Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[celedhring]

Meanwhile, Ukraine is saying they have intel indicating that Belarus may join the war this evening / tonight.

The yanks said earlier today that they haven't seen any indication of Belarus joining. I suppose if it happens they'd see a bunch of forces getting into position.

[Habbaku]

Will Belarus joining even have a tangible effect? I suppose an extra 10,000 or so troops clogging up the roads to Kyiv might "help", but it doesn't seem like they are especially capable of projecting much power.

[Jacob]

Will Belarus joining even have a tangible effect? I suppose an extra 10,000 or so troops clogging up the roads to Kyiv might "help", but it doesn't seem like they are especially capable of projecting much power.

It depends how much operations have been slowed by attrition, I suppose.

[celedhring]

Don't the Russkies still have some BTGs parked in Brest? I suppose they might try to thunder down and cut the roads to Poland.

[Barrister]

Will Belarus joining even have a tangible effect? I suppose an extra 10,000 or so troops clogging up the roads to Kyiv might "help", but it doesn't seem like they are especially capable of projecting much power.

Russia troops at least have some combat experience, from Syria, Ukraine (2014), Georgia and Chechnya, and look how poorly they've been.  How bad do you think Belorussian troops would be in comparison?

[Tamas]

This 30 years old Soviet drone that crashed in Croatia (understood to be only still in use by Ukraine, not Russia) is creating a bit of a rucus in Hungary, as it flew through there, had to spend at least 40 minutes flying through Hungarian airspace, with either nobody noticing, or nobody taking action or at least nobody telling the public about it.

Now the Foreign Minister (!) was reporting on his Facebook that there were two scrambling of their Gripens today but both were false alarms.

[Syt]

From The Guardian on the bioweapons "debate" in the UN Securitiy Council.

The UN security council is holding a hearing called for by Russia to make its allegations about a Ukrainian biological weapons lab.

The UN high commissioner for disarmament, Izumi Nakamitsu, has been speaking before the Russians:

The United Nations is not aware of any biological weapons programs. That is largely thanks to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological and toxin weapons.

Nakamitsu said that unlike chemical weapons, there is no independent verification regime for biological weapons, and monitoring is left to state parties, but she said there was a mechanism for those state parties to raise their concerns.

The Russian ambassador to the UN, Vasily Nebenzya, has been presenting the Kremlin's allegations that Ukraine and the US had a plot to spread biological weapons with migratory birds, bats and insects.

Nebenzya issued a chilling warning to Eastern Europe that biological agents could spread across Ukraine's borders:

We call upon you to think about a very real biological danger to the people in European countries, which can result from an uncontrolled spread of bio agents from Ukraine. And if there is a such a scenario then all Europe will be covered.

The risk of this is very real given the interests of the radical nationalist groups in Ukraine are showing towards the work with dangerous pathogens conducted together with the ministry of defence of the United States.

After Nebenzya spoke, Albania, the US and France voiced alarm that the allegations may be an advance cover story for Russian plans to unleash chemical or biological weapons.

US ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, said:

The intent behind these lies seem clear and it is deeply troubling. We believe Russia could use chemical or biological agents for assassinations as part of a false flag incident or to support tactical military operations.

US ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, says Russia has a well-documented history of using chemical weapons.

Speaking at the UN security council meeting convened at Russia's request, Thomas-Greenfield said:

Ukraine does not have a biological weapons programme.

There are no Ukrainian biological weapons laboratories supported by the United States. Not near Russia's border or anywhere.

It was Russia, instead, that could use chemical or biological agents in Ukraine, she said. Although she did not immediately provide evidence of an imminent threat during the meeting, she said:

Russia has a track record of falsely accusing other countries of the very violations that Russia itself is perpetrating.

The US ambassador to Nato, Julianne Smith, has been talking at a Washington Post Live event about Russia's allegations of Ukrainian biological weapons, Julian Borger reports.

She made counterclaims about Russia's biological weapons, but in mentioning Navalny and Syria, she appears to be referring to chemical weapons rather than biological agents.

This is what she said:

What we've seen over the years is that Russia is actually the country that is the one that relies on biological weapons.

We've seen them rely on biological weapons as it relates to attempted assassinations. You could think of Navalny, in particular, but others. You could look at what they did and how they operated in Syria, which was horrifying- their reliance on these types of weapons are in direct violation of international law.

So yes, we are worried when we hear them making these accusations. Sometimes what they do is they accuse us of something that they're about to do themselves- and to use that as a pretext for some sort of other attack on their part.

[alfred russel]

On the "risk of broader war" topic, my thinking is:

If Western actions are effective (sanctions, arming Ukraine, Russia not winning) then there is a risk that Putin or someone within his clique will choose escalation as a reaction to losing. While we should put some thought into not needlessly trigger an escalatory response from Russia, our focus should be on effectively supporting Ukraine to win within the limits we've set ourselves; and that will always carry that risk.

The best safeguard against Russian escalation, IMO, is to stand firm and making sure that the consequences of escalation are very unattractive to the Kremlin. Focusing overly on the psychology of Putin or Kremlin dysfunctions - or excessive handwringing about "what if this one little thing happens and that's what sets everything off" doom and gloom - isn't really helpful.

The thing that will trigger escalation is if Putin thinks it's the best reaction to losing... and we're not going to let up and let him not lose.

Do you think that China is going to let Russia lose without some face saving way to get out of it?

