According to rumors on the street, a couple Ukrainian mayors have already been napped and replaced by Russian puppets. — jorndoe

There have been plans to create more Donetsk / Luhansk type puppet states. Which will now be even more grotesque Stalinist theatre as when the People's Republics were formed in 2014 because of the footage of Ukrainians openly demonstrating against the Russians in the occupied cities.

I'm sure Putin has Victor Yanukovich somewhere ready to be implemented as President of Ukraine if he wants to follow the Stalinist playbook.

On 2 March, Ukrayinska Pravda reported that Ukrainian intelligence sources believed that Yanukovych was currently in Minsk, Belarus and that it was Russia's intention to declare Yanukovych as President of Ukraine in the event of Russian forces gaining control of Kyiv.

Other possible puppets do exist. The Terijoki Government or the Finnish Democratic Republic was such a huge success... for four months!

I believed Putin would not invade. I was wrong. — FreeEmotion

For me war totally obvious with the television speech that Putin made on the 22nd of February, two days before the invasion. This was never a dress rehearsal, a training exercise to get the US to talk. And I had agreed with the historian Nial Ferguson's comment from January that the probability of war was 50/50, which is a really high probability. For example @Amity understood well the reality before the attack commenced. Others too.

Some insisted that everything was an American propaganda scare tactic, that all this has happened because of the US, well, they are still quite active. Just to refer one who before the invasion was launched, wrote about his intentions: "Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia."

People like jamalrob became offended when we brought this up earlier in the thread. What were they thinking? — frank

You have to ask from the person directly.

But if the West doesn't oppose military annexations (which neither should the UN accept), then naturally there's an opening for anybody to be retro-imperialist.

If there was a mistake that the US did, it was to promise "in the future" membership of NATO for Ukraine and Georgia. That the Baltic States could get into NATO is a real blessing. But just as I'm discussing with @Christoffer the possibility of NATO membership of our countries, it would be quite dangerous to apply for membership and then get an answer "You will get in sometime in the future". I guess they have learned that now.

It's been a staple of Socialdemokraterna since the second world war and it's just become a mantra at this point. There's zero actual discussion within that party because it's just "how it's supposed to be". This kind of very Swedish way of handling stuff is getting on my nerves, not just with Nato, but with lots of things. The ability to always be able to change course when the time requires it is the only way to survive long term. It's basics really. — Christoffer

Ending a 200 year old policy that has been so successful that Sweden avoided two World Wars is naturally a big decision for any prime minister. But the fact is that the decision has already been taken. Every shred of neutrality has already basically gone. NATO trains in Sweden and Sweden has participated in NATO operations like in Afghanistan and Libya. Sweden isn't neutral and even Swedes should understand that. Just like we should do ourselves. It's not like during the Cold War when some secret guarantee was done between Sweden and the US.

The thing is that Magdalena is wrong. NATO membership wouldn't destabilize this area. The area has already been destabilized and without NATO membership or bilateral defense treaty, there is a huge opening for Russia to destabilize the situation with both Finland and Sweden. Just consider the possibilities:

a) hybrid attacks: already happening here. Problems with GPS interference in the eastern border and cyberattacks for example against organizations sending aid to Ukraine.

b) hybrid attack II: Sudden flow of refugees to the border like Belarus did with Poland. Was practiced already on the border with Norway and Sweden.

c) Sanctions: Finland could be easily squeezed by oil sanctions. Russian oil is about third to one quarter of Swedish oil imports. To anticipate the effects of an oil embargo from Russia and to get the security of supply to cope with this possibility is needed. Yet this option is declining as both countries are already cutting their ties to Russia.

d) Military actions. Perhaps an naval blockade (like in Ukraine) wouldn't be noticed as an act of war. Perhaps would go down into the category of "special military operations". Or then just sink Finnish / Swedish ships and blame it was done by the Americans as a false flag operation (many would believe that nonsense). Or then the classic invasions of the Gotland and/or Åland Islands. A bit difficult now at the present as everything is in the Black Sea.

The problem is one can throw all kinds of possibilities around what would be the reaction of Russia, but the real fact is that all those options, the most ugly ones, will simply persist and be totally possible with minimal risk for Russia, if our countries just stick our heads into the sand and believe that saying that they are neutral gives them security.

