It's not as if anyone's open to actual discussion about the crisis itself is it? — Isaac

You and Bennie just shoot first and ask questions afterwards.

But go ahead. What is your balanced view of Putin and his little adventure? What paints him in some better light? What makes it anything less than an awful miscalculation and another Russian implosion?

If his rump of the old empire finally crumbles into its parts, why would it be so bad to be a clutter of small ethnic states on the edge of NATO and the EU? Some might be corrupt stans, others might thrive like the Baltic states. But in what way would the West be the bad guys in such a world?

Discuss away.

Discuss away. — apokrisis

It's been 'discussed' at great length, if by discussed you mean mentioned, immediately dismissed as delusional Russian propaganda and then rendered beneath further response (your begrudging invitation through gritted teeth notwithstanding).

As to your specific questions, I haven't any idea why anyone would want to discuss who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are in geopolitical events. If virtue signalling your disgust at Putin's actions is your thing, then you crack on, some of us take seriously our duty to hold our governments to account for their actions, so for us what matters here is the justness of the actions of our governments, and for most of us, that isn't Russia.

If you seriously can't think of any way in which The West could possibly be the bad guys in a collapsed Russia then I can only imagine that you've either been reading too much Rand or have been living on a remote island for the last 50 years.

If Russians ever freed themselves from the current regime, it would be a catastrophy. First, only a dictator like Putin is strong enough to lead them Russians, because it is well known in Eurasian philosophic circles that Russians are like little children who can't rule themselves. So it would lead to anarchy, people doing whatever they want like in the corrupt West. Second, it would decrease corruption and the flow of free money towards certain pockets. Worse still, some posters here would be left without an income.

because it is well known in philosophic circles that Russians are like little children who can't rule themselves. — Olivier5

... go on.

I'm no military expert so cannot forecast much, but it seems to me the Ukrainian side has been cautious and prudent with its operations, not exposing troops more than strictly necessary, being worried of getting trapped if advancing too fast.

Now, from a moral perspective, one could say this is commendable, as it saves human lives.

From a strategic perspective, one could say it is likely to be effective, for many reasons including military ones but also it strengthens national solidarity and troop morale.

However, I'm told by well connected comerades that, from a Russian perspective, it means Ukrainians are little cowards.

For precision sake, I added: Eurasian philosophic circles.

↪boethius For precision sake, I added Eurasian philosophic circles. — Olivier5

Yes, yes, keep the precisions coming. We might be getting somewhere.

some of us take seriously our duty to hold our governments to account for their actions, so for us what matters here is the justness of the actions of our governments, and for most of us, that isn't Russia. — Isaac

By basically talking a lot more about everything else than the actual topic of the thread, the war in Ukraine. Because on a thread about Ukraine, the topic ought to be how bad the US and your government is, not Ukraine or Russia. Right on. :snicker:

It would be more credible, if you came up even once with some actions, any action, of your government that would be justified. But as obviously everything your government does is unjust, the West is evil capitalism, it's great to then you go with the line that the Pro-Russian side pushes. Because it's critical about the West! Because the US is far more worse and hence we shouldn't discuss what Russia does in a thread about the war in Ukraine.

Like just days before this offensive started, you clearly obviously believed Putin won't attack because Joe Biden was saying so (and Putin was denying it):

The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the pharmaceuticalarms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more peaceful protestsdomestic terrorists. — Isaac

Februrary 18th already. Typical Russians. Late as usual. Too busy organising Canadian truckers and missed their deadline most likely.

If we're all going to be annihilated in world war three it could at least start on time. I had tickets... — Isaac

The offensive then started on the 24th.

And just to give an example, then your idea what options in the war would be better:

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead. — Isaac

Obviously Ukraine surrendering and then Putin putting his puppet oligarch friend Medvedchuk as leader of what's left of Ukraine after the territories of Novorossiya would have been annexed by Russia would have meant fewer dead (and fewer tanks destroyed). Even less would have been killed if Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine starting from 2014.

