Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Sheilbh]

https://twitter.com/Eastern_Border/status/1501515012988354560?s=20&t=T500OLma4UqGOarmHCIZGQ

On Russian ministry of 'defence' tv an old soldier said that everyone should keep the memory of guys, dying in Ukraine. But as it's illegal to talk about losses, that drove the host to hysterics and yelling at the veteran. As Russians say: Motherland will always leave you behind.

Anyone who can translate what they're saying?

From Dmitry Grozoubinski online:

Which I think is comparable to Putin's situation, much of his thinking (flawed) would have been confirmed by events of the last ten years and the West's response. I won't pretend I was special in saying this as others on these very forums did the same--but it was a momentous decision to not respond with overwhelming economic sanctions and etc when Russia chose to violate the spirit of the 1994 agreement with Ukraine and to forcefully occupy Crimea and annex it, because it opened the door to wars of territorial aggression on the European continent arguably for the first time since 1945 (depending on how you count some of the Soviet put-downs of Warsaw Pact rebellions and etc), given the tepid U.S. response to the Crimean annexation I think Putin was not totally crazy to expect we'd do little about this. Honestly if Ukraine had folded in 2 days I'm not sure we'd have reacted this way.

I think we absolutely wouldn't have - I think it would have been some sanctions. Followed by normalisation and then the same old rigamarole of Western leaders (depending on their country's ideological framing) talking about resetting relations with Russia/growing interdependence/change through trade/the need to bring Russia into Europe's security architecture - while the leaders of Baltic states and Poland and Moldova would be loudly sounding the alarm (again).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Glenn Greenwald appears to be helping spread Russian/Chinese propaganda that the U.S. has hundreds of "biological research centers" it funds in countries all around the world (including Ukraine), which should be "investigated" to see if they manufacture bioweapons. I seem to remember a bunch of libs loving ole Glenn back in the early W. Bush era, is there any significant chance he isn't a Russian asset at this point?

[OttoVonBismarck]

If you believe that Ukraine is within a Russian sphere of influence, this really isn't much different than intervening in Hungary in 1956 or Czechoslovakia in 1968.

I think from a Russian nationalist perspective it is impossible to admit that it is not. At a certain point it would be clear that Putin has let it get away if Putin did nothing.

The big difference is the USSR already was quasi-controlling Hungary/Czechoslovakia and they explicitly recognized Ukrainian independence and agreed to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in the 1994 agreement. This war--and probably more importantly Crimea, were absolutely blatant wars of territorial aggression that had not really been seen since WW2. The West chose not to respond to Crimea as such, and that is a significant cause of the present situation. We also were very timid in funneling weapons aid to Ukraine in the intervening 7-8 years, I can only imagine how things might be going had we been better at that.

[Sheilbh]

Striking from Jen Psaki to set out the risk of a chemical weapon false flag by Russia (and that the conspiracy theory is being endorsed by China):
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1501676230617321480?s=20&t=Lq3Jmd81QSh_srkhhEIi8g

Full thread is worth a read and there's been a few comments from Russian officials suggesting they're looking at something like this. If China's backing them on this (i.e. Russia's security concerns about the rogue state Ukraine are clearly valid after this use of chemical weapons) which seems to be the direction of travel with the officials endorsing this risk, then it feels we're looking at a far more dangerous situation.

Many people flag the risk of doing something that leads to things spinning out of control (I suspect that's behind the fighers debacle), which is entirely correct. But the scariest possibility is that we're already on the track of things spinning out of control and kind of have been from the start.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Striking from Jen Psaki to set out the risk of a chemical weapon false flag by Russia (and that the conspiracy theory is being endorsed by China):
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1501676230617321480?s=20&t=Lq3Jmd81QSh_srkhhEIi8g

Full thread is worth a read and there's been a few comments from Russian officials suggesting they're looking at something like this. If China's backing them on this (i.e. Russia's security concerns about the rogue state Ukraine are clearly valid after this use of chemical weapons) which seems to be the direction of travel with the officials endorsing this risk, then it feels we're looking at a far more dangerous situation.

Many people flag the risk of doing something that leads to things spinning out of control (I suspect that's behind the fighers debacle), which is entirely correct. But the scariest possibility is that we're already on the track of things spinning out of control and kind of have been from the start.

Col. Vindman has actually been somewhat arguing that we need to consider a risky form of escalation (he actually favored limited military involvement, either establishing a land humanitarian "safe zone" or no fly), precisely because he said it would serve as a hard wall that Russia would have to deal with. He actually argues that there is more danger in allowing the steady pitter patter of escalation after escalation because it can allow things to get to a much more dangerous point, where something that more forcefully pushes back at Russia might stop the escalation completely.