I'm questioning you, why you want them to, why you think they should continue to fight and not accept the terms on the table. — Isaac

As @Olivier5 said, it's up to the Ukrainian government to decide what to accept as terms for armistice or for peace. How Ukrainians perform in the defense of their country will guide what options the government will have. If they accept a deal with Putin, that hopefully should be made from a position of strength: that continuing the war after rebuilding the army, isn't a valid option for Putin. They know far better their situation. Ukrainians have every just reason to defend their country from an hostile invasion. And because this invasion started in 2014, they have ever reason not to trust Putin, who just earlier said that Russia won't attack. Many believed that even on this thread.

And anyway, since you rely far more on the disinformation of Putin, perhaps in your attempt to be "objective", this is quite meaningless.

:up:

Slippery slopes?
Andreas Georgiou writes: Ukraine Invasion: A Dress Rehearsal for More of the Same Around the Globe — jorndoe

At least the sliding has been noticed.

Thus, if the Western liberal democracies—out of an understandable abundance of prudence—declare a priori that they will not engage in a forceful way with military means in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, then there will not be adequate restraint for most authoritarian and autocratic leaders with ambitions of empire. And that applies to more than Russia’s President Putin.

"Propaganda" and "agenda" are words that aren't used by the government or nation or state -- only the critics used them. Because they are politically negative charged ideas. — L'éléphant

They aren't either used by political pressure groups or by lobbyists. Due to similar reasons. It's been a long time since "Propaganda" was replaced just with "Information" or "Public Relations".

Yes, it's literally a joke that our government is still talking about neutrality as they do. — Christoffer

When we both send arms to Ukraine and have already NATO troops training in our country (and B-52s training to mine potential invasion beaches), I think the whole neutrality thing is patently absurd. Huge portion of Finnish members of Parliament are afraid to yet to say anything about their own view about joining NATO.

Comes to mind that now Russia has repeated the threats of action (similar it gave to Ukraine) about the consequences of Sweden or Finland joining NATO.

We should really join as quickly as possible. Yesterday was a better time than today and tomorrow is worse.

But you've yet to address the fact that people in Russia are all much happier than people in Ukraine.

... See what we can do when we just make shit up! — Isaac

Jesus. You are really are out of ammo. As if the reasons why I have said that Ukrainians want to join the West is something that I've yet not addressed.

Why do you think the Ukrainians had the Maidan, the Revolution of Dignity?
Why do you think they have had earlier the "Orange Revolution"?
Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections?

The fact why Ukraine has desperately wanted to join the West has been explained again and again to you, but you seem not to get it. I have said over and over again that the Ukrainians have been fed up with the corruption and the poor state of the economy, and this is the reason why they have looked at joining the West. Because the other possibility is to accept Putin's imperialism. It hasn't been some astro-turf operation conducted by the US.

I'll repeat again. The politicians leading Poland or other EU member states have not stolen billions of dollars of their nations wealth and then continue as if nothing. A reason why they have had so much hopes for the EU.

Enough with your bullshit.

The whole criticism about capitalism is that it leads to corruption of the democratic process. That's the whole point. — boethius

Yet authoritarianism protects that corruption from the safety valves of a democracy... like people getting fed up with their corrupt leaders then voting somebody else to lead the country.

For example voting as a president a comedian that has played in a sitcom where an ordinary person accidentally becomes a president. :wink:

Democracy can fight corruption, not always but still, while authoritarianism basically just protects it.

And, based on my own military experience, there is simply no way to win the sort of conventional warfare Russia is waging without armor and the heavy logistical supply lines armor requires. — boethius

We'll see. Similar war as now we haven't seen. So there can be surprises. The fact that Putin is willing to talk with the "neo-nazis" does tell something.

Finland is praised as the archetype resistance to Russian imperialism ... yet Finland was literally part of the Russian empire for a century, and owned by Sweden before that. — boethius

I remember an interesting quote which a historian of Finnish 19th Century gave me. During the war of 1809, when Sweden lost finally Finland, a Russian general was asked asked if he needed more troops to pacify the Finns. He responded: "I don't need troops, I need more medals!" Medals to give the Finns. And Finnish history clearly tells how this all is seen: Finland was given autonomy, it was raised from the position of being just the Eastern provinces to a Grand Dutchy, that wasn't technically part of Russia. It was granted to have it's own Swedish laws and it's own institutions, even a small military for some time. The rumblings among the Finns started only when Russia started to take these away.

