Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[viper37]

On a personal level I find it intriguing how I feel the impact of the of the propaganda war.

I read the reports of Russia positioning additional troops, attacking with missiles, Russian willingness to commit atrocities, and the resolve of Putin and his inner circle - and it seems Ukrainian defeat (as opposed to Russian victory) is inevitable.

Then I read Ukrainian reports of losses inflicted and operational superiority, of the impact of sanctions (and they seem to keep coming too), and of Ukranian resolve and I regain hope.

And the truth is, I don't have the insight to confidently determine which is more accurate, or whether splitting the difference even makes sense.

they are not mutually exclusive statements.

Russia is willing to commit atrocities, Ukrain is determine to resist no matter the outcome.

Russia has suffered enormous loss, but they have way more reserves than Ukraine who has already committed everyone 18-60.  Russia is recruiting mercenaries, local and foreign to fight its war, and when it fails to be enough, they'll have a real conscription instead of simply making an offer they can't refuse to potential recruits.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

If the Russians are able to machine their own parts to make the engine - there was no need for the license agreement in the first place. Yi has gone wrong in thinking it is just rights to a name here.  BB got it right when he realized parts would need to come from someplace.

Notwithstanding that I think you and Been are correct about them needing parts, this isn't really accurate.  When it comes to engineering there's also an element of IP access (patent and trade secret), tooling, and consulting that comes with an arrangement like this.  Losing that alone, though, would likely be crippling.

[viper37]

THe Ukraine becoming more Western is not an existential threat to Russia.

And even the Russians are perfectly aware of that.

Just because they say they believe something is true, doesn't mean they actually believe it to be true.

I feel like we had this argument once already....

they don't believe Ukraine is led by nazis either.  But there's still a war going on.  In the end, what they say, what they really believe, it's irrelevent.  The reality is Russia wants Ukraine's resources for itself, and the territory as a buffer zone and staging ground for their next agressions, likely Moldova.  I guess Putin is preparing for a war against NATO by his successor.  It's always useful to have some ground to burn while you retreat.

Also, they don't really care about their human losses.  Russia's strategy was always to overwhelm its opponent with a mass of men, not use highly trained soldiers with the best weapons available.  Nothing seems to have really changed.

[viper37]

The Kremlin doesn't actually believe that a NATO Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia. That's just one of their standard lies.

Yeah the whole idea NATO is going to invade Russia is stupid. The US couldn't even get NATO to invade Iraq, I cannot imagine all the members would be lining up for the joy of what would probably be a suicide mission.

The reality is NATO might be a check on Russia's expansion, like it was for the Serbs.  Maybe we tolerated it so far, maybe we'll let Ukraine fall, maybe not.  But eventually, Russia is going to move on the Baltic States, and then NATO will be an obstacle.  If these countries weren't currently in NATO, they might have been invaded before Ukraine.

Russia is certainly going to push as far as it thinks NATO will let it go.  No NATO means unlimited expansion, small countries by small countries.

I'm certainly glad Europe is finally rearming, albeit a little late.

[Valmy]

There are far right nuts in Ukraine sure. But you cannot tell me there are not similar nuts in Russia (or other countries for that matter)

I mean I have heard from Putin in the past couple years that both Poland and Finland were pro-Nazi and deserved to be invaded by the USSR in 1939 (nevermind the USSR was the actual Nazi ally) and that Ukraine is a fake country that shouldn't exist. I am willing to bet his opinions there are not crazy outside the mainstream.

[Valmy]

I'm certainly glad Europe is finally rearming, albeit a little late.

You can always count on the Europeans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.

[viper37]

THe Ukraine becoming more Western is not an existential threat to Russia.

And even the Russians are perfectly aware of that.

Just because they say they believe something is true, doesn't mean they actually believe it to be true.

I feel like we had this argument once already....

I think the point Mearsheimer (and maybe Sheilbh) are making is that American foreign policy at least needs to consider how other countries interpret things even if those interpretations are not rational. If you come upon a bear in the woods eating the carcass of a deer, the bear might attack you because it thinks you are trying to steal its food. Even though eating a raw deer carcass is the furthest thing from your list of desires at that moment, to the bear that is reality, and you would be unwise not to understand that about the bear.

