Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[DGuller]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

[DGuller]

I think it's pretty clear now that Putin's goal was something akin to what Bismarck accomplished in 1870:  a quick crushing war followed by a unification.  The exact details of Belarussian and Ukrainians incorporation into Russia may not be known, but enough circumstantial evidence points to him triumphantly reversing the geopolitical losses from 1991 after a successful war.

[KRonn]

Apparently Ukraine is offering total amnesty and 5 million rubles to any Russian soldier that surrenders.

The way things are going, 5 million rubles won't be worth much this time next week.

Yep, this has to be clobbering the average Russian worker. Russian banks have also doubled some of the interest rates. If this continues it's a mess overall for people and economy.

[The Brain]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

Yes, it's a nice move.

[KRonn]

I think it's pretty clear now that Putin's goal was something akin to what Bismarck accomplished in 1870:  a quick crushing war followed by a unification.  The exact details of Belarussian and Ukrainians incorporation into Russia may not be known, but enough circumstantial evidence points to him triumphantly reversing the geopolitical losses from 1991 after a successful war.

Hmm, he does often talk like that, in terms of the old empires, or like he wants to emulate Peter the Great in some way.

[Malthus]

In a conventional style approach I have little real doubt that Russia will take every major Ukrainian city and most of Ukraine's land will end up occupied by Russia (I have no idea how long that will take). Unlike the other option, which could potentially never succeed, I don't think this option realistically can fail to ultimately succeed in occupying the cities and most of the country.

Not on the force levels committed to date.

The usual source that everyone cites is a study from the mid-90s that looked at a bunch of historical case studies and concluded that a successful occupation requires a 1 to 50 ratio of occupying soldiers to population. That study was endorsed by later ones and was incorporated into the US Army Counterinurgency manual, although others have raised questions (e.g. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/0/433/files/2014/07/Friedman-Manpower-and-Counterinsurgency.pdf).  Assuming the 1 to 50 ratio applies, that would suggest the need to commit around 800,000+ to a full occupation of Ukraine.  That doesn't seem to be in the cards, nor feasible. 

My view remains that the only realistic and logical outcome for Russia would be consolidating control/annexation over the separatists in the east and the territory on the Black Sea coast in and around Crimea.  But it doesn't seem that is Putin's goal.

His goal appears to have been a quick strike to decapitate the Ukrainian government (under the guise that they are all Nazis and busy oppressing those in Ukraine with Russian as a first language - never mind that the current Ukrainian leader is a Jew who had Russian as his first language).

The assumption appears to have been that Ukrainian resistance would quickly collapse, and a Putin puppet could easily be installed at gunpoint. Putin never tires of claiming that the 2014 events were a coup organized by the US to replace the legitimate leader (a Putin puppet). The current operation is simply intended to undo this.

Problem for this strategy is, the Ukrainians don't appear to view things the same way as Putin. It would appear a quick decapitation/puppet installation strategy has failed badly. Which leaves conventional conquest and occupation, in the face of a determined population who is being supplied from outside - that would require, it would appear, levels of investment Russia may not be able to afford, particularly with its economy under heavy attack.

Seems to me that Putin has to win quickly or not at all. It may already be too late.

[Zanza]

Just read an article that claimed that even with the current tactics, Russia is likely to gain control over large parts of Ukraine. There is a limited number of crossings of the Dnepr and supposedly they already control the ones in the South. They will likely soon control those in Central Ukraine, which would then cut off all Ukrainian forces east of the Dnepr from supply.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In a conventional style approach I have little real doubt that Russia will take every major Ukrainian city and most of Ukraine's land will end up occupied by Russia (I have no idea how long that will take). Unlike the other option, which could potentially never succeed, I don't think this option realistically can fail to ultimately succeed in occupying the cities and most of the country.

Not on the force levels committed to date.

The usual source that everyone cites is a study from the mid-90s that looked at a bunch of historical case studies and concluded that a successful occupation requires a 1 to 50 ratio of occupying soldiers to population. That study was endorsed by later ones and was incorporated into the US Army Counterinurgency manual, although others have raised questions (e.g. https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/0/433/files/2014/07/Friedman-Manpower-and-Counterinsurgency.pdf).  Assuming the 1 to 50 ratio applies, that would suggest the need to commit around 800,000+ to a full occupation of Ukraine.  That doesn't seem to be in the cards, nor feasible. 

My view remains that the only realistic and logical outcome for Russia would be consolidating control/annexation over the separatists in the east and the territory on the Black Sea coast in and around Crimea.  But it doesn't seem that is Putin's goal.