This example shows just how you successfully can annex land. Yet in the case of Ukraine, Putin has done everything the wrong way. Before it bullied the Ukrainians, the annexed Crimea, tried to instill a civil war in 8 provinces and succeeded in two in the Donbass. Then he has called the whole country artificial and the current administration neo-nazis that have to denazified. Then he made the obvious error of thinking that Ukraine would fall easily with a rapid stroke and that the West would be as dumbfounded as they were in 2014. Nothing could unite better the Ukrainians as the actions that Putin has done now.

The inability for Russia to succeed has always been a source of joy for the United States and the most glorious moment was the destruction of the USSR. The ability for China to succeed, however is a problem that has only one solution: when you are losing the race, push your challenger off the road, like it is done in Formula 1 sometimes, allegedly. — FreeEmotion

Actually, the US had similar hopes with both China and Russia. It hoped that economic growth would create a striving middle class that then would "naturally" lead these countries to join West. WIth China there's a multitude of examples where American officials hope that the integration to the World community and economic growth will lead to democratization. In the case of Russia, they pinned their hopes on Yeltsin.

Well, The Chinese communists...stayed as communists.

And after Yeltsin, they got Putin and the siloviks to lead Russia.

This is a discussion ... Putin's not in this discussion — boethius

Yet to understand this war of conquest one shouldn't forget the culprit.

if Ukraine simply can't win. — boethius

Your so sure the Ukrainians cannot force Putin to the negotiating table? Putin is already talking to the "neo-nazis", so I think his denazification attempt hit some bumps on the way in just two weeks.

The more-or-less official position from actual Western officials (who do have lot's of intelligence and so can base their statements on something) is that Ukraine can wage an insurgency ... but that assumes losing the conventional war. — boethius

Ukrainians have already surprised them. Kyiv was estimated to fall in 90 hours, that's less than in 4 days.

If you can't talk Putin out of the war effort for just "moral reasons" and no concessions from anyone, then it's basically like just talking to a big rock that's blocking your road. — boethius

Then you simply fight the war. And see how long Putin is willing to fight it and what are the peace terms. Or look how much the Ukrainians are willing to suffer before accepting Putin's demands. Or do we basically have in the end an armstice and no peace agreement, just like in the Korean war.

Many things are open.

So you finally start complaining about no one actually helping you. — boethius

17000 antitank weapons in less than a week is actually help. You can already see Ukrainian troops with British/Swedish weapons (NLAW), German weapons (Panzerfaust 3) and American weapons (AT-3, Javelin). They did however mess up with the Polish MiG-29s. And what Ukraine would need is medium range surface-to-air missiles. The aid isn't just talk. The US Congress passed just two days ago a bill of 13,6 billion USD to Ukraine of which 6,5 billion USD is military aid. Just to put even this into perspective, Ukrainian defense expenditure was from 1993 to 2020 was somewhere like 2,3 billion USD and last figures put it at 6 billion USD in 2020. So just two days ago, just one country (the US) doubled that. Then there is the military aid from all other countries, which include United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Estonia, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. And the European Union.

And then there are about 20 000 volunteers going to help and fight in Ukraine, which isn't so crucial, but shows how people have reacted to the conflict. Yet it is the Ukrainians themselves that have to defend their country from this attack.

Let's say that the inevitable victory of Putin hasn't been declared yet.

:grin:

There are even kinds of infinity. Not every infinity is the same. — EugeneW

Oh don't let me get started.

And there's a lot that we don't still know about infinity. If we knew everything, there wouldn't be things like the Continuum hypothesis yet still unanswered (or even the question so problematic for our logic to handle). It is totally possible that sometime in the future we will know more and the schoolbooks will teach about infinity in a totally new way.

Finding new things in math hasn't stopped yet!

Your blind faith in capitalism is noted, but the charge involved impoverishment, not a failure to get richer. — Isaac

The inability to Russia to create a modern vibrant economy similar at least to it's former Satellite states in Europe and similar to the Baltic states shows how Putin has failed in economic terms. Or put in another more stark form: how many of the politicians that have lead the these states in Eastern Europe or the Baltics have become multi-billionaires when in offices or afterwards?

