Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[OttoVonBismarck]

Boris Johnson of all people said something like "Ukraine is winning because wars of independence usually are won", which isn't entirely incorrect, right? It is not quite literally correct, as we can find examples of very small and very weak countries that presently cannot successfully resist being conquered, but at any kind of scale the age of empires has passed. On a long run Empires have largely become relics of the past precisely because it eventually just becomes too difficult, too expensive, too injurious to the imperial country to maintain possessions that bitterly resist being possessed. It has been said by many that Russia is the last old Empire still around today, and one way to look at modern Russian history is really the story of the fall of the Russian Empire--and this war is essentially part of that.

In that context the argument that Ukraine can never win confuses the matter--Ukraine just needs to keep fighting. History says in independence wars if the country seeking independence just keeps fighting, it will eventually win, because the imperial power will eventually decide it is not worthwhile.

Before this disastrous invasion, and to some degree before the decision to invade in response to Maidan, Russia under Putin was trying to form sort of a modern form of Empire, that would have meant less direct control and benefit, but still a lot of benefits for Russia. It created relationships like a trade organization and a defense organization and then enmeshed itself in the affairs of its former imperial possessions. There is decent evidence that an approach like this can work in the modern world. Putin either out of ego, shifting personal views, or plain bad thinking, decided when his project in Ukraine started to slip that he was going to go back to old school imperial techniques--direct territorial conquest. He is now finding the reason that all the other great empires fell--this is neither an easy or particularly smart route any longer.

It is a total fiction that an imperial power, just because of its vastness and strength, can never be beaten into retreat. America has been. Russia has been. Britain was. France was.

[alfred russel]

The narrative, framed by Russia and passed on, is that Russia cannot admit defeat, will not admit defeat, and will fight on until they "win" or at worst destroy everything.

This is, as many things Russians say, a lie.  Others have pointed out that Russia has not fought to win every time (especially when involved in wars that were not invasions of the motherland), Russia has given up, the Russian military has voted with their feet, etc.

To return to the basic points:
Russia invaded Ukraine.
Russia is losing tactically (often times), operationally, and strategically. 
Russia is isolated from countries that supported it economically through prior energy sales.
Russia had to rush 100k conscripts with no training to the front lines just to avoid collapse.

The two players are Russia and Ukraine, it seems very 1938 for the West (no matter how they are supporting Ukraine) to demand they give up territory they do not concede. Ukraine is a player in this, the main anti-Russian player, and they should be the only one with a final decision.

Ukraine seems at this point to be ready fight against the Russian evil.

I think I can speak for all the doves in this thread when I say absolutely no one here thinks otherwise.

[The Minsky Moment]

10-20 years from now Russia will happily by supplying oil again because people don't learn and money makes the world go round.

Yes they will supply oil again but European countries will never allow that level of dependence to arise again.  They will diversify sources of supply.  People do learn, if only a little bit at a time.

[The Minsky Moment]

Barring a Russian political collapse, there will have to a negotiated end to the war.  If I were running Ukraine, and the deal was presented to abandon Crimea and the prewar Donetsk/Luhansk republics, in exhange for withdrawal, recognition of independence and NATO membership, I'd be tempted to take that deal.  But I'm not going to propose forcing that outcome on Ukraine. Since the very beginning of the crisis to the present hour, Russia has never indicated any willingness to engage in reasonably good faith negotiations. Given that, in Zelensky's position I'd be doing exactly what he is doing - announcing a position of no territorial compromise and keeping pressure on Russia to come to the table in a meaningful way.

[Valmy]

I think I can speak for all the doves in this thread when I say absolutely no one here thinks otherwise.

Ok so what are we talking about then? What we would do if we were Ukraine?

[Josquius]

Josq you're just wrong about history bud, nothing more to say on it. There have been many wars--including some involving Russia, where an aggressor just gives up and leaves without any concessions by the victim. Since you appear to be suggesting that is a historical and logical impossibility, and that is in contravention to plain reality, I don't see much point in continuing to engage with you.

