Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Malthus]

Never interrupt your enemy while they are losing.

As an aside, the actual quote is from Napoleon I, who said "never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake."  Your paraphrase works, but I like his wording better.

Yes, I am aware of the original quote, it is one of my favorites.

I just didn't think Russia is really making a mistake per se - the mistake was already made and now they are just simply losing.

Why give Putin an out? Right now he has to explain to his citizens how Russia is getting their ass kicked by a 2nd world power that is like 1/4th their size, and supposedly was eager to rejoin Mother Russia.

The moment NATO intervenes, the nature of the conflict changes instantly, both politically and militarily. Maybe that new conflict he loses as well, but why risk it?

I'd agree with this from a cold realistic strategic perspective. Let the Russians bleed, continue to supply the Ukrainians, seems an high reward low risk strategy.

Problem is that the Russians are busy destroying and murdering their way across the nation. After a while, inaction begins to feel like complicity, particularly when NATO countries are still buying Russian gas.

[viper37]

Apparently Britain did Bucha - very much big, if true (via the BBC Monitoring guy - who is well worth a follow):
https://twitter.com/francska1/status/1510993878018670595?s=20&t=Cre6zylKHgM2KTZN3iceVA

Francis Scarr
@francska1
Pundit Gevorg Mirzayan on Bucha:

"This was done by professionals, probably British. They're the best in the area of information operations. [They know how] to place the bodies correctly, do everything correctly, create a nice picture for the necrophilic Western consciousness"

I feel like if this is the level Russian propaganda is at now they're really plunging into new depths to explain the obvious.

If true, the Brits are indeed excellent.  They can infiltrate a city controlled by Russian troops, place fake bodies on the ground, film it to make it real, extract without the Russians never knowing they were there and report these stories to the west right as the Ukrainian push the Russians out of the city, and even recruit a mayor look-a-like of the city, again without the knowledge of the Russian troops on the ground.  Also, hire figuring actors to cry/scream on camera as they discover the bodies.  Excellent psy/spec-ops.

They are strong, these British!
Or the Russians are admitting their own incompetence?

[Berkut]

You can make several counterarguments, not that I necessarily think they're sufficient:

• Putin can convince his people of whatever he wants anyway.  It's not like his current story has much connection with reality, and it's not like Russians care.
• Ukraine may not continue winning the war.  Their situation in the east can become very dire logistically.
• Every day of Putin continuing to make his mistakes is a day that more Ukrainians in occupied lands get raped, pillaged, and executed.

None of those are reason to intervene though.

Point by point:

1. That is not likely to be true. Putin can control the primary means of media, but that isn't a perfect system, even if it looks like it is from the outside. The narrative still matters.
2. Then consider intervening then, if that becomes necessary. 
3. Very true, but still not a reason to intervene, since intervening could very well make it easier for Putin to continue doing those things.

[Berkut]

Never interrupt your enemy while they are losing.

As an aside, the actual quote is from Napoleon I, who said "never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake."  Your paraphrase works, but I like his wording better.

Yes, I am aware of the original quote, it is one of my favorites.

I just didn't think Russia is really making a mistake per se - the mistake was already made and now they are just simply losing.

Why give Putin an out? Right now he has to explain to his citizens how Russia is getting their ass kicked by a 2nd world power that is like 1/4th their size, and supposedly was eager to rejoin Mother Russia.

The moment NATO intervenes, the nature of the conflict changes instantly, both politically and militarily. Maybe that new conflict he loses as well, but why risk it?

I'd agree with this from a cold realistic strategic perspective. Let the Russians bleed, continue to supply the Ukrainians, seems an high reward low risk strategy.

Problem is that the Russians are busy destroying and murdering their way across the nation. After a while, inaction begins to feel like complicity, particularly when NATO countries are still buying Russian gas.

Who is arguing for inaction?

I think the West is taking a LOT of action, including giving Ukraine the weapons they need to win this war, which they are doing.

The actions we are taking are working. Why in the world would we risk changing that?

This isn't some cynical realpolitik idea where we don't care about Ukraine. This is simply looking at the conflict that the good guys are winning right now and continuing to execute and even scale up the things that are working, rather then changing the nature of the conflict which we are winning.

Of course, like I said before, the evaluation of the cost/benefit scenario is entirely up to Ukraine. They get to determine the terms under which they feel like they have achieved a state on the ground that they can make the best possible peace terms.