None, I guess. The closest to steal billions is the Yanukovich, the Pro-Putin ex-leader of Ukraine, whose ouster played a major part in the events in 2014. The whole reason for Ukraine desperately wanting to join the West is that they can see with their own eyes that joining the West has been a better option of those ex-Soviet countries that have had the ability to do that.

Corruption is a cancer and deeply institutionalized corruption in the form of a Kleptocracy, which Putin's Russia is, has been quite detrimental to the country. Basically only high oil prices has saved the Russian economy. And a dictator that focuses on wars of conquest and building up his military won't solve it.

It's whimsical you then start to defend the largest robber baron of our times.

Hey, when a country invades another, u would expect that common people would support the defending country and castise the invading one. This doesnt seem to be the case here. — Pussycat

Of course not!

The people here are fond of philosophy!

Hence it seems they have to be critical of the US and the West because... they come from the US and the West! Because it's good to be against everything bad the US has done. Like to enlarge NATO and "force" Russia to invade a third country. For them it's meaningless to ponder about what Russia has done. But engaging the discourse that Russia promotes is great, because Russia is against the US and the West.

So some opt to be a Полезный идиот!

Is infinity necessary?

Hell yes for mathematics!!!

Just think about. The Natural numbers go from 1,2,3,... to number TT (Tired Thinker), when they end. And no bigger natural numbers exist than TT. Just think about that would do to the logic of mathematics.

Hence yes.

We do need infinity.

At least as an axiom, since we yet haven't understood the mathematical logic behind infinity.

In the current state of the term ‘propaganda’ it is a fair assessment to state that ‘propaganda’ in colloquial terms is general framed as something intrinsically tied to patriotism/nationhood? — I like sushi

If it's frequently used by nation states, we should understand that anybody spreading ideas, information, or a rumor for the purpose of helping (or injuring) someone is making propaganda. What's crucial to understand that there is an agenda, and objective to be reached with the actions.

We have to understand that the act of propaganda is used by a multitude of actors.

The claim was about Putin fucking over his countrymen. Indices of overall poverty aren't relevant to that claim. — Isaac

Putin is fucking his countrymen and stealing the wealth from the Russian nation. Are you really denying that and becoming a true Putin apologist or what? I thought you were critical of the West's and US actions.



The Yeltsin-Putin kleptocracy has ruined Russia. That's the fact. The ex-Soviet countries that chose the West and the EU (and thankfully some could!) have prospered far better than Russia.

You don't get prosperity by starting wars. You get prosperity by trade.

Seriously? You want to put some figures to that? — Isaac

Sure. Median wealth:

USA: $121,700
Russia : $871 — frank

And going down for Russia. But some other indicators, that actually tell something on this issue:

Life expectancy:
USA: 76.3 years
Russia: 68.2 years

Absolute povetry. Percent of people living on less than 5,5 dollars per day:

USA: 1,7%
Russia: 3,7%

Kleptocracy. Corruption perception index (the lower, the more corrupt):

USA: 67 (27th least corrupt country)
Russia: 29 (on 136th place least corrupt country)

And those stats aren't actually great at all to the US.

And btw, Ukraine covers both the US and Russia on the income inequality scale measured by the gini-coefficient, it being at 25. And as there is a war (which this thread is actually about), income inequality is going down. Hurray!!! :zip:

What lower income inequality looks like:


The oligarchs aren't surely making a buck here... if they aren't in the weapons business.

An interview with Zelenskyy done by Vice, Worth watching. (9 min)

It was a piece of social commentary about today's mercurial, shallow emotional flag-waiving. — Isaac

For you, perhaps. For us, it might seem so. Not for Ukrainians.

Do not, under any circumstances accidentally use last month's entries (check Facebook for details), and avoid at all costs generalities like...

1. The obscenely rich and powerful
2. Fucking over the poor
3. The poor — Isaac

Uhh... this is a thread about the Ukraine Crisis. :roll:

But of course we could talk about one if not the most obscenely rich and powerful, Vladimir Putin. One opposition leader remarked that the expensive wristwatch he has weared was more than what Putin officials declares to be owning. Pictures from his 1 billion palace.

The really stark example of the rich fucking over the poor: institutionalized kleptocracy.

(A kleptocracy whose leader starts wars btw...)

