Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Admiral Yi]

Swedish troops are right now in Mali and have also been fighting your war in Afghanistan thank you very much.

You do realize I'm on your side, right?  That I was responding to Otto's post about the uselessness of Sweden to NATO?

[celedhring]

Disagree heavily. If the (initial) Russian offensive fails, the usual reflex of people of thinking what unfolded was EXACTLY how Putin intended it will kick in. It should be resisted. I don't think you prepare such a huge multi-angle offensive, drop bloody airmobile units next to Kiev on Day 1, and then expect to be still not at the capital at the end of Day 2.

Probably Russia will still win at the end but I think their plans have been a shambles. Pre-invasion thanks to the Western anti-disinformation campaign, and post-invasion to a likely combination of Ukrainian defense and low Russian morale.

Agree with all of this - and I think there's hubris. As I say my fear is that the surgical strike failed so they'll now move to "classic" Russian tactics

Although this thread by a war studies academic is interesting - although all conjecture on day 2 of a war:
https://twitter.com/ThreshedThought/status/1497304143836454921

Sir Lawrence Freedman who's the dean of British war studies/strategy academia also posted an interesting sub-stack and today said he was thinking a little of 1812 at the minute.

The Ukrainians are burning down the Kremlin?

Oh, not *that* war in 1812.

[DGuller]

Does anyone else detect a whiff of farce to this war?  Meant to intimidate and put on a show rather than kill and seize territory?

I've seen many reports of missile strikes but not so many of heavy ground fighting.  And certainly no camera footage of what I would call heavy fightiing.

I think our standards for what is a swift war and what isn't are a bit skewed.  The war is less than two days old, so the fact that Russians are only in parts of Kiev now doesn't indicate that it is a farce.  It also seems clear to me that Russians are for now trying to act nice, to the extent possible, in a "don't break the shit that we're going to easily take tomorrow" kind of way.  If tomorrow they realize they won't be taking it any time soon, then I'm sure we'll get to see the more familiar version of Russian military.

[Sheilbh]

The Ukrainians are burning down the Kremlin?

Oh, not *that* war in 1812.

No - *that* war in 1812

[Berkut]

Then don't shut down RT because it doesn't matter.

But don't not shut them down because we are afraid of what they will do in response. That is exactly playing THEIR game.

[...]

If it is important and it helps us, then Russia will kick them out if they decide it is a net negative to them to have them there. They won't not kick them out because they are afraid we will respond in kind.

[...]

Wait, you mean the Russian state censor is making decisions absent caring about what we might do in response? You don't say!

Not sure I get your point.

It's not about fear but we know that the very obvious tit-for-tat for shutting down RT will be to expel Western journalists. So it's working out whether that's worth it. It's cost-benefit basically in an area where the retaliation is relatively obvious. I don't think the benefit outweighs the cost - not even close.

I assume the same logic applies for why there's been very limited expulsions of Russian spies serving in embassies in the West - and I have no doubt every Western intelligence agency has a list. But we know the immediate response would be to expel our spies and I assume leaders have decided it's not worth it. I expected a lot of diplomats being kicked out across Europe and the US over the course of this week which makes me think (as well as the generrally accurate intelligence the UK, US and France have been publicising) that we don't think the cost outweighs the benefit.

I'd look more at what are the moves we can make that have maximum impact rather than show we're not afraid. Not sure we're that either at the minute though.

That is how things work in peace time, not in active conflict, when there is a general "gentlemans agreement" on how to oppose each other in a civilized manner, while trying t maintain a semblance of diplomatic normalcy.

You are trying to maintain those trappings of business as usual after the other side has made it perfectly clear they could not care less about any of those trappings, except when it benefits them.

This is analogous to people on the left demanding that everyone play nice with Trump, and still pretend like he is operating within the political norms. He is not, and neither is Putin. He invaded another country!

We need to stop worrying about Russia will do in response to us taking a stand. We need to take a stand and then let Russia worry about what our next move is, instead of us worrying about what they are going to do if we aren't nice enough.