I don't think it means America has to simply concede to anything Russia irrationally wants--and I don't think we have. But I do think we should have a sober look at why we made our 2008 NATO declaration in Bucharest saying we were going to bring Ukraine in, and by 2014 when Russia took Crimea they still were not in, and by 2022 when Russia invaded the country, they still weren't in. Why did we pursue this series of events? Why make the 2008 statement when anyone with a functioning brain knew that we were never going to get agreement across the alliance to bring Ukraine in, at any time in this generation, it just makes no sense.

Does it justify or, by itself, explain the annexation of Crimea and the current war? Of course not--nothing justifies this naked war of territorial aggression. Does it explain it? Nah, it doesn't even do that--which I think is where Mearsheimer is wrong, I think Putin is doing this because he wants to take portions or all of Ukraine into Russia, but I do think things like the Bucharest statement contributed to an environment where it was easier for Putin to sort of build up in his mind justification for invading.

Wasn't there a change of government in Ukraine around 2010?  I'm guessing the President was more sympathetic to Russian views than Western's ones and that's why it failed.

As for 2014, well, the moment a country has disputed territory, it can't join NATO.  It's not like Russia wasn't aware of that significant little fact.

[viper37]

My core point here is the Bucharest statement was meaningless drivel. If NATO was not interested in formalizing a MAP, it was likely needlessly stupid to make the statement as it was.

The statement was the Ukraine would not be admitted now, but eventually later.  It is not really a commitment.

Germany and France were opposed, due to strong objections by Russia.  They wanted to play the appeasement card.

After that, Russia's new Ukrainian president was elected and he shelved the idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#cite_note-44

[Eddie Teach]

Elephantine posters

Why are you always picking on Katmai?

[viper37]

Addendum: if Putin actually thought that his regime was Russia he wouldn't keep a huge security apparatus designed to protect him from other Russians trying to remove him from power.

He's a patriot. He believes Russia will fail without him, so he takes all necessary precautions to protect Russia

[KRonn]

My guess is Lukashenko abjectly fears losing control of his supposedly horribly low morale military. Lukashenka probably would have lost power this last year if not for Putin's help, I think he has to walk a fine line between making Putin too angry and losing control of his own spot, because he is not in nearly as stable a dictatorship as Putin is. I also think the risks of directly angering Putin for Lukashenko are probably lower right now than at most times--Putin is very busy, he doesn't have time to go after Belarus for disloyalty.

Yeah, and I think the same scenario in Kazakhstan where Russia sent in troops to put down protests. I wonder if Putin fears that, even prior to Ukraine war? One analyst raised that possibility based on the happenings in Belarus and Kazakhstan.

[Jacob]

So one thing I'm trying get a handle on is the additional Russian forces. How much of that strength is purely on paper and not actually existent, due to corruption; how much of it exists in theory, but is difficult to raise (for logistical or equipment reasons, f. ex.); and - as per Kronn's point - how much of it exists but is dangerous to move because it's used to keep locals in line?

The other question is the quality of this remaining strength - is it more or less the same as what we've seen?  Is it better (the theory that Putin's been holding back "the real army" has been suggested by some folks, though I'm not sure I buy it), or is it worse because Putin led with his best troops?

Do any of you have any info or links on that?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it's a best guess Jacob--most of us assumed the Russian forces on paper were a lot more competent than they have been. A lot of the forces Russia could still bring in are the equivalent of Russian National Guard, which are lower quality than some of the troops they are using now. It seems like there may be a serious dearth of quality soldiers in the Russian army, and nowhere near the quantity situation the Soviets ran to make up for it (and actually the Soviets had a bigger core of professional soldiers.)

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

As for 2014, well, the moment a country has disputed territory, it can't join NATO.  It's not like Russia wasn't aware of that significant little fact.

Serious question for those more knowledgeable: wasn't Spain admitted despite a "territorial dispute" over Gibraltar?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Under Russian law conscripts are actually not supposed to be deployable with the Battalion Tactical Groups, so it will not be uncontroversial when/if Putin has to more openly violate that law (he is already violating it somewhat but is maintaining a fiction that it was misbehaving commanders responsible.)