This bioweapons story is Pizzagate-level insanity. And yet adult people of adequate intelligence take it seriously, pour over Nulland Q&A for vague hints of confirmation... The mind boggles. But then we've seen it before: QAnon, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. — SophistiCat

When it's reported by the news (Fox News), there has to be at least something true, right? In Pizzagate I think Clinton's election team sometimes ordered pizza, perhaps from Comet Ping Pong or at least somewhere else. Of course, everything else is total and utter lunacy. But does it matter?

Even that it's denounced, that there is no basement in the pizzeria, it doesn't actually matter. If the other has to react and say "This isn't true", they are already talking about it. However crazy and unimportant it might be. That's enough. The discussion can move next week to something else and people will forget it.

This pretty much sums up the useful idiot position. US - bad. Therefore, any anti-US propaganda should be given extra credence, any US ally should be viewed with extra suspicion, and any US adversary - with extra deference.

So when Russian MOD claims that American biolabs in Ukraine have been developing bioweapons capable of selectively targeting Slavic ethnic groups, and that they have been studying bats, tics and birds as possible vectors of transmission of lethal diseases across the border, such claims ought to be taken very seriously indeed, and at the highest level. — SophistiCat

Noam Chomsky first political book's name tells it all: "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". The thinking goes that in order to improve our Western World, we have to be critical of it's actions. Here's the "The world's greatest intellectual, by a pretty big margin" explaining his argument quite clearly:



Yet as usual, people get lost with this argument, lose the narrative just on which side they are and start believing baseless propaganda of very nasty regimes and become the "useful idiots" in the information war. Or then start to fear if they take side with any issue with the US, they might give credence and justification to everything the US does.

And then at the same time forget to condemn the attackers, talk anything about the attrocities that happen and give any support for those that are fighting for their freedom and for their right to exist.

Now, if EU put this sort of diplomatic pressure, publicly criticizing Russia for refusing the EU or some neutral country to evacuate the civilians, then, certainly, you can blame the Russian blockade. — boethius

Diplomatic pressure?

After all the sanctions what the EU has imposed? After sending weapons to Ukraine? Then apply diplomatic pressure? Of what? What kind of pressure are we talking about here now? EU delegates manhandling Lavrov down to the ground and sitting on him... that kind of pressure?

The world's greatest intellectual, by a pretty big margin, Noam Chomsky — boethius

:roll: ..... :smirk: ..... :snicker:

@boethius, this is a philosophy forum. Notice what you say...

You noticed the point!

Give a reply to my comment that you won't never give in this forum.

Are there those comments that @Agent Smith doesn't give in this forum? Of course. Can you give them or utter them as @Agent Smith? Of course not! You are who you are.

The power of negative self reference.

Yes, but if you're trying to encircle the enemy, the priority is the salients and the rest of the front doesn't — boethius

:roll: Ok, then use the word salients. There are a lot of salients for the Russians.

And for example encircling a huge city isn't so easy. Here the example of Grozny is telling. For Russians, it took then months. And it was a smaller city with fewer defenders. Without any outside help flowing in.

By October 1999, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ordered the complete takeover of the Chechen capital of Grozny. From December 1999 to February 2000, the Russian military laid siege to Grozny. Putin vowed that the military would not stop bombing Grozny until Russian troops quote 'fulfilled their task to the end.' They finished in February 2000, when the BBC's Andrew Harding stepped foot into Grozny, a place the U.N. declared the most destroyed city on Earth.

It's a fucking port city, EU could easily negotiate evacuating civilians by boat. And, the "non-boat" way would mean traversing 1000 km of disrupted logistics and potential battle zone. — boethius

No, it can't.

There basically is an unannounced blockade done by the Russians. Note that an Estonian (EU member) ship has already been sunk in the Black Sea.

A cargo ship has sunk in the Black Sea off the Ukrainian port of Odessa after an explosion, the vessel’s manager has said.

The Estonian-owned cargo ship Helt sunk on Thursday as Russian forces continued their invasion of Ukraine, which has seen increasing military activity in the Black Sea.

Besides, the EU isn't neutral in this conflict. It's arming one side in large quantities. And Russians have already declared about those "humanitarian corridors" leading to Russia.

