Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    Sarajevo held out for almost four years before the Siege was lifted with limited paths in for supplies. Even before modern food storage methods, cities in antiquity and the middle ages held out for months, sometimes over a year after losing all supply routes in. Hardly an ideal timeframe. Hence the heavy shelling and poorly implemented raids. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Definitely Ukrainians could keep fighting for a long time.

    Russian plan seems definitely to just siege cities and basically wait.

    As for poorly implemented raids, Russia has taken a lot of territory already, which is accomplished by sending people to take that territory. Insofar as Russia advances everyday ... they'll eventually get to all their objectives.

    There's certainly a high short term cost and high risks; but in terms of purely resource based strategy, Ukraine has resources that will easily pay for the war and the long term increases in commodity prices will also pay for the war (to what extent sanctions impact other sectors of Russia economy, and if this is worse than commodity price increases, we could of course debate).

    Oil is currently at 130 USD a barrel and natural gas 27 USD/MMBtu, this isn't "bad" for Russia. EU is still paying Russia a billion Euros a day for energy.

    The purpose of "holding out" in medieval times had several practical purposes; cities also surrendered all the time to avoid a siege and, in exchange for that favour, negotiate conditions, when there was zero purpose to holding out.

    Why completing the siege of Kiev will change things considerably is that Putin is not insisting on taking the city, and if Russian lines (once setup around the city) cannot be practically broken from the outside, pressure will be pretty high to accept Russia's conditions of surrender.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    A substantial majority. 84% of households have cards, which are overwhelmingly Visa or MasterCard. 21% have cards using lines of credit. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    This is is interesting to know, that they do have cards, but only 21% have a line of a credit. If the those other 84% only have a card for online purchases every once and a while it may not affect them all that much. Certainly annoying, but not necessarily suffering.

    For as you say, "Visa and MasterCard did this temporarily after the invasion of the Crimean Peninsula," so:

    They also have a better alternative in UnionPay than they did in 2014, but it is definitely hitting regular Russians hard in their day to day lives short term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Meaning it's less impact than when Visa and Mastercard did so the first time. Now, certainly I would agree this is disruptive to regular Russians, but I've been using a scale of impact of disruption, hardship and suffering, which I'll explain more clearly in response to your next comment.

    No modern economy is autarkic. 20.6% of Russian GDP goes to imports. By comparison, that figure for the USA is just 14.6%. Exports are 28.5% of the Russian economy; for the US it is 11.7%. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I only mentioned independence in energy and food, as going without these things causes immediate suffering.

    I did not intend in anyway to play down the disruptions and hardships caused by these sanctions, only to note Russians won't be cold and hungry, on the whole, anytime soon.

    That the sanctions are insanely disruptive I totally accept and for certain not good for the economy, and such disruptions certainly result in real hardships. I don't minimize these things, and I went to some length to argue that this war is only happening now because the Kremlin "sanction proofed" itself "enough" for severe sanctions to not immediately collapse the entire Russian economy and bring about revolution overnight (such as through the banking reform you mention).

    Likewise, in terms of longer term, the wider economic impacts only matter if Russia cannot get substitutes from China. Certainly intensely disruptive to change suppliers, but there's a big difference between that and material, components or equipment not being available at all.

    Connection to global markets is huge for Russia. China is a major trading partner, but they account for just 14.6% of Russia's exports. The EU makes up over 40% of Russian exports, the US another 4.6%. Gutting 1/7th of your economy (the amount these exports are equivalent too) is going to hurt no matter what you do to prepare. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Again, not denying the intense disruption and I think your word hurt would be the same as my word hardship. Definitely hurting and hardships of all this economic disruption.

    My talking about suffering is that starving and being unable to heat your home, is not merely disruptive or economic hardship, but real suffering, and the West simply cannot inflict this kind of real suffering on Russians through economic sanctions in the short term.

    Certainly, sanctions haven't worked so far in sparking some sort of revolution of causing Putin to withdraw his forces, and the purpose of my talking about energy and food is just that there's simply a limit to how much the West can really impact regular Russian lives.

    If they think the war is justified a population will easily put up with disruption and hardships and it "brings people together" and is a patriotic experience, just as Ukrainians putting up with disruption, hardship and real suffering of being on the road or under siege. We can't underestimate the Ukrainians population willingness to support continued conflict ... nor too can we underestimate the Russians is my basic point.

    However, all the additional facts you bring are certainly completely relevant. The macro economic implications are super big and there's a massive cost to switching suppliers and re-orienting the economy, but seems normal Russians are accepting this, for now at least.

    Importantly for a longer term war, China only manufactures 6% of microchips. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Of course, they can scale up further if there's demand from Russia, but, also, there doesn't seem any way for the West to prevent China just re-selling chips to Russia anyways; they'll certainly complain, but I don't see China accepting being told what to do on this issue.

    I highly doubt that. The war is unpopular and costing them heavily. They want a quick war. This flies in the face of all their strategy to date. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I don't dispute that Kremlin would have preferred a quick victory, and I'd even accept the current situation is a total surprise they didn't really plan for; but considering this has been building for 8 years, I would expect they did consider these sorts of scenarios (they did their sanction proofing and 'more than friends" with China precisely because they were considering this scenario; how likely they thought it was is another question).

    But by strategy I mean their plan now, not their original plan.

    And this new plan I wouldn't say is some sort of new idea: likely they're thinking is we try going in soft a few days and if Ukraine doesn't give up we'll just do what we always do.

    And definitely if Russian people "rise up" then the new plan won't work, and it's also entirely possible we see some big surprise from Ukrainian army and Russia get routed; certainly not impossible, just that if there's some big secret being planned I don't know about it nor see what it could be.

    Western intelligence agencies could have plenty of reasons to mislead about the situation on the ground, but so far most of their limited commentary has been borne out. Open source satellite imagery also seems to suggest this is the case. I'm not sure why else you would want to leave your supply convoy clumped together like that. To be sure, Russia surely has adequate AA along the length of the convoy, but even then, a miracle attack getting through is not something you want to risk if you don't have to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    This isn't really any more unusual than putting your equipment anywhere else. Once you have a front line, you need backup equipment behind said front line, and, in term of any air strike or ambush or whatever, stringing out your backup equipment over 30 km is a good thing.

    Of course, you can have your equipment even farther back, but then it's not handy when you need it and when you do send it in it may run out of gas; they would certainly prioritize topping up whatever they may actually need.

    The alternative to this long ass convoy and just not committing the equipment at all to the area, would be camouflaging all these vehicles under trees and stuff but there doesn't seem to be many trees and they'd all get stuck in the mud, so just staying on the highway and accepting some risk of losses isn't irrational. Of course, if the front line collapses then this entire convoy could be destroyed, but, presumably, Russian commanders are betting that won't happen.

    They also seem to be setting up forward operating bases closer to Kiev.

    It's also unclear why they wouldn't want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible. You can hold most of the area around a city, and if supplies can still get through, your seige won't be effective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    They certainly do want to encircle Kiev as quickly as possible, but due to the political consequence of of that (leadership also stuck and suffering) preventing encirclement of Kiev is Ukraine's top priority.

    Why gains in the south are extremely rapid and Kherson was taken without prolonged urban combat resistance, is because Ukraine clearly can't fight on all fronts.

    Obviously, Russia can eventually simply complete the encirclement of Ukraine by coming up from the south, but that will take time and preventing encirclement of Kiev meanwhile is their main strategy.

    Once Kiev is encircled the military, social and political dynamic will completely change.

    Russians are going slowly by surely around Kiev, I would guess, precisely because that's where you may get a surprise counter offensive and your forces routed if you're not careful (as you say, no easy way to skedaddle if you have a 30km convoy on the highway, and a tactical retreat to regroup would be an embarrassment anyways).