I have no fucking clue what the right answer is, and I actually don't think anyone really does, it's best guess shit. I will note that the U.S. actually made nuclear war less likely during the Cuban Missile Crisis because they did something that was considered highly escalatory--Kennedy declared a quarantine around Cuba and then ordered his navy to stop Russian ships that tried to cross it. It created such a scary red line that the Russians were left knowing that further escalation had exactly one result--full war. Paradoxically that actually stopped the escalation and the Russians had a crazy tight stand down of their nuclear forces at that point to avoid even the slightest possibility they would be perceived as preparing for a nuclear launch.

[Jacob]

Glenn Greenwald appears to be helping spread Russian/Chinese propaganda that the U.S. has hundreds of "biological research centers" it funds in countries all around the world (including Ukraine), which should be "investigated" to see if they manufacture bioweapons. I seem to remember a bunch of libs loving ole Glenn back in the early W. Bush era, is there any significant chance he isn't a Russian asset at this point?

I don't know if he's getting paid but to my casual eye he's been behaving like a pro-Putin plant for at least a decade.

[Sheilbh]

I can see the argument but I find the game theory/logic of nukes and deterrence absolutely mind-melting at anything but the most basic level.

[Jacob]

Col. Vindman has actually been somewhat arguing that we need to consider a risky form of escalation (he actually favored limited military involvement, either establishing a land humanitarian "safe zone" or no fly), precisely because he said it would serve as a hard wall that Russia would have to deal with. He actually argues that there is more danger in allowing the steady pitter patter of escalation after escalation because it can allow things to get to a much more dangerous point, where something that more forcefully pushes back at Russia might stop the escalation completely.

I have no fucking clue what the right answer is, and I actually don't think anyone really does, it's best guess shit. I will note that the U.S. actually made nuclear war less likely during the Cuban Missile Crisis because they did something that was considered highly escalatory--Kennedy declared a quarantine around Cuba and then ordered his navy to stop Russian ships that tried to cross it. It created such a scary red line that the Russians were left knowing that further escalation had exactly one result--full war. Paradoxically that actually stopped the escalation and the Russians had a crazy tight stand down of their nuclear forces at that point to avoid even the slightest possibility they would be perceived as preparing for a nuclear launch.

Personally I think that's pretty persuasive. Not that I'm blind to the risk, mind you.

[PJL]

I agrr

Striking from Jen Psaki to set out the risk of a chemical weapon false flag by Russia (and that the conspiracy theory is being endorsed by China):
https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/1501676230617321480?s=20&t=Lq3Jmd81QSh_srkhhEIi8g

Full thread is worth a read and there's been a few comments from Russian officials suggesting they're looking at something like this. If China's backing them on this (i.e. Russia's security concerns about the rogue state Ukraine are clearly valid after this use of chemical weapons) which seems to be the direction of travel with the officials endorsing this risk, then it feels we're looking at a far more dangerous situation.

Many people flag the risk of doing something that leads to things spinning out of control (I suspect that's behind the fighers debacle), which is entirely correct. But the scariest possibility is that we're already on the track of things spinning out of control and kind of have been from the start.

Col. Vindman has actually been somewhat arguing that we need to consider a risky form of escalation (he actually favored limited military involvement, either establishing a land humanitarian "safe zone" or no fly), precisely because he said it would serve as a hard wall that Russia would have to deal with. He actually argues that there is more danger in allowing the steady pitter patter of escalation after escalation because it can allow things to get to a much more dangerous point, where something that more forcefully pushes back at Russia might stop the escalation completely.

I have no fucking clue what the right answer is, and I actually don't think anyone really does, it's best guess shit. I will note that the U.S. actually made nuclear war less likely during the Cuban Missile Crisis because they did something that was considered highly escalatory--Kennedy declared a quarantine around Cuba and then ordered his navy to stop Russian ships that tried to cross it. It created such a scary red line that the Russians were left knowing that further escalation had exactly one result--full war. Paradoxically that actually stopped the escalation and the Russians had a crazy tight stand down of their nuclear forces at that point to avoid even the slightest possibility they would be perceived as preparing for a nuclear launch.

I agree, by trying to de-escalate the situation, the West has done the opposite and looked week. The only thing that can stop Putin is the threat of WW3. Otherwise he will keep escalating & escalating. Having said that, a big plus out of all this is the West is more firm and united than at any time since the Cold War. It also reinforces my belief that this will last weeks bit months or years. Time is on our side and Putin knows it. So he is seeking to neutralise it.

[DGuller]

Glenn Greenwald appears to be helping spread Russian/Chinese propaganda that the U.S. has hundreds of "biological research centers" it funds in countries all around the world (including Ukraine), which should be "investigated" to see if they manufacture bioweapons. I seem to remember a bunch of libs loving ole Glenn back in the early W. Bush era, is there any significant chance he isn't a Russian asset at this point?