But that Option 2 what you hoped for didn't happen. (At least yet and looks to be unlikely)

(Yet Medvedchuk was released to Russia in a prisoner transfer, so I guess Putin can still use him)

As to your specific questions, I haven't any idea why anyone would want to discuss who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are in geopolitical events. — Isaac

So you continue to strawman me. Post after post and still nothing of substance from you. Find someone else to pester.

I'm no military expert so cannot forecast much, but it seems to me the Ukrainian side has been cautious and prudent with its operations, not exposing troops more than strictly necessary, being worried of getting trapped if advancing too fast. — Olivier5

I think that the Ukrainians understand that they have to be ready for a long war. After the initial push failed, the Russians have tried to salvage what there is to salvage. But I think they have made a breakthrough in how to fight the Russians. Aerial and US satellite reckon, pinpoint artillery/rocket attacks make are quite successful.

This video tells rather well just why this is so. And why the Russian multiple rocket systems aren't so effective. The video also explains just why Russians have declared so many HIMARS systems being destroyed:


It's interesting to see how much longer the Ukrainian offensive can go.

Ah, the desperate need to strawman, when you cannot prove wrong the other one.

Let me introduce Nike, the ancient Greek goddess of victory, or what's left of her today in the Louvre:


That's certainly a desirable representation of victory. I love her belly button... :naughty: But note the wings, the running stance and flowing garments, all meant to suggest the swift speed at which the goddess can fly from one side to the other on the battlefield.

By basically talking a lot more about everything else than the actual topic of the thread, the war in Ukraine. — ssu

Our governments are involved in the war in Ukraine. Their involvement is therefore squarely on the subject of the war in Ukraine.

It would be more credible, if you came up even once with some actions, any action, of your government that would be justified. — ssu

Taking part in negotiations. But this this already been mentioned.

Obviously Ukraine surrendering and then Putin putting his puppet oligarch friend Medvedchuk as leader of what's left of Ukraine after the territories of Novorossiya would have been annexed by Russia would have meant fewer dead — ssu

Yes.

Even less would have been killed if Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine starting from 2014. — ssu

So? Even less would have been killed if airlifted the entire population to Mali too. What possible relevance could that have?

So you continue to strawman me. — apokrisis

You literally said...

what is your balanced view of Putin and his little adventure? What paints him in some better light? — apokrisis

It's a direct quote, you asked for a moral judgment on Putin. I don't give a shit what 'paints him' in any kind of light, why would I? What is with this obsession over how bad Putin is? He's a thoroughgoing heartless psychopath. Is anyone still in any doubt about that? What matters is what we do about that.

Whinging about it online is pretty low on the list.

Obviously Ukraine surrendering and then Putin putting his puppet oligarch friend Medvedchuk as leader of what's left of Ukraine after the territories of Novorossiya would have been annexed by Russia would have meant fewer dead — ssu

Yes. — Isaac

So Ukrainians not deciding to do this, roll over and surrender, would according to you been the best outcome. I think that's enough to know from you and of the contribution you give to this thread.

↪apokrisis Ah, the desperate need to strawman, when you cannot prove wrong the other one. — ssu

What strawmen? can you backup your assertion with any citations.

Furthermore, your friend @apokrisis spends several pages defending what he finally admits to be "hyperbole" ... well hyperbole to make what point?

The video also explains just why Russians have declared so many HIMARS systems being destroyed: — ssu

Again, if the HIMARS are so effective why doesn't the US send: A. more launchers and B. more missiles and C. different kinds of longer range missiles?

Combat-Proven Solution:
The HIMARS solution is highly reliable, combat proven, fielded system that has exceeded all performance requirements. There are more than 540 fielded systems worldwide that have accumulated over 2,000,000 operating hours.

Precision Fires Capability
With a recognised and proven range up to 300km. — HIMARS, Lockheed Martin

The 16 launchers given to Ukraine so far don't seem all that much, especially considering the US has other weapons that perform similar functions. But if the goal is the "defeat the Russians" why limit the range of the missiles given to Ukraine? Why bring the HIMARS in only after Russia stabilises the front from Kherson to Donbas instead of day one?