[Habbaku]

Will Belarus joining even have a tangible effect? I suppose an extra 10,000 or so troops clogging up the roads to Kyiv might "help", but it doesn't seem like they are especially capable of projecting much power.

Russia troops at least have some combat experience, from Syria, Ukraine (2014), Georgia and Chechnya, and look how poorly they've been.  How bad do you think Belorussian troops would be in comparison?

I expect them sending in 10,000 troops is equivalent to giving the Ukrainians 1,000 reinforcements.

[OttoVonBismarck]

On the "risk of broader war" topic, my thinking is:

If Western actions are effective (sanctions, arming Ukraine, Russia not winning) then there is a risk that Putin or someone within his clique will choose escalation as a reaction to losing. While we should put some thought into not needlessly trigger an escalatory response from Russia, our focus should be on effectively supporting Ukraine to win within the limits we've set ourselves; and that will always carry that risk.

The best safeguard against Russian escalation, IMO, is to stand firm and making sure that the consequences of escalation are very unattractive to the Kremlin. Focusing overly on the psychology of Putin or Kremlin dysfunctions - or excessive handwringing about "what if this one little thing happens and that's what sets everything off" doom and gloom - isn't really helpful.

The thing that will trigger escalation is if Putin thinks it's the best reaction to losing... and we're not going to let up and let him not lose.

Do you think that China is going to let Russia lose without some face saving way to get out of it?

I think China sees its role here is highly limited, certainly it is not attached to most of the outcome scenarios enough to significantly increase its skin in the game. Vague statements echoing Russian ones, calls for calm, boosting certain supply lines it already provides to Russia (which it does mostly for economic reasons, not because it is BFFs with Russia.)

China is certainly interested in a powerful anti-Western alliance with China and Russia as the two big players, but very particularly--with China as the dominant player and Russia a useful subordinate. That reality is actually the likely outcome of most realistic scenarios in which the war in Ukraine ends, and those scenarios do not require any significant exposure of Chinese skin in the game.

Any end to this conflict will be face saving for Putin unless Putin is killed / suddenly dies of natural causes or is somehow removed from power. So the entire premise of China worrying about a resolution that doesn't save face for Putin isn't an eventuality they have to be concerned about.

[Barrister]

I think China sees its role here is highly limited, certainly it is not attached to most of the outcome scenarios enough to significantly increase its skin in the game. Vague statements echoing Russian ones, calls for calm, boosting certain supply lines it already provides to Russia (which it does mostly for economic reasons, not because it is BFFs with Russia.)

China is certainly interested in a powerful anti-Western alliance with China and Russia as the two big players, but very particularly--with China as the dominant player and Russia a useful subordinate. That reality is actually the likely outcome of most realistic scenarios in which the war in Ukraine ends, and those scenarios do not require any significant exposure of Chinese skin in the game.

Any end to this conflict will be face saving for Putin unless Putin is killed / suddenly dies of natural causes or is somehow removed from power. So the entire premise of China worrying about a resolution that doesn't save face for Putin isn't an eventuality they have to be concerned about.

Yeah, China's role is interesting in this one, but not really determinative I think.

They're broadly on Russia's side in that they're opposed to the existing liberal democracy world order of things and have their own territorial claims (Taiwan, South China Sea) they'd like to enforce.  But I don't know to what extent they'd actually attempt to help Russia if it risks relations with the West.  China is just as vulnerable to the kind of sanctions that Russia is receiving.

[alfred russel]

Any end to this conflict will be face saving for Putin unless Putin is killed / suddenly dies of natural causes or is somehow removed from power. So the entire premise of China worrying about a resolution that doesn't save face for Putin isn't an eventuality they have to be concerned about.

Which is the point I was getting at...Putin doesn't survive if Ukraine wins by ejecting Russians from their territory as the Russian economy collapses with waves of demonstrations with people upset at being financially ruined and casualties piling up. If things start heading in that direction, I'd expect China to send some sort of aid.

[Berkut]

Any end to this conflict will be face saving for Putin unless Putin is killed / suddenly dies of natural causes or is somehow removed from power. So the entire premise of China worrying about a resolution that doesn't save face for Putin isn't an eventuality they have to be concerned about.

Which is the point I was getting at...Putin doesn't survive if Ukraine wins by ejecting Russians from their territory as the Russian economy collapses with waves of demonstrations with people upset at being financially ruined and casualties piling up. If things start heading in that direction, I'd expect China to send some sort of aid.

Why do you think China wants Putin to survive badly enough to involve themselves?

[Jacob]

Do you think that China is going to let Russia lose without some face saving way to get out of it?

I don't think China cares, to be honest. They care about extracting a high price from the West if they can (without incurring costs), and about getting advantages from Russia.

China is going to do what is best for China, and they don't give a fuck about Russia. They are using this to fuel anti-Western imperialist propaganda where they can, and to get good deals on Russian resources and infrastructure.

[Jacob]

Any end to this conflict will be face saving for Putin unless Putin is killed / suddenly dies of natural causes or is somehow removed from power. So the entire premise of China worrying about a resolution that doesn't save face for Putin isn't an eventuality they have to be concerned about.

Which is the point I was getting at...Putin doesn't survive if Ukraine wins by ejecting Russians from their territory as the Russian economy collapses with waves of demonstrations with people upset at being financially ruined and casualties piling up. If things start heading in that direction, I'd expect China to send some sort of aid.

For sure, aid predicated on getting control and designed to not trigger Western sanctions. But yeah, that's to be expected.