    There's basically two ways to advance in conventional warfare.

    What we see in movies is the armor based offensive to break through enemy lines and rout them. This has high reward, but also high risk that your armor gets isolated and destroyed.

    The other way is the slow encroachment of infantry (building fortified positions as they go) following heavy artillery bombardment.

    This is a really slow process: infantry advance a bit, get shot at, the enemy positions identified and shelled to oblivion until they die or then retreat (small arms purpose is basically to just protect against the sneak attack): infantry advance a bit more and the process repeats.

    Of course, with equally matched forces the enemy also has heavy artillery doing the exact same thing to your infantry positions, and the lines quickly get built up until there is basically no practical way for infantry to advance without immediately all dying (WWI); hence, to try to break such a stalemate the armor offensive was developed (the original purpose of the tank was to simply drive over trenches, which was developed after the intuitive and common sense idea of just gassing the enemy to death proved less effective than people expected); the enemy must then fall back to a less fortified position and you can then immediately occupy their trench system as your new fallback point, after chasing them a bunch until they manage to regroup and/or outrun your supply lines.

    Reducing buildings to rubble can make urban combat more difficult, but if the Russians are trying to avoid urban combat then it makes sense to shell buildings that are good locations for launching anti-tank rockets and sniper fire. If you hand out small arms to civilians then it's completely logical to do this preemptively than bother to wait for enemy fire from these buildings.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Will of the people to fight, to resist, is in every war essential. — ssu

    I don't disagree. Certainly, if they win, it will be a great victory.

    However, people have been surrendering since the beginning of warfare, we do not automatically condemn them as cowards.

    Indeed, for WWII, we criticize the Japanese and the Germans of "fighting until the bitter end" and simply increasing deaths without any possibility of changing the outcome of the war.

    Now, if the Ukrainian leaders have some brilliant plan that would be one thing, and maybe we'll see it.

    However, if even Ukrainian leaders see zero way how they will win, military commanders operating with basically zero logistical network to hold positions, etc. then, considering it's not an existential war of literally Genghis Khan going to murder every last woman and child ... indeed, Russia isn't even demanding a change in leadership, then accepting Russia's current terms seems pretty reasonable.

    Now that deterrent has failed, motivation in war is crucial. Motivation is important to endure war. And motivation is important to rebuild the country after war. — ssu

    I completely agree.

    There are many examples where the best technology has been unable to achieve anything while poorly armed defenders with outdated weapons have prevailed in the end. We are seeing it quite clearly for instance in Yemen, where one of the poorest countries one group has destroyed many American Abrams tanks of the Saudis and have captured them intact as the crews have abandoned the vehicles. You didn't see that with American troops. Will to fight is simply important. — ssu

    Yes, it is possible that there's some way for Ukrainians to somehow win or then get better terms (... I guess join NATO).

    I just don't see exactly how Ukrainians can actually deal with heavy artillery and Russians can simply avoid urban combat.

    And, I'm sure you agree that lives should not be thrown away for no reason, they do need to have some real chance of accomplishing the goals you outline.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukraine did do two very smart moves. By not only saying that all 18 to 60 year old men have to stay in Ukraine, but that this has been at large obeyed is actually very crucial. I — ssu

    It's possible this is a smart move against some existential threat ... it's also possible it's a really dumb move if peace can be achieved by simply recognizing what it can't have anyways (NATO could bring Ukraine in today if it wanted to) and also Russia winning a conventional war anyways.

    I have really serious doubts about the effectiveness of untrained civilians to wage the kind of war Russia is waging.

    And to just give out weapons the Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country and a people ready to defend it. — ssu

    It was a good social media move, for sure, definitely galvanized the West.

    However, has serious consequences of simply handing out weapons to civilians, not even pretending to conscript them into some sort of formal soldier status and chain of command. It makes Putin's statements of Ukraine using human shields completely true, and also makes any civilian just wandering around with an assault riffle a legitimate target for snipers / mortars / tanks / artillery / rockets / aircraft bombs / helicopter strafing and so on.

    Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures, but that does have when nations opt to have for example universal conscription. — ssu

    Certainly countries can have conscription, though that is different than handing out weapons to civilians, as discussed a lot already.

    For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.

    Their strategy is pretty simple:

    1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
    2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
    3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
    4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
    5. Build out their logistics methodically

    Once they cut the country in half I don't see any possibility of Ukrainians prevailing, and I don't see anyway Ukraine can stop Russia from simply cutting the country in half. They can just build a trench system North-South and say "you're move".

    It's certainly possible some amazing Ukrainian counter offensive, rapid scale-up of effective training and logistical support for all those conscripts and likewise sanctions having the intended affect in Russia.

    So, I'm not saying it's impossible, I just don't see, personally, how the current Russian strategy as I understand it could be defeated, and, at least according to Western press, Russians have increased their support for Putin since the war started.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If they take Kiev, either the West escalates even more or it will have to negotiate. — Manuel

    Unclear what more the West can really do to escalate; Germany has already clarified it's not going to stop buying Russian natural gas (obviously). And, even if Germany did stop buying Russian gas ... they'll just start buying again after the war. Russia has gold and currency reserves and commodities to sell to China, India ... Germany.

    Sanctions are disruptive to normal Russians ... but even then not necessarily even normal Russians.

    For instance, Visa and MasterCard pulled out of Russia, but how many normal Russians even have a credit card to begin with?

    Russia is self sufficient in terms of food and energy, so actually making normal Russians suffer economically is likely impossible to achieve through sanctions.

    Upper middle class and rich Russians have their lives disrupted, for sure, but don't necessarily "suffer".

    Plans to send war planes to Ukraine from the US are spine chilling. — Manuel

    I'm not sure how effective these planes are going to be. Russia has plenty of AA defenses and planes of their own.

    It's been observed Russia hasn't used much air power ... but you don't really need air power so close to your own borders. The purpose of air power at the end of the day is basically to substitute artillery strikes; which makes sense ... if you don't have any artillery in the area.

    If you do have artillery than it would be helicopters that have other uses other than artillery substitute, which we have seen a lot of use of.

    I'm pretty sure any plane Ukrainians put up will just be shot down, and certainly Russians are working hard on the counter-drone warfare, and using plenty of drones themselves. The problem with posting everything to social media, is only successes, and not failures, get posted, nor any followup about whether Russian's learned to deal with the tactic.

    To be crystal clear, Ukrainian's are more than justified in defending themselves and are doing so very bravely. — Manuel

    Certainly are justified. My major criticism of the Ukrainians is arming civilians. Had they kept to professional soldiery, and then lost conventional battles, there would be a lot less civilian deaths and, likely, the exact same chances of successfully defending their country.

    It's just hard to say how Russia will interpret such actions - if they are carried out. They obviously simply cannot have a conventional war in Europe, they can't handle Ukraine, so... — Manuel

    That's exactly what they are doing now, very conventional warfare tactics to just level everything with artillery wherever they go, lay siege to cities, and (likely in my opinion) just make a trench system North-South cutting the whole country in half, and just wait as long as they need to for Ukrainians to officially surrender.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    They are not entitled to a trial in those circumstances, hence "it is one of the few areas where summary execution is allowed." — Count Timothy von Icarus

    These aren't really the stories nor videos of these executions.

    The stories are "finding" these people, holding them captive, and executing them, not :

    If the people involved were actually Russian spies, of they were dressed in civilian clothes or Ukranians military uniforms, and if military forces saw them engaging in sabatoge or combat within the battle space (e.g., actively destroying AA equipment, firing on civilians or soldiers, attempting to disable military vehicles during ongoing shelling / air strikes, etc.), then, legally, you are not correct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Which I have not seen any video nor even any story of someone actually sabotaging anything.