What's the evidence that the US and NATO are even remotely attempting to achieve the following:

If his rump of the old empire finally crumbles into its parts, why would it be so bad to be a clutter of small ethnic states on the edge of NATO and the EU? Some might be corrupt stans, others might thrive like the Baltic states. But in what way would the West be the bad guys in such a world? — apokrisis

How am I strawmanning this argument?

My counter arguments on the factual likelihood are simply pointing out NATO's own stated policy is only to allow Ukraine to "defend itself" and not enable Ukraine to attack Russia; whole justification for sending shoulder launched missiles, light arms and no heavy weapons that would have been needed for counter-offensives in the South (before tens of thousands of Ukraines best troops were KIA or casualties), in the first phase of the war was to not threaten Russia, much anyways.

In addition to the obvious policy and its implementation, there is no more evidence for the collapse of the Russian state than backed the chorus of predictions on literally day 2 of the invasion (which obviously didn't happen).

And clearly, by drip-feeding weapons systems to Ukraine NATO this is completely coherent with the "we won't let Russia actually lose" policy.

As for the goal of collapsing the Russian state no matter the cost ... is this really a policy that benefits Ukrainians? Is this even NATO or US policy? Is this even Ukrainian government policy?

Or is it EU-Nazi fantasy?

Ah, the desperate need to strawman, when you cannot prove wrong the other one. — ssu

Seriously? You dismiss entire swathes of analysis as lunacy, pro-Russian, uninformed, beneath response... Do you think those posters would agree you've represented their positions in the most charitable light? Would you even stand by such a claim?

If his rump of the old empire finally crumbles into its parts, why would it be so bad to be a clutter of small ethnic states on the edge of NATO and the EU? Some might be corrupt stans, others might thrive like the Baltic states. But in what way would the West be the bad guys in such a world? — apokrisis

And, so nobody misses it, this statement is simply accepting my main point since the last few dozens pages and the absolute madness of the view held by the extreme Ukrainian right, Ukrainian nationalists, Ukrainians Nazi's as well as left-wing liberals in the West, that continued fighting without diplomatic compromise is justified.

For, indeed, that only makes sense if you manage to collapse the Russian state; i.e. defeat Russia.

However, if that's a delusional fantasy for which there is no evidence then all that is accomplished is tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands by the end, killed and wounded, and extreme damages to Ukraines economy and general welfare.

And for what?

If you can't actually defeat Russia (because NATO doesn't actually give a shit about you and isn't about to use nuclear weapons on your behalf and people employing Churhillian rhetoric ... at a distance, is just stupid), the alternatives to diplomatic compromise are: endless war or losing the war.

How would endless war or losing the war benefit actual Ukrainians that aren't Nazi who declare war their "way of life" and their mission in life to destroy Russia?

Well, if those options can't be explained as benefiting the average Ukrainian, then what would the diplomatic compromise be that Ukrainians are fighting for.

Which was the explicit policy only a few months ago: fighting to a better position at the negotiating table.

What's the plan?

Zelenskyites here seem to interpret an inability to answer basic questions about their position as "strawmanning", which is not what strawmanning is, it's how debate works: asking and answering questions.

If people never explain how continued fighting without diplomatic compromise is a justifiable and feasible plan of action, nor explain what diplomatic compromise they think is feasible and why more fighting (for now) somehow makes sense to achieve that compromise, pointing out that people never answer these questions is not "strawmanning", it is simply underlining their denial and delusions.

And what's that foundational delusion that supports the house of cards of their racist world view (which, so it's clear to everyone, "Some might be corrupt stans, others might thrive like the Baltic states" is a racist statement)? It's that somehow all this chaos and madness is going to lead to the destruction of the Russian state and any and all sacrifice (by Ukrainians) is a worthwhile if there's a one percent chance of achieving that possibility and even if the desired process risks global nuclear war world leaders now discuss completely casually ... like it's just Sunday afternoon tea with Nanna.

