Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Jacob]

I think he needs at the very least Ukraine to cede Crimea and the two breakaway regions plus promise not to join NATO. Anything less than this is a defeat. But I can't see Ukraine yielding those now. Any Ukrainian leader signing that equals signing their own death warrants.

I agree that those terms are non-starters as the situation stands. I was speculating what a feasible off-ramp might look like for Putin - and I think taking Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv and a few other cities and then handing them back on those terms may look feasible to Russia and maybe acceptable to Ukraine. But yeah, Russia is going to need some victories in the field to get anything at the negotiation table.

[Sheilbh]

Wasn't sure which thread to put this in - but in good news they're thinking about it, but alarming news in every other way apparently there's a SAGE group on standby for dealing with the risk of a radiation plume if there was a nuclear incident in Ukraine (e.g. at Chernobyl).

[alfred russel]

I mean can you explain why you would expect them to be taking less losses than Germany's invasion of Poland? Like why are they not in a WW2 style battle?

They went in expecting a surgical decapitation strike resulting in a quick collapse and regime change.

Were they? That seems to have been plan A but they had a plan B, which we are seeing.

The fact that you're even considering comparisons to Germany's invasion of Poland is an indication of the magnitude of the failure.

I really can't imagine a scenario that this turns out well for Russia. I think that they have epically blundered. My point is just that the casualty counts shouldn't surprise anyone. Everyone passed on speculating on the casualties if Russia really tries to seize Kiev/Kyiv, but if they really go for it the casualties seen so far are just going to be the smallest tip of the iceberg. We haven't seen european armies try to conquer each other in recent decades, but that doesn't mean the old casualty counts are in the past: it isn't as though the weapons of war have become less fierce and artillery less destructive over the last century.

[Barrister]

I think he needs at the very least Ukraine to cede Crimea and the two breakaway regions plus promise not to join NATO. Anything less than this is a defeat. But I can't see Ukraine yielding those now. Any Ukrainian leader signing that equals signing their own death warrants.

I agree that those terms are non-starters as the situation stands. I was speculating what a feasible off-ramp might look like for Putin - and I think taking Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv and a few other cities and then handing them back on those terms may look feasible to Russia and maybe acceptable to Ukraine. But yeah, Russia is going to need some victories in the field to get anything at the negotiation table.

I disagree.  Given the nature of the destruction being rained down on Ukrainian cities Zelensky would be happy to return to the pre-war borders with a promise not to join NATO, and that would be seen as a defeat by Putin.

[Jacob]

I disagree.  Given the nature of the destruction being rained down on Ukrainian cities Zelensky would be happy to return to the pre-war borders with a promise not to join NATO, and that would be seen as a defeat by Putin.

I think I'm missing something...

As I understand it, Russia is currently proposed recognition of the two breakaway regions as well as Crimea as Russian, combined with constitutional changes for Ukraine to not join NATO/ EU.

Sounds to me like you're saying Zelensky is going to accept that? Or did I misunderstand something?

A Kremlin spokesman said on Monday that the fighting could stop "in a moment" if Ukraine would "stop their military action" and agree to Russia's demands: recognize Crimea as Russian, the Luhansk and Donetsk regions as independent, and enshrine in its constitution a vow to remain neutral and out of any bloc, namely NATO.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/how-does-russia-ukraine-war-end-1.6377329

[Sheilbh]

May not have much insight, but the interview with Maria Butina (from 1.50-158) is pretty extraordinary and worth a listen for the current Kremlin line:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00154cl

[OttoVonBismarck]

I've seen two dispatches in recent hours.

In a TV interview with David Muir of NBC news Zelensky appears willing to agree to:

- Promise / constitutional change not to join NATO
- Giving up Donbas/Luhansk territories, "as long as the people living in them are free to live where they please", i.e. if they want to emigrate to the remainder of Ukraine Russia wouldn't interfere. He basically said what is more important to him is that the people living in those territories are able to decide on where to live.
- Said he cannot recognize Crimea as part of Russia

I find it odd he seems willing to "be okay" with Donbas/Luhansk cleaved off but isn't willing to formally say Crimea is Russia, maybe that's just leaving something off the table for future negotiations (since Crimea being part of Russia is a fait accompli.)

Then there was an interview with Ihor Zhovkva, Zelensky's Deputy Chief of Staff, this morning on Bloomberg TV who says "any territorial concessions are off the table."

