Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[PJL]

I wonder if even the low-level conflict in the Donbas that Russia was supporting for the last 8 years was a mistake as well. I've heard it's given the Ukrainians useful combat training which looks as though it has helped them a lot in the current war.

[Legbiter]

You fools, failing was Russia's plan all along!

https://twitter.com/polinaivanovva/status/1507400322829930500

Polina Ivanova
@polinaivanovva
·
25m
Replying to
@polinaivanovva
Firstly, the generals said Russia had always intended only to 'liberate' the Donbas, that was what it set out to do. It had two options: fight a war in the east, but allow Kyiv to replenish its forces, or start off by knocking out Ukrainian military capacities across the country.

Polina Ivanova
@polinaivanovva
Russia had never intended to capture Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities, the generals said - these are not setbacks in other words, it's all part of the plan. And the plan was to distract Ukrainian forces while Russia/ Donetsk/ Luhansk made territorial gains in the east.

Now, this moving of the goalposts seem to be very good news to me.

The Donetsk front has barely fucking budged this whole time. It only took 4 weeks of slaughter for the bad news to reach Putin and for him to set an actual war goal. Now is just the small issue of actually conquering the place.

[Barrister]

Retaking Crimea would be really, really hard for Ukraine.  It's the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  Even when Crimea was under Ukrainian control Russia paid an annual lease in order to stay at the Sevastopol Naval Base.  Support from the naval base is probably why Russia has had it's most success in the south of Ukraine.

Not saying they shouldn't do it, but it would be hard.

[Jacob]

Retaking Crimea would be really, really hard for Ukraine.  It's the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.  Even when Crimea was under Ukrainian control Russia paid an annual lease in order to stay at the Sevastopol Naval Base.  Support from the naval base is probably why Russia has had it's most success in the south of Ukraine.

Not saying they shouldn't do it, but it would be hard.

For sure, but "it will be very difficult" is different from "it's a rotten limb, better off amputating" I think. Or maybe I'm reading too much into the metaphor.

[Sheilbh]

Rhetorically "rotten limb, better amputate" is a vivid and potentially effective image... but what's the basis for describing it like that?

Also I think this war demonstrates the risk Crimea presents to Ukraine - politically it may be a nghtmare but in terms of making sure an invasion like this doesn't happen again it seems far more important to get Crimea back than the Donbas.

[Duque de Bragança]

I do wonder the nuance differences between "you stand with us", "almost there", and the various other assessments. I haven't followed the contributions and statements of each nation in detail to understand the differences.

My read:
"You stand with us" = you want full sanctions including oil and gas and/or have provided arms and are probably broadly supportive of Ukraine's EU ambitions. So the Baltics, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia, Croatia, Sweden. I think he then gets that France is pushing "you will stand for us", same with Romania and Greece (interesting to see those three aligned again).

The rest I'd assume is some variation of resisting sanctions, Ukrainian EU membership or either not sending arms, those arms not arriving or them turning out to be a little out of date/not maintained (which I believe has been an issue). I know in Ireland the "well, almost" has been received with some shock because Ireland's wanting to accept loads of refugees and is politically very supportive of Ukraine, I believe, including on sanctions - but it's militarily neutral so it won't send any military aid, has opted out of the EU program on that. I think back to Zelensky's line to Biden in the first days of this war "I need ammo, not a ride" and I think that is his overwhelming priority: either you're pushing to hurt Russia economically or you're sending supplies that allows Ukraine to fight.

The two that struck me were Hungary and Luxembourg - "we understand each other". As I mentioned Luxembourg's got a history of being very friendly with Russia and Bettel keeps having calls with Putin that I don't understand (Scholz, Macron, Michel - I get and think are probably a good idea). That one seemed a little pointed, although that may not be how it was intended

Yeah, Macron called Putin by his first name so it's only fair Zelensky returned the favour.  Past proximity or other grievances.

The "almost there" for Portugal has not been discussed in the Portuguese media to my knowledge (clandestino did I miss something?).

Portugal does not rely at all on Russian gas since the little amounts that are used come from Algeria through Spain or gets lNG in Vasco da Gama's home city port.
Maybe some more sanctions are needed against Russian oligarchs. Say Abramovich, since he is a Portuguese citizen, so he cannot be targeted easily.

