It's fair to contextualize the issue. Nothing we say here is going to contribute to a solution, merely analyse its possibility. And it's also fair to make moral arguments one way or the other. What I would be interested in is if anyone could tell me what they think is going to happen next because I consider my theory of a straightforward solution pretty much defunct now.

Yes. But is Olivier5 trying to smear me, Benkei and boethius by association with Carlson and Taylor Greene, or is he trying to smear Carlson and Taylor Greene by association with me, Benkei and boethius! — Isaac

I suspect you are Tucker Carlson, so the difference is moot. :eyes:

You can argue that these atrocities mirror those in Iraq and elsewhere but you can't argue that they are not the current narrative. That horse has left the stable and they have to be addressed. The question is how does that play out? I see brick walls to progress everywhere at the moment.

So the correct thing to do is to rather ask the question... Why is their rhetoric similar to "that group"? — Christoffer

No, the correct thing to do is address their arguments, which stand on their own merit.



You connected them in order to discredit your opponents.

We can read the exact same kind of crap here — Olivier5

Your ridiculous denials are amusing but eventually you will have to address your opponents' arguments on their merits or you will simply be seen as someone who has no ability to do so. Your choice.

From the link:

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument."

Doesn't that rhetoric sound familiar? We can read the exact same kind of crap here, written by the likes of Benkei, @Isaac or mage @boethius. — Olivier5

QED.

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling. — ssu

I don't think that fairly represents @Benkei's position. But he can speak for himself. Before I get tarred with the same brush, I suppose I should emphasize again, the invasion of Ukraine has been brutal, unjustified, and I unequivocally condemn it. That doesn't mean I can't criticize NATO too. But the extent of Russia's apparent war crimes is the more pressing issue now as it's the dominant narrative and it makes any settlement favourable to Russia much harder to reach and therefore a deescalation much harder to achieve. So, I'm much less confident of a solution in the forseeable future and also less confident about how the issue should be approached. On the one hand, ideally, the war just needs to stop even if that means concessions to Russia. On the other hand, the brutality meted out to Ukranian civilians can't go unanswered.

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences. — Baden

Seeing as @Apollodorus does not seem able to heed warnings, his last couple of posts have been deleted as will any more along the same lines. Apologies to anyone who bothered to reply to him.

That sounds like more pro-NATO propaganda from the Finnish outback. — Apollodorus

Warned you about this ethnocentred trolling before. Do it again and there will be consequences.

It's my view that Putin will make a deal with Zelensky, get what he wanted before the war plus a little more and Zelensky will have to sell that to the Ukrainian people. If there can't be a deal then Ukrainians will continue to fight and maybe Putin will go for Kiev as a means to enforce his conditions. But, I do think by far the most likeliest outcome is a deal. And Ukraine is huge; Russia really would be stretching its resources very thin trying to occupy the whole country for any extended period of time. They achieve more with less effort simply occupying the South and East.

:smile: :up:

Joe Biden — frank

Are you painting again?

But, once we get verified, good data, then we may say with more confidence, how much of this went as planned and how much of it was a surprise. — Manuel

Yes, I think I said before, regardless of whether they get what they were ostensibly asking for, it will probably require some serious studies to work out exactly what Russian intentions were and how much went fully as they planned or expected. It's at least sensible to keep somewhat of an open mind on the whole thing.

Meanwhile our media is concentrating on the important stuff:

"Putin bathes in deer antler extract"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-health-investigation-cancer-b2049297.html

Oh, another result of the war will be lots of EU money and EU membership for Ukraine when it's over. I expect worried German and French diplomats are already dangling this carrot in front of Zelensky while pressuring him to make concessions, so they can get themselves out of the mess they've become embroiled in.

All warfare is based on deception.

- Call of Duty (or maybe Sun Tzu. idk!) — Outlander

I've been reading Sun Tzu lately. And it's a good line. Of course, the problem in this context is when you point out evidence that Ukraine aren't doing well, it's deception, but if you say it about Russia, it must be true. There seems to be an emotional need to protect the idea that Ukraine are somehow winning because they're the 'good guys'. I understand the emotion because I would like them to win too, whatever 'winning' means here, but I don't understand letting that emotion interfere with our analysis, especially as it's going to become patently clear in the end who comes out on top. Like, it's not as if we can just pretend we never said any of this stuff.

:up:

So Russia will take Kiev soon? Or go home without doing that? I'm sure you can imagine what will happen if it's the latter. — frank

No, why would it be bad for them now not to take Kiev if they can get what they want without taking it? i.e. seriously degrade the Ukranian military, get the security guarantees they demanded before the war, enforce some kind of separation of the Donbass from the rest of Ukraine, get Ukraine to recognize the Crimea as Russian etc. Putin hasn't been telling Russians that Russia needs to 'take Kiev'. He's been spinning this as a liberation etc.