Something to think about:

The ports along the Black Sea (southwest) and Sea of Azov (southeast) account for about 85 percent of Ukraine’s grain exports. Ukraine supplies 13 percent of the world’s corn and a similar share of its wheat—meaning that disruptions to trade along Ukraine’s coast could reverberate in food markets around the world. Ukraine’s seaports also account for about 80 percent of its ferrous metallurgical exports.

The major port cities that Russian forces have yet to occupy are Mariupol on the Sea of Azov and Odessa on the Black Sea. The former is under blockade, and the latter may come under attack any day. And the de facto blockade of Ukrainian ports by the Russian Navy began even before the recent land and air operations.

The assault on Ukraine’s Black Sea ports should be understood as economic warfare by the Russians. Not only will the interruption of normal trade deprive Ukraine of the resources it needs to sustain a war effort, but it will also impose costs on almost every country in the world, either directly or indirectly, for not helping Russia swallow its neighbor.

Prepare for higher food prices all around the World. 15 million tons is a lot.

I think it is time to re-consider this 'imperialist' categorization of Putin. — FreeEmotion

Why, when looking at the actions of annexing territories and then noticing what Putin has said for example of Ukraine and it's historical connection to Russia and the artificiality of the Ukraine as a sovereign country, it is really classical imperialism. Not just neo-imperialism. When you have Russians hoping to create Novorossiya, it is imperialism at the most obvious. Russian irredentism is totally clear.

Actually it might help with the logistics and offset some of the costs of sanctions. — FreeEmotion

That soldiers have to look for food tells the grim truth that the logistics to support the army simply isn't working. Or that they run out of gas, yet haven't made a huge strides into enemy territory tells it also. The units might be put on the field, but they cannot be supported properly in the field. It simply shows poor planning and the limited resources.

It's the usual thing that happens when usually some authoritarian leadership decides to invade a country or territory. Iraq had difficulties when invading Kuwait. The Argentinian army that invaded the Falklands had many not knowing where they are and going hungry also as supporting 13 000 troops on islands far away from Argentina proved to be a difficult task for Argentina. (Btw that was a war where civilians weren't abused and both sides abode well to the laws of war.)

As long as we are in a military strategy discussion, why didn't Russia simply do this with cruise missiles to destroy military targets? — FreeEmotion

Why not simply threaten to invade? — FreeEmotion

Russia and Ukraine had been already at war since 2014. They had already annexed Crimea. So a bit late for threats.

Why not simply threaten to use Nukes in the first place? — FreeEmotion

Just casually? Even that would a bit too much for the Russians.

But Putin does have in his options the crazy tactic of "escalate to de-escalate". Russian military exercises have many times ended with the use of the nuclear weapon to "de-escalate" the situation and halt the fighting.

I've seen at least two negative self-referential paradoxes: the liar sentence and Curry's paradox.

Your point? — Agent Smith

Usually the mathematical paradoxes/logical paradoxes are structured this way.

Do notice, with the same structure is also made theorems like Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem or Turings answer to the Halting Problem.

Which line? The current one all around the East of Ukraine?

However, to cut Ukraine in half North-South is still 700 Kilometres. — boethius

I was talking about the line between the Ukrainian and the Russian lines. You do have the "front" stretched quite long now in Ukraine.

From what I can tell, the South-West front has simply been moving at it's logistical pace, while the North-West front has been slowly getting through the Urban areas around Kiev, which is the hard part.

Of course, it's always possible the Ukraine finds some way to stop these pincers joining in the middle. They do have a lot of ATGM's and intelligence from the US. — boethius

Let's see how it develops then. And let's be honest here: the Western intelligence has been very good.

I simply don't see a counter tactic available to Ukraine, but, of course maybe they have one. — boethius

The initiative is still with the Russians. But if the continue inflicting similar damage to Russia as they have done now, that's really good for them

True, but NATO wants to wage war with super minimal losses, which is only possible with overwhelming force. — boethius

That's not a counterargument. Everybody would desire overwhelming force to minimize owns losses and maximize the losses of the enemy. Short war means less casualties.

However, all these questions about the Russians also apply to the Ukrainians — boethius

Well, they aren't invading anybody, hence when they have logistical problems, they can have peace all around them.

Maybe they've been bogged down and just incompetent and disorganized as the Western Media keeps saying, or maybe they've been tying up Ukrainian forces with chaotic skirmishing all over the East of Ukraine, while establishing the forward operating bases and logistical plan to close the North and South pincers — boethius

OK.