    People, whoever they actually are, are just being straight murdered in the streets, but I guess "deputized" civilian soldiers as well as other more formal paramilitary. I would definitely argue these murders are war crimes.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The whole legal framework of "war crimes," isn't relevant in what you're describing. Civilians killing civilians isn't a war crime. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    That's why I say it can be argued later "it was civilians" all along, to make exactly that point.

    However, right now the story is these people are Russian special forces just being executed on the spot without any process whatsoever.

    However, if you arm civilians they are no longer quite civilians, and them going around murdering people (is maybe just murder for them, as they aren't really soldiers either) but I would still argue is a war crime of the political leaders that armed them.

    And murdering your own citizens in a war is also a war crime.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It's unclear how long Kiev will last, any info on this topic would be appreciated. — Manuel

    However, I did see this morning a Western journalist reporting from Kiev that the city is currently being surrounded and the ways out are closing; that the previous day they could go a ways down the road, but now the shelling and fighting is far closer. I was also unsure until seeing this report.

    It's somewhat difficult to find accurate info amid this mess. I assume that the reason Kiev is not yet taken has to do with its resistance, but, what whatever happened to that long Russian convoy that was supposed to arrive? — Manuel

    Generally speaking, very true that accurate information is sparse, but the major gains are pretty well verified.

    Russia's strategy is clearly to simply siege cities and wait them out.

    True that Russia would have preferred Ukraine surrender after the first days and taste of war, but their "do it the hard way" is clearly to just shell to the ground suburbs to clear a path to surround cities.

    This is a slow process, hence the 30km convoy. I think the narrative that the convoy is stuck is pretty naive, they are just waiting for the front to be setup all around Kiev and also the forces from the East to arrive on that side. It's more just used as a long parking lot.

    True, Ukrainian forces could hit it with a lot of air power and drones ... but that's not happening so presumably they don't have the capability.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    For this whole executing people thing.

    Imagine if there was video of American soldiers just pointing at people, calling them "saboteurs" and executing them on the spot.

    The rules don't change just because we think Russians are being executed surreptitiously.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    That said, executing spies and sabateurs in civilian clothes or other nations military uniforms is not a war crime. It has always been allowed under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Dude, I already addressed this, you still need to have some process and some evidence they are saboteurs.

    Just calling someone a saboteur and executing a prisoner of war isn't "a clever hack".

    I'm not aware of any treaties where the execution of spies isn't allowed. It's why it's such a dangerous job. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Again, you'd need some sort of legal process to establish they are spies.

    Pointing at someone, calling them a spy, and executing them is a war crime. Since I imagine most of these people are just ethnic Russian Ukrainians that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, I guess it could be argued (later) that no, no, we were just murdering our own citizens based on just your regular guy paranoid vigilantism, nothing to see here.

    Now, if they are spies, and they're held as prisoners, and there's some process to establish they're spies and execute them, that's another matter.

    However, generally speaking, actual professionals don't execute spies so as to trade them back for your own spies.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Because the Baltic states and Poland, for instance, can now rest assured they can beat the Russians in a conventional war, in case the Russians would feel carried away and try to take over other countries. — Olivier5

    They're all in NATO ... Russia has nuclear deterrence.

    Unless you can actually stop Russian conventional battalions crossing the country North-South in mostly flat open terrain, then Russia is going to "win". That they didn't win "good enough" isn't going to be a very powerful argument for long, nor is hypothetical losses in scenarios that won't happen.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Nato is a defensive alliance. It has never attacked anyone. — Olivier5

    Then why does the comment I was responding to matter?

    Sure, NATO could defeat Russia in conventional warfare.

    How does that help Ukrainians to know?

    Or then why does it matter to Russians if NATO isn't going to attack them as you say? And obviously conventional warfare doesn't matter in that scenario anyways.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Olivier5


    That's why they have some thousands of nuclear weapons in the event NATO attacks them.

    Russians don't hold themselves to American military standards and just "give up the country" in shame if they aren't able to match a military that spends literally 10 times more.

    Russians maybe appreciate their country and free health care the best they can without setting unrealistic expectations.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Destroyed columns say something else. — ssu

    The first phase of the war was to just take as much territory unopposed (or minimal resistance) as possible and take undefended settlements. This involved small mechanized units without any sort of battalion formation, so if they did meet resistance they'd just get blown up and run away back to a battalion formation. In parallel Russian's blew up some things with cruise missiles.

    I.e. take as much territory as possible with minimal civilian casualties. The reason the Eastern front didn't move is because Ukrainian army had a front setup there ... so why attack the hardest point. In particular, had Ukraine sued for peace (accepted it would not join NATO ... which NATO isn't offering as a possibility anyways) then this was a compromise between military and PR objectives (an amicable resolution could have been reached at this point with minimal trauma, deaths and bad blood; it was not "incompetent" Russian military, but common sense politics).

    There's a lot of small settlements everywhere to go anywhere that the Russians do have to deal with. So there is this sort of small scale urban combat.

    However, as soon as the Russians meet heavy resistance approaching a city they setup a siege and start encircling the city by demolishing the suburbs and satellite towns with artillery as they make their way around.

    There's only one exception--of an urban combat operation to take a city without laying siege or demolishing large parts of it--is Kershon, which has an obvious strategic importance of being the major crossing of the Dnieper in the south, so critical if you want to then just go North to cut Ukraine in half, East of the Dnieper and East of Kiev.

    All Russia has to do is simply link up in the middle of Ukraine. No one is even proposing that Ukrainian army is able to offer effective opposition in flat open spaces to major Russian battalion formations. Sure, always possible to harass supply lines as salients are pushed forward (before fanning out) and also ambush some smaller advanced units. However, I do not see how Ukrainians are going to stop the Russians simply linking up in the middle of Ukraine and just avoiding Urban combat as much as possible.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    That's one of the reasons why they're the bad guys. — RogueAI

    Go fight them then.

    And, what I describe is not unique to the Russians; if you use guerrilla tactics and arm civilians, then there's going to be more civilian casualties.

    What's the American's excuse for when they're trigger happy with the drones and blow up civilians having a wedding or whatever?

    Same exact thing. You kill a bunch of American soldiers with guerrilla tactics and suicide bombers and they retaliate one way or another.

    It's basic psychology.

    Not only does the perception of what is a legitimate threat change to encompass more things to shoot at and blow up, but empathy for the civilian population is also reduced.

    The entirety of the rules of war is based on the visual distinction between soldier and civilian.

    It is a "gentlemen's agreement" to not break these rules, but accept defeat rather than resort to blurring the line between civilians and soldiers, because A. if you need to resort to arming civilians you have probably already lost and B. it makes civilians legitimate targets and soldiers should protect civilians and not vice-versa (protecting civilians can include surrender).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The other thing that really pisses me off is the Western media taking at face value extra-judicial execution of alleged Russian special forces.

    I saw a video where a Ukrainian brown shirt butted a guy in the face, had him run down the street, and then shot him in the back; and this was presented as "dealing" with Russian special forces. Not official media, just the youtuber caption for what was happening, but the mass media are not pointing out that these stories have zero basis to assume these people are Russian special forces and saboteurs, and, even if they are, extrajudicial killing of an unarmed captured enemy is still a war crime; Western media just casually mention Ukrainians have been finding and killing them.

    However, what I did see on a Western mass media was footage of "civilians" getting hit by mortar fire ... without pointing out they included "civilians" carrying around assault rifles that got handed out out to them.

    Even more absurd, the legal rational for these executions is these "special forces" are in civilian clothing (which would still need a legal process, but who cares) at the same time as Ukrainian leaders hand out weapons to civilians to Western media fanfare!