Anyway, I think Zelensky being willing to formalize neutrality and give up land he likely won't ever get back anyway is a good sign. But I still haven't ever seen a word out of the Russians that they are willing to walk back from the Regime Change and Demilitarization demands, which I think will still be non-starters for Ukraine.

Zelensky in his Muir interview was also big on wanting a security guarantee that includes both Russia and the United States about Ukraine's future--which is problematic because Biden likely won't offer such a guarantee even if Putin was willing to more formalize the 1994 Agreement.

[viper37]

My impression is we've generally considered the invasion of Poland to be successful, and also rapid without excessive losses. Maybe by 2022 we've lost our stomach for 17k casualties, or maybe/probably Putin miscalculated how Ukrainians would react, and maybe/probably the Russian military is too small and trying to do this on the cheap versus the Germans in 1939, but the losses seem entirely predictable and expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland¸

It does not give separate numbers for USSR and Germany, but both together had 2 million men vs 1 million for Poland.

The losses for the invaders were 18 800 for 3 weeks of fighting.  Poland's losses were 66 000 for the same period.

Russia has 10x less soldiers than the combined forces for 1939 and suffered a quarter of the losses of 1939, in absolute numbers. It's about 0.9% losses for both armies combined (most casualties was the German armed forces though) in 3 weeks vs 2% (for 4000 KIA) for now, after one week of fighting.

Ultimately, it will depend on how many Ukrainians fighters are killed.  For the moment, the level of casualties does not mirror that of the Russians.  And I have no idea of the civilian casualties either.  Maybe it will change, maybe Russia will gain air superiority and start carpet bombing everything in sight.  We'll see.

So far, it's a failure for Russia.  But Russia can absorb way more losses than Ukraine does.  Even if the 200 000 soldiers were wiped out, Russia could recruit another 200 000 to send them against what's left of the Ukrainian army.  It's a failure, a setback, not a defeat.

[Tamas]

If I was Ukrainian, my worry about formalising neutrality would be that it is impossible to trust Russia. Being formally neutral would just set Ukraine up for either to Putin to find a new excuse a few years down the line, or for one of his successors to come crashing in at some point.

[Syt]

If I was Ukrainian, my worry about formalising neutrality would be that it is impossible to trust Russia. Being formally neutral would just set Ukraine up for either to Putin to find a new excuse a few years down the line, or for one of his successors to come crashing in at some point.

This. Unless territorial integrity is guaranteed by both Russians and NATO I see no way this would work (not that previous guarantees helped much ...). Plus Russia would work towards making sure that Russia-friendly people are in charge of things.

[Sheilbh]

This. Unless territorial integrity is guaranteed by both Russians and NATO I see no way this would work (not that previous guarantees helped much ...). Plus Russia would work towards making sure that Russia-friendly people are in charge of things.

Even that doesn't work because if it comes down to a bet of who is willing to risk nuclear war over a territory Russia will if it's just "guarantees" and not formal NATO membership with Article 5.

Similarly not sure how EU aspirations fit into that solution.

[Josquius]

Ukraine being formally neutral, with American and Russian (and EU?) guarantees, would be a win win really. All the benefits of NATO without feeding the paranoia of NATO plotting against Russia.
But yeah. Can't see America wanting to touch that.

Strange they'd be willing to give up the Donbass and take such a hard line on crimea.
Really feeds the theories that Ukraines sea resources are key to this whole mess

[Solmyr]

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?

The veteran is saying how their guys are dying in Ukraine and wants to honor them with a minute of silence. The host yells at him to stop (seems more about wanting to send a more uplifting message than about denying losses though) and claims it's a triumph of Russian arms and a renaissance of Russia. Both agree though that they are fighting against fascists and it's necessary.

[The Minsky Moment]

I find it odd he seems willing to "be okay" with Donbas/Luhansk cleaved off but isn't willing to formally say Crimea is Russia, maybe that's just leaving something off the table for future negotiations (since Crimea being part of Russia is a fait accompli.)

Crude reality is that it is a security risk to have a permanent third column on a key border.  Better to be rid of them.
Crimea is likely both a stand on principle and a negotiating position.

[Savonarola]

Philip Morris scales down production in Russia.

While I'm impressed that so many companies have suspended business with Russia; (especially since the Secretary of the United Russia party council (as quoted in the linked article) has threatened to nationalize idled assets), if there's one company that I think should ramp up production in Russia it's Philip Morris.