in which Russia mobilizes society to be able to maintain its ability to wage war. There is still no immediate military threat to Finland. #FinnishDefenseForces

Prior to the February 24th, the official line was "Finland faces no military threat".

Going from "no threat" to "no immediate threat" it is a bit uncomfortable. :sad:

Neither of which were occupations. — Benkei

You really think that OIF wasn't an occupation?

May I remind you that US forces, if very few, are still in Iraq.

You're suggesting the FSB singlehandedly overturned military doctrine which is consistent both in NATO and Russia for decades that an offensive force to be successful needs to be at least 3 times larger than the defensive force to be successful more than half of the time and 5 times as large as a prepared, dug in defensive force. — Benkei

Ummm....assuming the forces are otherwise similar. Which they many times have not been.

Operation Desert Storm (1991 Gulf War)

US & Allied forces: 956 000
Iraqi forces: 650 000

Operation Iraqi Freedom:

US & Allies: 500 000+
Iraqi forces: 1 300 000 (theoretically), likely 500 000 active.

Russia could argue to itself that Ukrainians would be an inferior force compared to them. Let's not forget the huge military exercises that the Russian armed forces has done (that have been far larger than any NATO exercise). At least many Westerners thought this way when thinking of the superiority in materiel that Russia has enjoyed.

Yeah, it's of no use except to scare or cause an accident that will perish us all. But from his perspective, what is he to do? Admitting defeat is never an option for a nuclear power, national pride is worse than religion here. — Manuel

And that is why I fear this option. I wouldn't underestimate the impact of a genuine "mushroom cloud" in videos and photos somewhere in the Ukrainian countryside. People would simply think that it would mean an escalation to a nuclear holocaust. Which it doesn't: Ukraine has no WMD ability. It gave away it's nuclear deterrent, something that Mearsheimer himself called a huge mistake (and where I agree with Mearsheimer).

And, I would not disagree that the pressure on Kiev did not have as a first objective the capitulation of Kiev and accepting the offered peace terms, but clearly it's secondary objective was to then divert as much Ukrainian military potential to the North as possible in order to secure the land bridge and complete the siege of Mariupol. — boethius

I don't think we have here much of a disagreement.

Once when the "Race to the Capital" didn't succeed, the Russian commanders understood their weakness and withdrew from Kyiv and tried to reinforce other fronts with these units. It should be said that here Putin did follow what was reasonable in the military terms, but bad in political terms (as obviously the Ukrainians got a huge moral boosting victory). A more pigheaded politicians wouldn't have dared to disengage this way.

Aka. the operations in the North meant they were unable to defend the South, the obvious military objective of creating a land bridge to Crimea that military analysts pointed out the Kremlin would be very much wanting to accomplish. — boethius

Yet, if the ONLY objective would have been to create that land bridge with Crimea and help the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, you wouldn't have had the 1st Guards Tank Army attacking Kharkiv.

The simple fact is that your most powerful military formation is used where the Schwerpunkt of your assault is (meaning Center-of-Gravity). You don't use it as a diversion. The simple fact is that the Russia Army was (and is) actually small because the National Guard (340 000) and other troops not created for conventional war are so large compared to the Russia army (300 000). Just to look at the total strength of the armed forces simply hides this.

And so, we are getting sham elections and a "partial" mobilization. So bad is the situation for Russia.



I assume that the sham elections will go as well as in Stalin's time, but the partial mobilization might be something more difficult. There simply should be an organization to mobilize the forces.

Looks like Russia is running out of options. And while in a more rational society this might be an impetus for negotiations, now there is a ramping up - on both sides. — Manuel

Now the mobilization shows clearly what kind of failure this war has been to Russia. It's something like the Russo-Japanese war. And I think can easily have similar consequences as that war had.

My worst fear is that if the now held areas are "acquired" to be part of Mother Russia, Putin will use tactical nukes to "Escalate to De-escalate" and then cow the West to urge Ukraine to stop the war immediately however badly it is going for Russia.

Using one or two tactical nukes against Ukrainian field units wouldn't be extremely useful, modern brigades and combat teams are simply quite spread on the battlefield. But the public scare would be phenomenal. Naturally Putin's Russia would be even more of an outcast and China would reject the use of nuclear weapons. But if Putin can sell the illusion that Russia is under threat, he could do it. Otherwise now it's just useful to make threats about the use.

As of typing, I can't be bothered to round up more. — jorndoe

This has been said over and over again, but facts don't win an argument. Yet I think it's important in this kind of thread that someone points out the facts. :up:

They probably won't start WW3, but the United States is deeply invested in Ukraine, starting with the Bush administration fourteen years ago in 2008, and possibly earlier.

A total defeat of Ukraine would be a major blow to the United States, both in terms of investments lost and reputation. That's something they cannot afford in a time where US hegemony is being overtly challenged. — Tzeentch

Well, a total defeat of Ukraine...which seems quite remote now, would only alarm more the eastern NATO members and put to existential threat a country like Moldova.

But still, losing Ukraine wouldn't start WW3.

I wonder why you find it so hard to agree that a) Russians did try to take the Capital — ssu

Because I remain unconvinced that they made a serious effort to do so, and the attack was likely a probe, followed by a diversionary attack or feint. — Tzeentch

That it wasn't a serious effort?

The size of the attack and the use of paratroops to seize a central airport doesn't logically sound as a diversionary attack or feint. It goes totally against, actually the thing you mentioned, the Schwerpunkt-tactic. And what then was then the effort that was called Kyiv convoy, a 64km long convoy stuck there to do what? It wasn't a feint or diversion as the attacking forces were quite the same as the attacking forces attacking Kharkiv, which also wasn't taken. There the 1st Guards Tank army, the most powerful formation of the Russian army failed to take Kharkiv (and it's commander was sacked). Was that also a feint/diversion?