Let's just pause here for a moment.

When have you seen footage of American troops pillaging a supermarket to get food? When have you heard about British troops going from door to door asking for food from the people because their army is totally incapable of giving them rations?

Sorry, but this is really the typical Russian clusterfuck, just like the first Chechen war was. All that authoritarianism and corruption leads to stupidities like this. There simply is no hiding of it. Or to put it another way around, the Ukrainian/NATO propaganda isn't so omnipotent to theatrically portray these difficulties. This was a far too large military operation to perform for the Russian army, that it could succeed with flying colors as it did with the annexation of Crimea.

Yeah, despite it all, the Russian army can lay punches and isn't down for the count. But that this has been a really military "bordello", as we Finns put it, is the truth. No way to hide that.

Questions:

- Will Belarus stay out of this disaster of a military campaign?

- Will Putin escalate to de-escalate?

As far as I can tell, Putin and those in Russia that support his cause were hoping that they would A) be able to occupy Ukraine without much resistance and/or B) the West/NATO (as well as other countries wouldn't take much notice of the invasion. — dclements

..which tells what kind of a clusterfuck and a brainfart this "special military operation" has been.

, I think it makes China's realize it's plan of invading Taiwan and taking it through military force any time in the near future a more complex and difficult endeavor then they were hoping for. — dclements

China has a frontline seat into looking how the US and the West respond to these kinds of actions. And what ought to be noted that Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is for the US a Major non-NATO Ally. That means it will respond far more aggressively to defend Taiwan than with Ukraine.

I could be wrong but also Taiwan's army is a bit more prepared for an invasion than Ukraine was when Russia attacked — dclements

If you mean when Russia attacked in 2014, yes. If you refer to the current "special military operation", then I'm not so sure.

Although I don't read most posts on this thread, I see that our useful idiot support group, having exhausted the neo-Nazi theme for now, has jumped onto the latest Russian propaganda talking point: Ukrainian bioweapons. — SophistiCat

The bioweapons thing is comical. The public profoundly misunderstands CBRN, what weapons actually exist, why and under what circumstances they would be useful in military operations, and existing mechanism for deploying said weapons. The whole plot idea makes no sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100:

If the Russians have been basically just keeping the Ukraine forces in the East to setup this moment ... seems to me there's no a race in time against the pincers closing for all those brigades to the East of the pincers to retreat West. — boethius

Here comes very apparent the problem that Russia has now: that "front line" drawn to the map is what? 1300 kilometers or so? In the map (on page 84) there are drawn 16 Russian divisions or equivalent, which would be something similar to that 190 000 - 200 000 figure of Russian forces. But that is "way thin" when you think of it. There are huge gaps in between.

Here's actually a map published by the UK Defense ministry before the invasion in February, then dubbed as information warfare. At least they got very good intel as we now can see.



Let's just compare this to a similar large scale ground war which had similar large formations. Operation Desert Storm:



The US deployed nearly 700 000 troops into the war and the Alliance had a strength of over 900 000 of which ground forces were over 600 000 troops, hence three times the size of Putin "Special Military Operation". In the map below the US & Coalition Divisions consist of a far larger force than Russia has deployed in Ukraine. Yet note the scale! From the town of Nisab, in the West to Kuwait City it is 317 km. The distance from Kharkiv to Mariupol is a little bit longer. 330km or so.

And the Invasion of Iraq in 2003? Again twice as many American troops than Putin's "Special Military Operation". And Iraq is a smaller country with large uninhabited areas with a smaller population.

The simple fact is that in many places in Ukraine there is no "front line". That Russian are attacked in columns is because the distances are so great. Above all, the real problem with deep operations is that the Russian logistics are dependent on rail:

Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts. Only brigades have an equivalent logistics capability, but it’s not an exact comparison. - No other European nation uses railroads to the extent that the Russian army does. Part of the reason is that Russia is so vast — over 6,000 miles from one end to the other.

Then the supply without rail: trucks. We've already seen that Russia has to use civilian trucks and that Ukrainian forces have targeted supply trucks. And there is a reason for this:

The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades.