Eventually, I expect, Russia will officially get its security guarantees from Ukraine, some kind of autonomy for the disputed regions and some acceptance of Russian control over Crimea. There will be face-saving efforts to make this look not so bad for Ukraine, and whatever legal measures necessary, legislation, referenda etc will be pushed through. I hope this happens as soon as possible because the war is worse on Ukranian civilians than anyone else. But it could drag on far more than a month. I will be proven wrong if Russia withdraw without getting at least most of the above. (Of course, I hope I'm proven wrong and they withdraw in ignominy tomorrow, but that's just not realistic). I don't believe Russia wants to occupy Ukraine as a whole. It's not feasible or desirable, but they can certainly occupy the South and East for a very long time if necessary. Where I'm most unsure of the exact outcome is re the Donbas and whether it ends up a Russian puppet state or nominally still within the Ukraine.

Why do you think you know more about the facts on the ground than Ukrainian officials? Are you in Ukraine now? Are you closer to the Ukrainian military than their own personnel? Please do tell.

So how is that good news, or even newsworthy, except as Russian propaganda? — Wayfarer

Why does the news have to be good? Why is it not newsworthy, seeing as it relates to Ukraine's ability to defend itself? And why do you think Ukrainian officials are spreading Russian propaganda?

The US military is monitoring. They can't detect a war commander. That indicates that the Russian troops are being directed from Moscow. That would explain why they keep doing stupid things like pulling a vessel into an unsecured dock only to have it blown up by Ukraine. — frank

Maybe you can send me your sources on this. I doubt that Putin has yet to master the concept of division of labour with regard to a military endeavour as serious as this.

I wouldn't trust war commanders any more than micromanaging dictators with saving lives. But I don't have clear evidence of Putin micromanaging, anyhow. If you do, send it on.

This, though, is evidence of Russian success.

"According to Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych, Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine’s defence industry." — Baden

Unfortunately, I don't expect a country whose defence industry has been destroyed to be able to put up a decent fight for much longer in the face of a much stronger enemy, regardless of how many arms we give them. It would be like expecting Mexico to be able to hold off the US.

They have a multitude of goals @frank. I don't think they'll achieve every goal and while winning a war in the first few days would be desirable for any invading force, it doesn't negate their other strategic objectives, obviously.

I also specifically said "

despite some problems and setbacks. — Baden

I don't think anyone here is claiming they haven't had problems and setbacks.

You’d be absolutely justified in ignoring my posts. — Wayfarer

I'd be absolutely justified in saying you were trolling if you are deliberately trying to annoy posters here with vacuous low effort posts and smears concerning their intentions. But you can prove me wrong by doing some analysis on some of the points made above.

Sure. For logistical reasons, we would expect the Russians to try to make this a short war. That means take Kiev. If they don't, this war will rage on.

Nah. They wanted to take Kiev, but due to one part Ukrainian agile effectiveness and one part Russian sluggishness, they didnt. That's common sense. Doesn't mean Russia abides by common sense. — frank

What are you arguing against? I don't think there's anything in the quote or what I said that says the Russians wouldn't have liked to have taken Kyiv immediately if they could have done that.

That quoted passage is just rationalization in apparent support of Russia. — Wayfarer

That's just a smear.

Here's just one point out of the many made:

It's also been reported, seems by Ukrainian defence ministry, that basically their entire military industry has been blown up. — boethius

Here's evidence for that point from the mouth of a Ukrainian presidential adviser.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/russia-has-destroyed-most-of-ukraines-defence-industry-ukrainian-presidential-adviser-382424

"Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine’s defence industry - Ukrainian presidential adviser"

"“They have practically destroyed our defence industry,” Arestovych said."

Here's confirmation from another source.

https://greekcitytimes.com/2022/04/01/russia-ukraines-defence-industry/

"According to Ukrainian presidential adviser Oleksiy Arestovych, Russia has destroyed most of Ukraine’s defence industry."

Explain to me how this is "just rationalization in apparent support for Russia"?

Here you go. Start with this. Make an argument why this is wrong.

What convoluted explanation? ... it's a pretty usual military tactic to have some manoeuvres (even most) for the purposes of occupying as much of the opposing force as possible in order to then achieve your core objectives.

Yeah, Russians didn't take Kiev, while they secured a land bridge to Crimea, their core security interest.

Their other stated goals?

No Ukraine in NATO. Check.

"Demilitarise" which the President of Finland asked Putin what that meant, which he explained it was currently ongoing; i.e. degrade Ukrainian military capacity, which blowing up bases and equipment and so on accomplishes. Russia can far easier rebuild what it has lost (and still has plenty in reserve anyways) than Ukraine can. It's also been reported, seems by Ukrainian defence ministry, that basically their entire military industry has been blown up.

"De-nazify" basically means Azov battalion, which is in Mariupol anyways, which they need for their land bridge.

"Liberation of the Dombas," is advancing daily.

These are the stated military goals as stated and explained by both Putin and Russian generals.

These were also the core goals as explained by many Western experts before the war started, what Russia may have mobilized for.