    These reports of executing special forces in civilian clothing could reach Putin's desk and his reaction could literally be right now "good thing we have zero special forces in civilian clothing in Ukraine right now."
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And I say these things because, right now, if the EU stopped being little fucking bitches, they could negotiate a resolution that includes tracking down every single one of these weapon systems when the war is over.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Also, we've seen this exact script play out before.

    When Russia intervened in Syria, the "resistance" had an amazing social media campaign, took out many Russian tanks and vehicles (some of it real, some of it fake) with Western supplied anti-tank missiles, high praises from the Western media, and denigrating the Russian equipment and personnel, and predictions of the Russian's losing etc.

    Russian's would respond to the social media offensive with a press conference pointing to having blown one thing up, with basically the message that "see, we blow up things too".

    On the ground, Russian forces simply relentlessly took ground every day with heavy artillery clearing the way, with a few setbacks here and there.

    That the exact same play book is now being used in Ukraine by the exact same people far closer the Russia's border there's little reason to expect won't work.

    The argument "they didn't win in a week and therefore lost" doesn't really make sense.

    Pointing to successful guerrilla tactics in a conventional war likewise doesn't point the way to victory.

    For everyone of these guerrilla tactics to pick off a tank, the Russians will just shell to the ground several neighborhoods to express their frustration with that.

    Setting up some sort of insurgency after the war doesn't benefit normal Ukrainians nor will it change the outcome of the war, just empowers extremists to cause mayhem for decades (which if the Russian's are too difficult to kill, they'll turn these weapons on Ukrainian "softies" trying to rebuild the country and their international relations in a common sense way).

    And for everyone of these missiles that gets used against the Russians, 2, 3 maybe 10 (in the case of the manpads) will be sold on the black market. Likewise all the rest of the small arms as well.

    People really want fanatics with manpads in the heart of Europe and almost zero barriers to bring them anywhere in Europe to fire at any civilian plane at any time for the next 20 years?

    Abandoning conventional rules of war in favour of some sort of tictoc fueled "last stand against the galactic Empire" serves no one, least of all Ukrainians, and is simply undermining European security as a whole for decades.

    Of course, American's are smiling about that, but why EU nations are going along with this madness for the "views" is truly disheartening.

    If you can't win a conventional war, the duty of leaders is to surrender to avoid unnecessary loss of life. Neither Ukrainians nor Europeans will benefit from thousands of sophisticated missile systems being distributed to every extremist group in Europe that can buy them.

    You think these "almost" neo-Nazi's won't sell these weapons to Jihadists?

    It's true police madness.

    If you don't care enough about Ukraine to send your own troops to try to win a conventional war with trained soldiers, flooding the place with sophisticated small arms changes nothing and will cause insecurity on the entire continent for decades.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Now 17 000 anti-tank weapons is huge amount. That it has been sent in less than a week is noteworthy: — ssu

    The US already gave Ukraine some 3 billion USD of weapons since 2014 ( / loaned them the money to buy them). That so far hasn't stopped the Russians.

    From what I see in terms of militarily strategy--whereas the Russian build out of their logistics on 3 fronts does take time and has met some losses and setbacks--the Ukrainians logistics I don't think are going great.

    Russia's strategy is to simply avoid urban combat (where these javelines would be most effective), surround cities.

    If their south forces meet their North forces by simply going around urban areas and shelling to oblivion any ad hoc enemy positions along the way, then Russia can just setup a conventional defensive line North-South across the whole of Ukraine.

    These anti-tank weapons have very limited use against a conventional defensive line (aka. trenches and other fortified positions supported by artillery) in flat open country.

    Everyone is saying "urban combat, urban combat" ... but if Russian forces just avoid urban combat and cut the country in half it is effectively laying siege to not only Kiev but the entire East of the country.

    Combat in the East after that point is simply a matter of time before ammo runs out, and mayors and commanders can only ask people to starve only so long.

    In the West, assaulting a conventional battle line would require heavy artillery and tanks, anti-tank weapons would be relatively meaningless.

    Notably, the only city the Russian's have so far actually done urban combat and occupied is the only city required to carry out the above plan: Kherson. Every other city the Russian's are simply laying siege at minimal risk to themselves.

    The armor dashes at the start of the war make sense to simply take as much territory as possible as Ukraine didn't preemptively mobilize, also make sense in terms of public relations of starting "the soft way", and also gave the chance to Ukraine to get a "taste" of war and maybe accept the offered peace terms.

    Ukrainian leadership decided that calling Russia's bluff of doing things the hard way was a better idea, and so started handing out small arms to civilians to make clear the cost of urban combat in a social media campaign the likes the world has never seen.

    ... Which is what Western media keeps on going on about, how it's a "second Russian Afghanistan etc." but, other than the only city Russia has taken with experienced Urban combat units, I don't see any need for Russia to do any urban combat at all.

    Russia has never stated it wants to occupy and passiffy Ukraine, everyone agrees it's impossible to do with their committed troop numbers and would be a costly disaster if they did commit the troops to try to do it ... so maybe that's just not their plan, but what they can do is cut the country North-South and just wait out the Ukrainian will to fight.

    Easy to be brave when your heroic and defiant statements immediately get a thousand likes on facebook. It's far harder hungry, tired, cut off from communications, running out of ammunition, and no viable pathway to victory in the face of continuous shelling.

    I have actually trained to go up against conventional Russian military tactics. It's not a fucking game: it's building and sitting in multi layered networks of trenches and other fortifications for the purposes of protecting your own heavy artillery counter battery fire. Throw in a shit ton of mines, an air / anti-air game going on in parallel for control of the sky, armored offensives and counter offensives to break through enemy lines (for the purposes of destroying their slow moving heavy artillery), and you can "maybe" fight the Russians off within a days march from their own border.

    I honestly don't see how javalins are going to stop the process of relentlessly removing any obstacles with a zillion heavy artillery shells.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    It's genuine, Peskov is Putin's man. — ssu

    It's Reuters and they're reporting as Moscow's offer.

    What I mean is that there's no reason to assume if the offer was taken, that Moscow would continue military operations and not withdraw as stated.

    No one now believes Ukraine will ever join Nato, nor ever get Crimea back, nor get the breakaway provinces back.

    Yet, the West has been telling, and is telling Ukraine to refuse to formally accept the obvious reality.

    The usual logic of refusing to accept concessions of this kind is that maybe they ask more concessions later, and then more, and more and more, and you're forced to fight at some point anyways, but have now given concessions for no reason ... but that logic doesn't hold if the fight is happening.

    I honestly don't get the logic, other than use Ukrainians as cannon fodder to setup the new cold war and all the arms sales that goes with that

    True, but we aren't discussing the portrayed genocide that Ukrainian government according to Putin was doing in the Donbas. No evidence of that has been even given (or fabricated) from the Russian side I think. — ssu

    There's been a lot of fighting and ethnic Russians dying in Donbas since 2014 (regions no one doubts wants to break with Ukraine) and likewise language and cultural suppression of ethnic Russians generally speaking. Certainly not the level of a "genocide," but, again, if you're tolerating neo-Nazi's who are extreme anti-Russian fanatics it's an easy sell to say they have genocidal intentions to remove ethnic Russians from Ukraine (which they say they do) and the policies and things like Azov brigade are the start to that genocidal plan, which left unchecked, would be appeasement, and may not be easy to stop later etc.

    Better late than never I guess?
    Did sanctions have an effect of sorts? Ukrainians cause difficulties?
    Anyway, seems the Nazi story fell out of favor.     — jorndoe

    This has more-or-less been the offer the whole time, before the war too it seemed clear to all analysts there was an agreement that Ukraine was neutral and accepting the separation of break away regions, then there would not be a war.

