Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[grumbler]

I have actually not seen Germany being blamed so far. 

He who smelt it, dealt it. 

[celedhring]

This is interesting:

max seddon
@maxseddon
·
44m
To give you an idea of why Putin's doing this: a Levada Center poll out today shows 56% of Russians are "worried" about the war in Ukraine – as opposed to 37% last month – and nearly as many said they wanted to end the war as continue fighting

[Barrister]

Interesting Twitter thread by Kamil Galeev:

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1575510055369293824

Basic theory is this: Putin may wish to use a nuclear strike precisely to get an American military response.

The specific example Galeev uses is this: Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine.  America responds by destroying the Black Sea Fleet.

(Which incidentally is the kind of thing I think the Americans would do.  They want to avoid going nuclear, but they don't have to - they have vastly superior conventional forces).

Internally, Putin losing to inferior Ukraine is not acceptable.  Losing to the superior USA however, is acceptable politically speaking.  So at that point Putin takes the "L" and withdraws from Ukraine.  The mobilization also has the effect of thinning out some of the fighting-age males in Russia that could be a threat to him.  Putin survives in power (which is his absolute #1 objective).


I don't really buy it, but it's interesting.  It's an evil genius kind of move but I don't think Putin has shown that level of cunning.  I still think he thinks he can win - or at least force a peace with him controlling the territory he has now.

[Jacob]

This is interesting:

max seddon
@maxseddon
·
44m
To give you an idea of why Putin's doing this: a Levada Center poll out today shows 56% of Russians are "worried" about the war in Ukraine – as opposed to 37% last month – and nearly as many said they wanted to end the war as continue fighting

... especially given that there are pretty strong incentives for Russians to say you support the war.

[Tamas]

Interesting Twitter thread by Kamil Galeev:

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1575510055369293824

Basic theory is this: Putin may wish to use a nuclear strike precisely to get an American military response.

The specific example Galeev uses is this: Russia uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine.  America responds by destroying the Black Sea Fleet.

(Which incidentally is the kind of thing I think the Americans would do.  They want to avoid going nuclear, but they don't have to - they have vastly superior conventional forces).

Internally, Putin losing to inferior Ukraine is not acceptable.  Losing to the superior USA however, is acceptable politically speaking.  So at that point Putin takes the "L" and withdraws from Ukraine.  The mobilization also has the effect of thinning out some of the fighting-age males in Russia that could be a threat to him.  Putin survives in power (which is his absolute #1 objective).


I don't really buy it, but it's interesting.  It's an evil genius kind of move but I don't think Putin has shown that level of cunning.  I still think he thinks he can win - or at least force a peace with him controlling the territory he has now.

Interesting but no way. Officially he never has fought just Ukraine. As far as the narrative is concerned this has always been about saving Ukraine from the grips of the West and America in particular.

Putin will not willingly give up. How could he? Only acceptable way of doing so (for Ukraine and the West) would be to give up all territories Crimea included. Do that AND be whipped by NATO air forces? No way he'll do that willingly.

It's hopium. Hoping that no despite the extensive evidence to the contrary Putin isn't an aggressive sociopath who made a historic miscalculation and pushed his bullying one step further than he should have, yet unable and unwilling to admit defeat. No, he is some savvy leader still working his way out of the mess toward a compromise. Nonsense.

[Barrister]

It's hopium. Hoping that no despite the extensive evidence to the contrary Putin isn't an aggressive sociopath who made a historic miscalculation and pushed his bullying one step further than he should have, yet unable and unwilling to admit defeat. No, he is some savvy leader still working his way out of the mess toward a compromise. Nonsense.

If you're familiar with Galeev's twitter feed he does NOT think Putin is some savvy leader...

[Barrister]

Ukrainian military intelligence saying the risk of a tactical nuclear strike is "very high".

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1575566757498355712

[Berkut]

Its crazy we are all sitting here talking about this, and none of us really has a clue what he will do, or won't do.

[PDH]

Its crazy we are all sitting here talking about this, and none of us really has a clue what he will do, or won't do.

When we solve it here, we can all rest easier.

[celedhring]

Its crazy we are all sitting here talking about this, and none of us really has a clue what he will do, or won't do.

Of course we know, when faced with possible defeat, he'll always escalate until he runs out of ladder or gets pushed off it.

[Barrister]

Further both to Kamil Galeev's tweet thread, and Ukrainian intelligence's about the likelihood of a nuclear strike, here was have the Polish foreign minister:

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1575585903300386816

Polish minister: NATO may strike Russia with aircraft, missiles if it uses nukes in Ukraine.

Polish Foreign Minister Zbigniew Rau said in an interview with Polish radio RMF FM that NATO would have a conventional response to a possible Russian nuclear attack against Ukraine.

[alfred russel]

So the plan is to enter a nuclear war but not use our own nukes? So theoretically a Russia already using nuclear weapons is going to stop usin them when we enter the war, and and be militarily defeated through conventional means, and at some point sign a peace treaty that recognizes ukrainian sovereignty?