[crazy canuck]

You can make several counterarguments, not that I necessarily think they're sufficient:

• Putin can convince his people of whatever he wants anyway.  It's not like his current story has much connection with reality, and it's not like Russians care.
• Ukraine may not continue winning the war.  Their situation in the east can become very dire logistically.
• Every day of Putin continuing to make his mistakes is a day that more Ukrainians in occupied lands get raped, pillaged, and executed.

None of those are reason to intervene though.

Point by point:

1. That is not likely to be true. Putin can control the primary means of media, but that isn't a perfect system, even if it looks like it is from the outside. The narrative still matters.
2. Then consider intervening then, if that becomes necessary.
3. Very true, but still not a reason to intervene, since intervening could very well make it easier for Putin to continue doing those things.

I don't understand point #3 - how does intervening make it easier for the Russians to commit atrocities?

[OttoVonBismarck]

https://twitter.com/sumlenny/status/1510934961272111104?s=20&t=VEvFvjGyUBgzQmspqYm0Dw

@sumlenny

Angela Merkel, who has blocked Ukraine's NATO membership in 2008 "because she respected Russian interests" as her close advisor said later, has waited 38 days after the war outbreak, and after the mass rape and killing on Bucha came to the media - to say she was right back than.

I am happy that under Scholz Germany is coming round to an appropriate manner of behavior, but I really do think it is worth recognizing that Germany is possibly the biggest of all Putin enablers. Time and time again Germany has chosen business interests over the security of the West--and I am very glad that Scholz has reversed course because if he had attempted to block sanctions etc this time around I'd seriously question the U.S. maintaining responsibility for a country that has so consistently chosen wealth at the expense of the security of its neighbors and the lives of fellow Europeans.

[OttoVonBismarck]

https://www.politico.eu/article/german-president-admits-having-been-mistaken-on-nord-stream-2/

'Mistake' not to object to Nord Stream 2, says German president
Frank-Walter Steinmeier admits Germany 'failed with the approach of including Russia in a common security architecture.'

BY LAURENZ GEHRKE
April 4, 2022 5:03 pm

BERLIN — German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier Monday admitted that it was a mistake to cling to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany for so long.

"My holding on to Nord Stream 2 was clearly a mistake," Steinmeier said in Berlin, according to German media. "We held on to bridges that Russia no longer believed in and that our partners warned us about."

For years the U.S. and other allies of Germany berated Berlin over the pipeline project, arguing it would be dangerous for Ukraine and send a wrong signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin after he annexed Crimea in 2014.

But former German Chancellor Angela Merkel remained adamant until the end of her time in office late last year that Nord Stream 2 was a commercial project and had nothing to do with politics.

Her successor Olaf Scholz reversed course in February just days before Russia invaded Ukraine, and the project is now dead.

Steinmeier, who like Scholz is from the Social Democrats (SPD), a party that had traditionally tried to reach out to Russia, was bitter about that policy failure.

"My assessment was that Vladimir Putin would not accept the complete economic, political and moral ruin of his country for his imperial mania — there, like others, I was wrong," he said, adding that Germany had "failed with the approach of including Russia in a common security architecture."

Bolded lines is one of the dumbest lines of thinking ever, behaving as though commercial actions have no intersection with politics. Merkel is not a stupid person, so I know she knew better. I can only hope that her behavior was not tied to personal corruption (like it was with Schroeder) but instead maybe was tied to growing up in East Germany and feeling that she has a personal connection/knowledge when it comes to Russia and that she genuinely thought this path of economic integration would make Russia more peaceful.

[DGuller]

If one were to make a list of politicians that were retroactively discredited by Russia's subsequent actions, excluding those who already lost all their credibility, who would make it?  Merkel definitely made a serious bid for the top spot, but who else?  I think Obama deserves to be there as well, even in 2012 I winced when he mocked Romney for identifying Russia as a foe.

[DGuller]

Bolded lines is one of the dumbest lines of thinking ever, behaving as though commercial actions have no intersection with politics. Merkel is not a stupid person, so I know she knew better. I can only hope that her behavior was not tied to personal corruption (like it was with Schroeder) but instead maybe was tied to growing up in East Germany and feeling that she has a personal connection/knowledge when it comes to Russia and that she genuinely thought this path of economic integration would make Russia more peaceful.

Germans will sell you a rope with which you'll hang them, and they'll take great pride in the quality of that rope.

[Sheilbh]

If one were to make a list of politicians that were retroactively discredited by Russia's subsequent actions, excluding those who already lost all their credibility, who would make it?  Merkel definitely made a serious bid for the top spot, but who else?  I think Obama deserves to be there as well, even in 2012 I winced when he mocked Romney for identifying Russia as a foe.