In fact, the Russian way of fighting, using massive firepower of the artillery, depends a lot on the supply:

The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets. There is also between six to nine tube artillery battalions, nine air defense artillery battalions, 12 mechanized and recon battalions, three to five tank battalions, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and small arms ammunition — not to mention, food, engineering, medical supplies, and so on. Those requirements are harder to estimate, but the potential resupply requirements are substantial. The Russian army force needs a lot of trucks just for ammunition and dry cargo replenishment.

And this is why some Ukrainian cities that the Russian forces are attempting to secure will have lulls in the fighting. Russia simply has to stock the ammo and equipment for some days, perhaps talk about cease-fires and humanitarian corridors, before they make the next attack. Rapid breakthroughs and rapid movement is now unlikely. And when the Ukrainian armed forces haven't been destroyed in two weeks, it's really going to take a long time to destroy them now.

All the above just how absolute disaster this plan was and how it's not all so evident that one or the other side will prevail.

So far the Aljezera map seems to be most accurate and useful (with distinctions of zones and operations). — boethius

The local National Defense University publishes a map with the assumed units in both sides. Unfortunately in Finnish. This picture of the situation in 10.3.2022 in the evening:


Interestingly it shows 16 Ukrainian brigades. The red round ones are the Donbas voluntary units. More "volunteers" are coming from the Middle East to fight on the Russian side, whereas some estimates put the size of the volunteers in the Western side at 20 000. What is notable that you have "international brigades" just like in the Spanish Civil War.

This is why I'm hoping for a Russian revolution. Clearly, there are enough people in Russia who don't want the current form of government. — Christoffer

The thing is that when the Soviet Union collapsed, there wasn't a revolution. Actually the Soviet leaders could make a controlled crash without everything going to hell as in the case of Yugoslavia. It would be like the Governors of the States that make up the United State would meet and agree "Yeah, let's get rid of this whole Federal thing." Now we are having those wars. Let's hope that we don't end up with Russian Civil War 2.

Yet the classic imperialism that Putin is so dearly advocating will only end if the country experiences and absolute catastrophy. This hopefully might happen.


But then again, who knows what the future will bring us.

Doesn't it depend on the dictator? Putin was slexiochosen because he was corrupt and so would protect Yeltsin. If he dies in office, couldn't there be a reset where Russia becomes less corrupt? — frank

I think it can. Many seem to have lost hope in this. The fact is that it takes decades for corruption to be erased as it's more part of the culture. Or simply such a horrible disaster that people agree that the past has to be forgotten and a totally new society has to be created. Like happened in post-war Japan or Germany.

A dictator cannot do everything. He isn't omnipotent. And dictators have this urge to control issues with special decrees, personally made laws and of micromanagement. To portray themselves as the leader "who makes things done". This creates an environment where actually corruption prospers. For example Hitler's Germany was quite corrupt.

I don't see any complication there except of your making. — Isaac

Bosnia, Serbia (not Kosovo), Libya and Afghanistan didn't have nuclear weapons. (Libya had a program, which was a joke, didn't go anywhere). None of these countries were CIS countries allied with Russia. Had Putin been not so hostile towards it's neighbors, likely he could have emerged as a person of reason and sanity in this crazy World. It would be sitting in the G8 with it's friends Germany and France and there would be absolutely no talk of joining NATO in my country. We would be extremely happy with our non-NATO member stance.

When the Baltic states joined NATO, there were not even planned any kind of Article 5. defense for the Baltic States. One NATO member thought it was too provocative to even have plans to defend the Baltic States. There were no NATO exercises in the Baltics. Estonia was basically reprimanded for sticking with something as obsolete as conscription and area defence strategy. Basically the armed forces were not for repelling a possible Russian attack

Russia has no less a reason to fear being attacked than America does. If America has legitimate concerns about where its bases should be located then so does Russia. — Isaac

Having security concerns are really a bit different from attacking other countries.

There simply isn't any justification or logical reasoning to attack a country when the action has the totally opposite effect on your security situation than you want. It has been totally counterproductive. It's all been totally counterproductive.

It would be like the Chinese would lose their marbles and started harassing US allies in the Pacific perhaps by starting to sink Japanese, South Korea or Australian ships. You really think that would benefit the Chinese? That it would cow US allies not to have strong ties with the US? Of course not!

What China can do (and is doing) is to develop it's armed forces and try to improve it's economy (as it has done). And just let the US talk about the "Chinese threat". As the were talking about the "threat" of Japan taking the dominant economic position in the World earlier.