[Berkut]

So the plan is to enter a nuclear war but not use our own nukes? So theoretically a Russia already using nuclear weapons is going to stop usin them when we enter the war, and and be militarily defeated through conventional means, and at some point sign a peace treaty that recognizes ukrainian sovereignty?

Perhaps.

I think the idea is that at some point in that chain, circumstances will dictate other paths. What those might be is hard to say.

But I totally understand your point here, and broadly agree with that basic idea that it seems rather ridiculous to imagine a scenario like that playing out that doesn't involve more nukes.

[Barrister]

So the plan is to enter a nuclear war but not use our own nukes? So theoretically a Russia already using nuclear weapons is going to stop usin them when we enter the war, and and be militarily defeated through conventional means, and at some point sign a peace treaty that recognizes ukrainian sovereignty?

Well if Russia uses nukes in Ukraine the options are basically:

-do nothing.  Let Russia keep using nukes until Ukraine sues for peace.  Therefore establishing the precedent that nuclear powers can get away with anything, and causing the world to rush to have their own.

-respond with nukes.  Likely end of the world.

-respond, but with conventional forces to act as further deterrent to the use of more nukes.  Destroy the Black Sea fleet.  Start running SEAD missions over Ukraine.  Destroy the Kerch bridge.  Show that you're willing to respond but limit to to the territory of Ukraine.

Is it risky?  Sure.  But sounds like the least risky option after Putin does something that has been unthinkable for the last 67 years.

[alfred russel]

Soviet actions in its sphere of influence such as Czechoslovakia would not have been tolerated in neutral european states like Austria or Finland. Self determination was allowed to be snuffed out in places like Poland, Hungary and East Germany...obviously that would not have been allowed outside the bloc.

I think you are simply wrong about how they would have been tolerated in a "typical" neutral country. While atypical, the Czechoslovakia situation was one of the few outright violations of the post war order by the USSR in the Cold War, however it avoided going as far as Putin has--it was never portrayed as a territorial aggression by the Soviets. Brezhnev said it was a "fraternal" activity to protect an allied country from socially destabilizing forces inside their country.

Where it was an obvious violation of the post war order is in the fact that it was opposed by the Czech leader, and the Czech ambassador at the UN. Geopolitically the most important outcome of Brezhnev's behavior was it permanently shattered the PRC/USSR relationship as Mao saw the pretext of it as an assertion that the Kremlin was the final arbiter of "true" Communism, with right to invade Communist countries who did not live up to it. That obliteration of Russian and Chinese relations was not repaired until after the Cold War ended and the USSR had fallen apart.

That being said, both the USSR and the USA militarily or clandestinely intervened in a number of neutral countries during the Cold War. The lack of it turning into an outright war between the USSR and USA, as far as I can tell, has nothing at all to do with spheres of influence. NATO was an explicit mutual defense treaty, so it deterred Soviet aggression because it was an open commitment to declare and wage war against anyone invading a NATO country. The Warsaw Pact had a similar provision. A big practical reason the West couldn't intervene in Czechoslovakia is that it would literally be a violation of Czechoslovakia's sovereignty, activating the WTO's mutual defense provisions and generally "causing World War III." The Czechs never petitioned for American military involvement, and even if they had it would have been dangerous due to the escalation potential--the entire rest of the WTO activated to join in with the Soviet invasion with the exception of Albania and Romania, so any sort of military incursion would be tantamount to a declaration of war against the entire WTO.

There was also a specific treaty on Austrian permanent neutrality signed by both the Soviets and the United States, so lumping Austria in as if it is a generic neutral country during the Cold War is disingenuous. We had a specific agreement on Austria, if the Soviets had broken it, there may have been consequences. We did not have such an agreement on Czechoslovakia in 1968, just as there was no agreement on Vietnam or Grenada or Afghanistan. In such countries the two powers were largely free to act how they wanted, but it is telling that in none of these situations did the Soviets or Americans just blatantly say they were invading a country to take territory. It was always portrayed as being to the benefit of the country they were going into, and never involved territorial claims. This is because for various geopolitical reasons both the Soviets and the Americans respected the post war order--and so did China.

Essentially everyone still does today, other than Russia, which is why Russia's behavior has created such strong consequences. The specific reason this invasion has engendered more serious consequences than the Crimean annexation is because Putin abandoned many of the pretexts he used to justify that invasion--and he also was striking when the "iron was hot" with Crimea--Ukraine had factually just had a coup, and was in a state of disarray, which means its own sovereignty was a tad unclear since the previously internationally recognized government of Ukraine had fled in a limo into Russian hands.

Eastern europe was militarily dominated by the USSR and self-determination/sovereignty never allowed. The post war agreements were not lived up to in eastern europe.

The west generally understood this, and the USSR denials of reality were different levels of farcical depending on the event. Czechoslovakia in 1968 was one of the worst, and Ukraine 2022 is in that realm.