I don't disagree with the 1:50 ratio for the sort of occupation being considered in the counterinsurgency manual, but I do think Putin can conquer Ukraine with his current invasion force--he would just need to use the artillery and fixed-wing aircraft (300+) he already positioned for the invasion but has not yet used much, his fixed wing aircraft would remove the Ukrainian air force from existence relatively quickly, and his artillery will let him rubble down the cities and inflict mass casualties on Ukrainian soldiers and civilians.

I countenance only the collapse of the Ukrainian metro areas and a lot of the major transportation network with such a force using heavy handed conventional tactics. I do not speculate on much beyond that. If the Ukrainian population comes to heel then he doesn't need any more. To truly pacify the entire country if it needs pacified, I would agree with the 1:50 ratio. However I don't think he would build up to that level of commitment which would be a major resource strain on Russia. Most likely he instead shifts to the sort of "occupation" we had in Afghanistan in which we controlled military bases, key cities, and etc, but much of the countryside was in the control of irregulars. (We did this with comparable force numbers to the Russians albeit Ukraine is a bit bigger population, until the 2010s when we shifted to more of the native forces taking the lead, an option Russia may never be able to meaningfully deploy.)

[Josquius]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

Ish.
RT gets a lot of shit as it's main news coverage is just the kremlin line.
Though they have put out some decent factual documentary type stuff too. I think it's intentional to buy them credibility and play the "we are just telling a viewpoint that isn't the mainstream Western one!" card.

A general skeptical eye should be turned on RT journalists but it shouldn't be a catch all forever condemned for ever farting across its airwaves thing.

[Tamas]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

Ish.
RT gets a lot of shit as it's main news coverage is just the kremlin line.
Though they have put out some decent factual documentary type stuff too. I think it's intentional to buy them credibility and play the "we are just telling a viewpoint that isn't the mainstream Western one!" card.

A general skeptical eye should be turned on RT journalists but it shouldn't be a catch all forever condemned for ever farting across its airwaves thing.

Actually, you are wrong. Any journalist spending any effort to underpin the kind of regime Putin runs should never get a job at any remotely respectable place, ever.

[Josquius]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

Ish.
RT gets a lot of shit as it's main news coverage is just the kremlin line.
Though they have put out some decent factual documentary type stuff too. I think it's intentional to buy them credibility and play the "we are just telling a viewpoint that isn't the mainstream Western one!" card.

A general skeptical eye should be turned on RT journalists but it shouldn't be a catch all forever condemned for ever farting across its airwaves thing.

Actually, you are wrong. Any journalist spending any effort to underpin the kind of regime Putin runs should never get a job at any remotely respectable place, ever.

Except thats not what a lot of these docs are doing?
They often put out stuff that has nothing to do with Russia at all.

[Jacob]

Except thats not what a lot of these docs are doing?
They often put out stuff that has nothing to do with Russia at all.

Thus - by your own words - providing credibility to RT.

Which, then, provides credibility to their pro-Putin propaganda.

[DGuller]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

Ish.
RT gets a lot of shit as it's main news coverage is just the kremlin line.
Though they have put out some decent factual documentary type stuff too. I think it's intentional to buy them credibility and play the "we are just telling a viewpoint that isn't the mainstream Western one!" card.

A general skeptical eye should be turned on RT journalists but it shouldn't be a catch all forever condemned for ever farting across its airwaves thing.

"I'm innocent, I wasn't spreading propaganda, I was just buying the propagandists credibility."

[OttoVonBismarck]

This smacks of "hey now the Nazis sucked but some filmmakers working for the regime were just doing artistic work."

[The Brain]

Apparently Twitter is mass-labeling any journalist that works or has worked (not really clear how it goes) for RT or Sputnik as "Affiliated media to the Russian government", which is hitting some freelancers pretty hard.

Good, I thought this should've been done some time ago.  An American journalist who chose to work for RT is either too stupid or too lacking in personal integrity to work as a journalist.  They should all be blacklisted.

Ish.
RT gets a lot of shit as it's main news coverage is just the kremlin line.
Though they have put out some decent factual documentary type stuff too. I think it's intentional to buy them credibility and play the "we are just telling a viewpoint that isn't the mainstream Western one!" card.

A general skeptical eye should be turned on RT journalists but it shouldn't be a catch all forever condemned for ever farting across its airwaves thing.

Journalists who work for RT don't care about their prospects in polite society, so why should we?