If his rump of the old empire finally crumbles into its parts, why would it be so bad to be a clutter of small ethnic states on the edge of NATO and the EU? Some might be corrupt stans, others might thrive like the Baltic states. — apokrisis

A racist statement all the more absurd that even in 2020, before the war, Ukraine ranks below Kazakstan on the Corruption Perception Index and well below several other Persian and/or Muslim and/or "others" filled countries (whatever "ethnicity" is being referred to by "ethnic state").

It's interesting to see how much longer the Ukrainian offensive can go. — ssu

Well, the glorious armies of the Russian Federation are apparently making a stand at Lyman and Kupiansk, and resisting further Ukrainian advance there, thus showing far better fighting spirit than displayed so far around Kharkiv.

Their enlighten leader in Moscow must have told them to stop running and face the enemy. Let's see how long they can last.

And who's stating "He's [Putin] in trouble and he knows it"?

Jame Clapper.

The very same James clapper who was Director of National Intelligence and also ...

Following the June 2013 leak of documents detailing the NSA practice of collecting telephone metadata on millions of Americans' telephone calls, Clapper was accused of perjury for telling a congressional committee hearing that the NSA does not collect any type of data on millions of Americans earlier that year. One senator asked for his resignation, and a group of 26 senators complained about Clapper's responses under questioning. — Jame Clapper - Wikipedia

Why should we take the words of James Clapper at face value, and how does he know what Putin "knows" to begin with?

All he really did in that interview was say that the White house has been telling Putin "not to use nukes" but also maintaining "strategic ambiguity" about what the US would do.

News flash: US is extremely unlikely to strike Russia with nuclear weapons when the US nor any of its actual allies isn't attacked. Why would it?

Putin seems intent on doing a speed run of Tsar Nicholas II's career:

Foreign war declared for nebulous reasons that is popular with a small, influential nationalist clique, but not with the general public: check.

Major strain placed on the economy by economic isolation: check

Getting himself directly involved in the war so that he will be seen as personally responsible for faliures: check (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/23/us/politics/putin-ukraine.html)

Slowly losing support from the right for losing the war while also getting growing ire from the left: check

Sending mature men to fight who have wives and children to get back to and support and who have much higher opportunity costs for serving in the military: check. Historically, drafting older soldiers is not a good move. It's more disruptive to the economy. The guys have experience living on their own and having a high degree of personal autonomy. They don't look up to their officers just by virtue of them being older. To be sure, older fighters are sometimes preferable, particularly for COIN missions where they are less likely to be hot headed and many have law enforcement experience, but they're also more likely to mutiny under poor command. It's a baffling choice.

Sending protestors and opposition leaders to the front: check. This was pivotal during the Russian revolution, as motivated organizers against the ruling elite got sent into groups of armed men functioning in a leadership vacuum.

Send prisoners who are much more likely to mutiny to the front in large numbers: check.

Sending men in after almost no training and with poor equipment: check. Leaked videos show men being told they will receive 15 days of refresher training. Men are being issued the same bolt action rifles used in WWI as service weapons.

Chronic supply issues due to endemic corruption and an inability to rationally organize production: check. The number of Russian fire missions has fallen by an order of magnitude, which suggests a shortage of tubes (likely due to burning through existing ones with high usage) or shells, or both. Allocation of resources seems to be a chronic issue too. MBTs lack ERA, while ERA has been thrown directly on light vehicles with no separation, meaning that if it does activate it'll end up immolating the vehicle, no saving it.

Putin's decision to personally stop a retreat from Kherson could prove particularly damaging if Ukraine is able to move into new firing positions that allow its interdiction campaign to completely limit resupply or escape. The forces there probably represent about 10-15% of Russia's combat forces, and likely a higher share of its total combat power.

Thought I'd pop this here.



The funniest part is the postscript...