Stop worrying about what Putin is going to do to us, and start focusing on what we can do to him.

Oh noes! He is going to expel western journalists if we are not nice to Russia Times!

I don't care, and neither should anyone else.

[Threviel]

Swedish troops are right now in Mali and have also been fighting your war in Afghanistan thank you very much.

You do realize I'm on your side, right?  That I was responding to Otto's post about the uselessness of Sweden to NATO?

He's right, Swedish contributions are neither here nor there when it comes to a situation where Nato is involved. Just like all non-major Nato countries. What counts is the US and then far away in a second tier the UK, France and perhaps Germany and then a huge step down to the rest where Sweden would be.

What Sweden can contribute with is intelligence and geography.

[Sheilbh]

That is how things work in peace time, not in active conflict, when there is a general "gentlemans agreement" on how to oppose each other in a civilized manner, while trying t maintain a semblance of diplomatic normalcy.

You are trying to maintain those trappings of business as usual after the other side has made it perfectly clear they could not care less about any of those trappings, except when it benefits them.

This is analogous to people on the left demanding that everyone play nice with Trump, and still pretend like he is operating within the political norms. He is not, and neither is Putin. He invaded another country!

We need to stop worrying about Russia will do in response to us taking a stand. We need to take a stand and then let Russia worry about what our next move is, instead of us worrying about what they are going to do if we aren't nice enough.

Stop worrying about what Putin is going to do to us, and start focusing on what we can do to him.

Oh noes! He is going to expel western journalists if we are not nice to Russia Times!

I don't care, and neither should anyone else.

I think I've explained what I was thinking on it and it's not this.

I'm not worried about what Putin is going to do to us and absolutely agree that we should focus on what we can do to him - and we should focus on things of maximum impact.

[Berkut]

That is how things work in peace time, not in active conflict, when there is a general "gentlemans agreement" on how to oppose each other in a civilized manner, while trying t maintain a semblance of diplomatic normalcy.

You are trying to maintain those trappings of business as usual after the other side has made it perfectly clear they could not care less about any of those trappings, except when it benefits them.

This is analogous to people on the left demanding that everyone play nice with Trump, and still pretend like he is operating within the political norms. He is not, and neither is Putin. He invaded another country!

We need to stop worrying about Russia will do in response to us taking a stand. We need to take a stand and then let Russia worry about what our next move is, instead of us worrying about what they are going to do if we aren't nice enough.

Stop worrying about what Putin is going to do to us, and start focusing on what we can do to him.

Oh noes! He is going to expel western journalists if we are not nice to Russia Times!

I don't care, and neither should anyone else.

I think I've explained what I was thinking on it and it's not this.

I'm not worried about what Putin is going to do to us and absolutely agree that we should focus on what we can do to him - and we should focus on things of maximum impact.

I think what you are saying is exactly this.

If your response to "We should shut off RT" is "But then they will...." then you are doing exactly what I am talking about. Letting the fear of what THEY will do dictate our choices.

If shutting off RT is not that useful, then don't do it because it is not that useful.

Because Western media in Russia is there, and will be there, exactly as long as Putin and his administration thinks the cost of them being there is not greater then the cost of kicking them out. The moment they decide to boot them, they will be gone no matter what happens with RT.

They get it. They are playing to win, not playing to play nice. We need to do the same.

Reminds me of the Grant quote when taking over the Army of the Potomac. Something along the lines of "Stop worrying about what Lee is going to do to us, and start worrying about what we are going to do to Lee"

[OttoVonBismarck]

You may have missed the point about them not being Western enough and Otto's fixation with the loss of Western Europeaness in the US.

I assume you're drunk, I have never made posts of that nature.

[Admiral Yi]

I think what you are saying is exactly this.

If your response to "We should shut off RT" is "But then they will...." then you are doing exactly what I am talking about. Letting the fear of what THEY will do dictate our choices.

If shutting off RT is not that useful, then don't do it because it is not that useful.

