Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Tamas]

The problem is that Ukraine has been more than willing to use gas as a weapon. It rarely materialised for European countries (although Hungary had its share of trouble from that) but they were in near-constant arguments with Russia over Ukraine not paying enough for their gas shipment (according to Russia anyways) and then Ukraine just taking a portion of the gas sent through meant for others (according to Ukraine just getting what they paid for).

It's kind of weird trying to convince people of this. It's something evident when you live in the region and listen to the news over the years.

[The Brain]

Gondor is not perfect, but we must help them stand up to Mordor.

[Sheilbh]

But who is that a weapon against?

[Habbaku]

Sauron, I think.

[viper37]

Russia planning massive military offensive against Ukraine involving 175,000 troops, U.S. intelligence warns

[Razgovory]

We need to move troops into the area now.

[OttoVonBismarck]

We need to move troops into the area now.

And fight a war against Russia? Over Ukraine?

I'm not sure on that move Cotton.

The poker player in me actually says we should continue to rhetorically escalate with Putin and actually refuse to give him anything. Why? Because I think the last thing he wants is some massive open-ended war/occupation of say, half of Ukraine or more. That's the sort of massive boondoggle that has felled great powers in the past, and I've seen absolutely nothing in Putin's entire reign to suggest he would do something that primarily would serve the purpose of bleeding his country dry in men and wealth. On the flipside, I can't think of much better to see Russia weakened than to see it try to gobble up Ukraine.

In the Soviet era the Ukrainians largely were ideological bedfellows and happy (more or less--obviously the "Russification" period and famine that affected them as well as other parts of the USSR probably are not remembered fondly) to be part of the Soviet experiment, and a number of them held high ranks in the Soviet government. There isn't actually much history of Ukraine being held down by violent occupation anytime in recent memory. If anything, the Russian Tsars kind of made a level of peace with the Cossacks of the region.

I don't know that the USSR of the 1980s could have held a Ukraine, at least not without rotting the USSR like a cancer, if Ukraine chose to resist them. Russia of today, despite all the whacking off people do to Putin and all his machinations, is fundamentally a much weaker country than the USSR of the 1980s, particularly in its ability to field a large army of occupation. 175,000 troops were less than the U.S. felt comfortable going into Iraq with to fight Saddam's army in Gulf War I, there is no way such a force could occupy half of Ukraine indefinitely.

And Putin knows more than I do about all of this, I just see little evidence that he has become irrational and thinks it would be a really good idea to end his life (and this war would probably take up the rest of his natural life) trying to subjugate and pacify the entirety of Ukraine. Just don't see it. Even half of Ukraine would be the same effect.

Putin is desperate for Ukraine to never be part of NATO, and I think he is willing to risk a lot to stop it. I'm not actually sure he's willing to go to war over it, though. But let's say he is--to my thinking that's a win-win for us, it will sap Russia's power for a generation and bleed its people dry. I don't really see a problem with that at all. There is no reason for us to get involved militarily, but we could funnel all kinds of things into the country to make it miserable for the Russians. I have suspicions that on a long-term view, Putin laughed gleefully at our invasions and open-ended occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. He would be committing a blunder probably equal to both of those combined and then some, for his country to do similar in Ukraine. I just don't see it--and if it does happen, it's actually a good outcome for us. Knowing that, why cut any deals with him at all?

[Razgovory]

What if his invasion stops at the canal blockage that is preventing water to get into Crimea?  No occupation, just a victory for Putin.  We need a tripwire force to prevent him from moving.

[DGuller]

The cynical side of me concurs with Otto's analysis.  I think there is no greater damage that we can do to Putin than just letting him invade.  I'm sure there is going to be a Russian radio station on the border somewhere attacked by Ukrainians before he marches in, but I think even Russian gaslighting has a limit.  Not only is it going to be costly militarily for him, but it's also going to making it much harder for him to cultivate useful idiots in the West, who have been his most effective weapons to date against the West.

The Ukrainian lover of democracy in me really doesn't want to see it happen, though.  The Ukrainian democracy may be highly imperfect, but it's not a complete sham, and Ukrainians haven't yet given in to the cancerous cynicism that many are suffering from even in Western democracies.