When I posted an earlier version of this piece on my Substack, I mentioned that AEI doesn’t disclose its donors. But Ben Freeman pointed out to me that after some digging, you’ll find that AEI has taken money from the military industry by way of its board chair — meaning that all the think tanks advising US foreign policy are taking money from weapons manufacturers one way or another, and the chart above should be a solid yellow pie. — Stephen Semler

It's a direct quote, you asked for a moral judgment on Putin. — Isaac

No. I asked for a geopolitical account by which he might be understood as a rational actor. Just as my first post stressed that Russian imperialism as a national identity is grounded in geography and history.

So keep on strawmanning.

For, indeed, that only makes sense if you manage to collapse the Russian state; i.e. defeat Russia. — boethius

I was talking about the implosion of Putin’s regime following a failure in Ukraine. Different thing.

I was talking about the implosion of Putin’s regime following a failure in Ukraine. Different thing. — apokrisis

If the implosion of Russia follows failure in Ukraine, that's definitely one way to defeat Russia.

If the war is with the Russian state and through war the collapse of the Russian state is caused and is no more, that certainly qualifies as victory over the Russian state.

:up:

If the implosion of Russia follows failure in Ukraine, that's definitely one way to defeat Russia. — boethius

There's a huge effort to do that. By Putin, actually.



The Russo-Japanese war cannot be viewed as a victory for Russia. That war resulted in the 1905 revolution.

The poor performance of the Soviet Union in the Winter War 1939-1940 and it's inability to conquer a very small nation lead Hitler to think that the Soviet Union would be a pushover.

Both wars ended in humiliation for Russia, yet on both occasions the country faced later a World War and survived, even if in WW1 faced a revolution and a long civil war.

The mobilization effort, with having no earlier plans for anything thing like this, no organization to do the mobilization and the training and equipment being no questionable cold-war era materiel, will end up likely being chaotic. Both Meduza and Novaya Gazeta Europe have reported that the actual number would be 1,2 million. And this can create real friction in the Russian society. Already it's been noted that especially minorities and poor regions are used as naturally angry mothers at Moscow and St. Petersburgh streets could be a problem.

Actually from this war there is a perfect example just how difficult it will be and long a mobilization that hasn't been prepared and been rehearsed will take. That's the mobilization that Ukraine had to do in 2014. Basically it took half a year for Ukraine to mobilize the reserves and for a long time it was the voluntary battalions that were used. So basically when you are talking about this mobilization, it will have an effect perhaps on a Russian spring offensive in 2023. How effective it will be is another matter.

Or then that implosion can come from that 'New Army' that is now created.

The whole thing is beginning to look like the war on Vietnam by the Americans. People who were happy not knowing jack about other people were forced to pay attention through personal loss.

I totally agree with this.

I would think the reason is because wars and military operations have been so crucial to his (Putin's) rule, that once confronted by a military endeavor gone bad, he has just ante'd up. Second Chechen war was basically his Presidential campaign, the Russo-Georgian war, even if pretty chaotic for the Russian army, was still a victory. The Crimean occupation went like a dream. The Syrian campaign wasn't a disaster either. Everything looked good until this military adventure.

And I think he likely cannot see what a perilous situation he is creating with this war, which you explained very well. This war seems a lot to me like the Russo-Japanese war.

The whole thing is beginning to look like the war on Vietnam by the Americans. People who were happy not knowing jack about other people were forced to pay attention through personal loss. — Paine

Except this war is bloodier than the Vietnam war was for Americans (for the Vietnamese, it's another issue). The highest death toll for the US was in 1968 with nearly 17 000 killed. Russian losses have pasted that in far less than a year (although believing the official statistics, only 5 000+ have been killed).

This war is also a bigger burden for the Russian economy than the Vietnam war was for the US.

And this war has basically put nearly all Russian ground forces into the fight. During 1969 at the peak the US armed forces had 543 000 troops in Vietnam. Yet even then only 30% of all US troops were deployed into foreign countries, and not all in Vietnam. A quarter million troops were deployed into Europe in 1969. Compared to that, Russia has put it's whole ground forces to fight in Ukraine. It's telling that for the annual exercises in the Far Eastern military district, Russia had withdraw troops from Ukraine to participate in them.

And Putin knows just where he actually needs troops: the National Guard is larger than the ground forces of the Russian army.