It's not "convoluted" to point out they achieved those core goals ... which manoeuvres elsewhere in the country, in particular pressure on the capital, help achieve by spreading forces and supply lines thin (and making it easier to map and blowup said supply lines). — boethius

Of course you don't understand what's going on. You've done zero analysis and have not responded with a substantial argument of your own to anything your interlocutors, e.g., @boethius, have said. All you can do is throw a Vox article with a headline that agrees with you into the thread. 'Vox', that haven of military expertise. You realize that anybody can go and find a news article on the internet that supports his or her position on absolutely anything? If you want to contribute to the debate, why not quote someone else's analysis here and say why it's wrong? That's when your sources can come in if you're quoting facts from them to back up your opinion. You don't just outsource your opinion to a random journalist and expect to be taken seriously. At the very least tell us what they said you agree with and why. Again, if you started a religious or philosophical thread and someone responded with a Vox article and said that's why you're wrong, you'd be absolutely justified in ignoring that person. It's no different in this discussion. If you continue to give the impression of someone who has nothing of his own to contribute, you'll be believed.

But if people deny there's any plan, claim Putin is irrational, everything is an unmitigated disaster etc. and pointing out potential reasons for any decisions can be dismissed off hand, then the discussion can scarcely progress to the point of considering what plans Russia may have had or has and the chances of success.

Which is just lunacy, even if you consider Russia "the enemy" and "evil", indeed even more so, the idea evaluating your evil enemy's goals and chances of success is somehow helping the enemy rather than inviting defeat, is truly remarkable framework of reasoning. — boethius

Yes, exactly, and I've been having trouble getting this point across as succinctly as above. Anyhow, regardless of whether anyone agrees with you, they have to acknowledge just through reading the last couple of pages of this discussion that you're doing significantly more analysis and putting much more thought into understanding the situation, particularly the military situation, than those who came here solely to give their unsubstantiated opinions--as if politics doesn't matter enough to do anything else. And, notably, none of the meat of what you've presented has been seriously challenged. Anyhow, I remain convinced that Russia has the upper hand, has a plan, and despite some problems and setbacks will achieve its major objectives. Not because it 'deserves' to, but because the evidence of its positioning suggests so, because it has the resources to continue to do so, because it's absolutely determined to do so, and there is no other party with a similar level of resources or determination that is willing to stop it. That's ultimately the basic caculus.

I know and if they could do that significantly sooner, it might help, but they can't. I think this will be resolved far before year's end, thankfully.

Expect the war to end soon. This is Russia's way of getting Europe, particularly Germany, to put pressure on Zelensky to capitulate and I expect it will work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/14/russian-gas-oil-boycott-mass-poverty-warns-germany
Energy minister... Robert Habeck... predicted “mass unemployment, poverty, people who can’t heat their homes, people who run out of petrol” if his country stopped using Russian oil and gas.
----
Putin: Thanks for the heads up, bro'.

Yes, Ukraine will have to give up claims of sovereignty over Crimea too.

This is not so much a criticism of Ukraine for making stuff up to boost morale. I can understand why they would do that and why the Western media would go along with it. It's only to say you can't take Ukrainian figures (either directly from them or through Western news sources) any more seriously as a basis for judging Russian military success or failure than the Russian ones parroted by the Russian media, and reliable figures will probably require some kind of academic study after the war is over.

Some more on propaganda/misinformation/bias or whatever we choose to call it re Russia vs Ukraine's military successes/failures:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Total_casualties

"With respect to Russian military losses, Ukrainian estimates tended to be high, while Russian estimates of their own losses tended to be low. Combat deaths can be inferred from a variety of sources, including satellite imagery and video image of military actions. According to a researcher at the Department of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, Ukraine’s government was engaged in a misinformation campaign aimed to boost morale and Western media was generally happy to accept its claims, while Russia was “probably” downplaying its own casualties. Ukraine also tended to be quieter about its own military fatalities. According to BBC News, Ukrainian claims of Russian fatalities were possibly including the injured as well. Analysts warned about accepting the Ukrainian claims as fact, as Western countries were emphasizing the Russian military's toll, while Russia wanted to downplay its losses."

Stop being an Isaac. — frank

:lol: . I wasn't really referring to you. I don't think there's much to argue `about between us except the terminology.

Agreed.

Yes, Crimea was quite close to being an unmitigated victory for Putin, whereas this will be a problematic victory at best with quite a bit of downside in the short term.

Yes, agree also. Russia's not trying to occupy the whole of Ukraine for the next ten years. That's not feasible and I'm pretty sure they know that. That Wayfarer thinks that's the plan maybe helps explain how he managed to get so far detached from reality here.

The bluster and distraction won't detract from the fact that I've never spoken in absolutist terms. It's not an unmitigated victory for Russia (I've emphasized this over and over) but nor is it an unmitigated disaster. An 'unmitigated disaster' in this context would be Ukraine retaking all their own territory and Russia having to retreat to Russia without getting any meaningful concessions, i.e. Ukraine convincingly winning the war. This is such an obvious point, it's embarrassing to have to say it.

Don't know why you keep saying that. Maybe we just have totally irreconcilable ideas of what that word means. — Wayfarer

OK, the fact that they are holding Ukrainian territory and Ukraine has admitted they can't take back that territory by force. Apparently that is an 'unmitigated disaster' for Russia in your book. If you don't think it mitigates the disaster for Russia that they have taken and continue to control a large chunk of Ukraine and are forcing them to the negotiating table as a result, we will just have to agree to differ.