Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Tamas]

But why is it up to the UK/West to decide for Ukrainians whether being second class ethnic minority citizens in a brutal police state for 50+ years is preferred over a 5-10 years national resistance followed by independence? Especially when the national interests of Ukrainians and the West align - namely, in Ukrainians' armed resistance to Russia.

It's up to the UK or West to decide whether to arm partisans are not. And my point in part is I'm not sure there's much reason for thinking it would just be a 5-10 years of national resistance followed by independence (and if it is it'll be national resistance of the type we've seen in Syria).

My view roughly is - if we're in a war on the same side (i.e. WW2) = yes. If we think there's a reasonably good chance of success or limited reprisals against civilians = yes. If we're not fighting, we don't think there's a decent chance of success and we think there'll be significant reprisals against civilians = no.

Ok but what if arming partisans delays/removes the risk of life to our own citizens and of those allies' by tying down Russian forces and preventing them from moving against a NATO member state?

[The Brain]

If Ukraine can remain an expensive quagmire, and sanctions that hurt Russia are implemented, there is a decent chance that the Soviet Union 2.0 will collapse. It won't take 70 years this time. A proxy war in Ukraine makes a lot of sense. Not least for Ukraine. Last time the partisans fought for almost 10 years.

[Sheilbh]

My thinking is "the worse the invasion is for Putin's Russia, the less likely he is to escalate further". Therefore, arm Ukraine and continue to do so.

Fair - as is Tamas' point. As I say I'm fully behind arming Ukraine now and as much as possible into the foreseeable to increase their deterrent and make an invasion difficult. But if a point happens where we're in occupation and insurgency - I'm just not sure the response of Putin's Russia will be tied down or worried by fighting an insurgency.

I think they will just barrel bomb the population into submission and rule a graveyard - again Syria or Grozny. And I am a little unsure on the calculation of putting Ukrainians civilians who non-combatants through really apocalyptic bombing etc for the purpose or reducing the chance of escalation elsewhere. Grozny looked like this once Putin was finished (and based on Chechnya - the model would be bomb the population into submission and then bring the warlord/partisan leaders into the regime structures):

[Grey Fox]

We should send weapons to someone interested in causing trouble in Russia's far east. A good portion of their military capability is in the west.

[Berkut]

Putin won't live forever.

I am kind of appalled at Shelfs attitude that we should decide for others whether or not they have the right to resist an aggressor based on our evaluating the willingness of the aggressor to act like animals.

You might as well just send the ISIS's of the world a surrender note at that point. They will always win, because they are always willing to be radically more horrible then you can imagine.

[The Brain]

Yeah. I don't think the lesson of the 20th century is that you should meekly accept oppression.

[Josquius]

Putin won't live forever.

I am kind of appalled at Shelfs attitude that we should decide for others whether or not they have the right to resist an aggressor based on our evaluating the willingness of the aggressor to act like animals.

You might as well just send the ISIS's of the world a surrender note at that point. They will always win, because they are always willing to be radically more horrible then you can imagine.

Arming rebel groups would be the action that is deciding for others.

[Tamas]

But Tyr, Sheilbh, don't you see the logical conclusion of your position? It is incentivising to be as brutal with the civilian population as possible, as it will deter foreign support.

[The Brain]

But Tyr, Sheilbh, don't you see the logical conclusion of your position? It is incentivising to be as brutal with the civilian population as possible, as it will deter foreign support.

You have to understand why Brits want conquered peoples to be submissive and not inconvenience their betters. A small police force in pith helmets should suffice.

[Duque de Bragança]

OTOH, Norway, Qatar and Algeria must really be happy now.

My understanding is the UK has quite a lot of gas that could be accessed through fracking if we so wished. Regrettably it would involve removing a tree that is up to 70 years old and threatening the alleged habitat of an endangered bat

That's the British way. That or spend way much more for Nimby-ism. 
Or afraid of a new North Sea oil boom which could help a new Thatcher? 

[Berkut]

Putin won't live forever.

I am kind of appalled at Shelfs attitude that we should decide for others whether or not they have the right to resist an aggressor based on our evaluating the willingness of the aggressor to act like animals.

You might as well just send the ISIS's of the world a surrender note at that point. They will always win, because they are always willing to be radically more horrible then you can imagine.

Arming rebel groups would be the action that is deciding for others.