Because Western media in Russia is there, and will be there, exactly as long as Putin and his administration thinks the cost of them being there is not greater then the cost of kicking them out. The moment they decide to boot them, they will be gone no matter what happens with RT.

They get it. They are playing to win, not playing to play nice. We need to do the same.

Reminds me of the Grant quote when taking over the Army of the Potomac. Something along the lines of "Stop worrying about what Lee is going to do to us, and start worrying about what we are going to do to Lee"

Shelf is saying let's do a cost benefit and you're saying let's ignore the cost.

[Sheilbh]

Edit: It seems Putin went on in his call for the Ukrainian military to turn on Ukraine's government about not lettering "neo-Nazis and Banderites" use your wives and children as human shields. Not sure he's understood what seems to be the mood in Ukraine including from the military - which is just what you'd expect during an invasion.

Separately Peskov has apparently just very hastily called for a call with journalists to say that Ukraine has stopped respondint to Russia's proposal for talks and that Ukraine is setting up rocket launchers in residential neighbourhoods in Kyiv. Which sounds very alarmingly like they are maybe trying to create an "atrocity" by Ukrainians - it's just all monstrous

Just flagging what Peskov said here, given this Tweet from the Ukrainian foreign minister:

Dmytro Kuleba
@DmytroKuleba
According to intelligence, Russia plans a massive false flag operation to  'dehumanize' Ukrainians and accuse Ukraine of alleged inhuman actions. Don't trust fakes. Ukraine defends its land in a just and defensive war. Unlike Russia, we don't target kindergartens and civilians.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean not every relationship is symmetrical. Take for example the Intermediate Range Missile Treaty, it basically benefited Russia much more than the United States. Why? Because Russia was basically continually non-compliant, while the U.S. at least made a good faith effort at compliance. Getting rid of that treaty thus was a net benefit for the United States. The presence of RT in the West and Western journalists in St. Petersburg / Moscow is similarly asymmetrical--RT has very little influence or importance in the West, while Western journalists in major Russian cities help disseminate on the street sort of news from Russia that is not easily acquired elsewhere--for the public at least. The government has spies, and they get higher quality information, obviously. I also think Western journalists in Russia help spread at least some scrutiny of Putin within Russia. The West is an open society, so the value in having a single media organization that is known as a Russian propaganda outfit isn't very high--pretty much anyone can start a media outfit in the West to do whatever they want. RT's work can and is replicated by things like fake news mills and facebook bots etc, and likely much more effectively.

[Sheilbh]

I mean not every relationship is symmetrical. Take for example the Intermediate Range Missile Treaty, it basically benefited Russia much more than the United States. Why? Because Russia was basically continually non-compliant, while the U.S. at least made a good faith effort at compliance. Getting rid of that treaty thus was a net benefit for the United States. The presence of RT in the West and Western journalists in St. Petersburg / Moscow is similarly asymmetrical--RT has very little influence or importance in the West, while Western journalists in major Russian cities help disseminate on the street sort of news from Russia that is not easily acquired elsewhere--for the public at least. The government has spies, and they get higher quality information, obviously. I also think Western journalists in Russia help spread at least some scrutiny of Putin within Russia. The West is an open society, so the value in having a single media organization that is known as a Russian propaganda outfit isn't very high--pretty much anyone can start a media outfit in the West to do whatever they want. RT's work can and is replicated by things like fake news mills and facebook bots etc, and likely much more effectively.

Exactly. RT in the UK has less viewers than one month's worth of people seeing a West End musical. BBC and other Western journalists (not least because they can feed into Russian language reporting) are far more impactful.

Shelf is saying let's do a cost benefit and you're saying let's ignore the cost.

Yes - but I think we will have to bear a cost and we should. Our economies will take a hit. Inflation will rise especially on staples like fuel, energy bills and food. We should be honest with people about that and ask them to bear that cost in order to support Ukraine and ostracise Russia.

I'm just not evern sure there is any actual benefit to banning RT (though in the UK broadcasters are regulated and apparently the regulator is watching them very closely - so they could remove the licence) but there is a definite and, in my view, quite significant cost.