    If Putin makes this very, very, very good offer (accept not having what one already doesn't have and can never get: NATO membership, Crimea, Donbas), and Ukraine refuses, then it's again playing into Putin's hand to sell the war to the home audience as well as other non-aligned states.

    Putin can go to the Indians and when they bring up the war, he can say "hey, I made a pretty good offer, it was refused; people can't be simply unreasonable in these issues".

    It definitely succeeds in flipping the moral burden and lowers the cost of continuing the war, if Ukraine refuses the deal.

    Now, if Ukraine accepts the deal and Putin continues the war anyways ... well, situation hasn't changed but it's a far harder sell both to the home audience as well as other states Putin will need to deal with to re-orient Russia's economy away from the West.

    If Ukraine accepts the deal and it's implemented as stated, then we'll see if international opinion views that as Russia being "defeated" by Ukrainian resistance or just stopping a war started to achieve certain reasonable objectives and then stopping the war when those reasonable objectives were achieved.

    The so called "ludicrous" demand that NATO pull back it's advanced forces to around Germany ... is honestly not that ludicrous. It's NATO that insisted those advanced forces weren't to target Russia, but the stated reason for missile bases in places like Poland was to strike the middle east if I remember correctly.

    As for neo-Nazi's, Azov brigade is surrounded in Mariupol and will certainly be dealt with and their entire city already collectively punished, and, more importantly if there is an end to the war, the Ukrainian neo-Nazi or "ultra nationalist" delusion that war with Russia is actually a good thing may fall out of favour and Ukrainians maybe less sympathetic to having them proudly walk around with their Nazi inspired insignia.

    Putin can easily say he's dealt with the neo-Nazi problem himself by killing hundreds, perhaps thousands of "ultra nationalists" on the battle field.

    Furthermore, a peace deal would certainly have a whole bunch more details than the main points, and would certainly include Russia arresting any neo-Nazi's on the territories it is currently occupying, and would then have some trials for the home audience (call them show trials if you want).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

    Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.     — Reuters

    There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.

    Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I think there is a tendency on the pro-NATO side to argue either (a) that there are no neo-Nazis in Ukraine or (b) that the threat they pose is insufficient to justify war. — Apollodorus

    I definitely agree.

    I bring up the "how many is too many" as it's honestly seems to me a complicated moral and political question to answer. Are we actually comfortable with a country tolerating and supporting 1 Azov brigade? Is it "Nazi enough" etc. If it's allowable, where do we draw the line?

    Not something I think we can settle now, but maybe a good debate after the war. It's relevance in the current situation is that given the difficulty in addressing this basic question, maybe some credible response (such as
    ↪Isaac
    has already outlined a basic policy about, which seems fine) is a good diplomatic move, and also maybe (regardless of what the West thinks) Russians largely back the war and sanctions may punish them for it ... but not save a single Ukrainian life.

    However, this deliberately ignores the wider point Putin is making, namely that the invasion or “special military operation” is a response to NATO expansionism and aggression: — Apollodorus

    Yes, this is definitely the main reason for the War, the neo-Nazi's being either a pretext (if they don't exist) or then just additionally provoking Russia and giving it excellent justifications to its population (who may not follow geopolitics as closely as we do here) to react to their longer term security concern.

    In any case, we mustn’t forget that NATO itself has used “genocide”, “ethnic cleansing” and similar claims as a justification for war, as in the 1999 bombing of Serbia. So, I think it is crucial to decide whether we want this thread to be an objective and fact-based discussion or a counterfactual exercise in pro-NATO propaganda. — Apollodorus

    Definitely the more the West is hypocritical the less it's able to corral the various pseudo-liberals countries around. Ignoring something in Western media doesn't mean it's ignored elsewhere, and, for example, India media pointing out Western hypocrisy is going to significantly lesson any public concern about these Ukrainians.

    In brief, completely agree with your analysis on these various points.

    I think everyone agrees that targeting civilians is wrong. But this doesn’t mean that we should white-wash Zelensky and cover up his links to pro-Western oligarchs and US interests. — Apollodorus

    Definitely over simplifications in Western media ... which Western politicians now seem to simply take at face value (there's even a bizarre reversal sometimes where even the mainest of the main stream journalists are like "isn't it more nuanced than that" and politicians respond basically "nope, just that simple and clear cut").

    Most Europeans and Americans knew nothing about Ukraine literally 2 weeks ago, and suddenly take at face value the "consensus" that has emerged on social media.

    The deaths and trauma and increase in energy and food prices globally is true historic tragedy.

    But ... if we're not actually going to follow through the virtue signaling by attacking Russia (which ... isn't that the appeasement argument: we should have attacked Hitler sooner?) then the only other option is through diplomacy which requires understanding the other perspective and striking the best bargain.

    People seem to genuinely believe that sacrificing Ukrainian lives without any military justification (just ... "maybe" they'll insurgency later), is, sure is maybe not justifiable, but it is justifiable to preserve our virtue signalling on social media and personal sense of righteousness from our keyboard in our living rooms thousands of miles away.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Pray tell, what areas are those? Their best chance for hearts and minds in a major city was Kharkiv, which is overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Russians and right across the border. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Obviously Crimea and the separatist regions they already occupy. You may also overestimate the willingness of normal people to throw away their lives once the war is over and it's entirely possible to continue their lives normally, whether in the Ukraine whatever that ends up being, or now Russian occupied Ukrainian territory, or then in the EU somewhere.

    hey stalled there, didn't have the forces to take the city because of their ridiculous number of lines of attack, and resorted to shelling residential neighborhoods for hours on end in what looks like exactly the sort of punitive siege tactics that produce insurgencies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    As I stated in one of my first comments in this thread, I believe the strategy is to cut through Ethnic Ukrainian territory to the west of the Dnieper river thus cutting off all supplies East of there and making it a matter of time for forces there to surrender or run out of bullets.

    They aren't "bringing down the hammer" in ethnic Russian regions precisely for the "hearts and minds" purposes, they are punishing Ethnic Ukrainians.

    Now, the exception to this general pattern is shelling Mariupol to the ground, but this I think is not simply it's strategic significance but Azov brigade is based there so collective punishment for that and fits into the narrative of "de-Nazification".

    If protestors drive out the new Russian backed countries Russia will just invade again? Another surprise offensive war to liberate their neighbor as their economy implodes? Yeah, that'll go over well. It's not like invasions are expensive or anything. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    This war was expensive because Russia was not "poised to invade" any moment. Russia needed 8 years to minimally sanctions proof itself (Russia certainly found all those sanctions threats the West constantly talked about credible as far as I can see) and to ramp up economic ties with China.

    However, if Ukrainian army is decimated and Russia makes it clear it will simply invade if there's any buildup of any kind, any arms shipments from the West at all for instance (Ukraine can build it's own weapons for basic military needs), then the next invasion would be far cheaper ... and must less land to cover.

    Armed civilians are useless? What do you think the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan were? — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Mujahideen were not civilians.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Sorry, but almost everything about this analysis is wrong. The coverage of resistance efforts by regular civilians plays an obvious military role. It is providing civilians and reservists with the small arms that they would need to conduct an insurgency against a Russian occupation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Ah yes, the point of handing out arms to non-uniformed civilians on live television and making them legitimate military targets and undermining the rules of war we want to accuse the Russian's about ... is so that they can wage an insurgency after the occupation.

    If you want to create an insurgency, then you want to create the networks and arms smuggling routes into the country.

    You think the average Ukrainian caught up in the patriotic "stand" is going to go around randomly killing Russian soldiers in an occupation with a riffle they barely know how to use ... and may not even have bullets for?

    I don't think so, they'll go back to their lives (assuming they're still alive).

    On-top of that, Russia may not even occupy Ukraine to begin with, and they've given no indication they even intend to.