I think you should give some credible arguments that this operation was a feint or just a diversion.

Your particular take on it seems to be that the Russians ran into unanticipated resistance. — Tzeentch

If I use the Occam's razor, that would be the answer. And I would add to that the fact that Russians ran also into unanticipated problems of their own: the armed forces were simply not ready for a giant war like this. There's simply too much anecdotal evidence of this, if we don't take listen to the general consensus that this operation didn't go well for Russia. Just like this brief encounter from the start of the war:



Where the Russians did succeed was in the south attacking from Crimea. I think these formations were from the South and had seen combat in Georgia/Chechnya, so they were also a bit better (and obviously the Ukrainians basically were defending the North and the East.

Had the Russians been able to take Kiev with such an attack, it would imply the Ukrainians let them walk into Kiev basically unopposed.

Honestly, that hypothetical scenario isn't really worth considering. — Tzeentch

As I quoted earlier a highly regarded Western think tank, they didn't believe that Ukraine could repel an attack towards Kyiv from the Russian armed forces just few months before it was tried. It's quite an apologist take to say that they really didn't try to take Kyiv.

There is a reality for each and every model, as implied and expressed by the models. Not the other way around. Choosing to call one of these realities 'reality itself' or 'really really real' is a personal choice no matter how many people are convinced otherwise. — magritte

So I attempt to make a clock and if it doesn't work and has no resemblance to a working clock, I'll just say my clock works just fine ...it's just not in this reality.

Well, that's one way to think about the multiverse I guess.

I also find it plausible that the Russians did not intend to take and hold Kiev — Tzeentch

Seems that you aren't a von Clausewitz fan.

- The Ukraine's centre of gravity is not in Kiev, because this war isn't conducted from Kiev. It's foreign support that is keeping this war going. Capturing Kiev would be symbolic, but not decisive. — Tzeentch

Hmm...so Capturing the Western border was the objective then? Or what?

- It is in Russia's primary interest that Ukraine continues to fight this war themselves. The capture of Kiev and it's C&C facilities could bring a western intervention closer. — Tzeentch

How? The US won't start WW3 because of Ukraine. That's already established. And what do you mean "by themselves"? The Russian army has had to save many times the Donetsk and Luhansk rebels before when the war was limited to the Donbas.

My view is that the drive on Kiev was a show of force and Russia's last attempt at finishing the conflict quickly. By showing they were not bluffing, they could conceivably have made the West back off and forced a renegotiation of Ukraine's position. If this were to fail, which it did, it could double as a diversionary attack to allow Russian forces to occupy the south with less resistance. — Tzeentch

I wonder why you find it so hard to agree that a) Russians did try to take the Capital and b) once the defense was far more stiffer than anticipated, they understood that some Stalingrad/Grozny -type slow methodical overtaking of the capital was immensely costly and likely counterproductive, so they opted to withdraw understanding their limited resources. This withdrawal was easy as Ukrainians wouldn't follow them over to Belarus (and basically start a war with the country).

That simply sounds far more logical than showing something to the West with an attack that somehow isn't anticipated to work...or just be a fake.

Living up to your name? :wink:

I see you mentioned me, but same applies to you as to boethius: I don't read your posts, I don't care what you think, so don't jump up and down trying to catch my attention after I already told you to fuck off - it's undignified. — SophistiCat

I think I should take some example from you. :up:

For sanity's sake, here are two videos to watch:

Just what is wrong with Meersheimer's idea explained by Alexander Stubb:



And an interview done just as the invasion had started in February, a sober interview with Stephen Kotkin. Even if done in the start of March, it still is worthwile to listen to:

And what about your implied claim that Russia was aiming for a full-scale invasion of Kiev? — Tzeentch

Please now, Tzeentch, try yourself to back up your words and say that the battle for Kyiv wasn't a push to try to take the capital. The taking of Antonov Airport and the drive towards Kyiv.

I'm waiting with popcorn for this thing.

Notwithstanding the fact that nothing in the article you cited comes close to refuting Tzeentch's point. — Isaac

Really???

So @Tzeentch says:

Everybody and their dog knew it wasn't going to be a repeat of 2014, and that the Ukrainians would be prepared. — Tzeentch

And then I note that the US was offering to evacuate Zelenskyi and I gave example of how Western think tanks thought that the capital Kyiv would fall in hours and the best option of Ukraine would be to fight with an insurgency? Sorry, but if you would know anything about military issues, advising to fight with an insurgency means that you cannot directly stop any military attack otherwise.

And then you say that doesn't refute the idea that everybody thought Ukraine was prepared and could stage a fight as it has done. :roll:

That's simply laughable. Insane.

You're going to substantiate your claims, or will you hide behind snarky comments to hide you're backpeddling? — Tzeentch

What backpedaling?

I have consistently said that Russia attempted first a strategic strike, It's objectives that can be seen is to get basically the part of Ukraine called Novorossiya after it already has annexed Crimea. I've consistently said that even if NATO enlargement is ONE reason for the attack in Ukraine, it is wrong to denounce EVERY OTHER reason clearly stated by Putin for this invasion. And simply that when a country annexes parts of another and declares them part of itself, simply the actions of a third party (NATO and it's expansion) don't explain everything. Likely without NATO expansion, Russia would have regained a lot more of it's territory it lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. The imperialism of the Putin regime should be obvious to anybody.

It is you who are asking what does the annexation of Crimea have to do with the war in Ukraine now. So I try to answer that.