Some of it's also doing things to better extricate ourselves - like energy transition, enforcing anti-money laundering laws - my understanding is it takes about a month to construct the apparatus to start fracking and I think the UK probably should to provide a better, nearby source of gas to our neighbours. We won't but I think we should. I'm not convinced there is an argument for continued economic relations with Russia given that there is no at scale genuine private sector.

[crazy canuck]

South Korean military and Japanese SDF are both way more formidable than any European military.

I've no doubt - but Russia's not China either. Sorry that wasn't meant as a slight to Asian allies - but that I think China's a big challenge/risk to respond to than Russia. As I say Russia is in relative decline, it's hydro-carbon based economy and its economy is the size of Benelux - if European countries, some of the richest and most advanced in the world, wanted to that is a challenge they can face without more and more US support. I don't think that situation holds in Asia-Pacific - I don't think South Korea and Japan (even if they could work together) could really face or manage China which is a rising power.

That's the choice I think is coming for the US - and I think they will (probably rightly) choose the Pacific.

One reason I want to see the U.S. beef up its presence in Europe is because I think we can actually do both. That being said if we had to choose which one to invest the most in--I would say Europe. A few reasons:

1. Europe is the heart of our culture and I can't just pretend we should bloodlessly look at what's best for the United States. The United States, its government, for whatever parts of it that have produced good in the world, freedom, higher quality of life etc (with all the faults), that is because of a thousand+ years inheritance of Western culture. The Enlightenment, the English Bill of Rights, the very concept of limited rulers and the rule of law. These things did not develop anywhere but the West. Our religious, literary, and linguistic inheritance is from Europe, it is not from Asia. It is easy to feel a wide gulf between the United States and Europe but the United States is a literal creation of Europe and European peoples, and that broad shared culture is important. It is worth defending, and it is worth fighting for even if it carries heavy costs.

2. Aside from Taiwan, all of our significant allies in Asia, are in pretty strong positions. South Korea and Japan both have large U.S. military deployments on them, that are permanent and not going anywhere--China cannot invade either without being at war with the United States. Additionally, both South Korea and Japan are somewhat geographically defended from a quick or easy Chinese invasion. Some of our "second order friends" or developing friends in the region: India, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, are also mostly either removed enough from China to avoid easy invasion or, the one that borders China (India) has a deterrent that China won't casually mess with, one more serious than U.S. tripwire troops.

3. Our Asian allies seem frankly more obvious of the realism of China's risks than Europe / NATO has been about Russia (at least before this week.) As evidence of this, all of these countries have been making serious military moves to protect themselves. They additionally are forming joint economic alliances specifically designed to work around and limit China's strength.

3. The most vulnerable part of our Asian friends is Taiwan, and well...Taiwan is a weird situation. Unlike the territories Russia has its eyes on, almost no country on earth actually views Taiwan as an actual country. We made a decision in the 1970s to abandon the fiction that Taiwan was China, in order to open up the PRC to Western relations. We paid the price of abandoning Taiwan to some degree in international relations, in not giving them a bilateral security guarantee, and then adopting a strategy of "intentional vagueness" about how we'd respond to an invasion of Taiwan. The simple reality is we made a choice, and that choice at least partially tacitly accepted abandonment of Taiwan, we basically said an island of renegade Chinese wasn't "worth it" and have on many levels conceded that Taiwan is at least on some level rightfully China's, even if we strongly disagree that China should be able to impose its will on Taiwan by force. While I feel a lot of sympathy for the miserably shitty situation Taiwan is in, the reality is we haven't built a post world order around supporting minimally recognized break away provinces, we have built it around recognize free and sovereign states that don't settle territorial issues with wars of conquest. And that's what Putin is attacking.

Hey Otto, never means you actually didn't ever say it.  And I don't really want to dig up your anti-Muslim bile.

[Tamas]

Unconfirmed but: Ukraine's Air Defense downed a Russian Ilyushin II-76 carrying a landing force near Vasylkiv south of Kyiv