    Once they've decimated the Ukrainian military (blown up those billions of USD of arms the US has given Ukraine since 2014) and gotten the concessions they want (such as keeping their land bridge to Crimea, any province that "wants to" separate can do so--whether that's actually true or just the regions Russia expects no insurgency and can take without hassle, doesn't matter), and, most importantly, Ukraine finally surrenders on the condition of never joining NATO ... there's zero reason to believe Russia wouldn't simply go back to it's borders (it's new borders).

    EU would be left with the legacy problems of cleaning up, and Russia will make clear it will just invade again if it's conditions aren't met.

    So, what actual evidence is there that giving small arms to civilians who, we both seem to agree, have zero relevance in modern conventional warfare currently happening (at least by the Russians on the Ukrainians), accomplishes something other than getting those and many other civilians killed?

    The duty of a soldier in the modern rules of war is to protect civilians, which does include surrender when further fighting is not justifiable ... soldiers and leaders handing out small arms to civilians to protect themselves (i.e. protect those soldiers and leaders handing out the small arms from the enemy with civilian lives ... somehow, not really clear, I guess a play for a no-fly zone) is reversing on its head literally a thousand years of diplomatic efforts to render warfare less destructive than it needs to be.

    At least call it conscription with some formal process to become an identifiable combatant followed by at least some training. Handing small arms to civilians (literally calling it "handing out weapons to civilians") was a media play to garner sympathy in the West, dramatically showing the average Ukrainians "will to fight and defend their country", not a credible military strategy nor responsible or even legal under the current rules of war the West is criticizing Putin about.

    Decisions to kill or not are made primarily on the basis of whether people are carrying a rifle or not (which, civilians easily get killed by those decisions anyways as the evidence bar isn't so high).

    Handing out small arms to civilians and having them wander around to "insurgency" later will just get them killed. From a professional military perspective, it's outrageous.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Yet as nearly in every Western country, radical elements can pose a threat, but when Ukraine is under such fierce attack from Russia, this hardly should be the most important issue about Ukraine. — ssu

    It's relevant because that's Putin's stated justification for the war.

    There are lot's more issues we could discuss. There are two sides of a discussion, if people against "discussing neo-Nazi's in Ukraine" followed that principle and didn't discuss it, then the points would be noted (obviously Putin's saying it's the justification, etc.) and the conversation would then move on.

    The conversation stays on this point because people insist on trying to prove it shouldn't be discussed!

    But I agree that it's not the most relevant issue, nor the most important justification for the war: which is Ukraine not joining NATO (which Putin also talks about and demands). The neo-Nazi's, from my point of view, is more an example of how simply ignoring legitimate grievances, painting Putin as "a monster tyrant" (which we both agree is a caricature), backfires diplomatically. So, it's relevant as one of Putin's stated justifications, but also an opportunity to introspect about the EU's diplomatic process on Ukraine since 2014.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    To justify the costs of the war before the Russian population. But the Ukrainian Jews find this justification preposterous. — neomac

    Yeah, sure, explain the position of Ukrainian Jews to Putin as a diplomatic response if you want.

    Or then ignore anything Putin says as your negotiation strategy ... but then why go speak about anything if the plan is just to simply ignore the points of the counter-party?

    Or go fight in Ukraine and defend it from Russian aggression.

    People seem to be debating based on the premise that keeping social media momentum that any act of defiance no matter how irrelevant militarily speaking (such as just "defying" Putin on this philosophy forum), is going to save Ukrainian lives.

    It won't. Russia can't just be cancelled due to social media momentum like some talking head who said the wrong thing on a podcast.

    Russia is currently winning this war and no amount of social media is going to change that.

    Effective diplomacy can save thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives, and arguably millions due to energy price increases and food shortages by actively making this war more disastrous than it is.

    Maintaining a stale-mate by flooding in arms can force an adversary to the negotiation table.

    But there is no stale mate, Russia couldn't take all of Ukraine in a week because it's so big ... but for the same reason there is no practical way for Ukrainians to defend all of Ukraine. As long as Russian army is steadily advancing, then it is winning and will simply continue to do so until it has "clearly won", and then will negotiate.

    Russia certainly had a very soft invasion to start the war to give the Ukrainians the chance to accept the demands of being a neutral country. For the sake of "having the right to join NATO" which NATO isn't offering, those demands are refused and civilians armed to demonstrate a existential battle to the death and call Putin's bluff.

    Well, Putin wasn't bluffing about invading Ukraine in the first place, and isn't bluffing about doing things the hard way (relentless heavy artillery bombardment that javelines and manpads can't do much about, only equally heavy counter battery and the logistics to continuously supply shells and fuel, which Ukraine doesn't have).

    It's common sense. If NATO isn't actually letting Ukraine in the club (which, to be clear, they could have done anytime) then if you call Putin's bluff about invading, rather than conceding something you don't even have (being in NATO), you better be right or you've wrecked your country and traumatized every citizen and gotten many killed.

    If you stage a media campaign of "existential resistance" and passing out riffles to civilians (who will have no effect in a modern battle field and Russia being "less modern" than the US doesn't change that, and get sent a flood of small arms like javelines and manpads from sympathetic countries), to call Putin's bluff about willingness to use tactics that are effective against small arms (big arms), then, again, you better be right about Putin's bluff otherwise your cities get leveled under relentless heavy artillery bombardment and your small arms tactics are of no use.

    If the outcome of the war is the same, Russia wins, what was the point of calling Putin's bluffs, which obviously weren't bluffs? Just to prove that Putin was willing to "do what it takes"?

    Ukrainian government has had a "Putin defiance, zero compromises" policy since 2014, and goaded on in the West ... and, sadly it seems, truly believed the West was a friend and not just egging them on. Seems to me real tears over the no-fly zone and real frustration with NATO for not actually helping (small arms are effective against US ... because US is unwilling to level cities to the ground and US, at least pretends, to be occupying places for the citizens own good; and, even then, small arms tactics don't actually push US front lines back or overrun US bases, just harasses US patrols until the will to continue occupying the territory, more importantly the strategic purpose, is reduced to zero and then the American's leave ... and even then takes decades of small arms tactics to get to that result).

    Yes, Russia does not have as many smart munitions ... but you don't need smart munitions if sending tens of thousands of incredibly cheap shells to obliterate the entire enemy position from tens of kilometres away, gets the job done.

    Effective resistance can, in some cases, encourage a settlement on better terms.

    Ineffective resistance is A. ineffective and B. likely just angers the counter-party more inviting harsher tactics and worse terms of a negotiated settlement.

    And pretty much every military analysist interviewed on TV says the same things (including the former director of the CIA): Ukrainians are fighting so bravely, we got to support them with arms, punish Russia with sanctions so "they learn", blah, blah, blah, but obviously Russia is going to win and Ukraine can't do anything to change that outcome. Why the small arms then? Just virtue signaling that "we tried ... but not really cause you totally not welcome in our little NATO club"?

    Sending someone to die should at least serve some strategic purpose, not simply play well on TikToc.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    > You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table. — neomac

    Guy, this is Putin's stated justification of the war.

    A response at the negotiation table can be be "we don't believe it" or "here's proof there's no neo-Nazi's" or "it doesn't matter" or then "we also don't like Nazi's and would agree to policies that reduce their numbers and influence, however bit it is, after a peace is achieved."

    Are you basically suggesting that if Russian diplomats bring up the Nazi justification that Ukrainian and / or Western diplomats just say nothing?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    No, it has not. It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

    I literally quoted the response.

    And as
    ↪FreeEmotion
    just pointed out, there's a difference between saying it's exaggerated or "not exactly Nazi's ... but really close" and saying such groups don't exist at all or have no ties to Ukrainian formal government.