[Razgovory]

It will not be harder for Putin to cultivate useless idiots in the West.  Once again he will show that the US, the EU and that weird little island off the coast of the EU are impotent.  Politics in the West will be effected and not in a good way.  Fascists across the West will be emboldened by the weakness of our governments.  Fox News is pretty much rooting for the Russians at this point.  Damage will not be limited to Ukraine. 

[Jacob]

It will not be harder for Putin to cultivate useless idiots in the West.  Once again he will show that the US, the EU and that weird little island off the coast of the EU are impotent.  Politics in the West will be effected and not in a good way.  Fascists across the West will be emboldened by the weakness of our governments.  Fox News is pretty much rooting for the Russians at this point.  Damage will not be limited to Ukraine.

Why is the West weak for not defending Ukraine?

NATO needs to be assertive in the Baltics and Poland and other member states on the Eastern marches, but much as I[m sympathetic to Ukraine I don't think it's a sign of Western weakness to not get involved in a hot war over the country.

You're right that Murdoch media is effectively working to undermine democracy in the countries where it operates, and I suspect Murdoch is in Putin's pocket; but Western actions on Ukraine doesn't really change that one way or the other.

[Sheilbh]

The cynical side of me concurs with Otto's analysis.  I think there is no greater damage that we can do to Putin than just letting him invade.  I'm sure there is going to be a Russian radio station on the border somewhere attacked by Ukrainians before he marches in, but I think even Russian gaslighting has a limit.  Not only is it going to be costly militarily for him, but it's also going to making it much harder for him to cultivate useful idiots in the West, who have been his most effective weapons to date against the West.

I agree except for the last point.

Max Bergmann made the point that the common description of Putin as risk averse doesn't seem quite right given his history: seizing Crimea, invading Donbas, intervening in Syria, growing a quasi-state interventionism across Africa, interfereing in US and French elections, assassinating people in the UK using nuclear and chemical to do it. Those all seem pretty high risk. And I feel that with Ukraine especially the risk factor Putin might be missing/underestimating is that I don't think the Kremlin genuinely gets that Ukrainians do feel Ukrainian and separate. I always find it weird because it seems so obvious to me that by loosening things slightly with Ukraine, Russia could gain so much more but they never do and I just wonder if they're a little high on their own supply about Ukraine not being a real country.

And in reality we in the West are not going to defend Ukraine, we're not going to let them join NATO and we shouldn't be talking in those terms. I'm genuinely never sure which line is less helpful - the EU's very honest statements that military options are not relevant or the US's incredible "no options are off the table" when we all know that obviously some options are off the table.

What we can do is help Ukraine to be in a position to defend itself - Putin sees that as provocation and I think on that we can justifiably be far more robust.  The other option is that we should maybe negotiate and force Ukraine to give some concessions to Russia or enter a treaty agreeing that we have reached the end of NATO expansion. I suppose my issue with that is that I don't think a deal would be real. I think it's relatively likely that it's just a feint or Putin pockets the wins and then exerts pressure again.

I can see the argument that actually stopping NATO expansion has been a pretty consistent goal of Russia for the last few decades so maybe that would be enough to close things off. The other side is I don't think that necessarily is enough for Putin and I don't think it's how he's behaved in the past.

I thought there's a lot to Lawrence Freedman's take and analogy:

Lawrence Freedman
@LawDavF
With the current attention being given to Russia's menacing military buildup there is a lot of discussion about how seriously the threat should be taken and how to respond.1/
Inevitably at times like this we get the two favourite historical analogies - rapid mobilisation in the summer of 1914 or Munich in 1938. One warns about ambitious  military moves; the other too many diplomatic concessions. 2/
Trouble with both analogies is we know they each led to war, and so 'lessons' can get overdrawn and by now are cliched. And also they come from pre-nuclear age. Risks of war are different now. Better analogy is 1961 Berlin crisis. Moscow then upped the stakes and set deadlines, had something real to worry about (ppl from E using Berlin as an escape route), saw a weak US Pres, and had all the local military advantages. 4/
JFK raised the military stakes, by announcing a US buildup (which would not have helped in fighting around Berlin) and stuck to established position that there could be no change to the city's status. Although the Germans were worried that they would be forced into concessions JFK made it clear that he would stick with status quo (although in practice that meant that he was prepared to take risks for West Berlin but not East). 6/
Khrushchev didn't want war and found a way out of the immediate crisis with the construction of the wall.  Stopped hemorrhage of ppl from East but was stuck with Western outpost in middle of East Germany. 7/
US and allies agreed to talks on future of Berlin. US Sec of State Dean Rusk was happy to keep talking and could be as stubborn as Soviets.8/
So if Russia now offering talks on security guarantees etc no reason not to engage. Far too much time is spent on both sides speculating on what the other is up to and clarity might help. Things might be done for mutual reassurance. 9/
If they have a draft treaty we should study and propose amendments of our own. That could keep us going for a while. 10/
We should never fear diplomacy - but must be actually clear that Ukr is an independent sovereign state  and we have no intention of pressing Kyiv into concessions it does not wish to make 11/
And we must also stop talking up Russian military options as if they were in any way attractive or easy for Putin at the moment. They are fraught with danger. He might still try something on but it is as likely that at the brink his caution will return. end/

The Ukrainian lover of democracy in me really doesn't want to see it happen, though.  The Ukrainian democracy may be highly imperfect, but it's not a complete sham, and Ukrainians haven't yet given in to the cancerous cynicism that many are suffering from even in Western democracies.

Yeah I agree - it's flawed but it is a democracy and a state working itself out. And I've seen a clip of Zelensky getting into a stand-up row with a journalist and it's just impossible to imagine that at one of Putin's two hour press conferences.

You're right that Murdoch media is effectively working to undermine democracy in the countries where it operates, and I suspect Murdoch is in Putin's pocket; but Western actions on Ukraine doesn't really change that one way or the other.

Murdoch's been undermining British and Australian politics for the last 60 years - I don't think he needed Putin to do it

Fox is a bit different and it's own thing. But I think the ultimate motivation is simply giving the audience what it wants to create more and more loyal consumers and it's a bit of a loop (especially with Fox - less so with the Times, WSJ, Sun etc).

[Syt]

How's Russia's domestic political situation? I just read yesterday that in November 10s of thousands died of Corona (75k "with" or half that "of" Corona according to state numbers, so possibly higher).

[Razgovory]

It will not be harder for Putin to cultivate useless idiots in the West.  Once again he will show that the US, the EU and that weird little island off the coast of the EU are impotent.  Politics in the West will be effected and not in a good way.  Fascists across the West will be emboldened by the weakness of our governments.  Fox News is pretty much rooting for the Russians at this point.  Damage will not be limited to Ukraine.

Why is the West weak for not defending Ukraine?

NATO needs to be assertive in the Baltics and Poland and other member states on the Eastern marches, but much as I[m sympathetic to Ukraine I don't think it's a sign of Western weakness to not get involved in a hot war over the country.

You're right that Murdoch media is effectively working to undermine democracy in the countries where it operates, and I suspect Murdoch is in Putin's pocket; but Western actions on Ukraine doesn't really change that one way or the other.

Because Europe and the US have already made it clear they have a stake in Ukraine and a Russian invasion will show that once again Putin can do what he wants and ignore the West.  Putin invaded Georgia and all the West could do is place ineffectual sanctions.  Putin invaded Ukraine and the West responded with more sanctions and some aid to Ukraine.  Again, ineffectual.  He is prepared to do it again and the Western response will again be a failure.  Putin's message to the West is that the Russians are men and they can do what they want.  The Westerners are effete, unsure even what gender they are.  They are bossed around by their minorities.  They are weak.  This is a message continues to find resonance in the West.  It empowers the fascists and weakens the legitimacy of the liberal democratic order.  This is a serious danger.  Moving troops to Ukraine is a message to the tyrants of the Kremlin and the would-be tyrants in our own countries.  We make a stand on two fronts: Foreign and domestic.  Lose enough on the foreign front and we might lose the next Battle of Cable Street or the next Assault on the US Capitol.

[Zoupa]

Nato/EU are not going to intervene militarily in Ukraine, nor should they. Putin is not going to invade Ukraine either. Let's not overestimate Russia's power and influence.