I was going to ask that question myself.  Seems very likely to me that he's either compromised by the Russians or outright owned by them.

[DGuller]

Reading Twitter, I think it's a safe assumption that whoever uses the word "Nuland" today is a Russian asset.  Hopefully someone is keeping tabs.

I think social media sites have blundered with merely deleting Russian trolls they've been able to identify.  That's a counter-productive strategy.  They should've been branded and their posts left untouched so that everyone can see the talking points they were tasked with spreading.

[grumbler]

You're talking from the perspective of a Western historian.

And you're talking from the perspective of a Western non-historian.

In Imperial Japan they had like a series of 20 "incidents" or wars going back to the late 1800s where they steadily got some form of concession in quasi-victories--sometimes Western powers were involved in the negotiations and were perceived to have "trimmed" Japan of its rightful victory terms. While a lot could be said about this long string of events in Japan they were considered nothing short of triumph after triumph and the only possible thing that could slow Japan down was evil Western powers or weak leaders from within.

This was the mindset in the 1930s, yes, and even more so after the war broke out in 1939.  "Don't miss the bus" was a definite mindset.  But sober analysis always brought them back to the reality that they couldn't  defeat the US.  Yamamoto as much as said so (though he couched it as "I have no expectation of success"

The prevailing accepted position within Japan was that the only thing stopping them from winning the 1937 war was U.S. fucking with their oil supply and giving lease aid to the Chinese. It doesn't entirely matter if that was true or not, but to the Japanese it was true, and decisions had to be made with that as it was truth. The Japanese Imperial culture had shown itself to be brutally responsive to people that tried to inject negative pessimism about the strength of the Empire or even make relatively moderate concessions--the Japanese Prime Minister who signed the London Naval Treaty (that Japan basically violated almost immediately) was assassinated for it and his assassins were given the functional equivalent of slaps on the wrist by the establishment.

The Japanese didn't believe that it was the July 1941 US oil embargo that prevented Japanese victory in China, nor the miniscule amounts of US aid that reached China after the Japanese had occupied all the Chinese ports in 1939 (in fact, the US didn't offer China loans for military equipment until 1940).  Rather, they believed that China was simply too vast to conquer without an unsupportable effort, and recognized by 1940 that they were in a quagmire.  The man who signed the London Naval Treaty was Prince Tokugawa Iesato, who died in his sleep, age 86, in 1940.

(snip of you repeating my argument)

Which I think is comparable to Putin's situation, much of his thinking (flawed) would have been confirmed by events of the last ten years and the West's response. I won't pretend I was special in saying this as others on these very forums did the same--but it was a momentous decision to not respond with overwhelming economic sanctions and etc when Russia chose to violate the spirit of the 1994 agreement with Ukraine and to forcefully occupy Crimea and annex it, because it opened the door to wars of territorial aggression on the European continent arguably for the first time since 1945 (depending on how you count some of the Soviet put-downs of Warsaw Pact rebellions and etc), given the tepid U.S. response to the Crimean annexation I think Putin was not totally crazy to expect we'd do little about this. Honestly if Ukraine had folded in 2 days I'm not sure we'd have reacted this way.

The Japanese situation is comparable to Putin's if Putin's decision-making was based on deliberate wishful thinking.  But that does not make either decision "rational" except in the narrowest sense of "having a reason."  Rational decision-making includes consideration of the possibility that one's information is wrong.

[grumbler]

Glenn Greenwald appears to be helping spread Russian/Chinese propaganda that the U.S. has hundreds of "biological research centers" it funds in countries all around the world (including Ukraine), which should be "investigated" to see if they manufacture bioweapons. I seem to remember a bunch of libs loving ole Glenn back in the early W. Bush era, is there any significant chance he isn't a Russian asset at this point?

He was an establishment critic for a long time, but clearly now has passed into the role of Russian mouthpiece.  He's a regular feature on Tucker Carlson's show, apparently, and Carlson is also on the Russian payroll.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah this is not on topic but I think it'd be amazing to people in 2003 that Greenwald's ended up on Fox and John Bolton on MSNBC.

[Malthus]

Reading Twitter, I think it's a safe assumption that whoever uses the word "Nuland" today is a Russian asset.  Hopefully someone is keeping tabs.

I think social media sites have blundered with merely deleting Russian trolls they've been able to identify.  That's a counter-productive strategy.  They should've been branded and their posts left untouched so that everyone can see the talking points they were tasked with spreading.

One of the few good things to emerge from this disaster, aside from a greater degree of Western cooperation, has been that it has widely exposed and discredited Russian influencer assets. The Russian propaganda has been so naked and obvious.

Hopefully, this effect will be permanent.