    I agree he is not a mad tyrant. His weakness is that he has been left with a Russia that is broken up into little pieces a very hostile alliance of nations. It was a cold war, but it was a war, and it was won, maybe a Versailles- type humiliation is what the winners of the Cold War want. — FreeEmotion

    That's not really in the cards due to the Nuclear weapons.

    I think what's more likely is the winners of the cold war want a second cold war (sell more weapons and have more "fun").
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I'm just gonna repeat this again, since the problem is that any legitimization of the propaganda narrative actively supports the spread of that propaganda. — Christoffer

    This has already been responded to, what's you're rebuttal?

    This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.

    """
    The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

    Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.
    """     — NOS4A2

    Furthermore, are you saying the West and also Ukraine hasn't been making any propaganda about the current situation?

    Neo-nazis in Ukraine are not worse than most other nations having neo-nazi groups. All nations work to push those groups back, but using this fact in relation to this war is ONLY in relation to Putin's propaganda reasons. — Christoffer

    But this is simply not the case; the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are not suppressed by the Ukrainian government in any credible way since 2014, and it's been documented with plenty of journalists going and reporting on it since 2014.

    You can't just make false equivalence because it suits your own propaganda. Well you can ... just doesn't make it true.

    Ukraine has Azov brigade and other groups patrolling the streets since a few years (aka. brown shirts) with formal government powers, what's the equivalence in Sweden or Portugal or Canada?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it? — Isaac

    My point is the West should have had some policy response anytime since 2014, so as to credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's than a full scale invasion; such as the policies you mention as well as just putting pressure on Ukrainian government to distance themselves from neo-Nazi's, to keep it a fringe thing (as that's a good objective in itself anyways).

    That would have made a better negotiation position before the war started (who knows, maybe, in itself, prevented the war if Putin couldn't sell it at home without this justification).

    Now that the war is here, ignoring the issue further plays to the Kremlins position about it, but not-ignoring it would undermine "NATO resolve" to ensure maximum civilian trauma and casualties of Ukrainians, while doing nothing that will change the outcome.

    So, that's more lessons learned (to motivate starting credible diplomacy at some point).

    Going forward, the main relevance of the issue is that it's Putin's stated justification, so obviously relevant to discuss as you point out.

    The other way it's relevant is more just as a lesson learned of how ignoring legitimate grievances of the counter party for a decade certainly doesn't help.

    Pointing out the coherent arguments that can be made based on there clearly being neo-Nazi's in Ukraine with formal integration into governance, is relevant in that it maybe explains why Russian's are convinced by it and maybe make us second guess the impact of sanctions on the Russian people.

    If the propaganda is effective, as based on true elements the West cannot debunk (I'm sure you're aware how long it would take the two of us, not to mention anyone else, to actually agree on a "what's too many" threshold; we could easily still be debating meticulously all the political, moral and information-evaluation aspects in 3 decades; so, if it would take us that long to be "more sure" of our position, it's a pretty good basis for propaganda: facts are clear and basiclaly self-documented by the neo-Nazi's in Ukraine and the argument based on those facts is of a valid form, requiring significant philosophical energy to really demonstrate to be "a lie"), which will inform the probability of the Russian government, army and / or population giving up on the war, which is an important element for decision making.

    Doing things (without even attempting to understand the Russian perspective) that increase violence and (from a purely self-referential Western media perspective) "sound like it will pressure the Russians" is not necessarily constructive if it won't actually pressure the Russians.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Have it EVER occurred to you that he's pushing this denazification narrative in order to keep the loyalty to the cause back home in Russia intact? — Christoffer

    No one's saying otherwise, obviously it is also propaganda, will be exaggerated.

    Doesn't mean there isn't a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine that has solid evidence (crazy speeches and interviews by people essentially self-identifying themselves as neo-Nazi's ... and the argument "they're only fanatically anti-Russian and not so much anti-Semite and just like the Nazi's world view and approach to politics and get inspiration from the Nazi's struggle against the Soviets ... is not necessarily that important distinction for Russians).

    Likewise, doesn't mean the EU shouldn't be able to agree with Russia, anytime since 2014, that neo-Nazi's aren't a good thing and there can be some good faith cooperation on that issue.

    By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." Which is simply a true argument, these neo-Nazi's were tolerated because they were the only one's not only willing but totally enthusiastic about fighting separatists in the East; yes, Russians sent in their own "volunteers" but had these neo-Nazi types not insisted on attacking these break away regions there would not have been any fighting.

    So, what's the ultimate truth of the situation and the moral and political principles of who's justified doing what, is one question.

    However, the more relevant question is that considering NATO will not send anyone to actually fight in Ukraine (i.e. no NATO country actually cares all that much about Ukrainian lives or Ukrainian sovereignty) the only way EU (obviously US will cheerlead more bloodshed as it leads to more arms sales generally speaking in starting a new cold war by traumatizing everyone in Europe at the expense of Ukrainians) can avoid more unnecessary bloodshed is through diplomacy. If you want to solve things diplomatically it requires acknowledging legitimate grievances of the other party.

    If you don't want to solve things diplomatically, then go hop on a plane and fight in the Ukrainian volunteer brigades, tell us later if you won or not.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. Neo-nazi activists are present both in Russia and all western countries, not only in Ukraine. Is this a problem? — neomac

    You literally prove in the next clause of your sentence that neo-Nazi's in Ukraine are a problem ... because they're a problem everywhere.

    Which, is a false equivalence. Neo-Nazi's are clearly not the same level of problem in every Western nation, there's going to be more or less with more or less power and influence.

    The neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine is things like Azov brigade that has been admitted by Western governments themselves to be neo-Nazi based and inspired.

    Western governments "responded" by simply not training and arming Azov brigade directly, which is not really a credible response and still accepts their legitimacy and that the Ukrainian governance is overall legitimate in integrating Azov brigade.

    Now, you can argue Azov brigade is not "so neo-Nazi" just generally inspired by Nazism as they want to fight Russians and actively advocate for a war with Russia.

    However, it's completely coherent argument to say one Azov brigade is too many Azov brigades and we'll invade your entire country if you tolerate them as part of your formal governance. (This is not a group playing cat and mouse with police, but are the de facto police where they operate)

    Now, regardless of whether Azov brigade is "too much" and tolerating it further would be appeasement, what we can know for sure is that this is the major justification for the war by the Kremlin.

    What we can also know for sure is that if the EU had credible policies since 2014 to try to dissuade Ukraine's formal government flirting with and also and using neo-Nazi's to fight separatists that A. maybe those policies would have actually worked and there wouldn't be things like Azov brigade and B. the EU could credibly say there are other ways to deal with neo-Nazi's other than a full scale invasion.

    Instead, since the EU did nothing, they just deny the problem further (which admit is essentially "by definition" there) and Germany just declared itself the "experts on Nazi's" and that there is no neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine ... which doesn't necessarily sound convincing to a Russian.

    It sets up a very poor diplomatic position.

    Now, you may say "Ha! NATO doesn't need diplomacy with this madman Putin" ... but then why isn't NATO in Ukraine.

    As for sending small arms and arming civilians.

    Small arms without heavy equipment and a logistical network will not defeat Russia that has heavy equipment and a logistics network (certainly has had problems ... but it's still a lot better to have a logistics network with some problems than none at all).

    Giving riffles to civilians in a modern conflict is essentially condemning them to die and makes all civilians legitimate military targets. The rules of war around civilians and soldiers requires soldiers to be in identifiable uniforms.

    Obviously, the West doesn't care if Ukrainian civilians are used as cannon fodder (with zero ability to impact the outcome of the war, I guarantee you that), but, again, it's another bad faith thing Putin can point to at home: these cowards are arming civilians to protect their positions of power.

    It takes real time and effort and training to be remotely effective in a modern battle space.