Name one.
I struggle to think of any in modern times of a war between nations.
Agreements always involve both sides getting *something*, even if that something is as little as the other side promising to stop shooting them.

I don't know why you seem to want to reward Putin and help him prepare for the next invasion of Ukraine, but that is on you.

You're the only one talking about rewarding Putin here. I specifically want the opposite.

I think the folks saying "we're not selling out Ukrainians!!!!" should ask Ukrainians what they think of their super smart proposals.

Let us know how that goes.

Yep. That's basically my entire point.

[alfred russel]

I think I can speak for all the doves in this thread when I say absolutely no one here thinks otherwise.

Ok so what are we talking about then? What we would do if we were Ukraine?

I think i've mostly been engaged in discussion around the definition of spheres of influence, whether then 9/11 attacks were successful (before Jacob shut that down) and how we should respond to the use of a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

Beyond that I've been most interested in discussing the best path toward achieving peace and not escalating the conflict. But that is clearly secondary to what is in the first paragraph.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Barring a Russian political collapse, there will have to a negotiated end to the war.

Nope.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Name one.
I struggle to think of any in modern times of a war between nations.
Agreements always involve both sides getting *something*, even if that something is as little as the other side promising to stop shooting them.

They have already been named by me and others in this thread. The fact you appear to not agree means we can't even agree on basic facts.

Also your use of words is confusing, out of line with normal usage, and wrong. One side deciding to withdraw and stop shooting is not an "agreement" to do anything, it is just a thing done. Agreement has a specific meaning in international relations, it doesn't mean "well they stopped fighting so that means they agreed to stop fighting so that means there's an agreement." That is an absurd reductivist way of using the word.

[Berkut]

Analogies, by their very nature, are not very helpful.

WWII is a terribly strained analogy because it isn't about just a border or influence but an attempt by Germany to exterminate and enslave populations in neighboring territories. 

That is exactly what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, actually.

[Valmy]

Beyond that I've been most interested in discussing the best path toward achieving peace and not escalating the conflict. But that is clearly secondary to what is in the first paragraph.

Yeah wars are very easy to start but very difficult to stop. Especially when they are against your neighbor and not some country on the other end of the planet like Afghanistan or something. I don't think there is an obvious way to stop it for the foreseeable future beyond grinding attrition leading to failing political will, all very Clausewitz.

Fortunately the war seems to have remained very localized so far.

[Berkut]

The idea that we can keep going until Russia ceases to exist is just daft at best.

Not as daft as the idea that anyone has made any such claim though.

[Valmy]

Analogies, by their very nature, are not very helpful.

WWII is a terribly strained analogy because it isn't about just a border or influence but an attempt by Germany to exterminate and enslave populations in neighboring territories.

That is exactly what Russia is trying to do to Ukraine, actually.

I mean there is no reason to think Russia doesn't have an ethnic cleansing/colonization plan for whatever parts of Ukraine it conquers. That is certainly its historical MO and it works.

[Berkut]

Here's an alternative peace plan:  Russia withdraws from Ukraine, agrees to pay full reparations for the damage caused by their illegal aggression, and in return the other countries of the world end sanctions on Russia and Ukraine agrees to stop destroying Russian infrastructure.

That's crazy. How will we know in that scenario if the survivors in the Donbas want to join Putin in a lovefest????

[Berkut]

Its enlightening and depressing to see how little many people actually care about Ukraine and how deeply rooted the nationalist world view is.

This is a war of national liberation though - the big reason Ukrainians are fighting so hard is because they want to exist as a nation. Ukraine is asserting its right to exist within its internationally recognised borders and determine its own future.

Exactly.

Which is why "concessions" that on their face reject the idea that Ukraine is sovereign are not acceptable.

That is the entire point of this war. Putin thinks Ukraine is a part of Russia temporarily separated.