Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Legbiter]

I think that - as much as the Economist piece - gives a sense of his approach, I'm just not sure where nukes fit in because I think the world is very different from the run up to WW1.

I remember he's often stated that Ukraine should have kept a credible nuclear deterrence after becoming independent. Otherwise I mostly agree with him, a quibble here and there. Ukraine was and is a very corrupt country, run in many ways like Russia, with it's own oligarch class. Cynically used by the US and others to the point that the wastrel offspring of the US elite could be parked in random highly paid bullshit jobs.

Of course we should support them as we are doing now but I have to admit I'm very uneasy about funding, say, a massive insurgency on Ukrainian soil to bleed Russia after they've carved up the country. Smacks to me of us fighting down to the last Ukrainian.

[Tamas]

Of course we should support them as we are doing now but I have to admit I'm very uneasy about funding, say, a massive insurgency on Ukrainian soil to bleed Russia after they've carved up the country. Smacks to me of us fighting down to the last Ukrainian.

If we get to do that, it won't be something to be particularly proud of, but unless we value Ukrainian lives over other ones, enabling them to fight will prevent a lot more deaths by denying Putin the ability to move further west.

[jimmy olsen]

Of course we should support them as we are doing now but I have to admit I'm very uneasy about funding, say, a massive insurgency on Ukrainian soil to bleed Russia after they've carved up the country. Smacks to me of us fighting down to the last Ukrainian.

The Russians are not going to overrun the country unless they break out the WMD on a massive scale that kills millions. They've lost too many men, too much material. They've revealed corruption and institutional rot on the level of late Qing China. They are not going to be able to pause long enough to regroup before their economy implodes.

[celedhring]

Of course we should support them as we are doing now but I have to admit I'm very uneasy about funding, say, a massive insurgency on Ukrainian soil to bleed Russia after they've carved up the country. Smacks to me of us fighting down to the last Ukrainian.

The Russians are not going to overrun the country unless they break out the WMD on a massive scale that kills millions. They've lost too many men, too much material. They've revealed corruption and institutional rot on the level of late Qing China. They are not going to be able to pause long enough to regroup before their economy implodes.

Heh, I'm not so sure. They probably have just enough to push through the pain and take Kyiv. You probably need the war to last for months in order for Russia to have trouble conducting it.

I agree that taking over the entire country seems out of their reach, though. They'll push to take the capital and extract some kind of settlement.

[Threviel]

The Russians have vast reserves of materiel, out-dated, obsolete or obsolescent, but better than nothing.

Presumably they have piles and piles and piles of artillery ammunition and several millions of mindless drones to send in as cannon fodder.

There is a possibility that Russia goes total North Korea and mobilises fully not caring about the economy, sure, destroying Russia for a few generations, but they might do it.

If they gear up for total war the Ukrainians need to do the same. They also have large reserves of materiel, but first and foremost they need infantry equipment, which the west are hopefully supplying.

[Legbiter]

The Russians are not going to overrun the country unless they break out the WMD on a massive scale that kills millions. They've lost too many men, too much material. They've revealed corruption and institutional rot on the level of late Qing China. They are not going to be able to pause long enough to regroup before their economy implodes.

They'll just about set up a half-assed perimeter around Kænugarðr, then they'll settle down to shell it 24/7 with artillery and hope to dictate harsh maximalist terms from there. If the Ukrainians stay the course and keep doing what they are doing they'll eventually negotiate down to no NATO or EU membership, Crimea and the eastern regions incorporated into Russia but Ukraine will still exist on a map. That's my best guess anyway and would be something Putin could declare a win.

[Admiral Yi]

But I don't think that's relevant in that article/his view. There's two points - one is that Russian leaders have repeatedly said that they view NATO moving into Ukraine or the Caucus as an existential threat. So there's a bit of a credibility issue of needing to enforce what you've repeatedly stated is a red line otherwise it will lead to your opponents pushing further and further (see Obama's "red line" in Syria - which I think is important in where we are).

The other is that it doesn't matter whether an alliance of an opposing great power is offensive or defensive. If its presence is growing on your borders - and if it were to include Ukraine and Georgia (plus Turkey already in) that is across the Black Sea/Caucus as oppposed to just the Baltics and Poland. The purpose of the opposing alliance is not relevant. It's existence is a threat because alliances constrain actions and escalate wars.

I thought I already covered this.  A constraint on their ability to use force or threaten to use force, is not an existential threat.

And as for red lines, what red line was crossed in 14 when they annexed Crimea?  That was not about the possibility of NATO membership, it was about removing Ukraine from the Russian orbit.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The Russians are not going to overrun the country unless they break out the WMD on a massive scale that kills millions. They've lost too many men, too much material. They've revealed corruption and institutional rot on the level of late Qing China. They are not going to be able to pause long enough to regroup before their economy implodes.