    True, civilians can help in non-combat roles ... but then why would they need riffles?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪Isaac


    Indeed, we maybe forced to consider the possibility that the invasion of Ukraine was likewise a difficult choice and there was "no alternative".
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Shell has defended its decision to purchase Russian crude oil despite the invasion and bombardment of Ukraine.

    The oil giant said in a statement that the decision to purchase the fuel at a discounted price was "difficult".

    It confirmed that it had bought a cargo of Russian crude oil on Friday but it had "no alternative".     — BBC
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu


    Certainly, you have in mind Finland's defense against the Soviet Union.

    ... However, Finland did "lose" the war and cede land for the sake of a resolution, and the Soviet Union was more worried about the Nazi's.

    The Finn's fought courageously and successfully defended most of the country ... but also had an element of political realism, adapted to the wider political context (Soviet Union did have a reachable tolerance for losses) and also carried out successful diplomacy to ultimately resolve the conflict.

    Finland also did not make "virtue signalling" but dangerously irrational political moves such as invade Russia itself, even when Finland had the opportunity during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

    Finland's survival was not based only on sending people to fight and die, but also political realism, non-escalation even at the apex of the war, and of course diplomacy.

    Also of note, the debate of whether Finland could have avoided the war entirely by making some relatively small concessions to Stalin (compared to the land and lives ultimately lost) continues to this day.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    What history tells us that a war fought with this kind of intensity will likely last something like few weeks: — ssu

    Yes, hopefully sooner rather than later.

    Also, though we need to try to understand the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective for the best chance of peace, I honestly don't know what it is.

    Could be Putin blundered into this ... or maybe the Kremlins looking at these sky high commodity prices and high fiving each other, as, if the war lasts weeks as you say it might and costs some tens of billions seems the estimate, the legacy of commodity prices may last years or decades and net Russia trillions.

    The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.

    And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long.

    Of course, everything could unravel over night for the Kremlin, but that doesn't seem a good result either.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too. — ssu

    Clearly, I make the counter argument here as Western media I think makes the former in abundance.

    As I say, could be true that Putin "planned all this" since 2014 and is the one that wants the new cold war and just import Chinese totalitarian technology.

    It could also be a more messy process with plenty of opportunities, in particular the EU, to have avoided this truly disastrous war.

    Obviously, Putin did start the war and it's a disaster for the world.

    Strategically, could easily benefit Russia in medium / long term (such as super increase in commodity prices which Russia's economy is based on, seizing the bread basket of Ukraine), and from Putin's perspective West isn't doing him any favours so he's not doing them favours.

    True, insane amounts of risk in this move and can be a total disaster for Russia ... but that is also not necessarily a good outcome for the world with so many nuclear weapons (both escalating Putin to use of nuclear weapons as well as an unraveling of the Russian state and losing nuclear weapons to the black market ... which, presumably, is the whole point of extreme sanctions is to collapse the adversaries economy and cause a failed sate situation, which Western leaders literally say is their goal).
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I think that Western journalists have little knowledge on Syria (as they had on Libya) as these have been quite closed authoritarian countries from the start. But considering what a genuine fiasco the whole US operation was... yeah. — ssu

    I think we're totally in agreement that a failure to understand (or even take interest) in regions before, during and after involvement in military conflict isn't a good basis of decision making.

    Putin is grasping for all kinds of pretexts. Starting from an non-existent genocide. The US, NATO and neo-nazis are the mix for today. And even when there obviously is support for him, I would be critical of just how objective those polls are in a country where being against the country and the war can get you into jail. In 2014-2015 you could see Russians here in Finland carrying the St. Georges ribbon. Now a lot of them are simply shocked. It is very different. — ssu

    Completely agree there's as much (sure, perhaps even more, who knows) propaganda coming from Russia as from Ukraine or Western media.

    Why I'm very slow in my analysis; it's extremely difficult to evaluate things with so much propaganda in all directions.

    What I can be more certain of is that the West only has diplomacy to try to reduce the bloodshed, and getting into the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective (regardless of what is absolutely true of all these questions) is necessary for any successful diplomatic process.

    The Ukrainians have to defend their country, halt the Russian attacks and inflict losses enough to get Putin to honestly talk about an armistice or peace. And then likely they have to make concessions, like accepting that Crimea is part of Russia. Or then they can surrender...which they surely won't.

    That is the way to peace. Now it's time for war.

    (A Russian tank crew getting into the right mood in Southern Ukraine...)     — ssu

    This is a difficult question. Certainly it's what's happening. What is the "best thing" to do for a negotiated settlement is unclear to me.

    Maybe if Zelensky signed a paper committing not to join Nato (who did not and is not letting him in the club nor establishing a no-fly zone for him) before the war, there would be no war and all this madness and suffering, not just in Ukraine but globally as these events cause never-before-seen commodity price increases in never-before-seen number of commodities.

    Zelensky wouldn't be a hero ... but literally the entire planet wouldn't suffer, and he'd be considered by historians a selfless wise man.

    Now, if he signed, didn't get into NATO which wasn't on offer anyways, and Russia still invaded then he'd be both wise and a hero.

    Certainly there must be some basis for introspection of Ukrainian leadership of how they got their country, and the entire world, into this mess as well.

    As with Russia and as with the EU / NATO.

    For example, flooding Ukraine with Javelin and Manpads and other Western military donations (from people not willing to actually fight in Ukraine) may not have any chance of changing the outcome and can backfire in many ways.

    Or, maybe, it will force Putin to the negotiation table and a resolution is found sooner rather than later.

    We'll certainly find out.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    The problem of Ukraine being “neo-Nazi” when President Zelensky and many Ukrainian oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomoyskyi, Bogolyubov, Khan, Surkis, Rabinovich, Tymoshenko, etc.) are Jewish, seems a bit puzzling. — Apollodorus

    Not really puzzling.

    Nor more puzzling as the US arming jihadists and supporting jihadists to fight Assad or Qaddafi, as I've already mentioned. If there's only one kind of person who's going to fight your battle, then you either support that kind of person or your battle isn't fought.

    However, the fact is that though genuine neo-Nazis are a minority, there are large numbers of Ukrainian nationalists of all shades from moderates to ultras, and they tend to be anti-Russian, especially in the current climate. — Apollodorus

    Definitely agree.

    So, when Putin says “neo-Nazis”, he doesn’t mean neo-Nazis in the West European or US sense – except perhaps as a general hate term - but in the Russian sense of “anti-Russian nationalists”. — Apollodorus

    Yes, as I mentioned in my exchanges with @ssu, the neo-Nazi claims, regardless of the "real truth", is certainly also exaggerated propaganda.

    I'm more interested in whether this argument is really working in Russia as a whole, than whether we can really measure "Naziness" and also construct some threshold of "too much Naziness" etc. which I think is still an interesting moral-political theory to get into, but not too relevant at this stage (more academic than helping deescalate the situation and end the war).

    In fact, there seems to be more to the story, but I think it is pretty clear that powerful Ukrainian business and media groups with links to the West are behind Zelensky’s government. — Apollodorus

    Yes, I totally agree, and in terms of "rights", certainly Ukraine had a right to join the EU and NATO ... using that as a basis to criticize Russian policy against that, seems to make little sense.

    If EU and NATO want Ukraine in the club, by all means let them in the club a year ago and prevent all this bloodshed at the risk of nuclear war being a shell away.

    Western media has been obsessing over the idea of "Putin's miscalculation" but certainly these Zelensky and his supporters miscalculated in calling Putin's bluff.

    If I call your bluff and go all in at the poker table, and you win because you're not bluffing ... I've never been praised as a hero for such a decision.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ROFL. Dude, get off the stuff you're on. — hairy belly

    Superb argument skills.
Home » boethius