[DGuller]

It sounds like the latest general was killed in the same place the previous general was killed in, and that's also the place where Ukrainians keep bombing shipments of Russian equipment.  I think Ukrainians found a spawn point to camp.

Heh.

Do you have a source on the freshly killed general?

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1507362085860261892

Chornobaivka is the place near Kherson where the airfield held by Russians keeps being bombed, and it's quickly becoming infamous among Ukrainians.  I think that's also where Mordvichev was killed, but that I'm less sure of.

Here is a humorous propaganda clip about Chornbaivka I keep seeing lately:

https://twitter.com/NatalieSmal/status/1506871266103418880

[DGuller]

I think accepting the loss of Crimea in exchange for peace and other territories may be a prudent plan for Ukraine, except for the fact that you can't be sure that Russians would give up on the idea of land corridor to Crimea.  You can make a case that for Ukraine, Crimea is a rotten limb they're better off amputating.

Rhetorically "rotten limb, better amputate" is a vivid and potentially effective image... but what's the basis for describing it like that?

Crimea has always been the most pro-Russian place by far in Ukraine, and despite being a tourism hotspot, it has been an economic drain on both Ukraine and after 2014 on Russia.  If Ukraine ever recaptures Crimea, they'll probably have to deal with a population that is extremely hostile to them, as I'm sure their natural dislike of Ukraine has been reinforced by 8 years of active Russian propaganda.

[The Brain]

And AFAIK there's no deeper historical connection between Crimea and Ukraine.

[Josquius]

I think accepting the loss of Crimea in exchange for peace and other territories may be a prudent plan for Ukraine, except for the fact that you can't be sure that Russians would give up on the idea of land corridor to Crimea.  You can make a case that for Ukraine, Crimea is a rotten limb they're better off amputating.

Rhetorically "rotten limb, better amputate" is a vivid and potentially effective image... but what's the basis for describing it like that?

Crimea has always been the most pro-Russian place by far in Ukraine, and despite being a tourism hotspot, it has been an economic drain on both Ukraine and after 2014 on Russia.  If Ukraine ever recaptures Crimea, they'll probably have to deal with a population that is extremely hostile to them, as I'm sure their natural dislike of Ukraine has been reinforced by 8 years of active Russian propaganda.

It does however give Ukraine most of its sea zone, which with recent oil and gas discoveries mean its economic prospects were looking up considerably.

[Barrister]

And AFAIK there's no deeper historical connection between Crimea and Ukraine.

As all of us former Europa Universalis players should know, historically Crimea was neither Ukrainian nor Russian - it belonged to the Tatars.

[Threviel]

To the Byzantines you mean?

[celedhring]

I think accepting the loss of Crimea in exchange for peace and other territories may be a prudent plan for Ukraine, except for the fact that you can't be sure that Russians would give up on the idea of land corridor to Crimea.  You can make a case that for Ukraine, Crimea is a rotten limb they're better off amputating.

Rhetorically "rotten limb, better amputate" is a vivid and potentially effective image... but what's the basis for describing it like that?

Crimea has always been the most pro-Russian place by far in Ukraine, and despite being a tourism hotspot, it has been an economic drain on both Ukraine and after 2014 on Russia.  If Ukraine ever recaptures Crimea, they'll probably have to deal with a population that is extremely hostile to them, as I'm sure their natural dislike of Ukraine has been reinforced by 8 years of active Russian propaganda.

It does however give Ukraine most of its sea zone, which with recent oil and gas discoveries mean its economic prospects were looking up considerably.

Honestly, the relationship between "exporting lots of oil/gas" = "being a shithole" is so strong that they might be better off. Few countries have managed to build decent societies off it.

[Barrister]

Honestly, the relationship between "exporting lots of oil/gas" = "being a shithole" is so strong that they might be better off. Few countries have managed to build decent societies off it.

[DGuller]

I'm not that confident that having hydrocarbon wealth would be a good thing for Ukraine.  When Russia is not invading it, Ukraine's most crippling problem is the extreme corruption, and hydrocarbon wealth doesn't necessarily benefit the country if their government is corrupt. 

If Ukraine conquers corruption and its oligarchical feudalism, then I think it's going to grow rich with or without hydrocarbon wealth.  Both Russia and Ukraine have enough talent to grow rich from human capital, it's just that they squandered their potential for different reasons.