Fair, and I don't think it is a sure thing that we ought to arm rebel groups. Indeed, that is an incredibly complex decision, and a decision to do so would certainly have dire consequences that ought to be considered. There are probably a hundred variables involved in such a dangerous decision.

I just think the variable of "If we do this, the bad guys are going to hold innocent people hostage to that conflict" can be the primary consideration. That is just absolutely sending the message that others should definitely threaten to murder innocent people in retaliation, because that definitely works.

[The Brain]

FWIW I don't think reducing Kyiv to ashes would play as well in Russian living rooms as Grozny. Granted, Putin's increasing mental health issues might cancel this consideration.

[celedhring]

FWIW most Russians I know (granted, all of them emigrés) don't give me the vibe of an ultranationalistic society. I can't see them going along with open war against a "blood neighbor". Granted, Putin wipes his arse with domestic opposition (and then wipes out said opposition), but probably there's a limit to that, too.

[The Larch]

Apparently Putin has requested his Parliament to authorise using Russian forces abroad whatever that means, and there is already talk from them on "defending territorial integrity" of the two "republics".

The way I've seen it reported here talks about the deployment of Russian armed forces outside the Russian Federation, so I guess it's referred to the "peacekeepers" in DPR/LPR.

It of course gives Putin full liberty to set the amount of troops, the length of the deployment as well as its location.

[Sheilbh]

I am kind of appalled at Shelfs attitude that we should decide for others whether or not they have the right to resist an aggressor based on our evaluating the willingness of the aggressor to act like animals.

You might as well just send the ISIS's of the world a surrender note at that point. They will always win, because they are always willing to be radically more horrible then you can imagine.

It's whether we arm them or not that's the question. And it's not just the willingness of the aggressor to kill lots of civilians - I'd say it's weighting that against other factors, but that it absolutely is a factor.

So to use the ISIS example - are we involved in the conflict? If we're also fighting ISIS or can impose a no fly zone then I think it's justifiable. We know there will be civilian casualties, but we are also taking some risk with our own forces and can provide support in the actual use of weapons we're supplying or take measures to protect civilians - for example a no fly zone to stop them from flattening a city.

If we're not fighting, do we think they've got a chance of success? If we think there's a realistic chance that this insurgency will be able to win its independence/overthrow the regime or whatever - then I think it's justifiable.

If we're not willing to get involved ourselves, and we don't think they've really got a chance then I'm not convinced the "benefits" (can't think of the right word) outweigh the cost of massive civilian casualties. I'm particularly wary of adding "it'll keep them in a quagmire" as a benefit to weigh against attacks on civilians - I'm not convinced by that - we know it's futile, we're not directly involved but we'll let a town be flattened to keep them busy doesn't sit right with me.

Another factor I'd consider in the context of Russia is the example of Grozny where Putin basically brought the warlords into the regime - which I think is probably another pretty real risk.

But Tyr, Sheilbh, don't you see the logical conclusion of your position? It is incentivising to be as brutal with the civilian population as possible, as it will deter foreign support.

Sure but I don't think it's about trying to create incentives for the correct behaviour or normative rules - not least because most of the time I assume if the UK or any European country is considering arming insurgents, it's more likely than not the power they're fighting isn't hugely concerned with civilian loss of life. Maybe it would happen that this would be a consideration for them but given that our interventions/support has in recent years (with the huge exception of Iraq) been caused by an ongoing or threatened genocide/crime against humanity (Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Libya) or countries invading other countries (Gulf War 1), it strikes me that chances are that's already a given.

FWIW most Russians I know (granted, all of them emigrés) don't give me the vibe of an ultranationalistic society. I can't see them going along with open war against a "blood neighbor". Granted, Putin wipes his arse with domestic opposition (and then wipes out said opposition), but probably there's a limit to that, too.

I really hope not. I do think a lot about a drunken chat I had with a young-ish (I say - he was a similar age to me ) not super-nationalist seeming Russian who I met in Georgia and he was absolutely lovely, very nice, loved Georgia (as everyone should). But when it got to Ukraine he was absolutely on the "Ukraine's not a real country and it's full of Nazis" line.

I hope it wouldn't be like Grozny but if the context is lots of young Russian boys going and getting killed - not by "blood neighbours" but neo-fascist Banderites - I'm not sure.

It's one of the things that I find really scary about the whole situation is that it feels like the risk is a type of conflict we've not seen for a long time.