They'll just about set up a half-assed perimeter around Kænugarðr, then they'll settle down to shell it 24/7 with artillery and hope to dictate harsh maximalist terms from there. If the Ukrainians stay the course and keep doing what they are doing they'll eventually negotiate down to no NATO or EU membership, Crimea and the eastern regions incorporated into Russia but Ukraine will still exist on a map. That's my best guess anyway and would be something Putin could declare a win.

intil a few years later when the next Russian can gobble up some pieces...

[Legbiter]

intil a few years later when the next Russian can gobble up some pieces...

Yeah. Salami tactics. By then I hope Russia will be a slightly weaker version of Pakistan because of sanctions. Although a totally impoverished Russia comes with enormous problems as well. I remember everyone being worried about loose nukes and poor Russian nuclear scientists doubling as potato farmers in the 90's.

[mongers]

It's a good time for murderous regimes to 'bury' bad news:

Saudi Arabia executes 81 men in one day

Saudi Arabia says it executed 81 men on Saturday - more than during the whole of last year.
The group - including seven Yemenis and one Syrian national - were convicted of "multiple heinous crimes", including terrorism, state news agency SPA said.

Full article here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-60722057

[Tonitrus]

The one weakness I see in Mearsheimer's argument is that he doesn't analyze Russia's view of Ukrainian NATO membership as an "existential threat."  NATO is a defensive alliance.  It is not in the conquering business.

Russian inability to militarily threaten Ukraine and nibble away at its territory is not equivalent to ceasing to exist.

My take on Mearsheimer is that he is an academic who has been taken in by his own theory of how global politics works (or should work). And as such, looks at, and calculates, everything through that lens. 

He he has also said (doubtlessly part of his theroms) in one of his speeches that Ukraine is "not really a sovereign country".  I don't think that necessarily makes him a Russian stooge, but more of a self-dupe.

[Tamas]

Stealing from Psellus, a Polish Youtuber lady talking about the situation with refugees in Poland and how this thing is looking in Poland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGzFbzZI2TU

One very true thing she is pointing out is that probably people don't grasp how familiar Eastern Europeans are with the concept of war, how huge a generational trauma WW2 was there and how this war has awakened that now - every single family has stories from the WW2 generation, you grew up hearing those. And now you see that very thing returning to your doorstep with no certainty where it will stop.

[Josquius]

Commendable Poland is helping with this. But have to say again its amazingly ironic that now they're talking about helping refugees and spreading the burden.

[Jacob]

Stealing from Psellus, a Polish Youtuber lady talking about the situation with refugees in Poland and how this thing is looking in Poland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGzFbzZI2TU

One very true thing she is pointing out is that probably people don't grasp how familiar Eastern Europeans are with the concept of war, how huge a generational trauma WW2 was there and how this war has awakened that now - every single family has stories from the WW2 generation, you grew up hearing those. And now you see that very thing returning to your doorstep with no certainty where it will stop.

This is true in Western Europe also.

[Sheilbh]

I thought I already covered this.  A constraint on their ability to use force or threaten to use force, is not an existential threat.

Who judges whether something's an existential threat or not? What matters is whether they think it is or not - same for Greece and Turkey. An existential threat - like any other idea - doesn't matter because it's true or not but because it's believed.

And as for red lines, what red line was crossed in 14 when they annexed Crimea?  That was not about the possibility of NATO membership, it was about removing Ukraine from the Russian orbit.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Georgia and Moldova are the other countries that have looked West at certain points - both of them have frozen conflicts that, practically, make it impossible for them to join NATO or the EU. Until 2014 Ukraine did not fully have that because Russia was able to manipulate its politics. Euromaidan seemed to shift that decisively and opened up a real risk of Ukraine moving into the Western orbit - so Russia created some frozen conflicts to make that impossible and, I think in the long term, hope for a situation like Armenia or Georgia where practically they are tied in even more into a Russian dominated system.

My take on Mearsheimer is that he is an academic who has been taken in by his own theory of how global politics works (or should work). And as such, looks at, and calculates, everything through that lens.

Yeah - I think he's got a theory and it is cold-blooded in a way that is pretty distasteful and he applies it. I'm not sure that it's an accurate description of the world or a useful interpretive tool - though obviously I know nothing compared to him.

He he has also said (doubtlessly part of his theroms) in one of his speeches that Ukraine is "not really a sovereign country".  I don't think that necessarily makes him a Russian stooge, but more of a self-dupe.

I'd be surprised if he thought any small country or country on the borderzone of a big military power has any real "sovereignty" - it's that power analysis that I think is why realism can appeal a little to the left too.

This is true in Western Europe also.

Yeah I feel like fighting against being conquered to survive as a country is a huge part of every country's identity in Eastern Europe (and some of the Nordics) - in part that's one of the things that's so suprrising is that Russia, which also has that, didn't think it would apply to Ukraine.