I think it depends how far back you go - when was it obvious/clear?

But I think it is really striking that two heroes for many in the last decade decade were Merkel and Obama - and I think their reputation takes a huge pounding with this. Merkel for obvious reasons (I'd add also energy policy, China policy and tolerance of Orban - I think the long/medium-term view of Merkel will not be kind) and Obama for that 2012 moment but also, I think, the red line on Syria that wasn't.

From a UK perspective - I think many were naive about encouraging Russian money into London basically since the 90s (I think London's rise as a financial centre doesn't coincidentally happen at the same time as the rise of the oligarchs). It's tough to think of a senior politician in the 90s and 00s who isn't in some way implicated. I think Cameron's lack of response to Crimea is a bit of a stand-out though (I also think Cameron got China policy catastrophically wrong).

My understanding is that on the commercial line with Nordstream II is that the bureaucratic justification for Germany freezing it and backing out is that they've basically changed their risk assessment of the project. The reason this was able to be done so quickly is that apparently the assessment in the Merkel did not consider "geopolitical risk" and Habeck included that - needless to say that little shift had a huge impact.

[HVC]

If one were to make a list of politicians that were retroactively discredited by Russia's subsequent actions, excluding those who already lost all their credibility, who would make it?  Merkel definitely made a serious bid for the top spot, but who else?  I think Obama deserves to be there as well, even in 2012 I winced when he mocked Romney for identifying Russia as a foe.

Maybe if we reset it a few more times the rsussians will get better. At least in Obamas case I hope it was just naivety. Trump and a lot of gop are just straight out bought.

[Malthus]

Never interrupt your enemy while they are losing.

As an aside, the actual quote is from Napoleon I, who said "never interrupt an enemy while he is making a mistake."  Your paraphrase works, but I like his wording better.

Yes, I am aware of the original quote, it is one of my favorites.

I just didn't think Russia is really making a mistake per se - the mistake was already made and now they are just simply losing.

Why give Putin an out? Right now he has to explain to his citizens how Russia is getting their ass kicked by a 2nd world power that is like 1/4th their size, and supposedly was eager to rejoin Mother Russia.

The moment NATO intervenes, the nature of the conflict changes instantly, both politically and militarily. Maybe that new conflict he loses as well, but why risk it?

I'd agree with this from a cold realistic strategic perspective. Let the Russians bleed, continue to supply the Ukrainians, seems an high reward low risk strategy.

Problem is that the Russians are busy destroying and murdering their way across the nation. After a while, inaction begins to feel like complicity, particularly when NATO countries are still buying Russian gas.

Who is arguing for inaction?

I think the West is taking a LOT of action, including giving Ukraine the weapons they need to win this war, which they are doing.

The actions we are taking are working. Why in the world would we risk changing that?

This isn't some cynical realpolitik idea where we don't care about Ukraine. This is simply looking at the conflict that the good guys are winning right now and continuing to execute and even scale up the things that are working, rather then changing the nature of the conflict which we are winning.

Of course, like I said before, the evaluation of the cost/benefit scenario is entirely up to Ukraine. They get to determine the terms under which they feel like they have achieved a state on the ground that they can make the best possible peace terms.

I agree the West is taking a lot of actions - they stop short of intervening themselves though, which is what I mean by "inaction" in this context.

I'm puzzled by your last paragraph. I assume you mean to leave it up to Ukraine as to what peace terms would be acceptable, which isn't in dispute. In terms of strategy though, Ukraine has been calling, loudly, for NATO intervention in the form of a "no fly" zone over Ukraine (which would of course result in direct confrontation between NATO and the Russians, and which has for that reason been refused).

The reason for refusing was that NATO did not wish to chance an escalation that could lead to nuclear war. That makes sense, up to a point; however, if Russia can attack any non-NATO country and threaten nuclear war to avoid a coalition forming to turf Russia out, that gives Russia the initiative.

I'm not convinced that NATO intervention would hand Putin a propaganda victory. Within Russia, Putin's propaganda, backed by the state, seems already pretty victorious - no amount of new information can shake it, because it is based on a willingness of a nationalistic population to believe 'alternative facts'. If the population is already of the belief their war is justified, giving them more reason for that belief isn't going to change the equation much. The only thing likely to shake it, unfortunately, is war-weariness that comes from too many dead Russian soldiers.

[Legbiter]

You can make several counterarguments, not that I necessarily think they're sufficient:

• Putin can convince his people of whatever he wants anyway.  It's not like his current story has much connection with reality, and it's not like Russians care.

The average vatnik seems to be at the anger stage right now. The initial sugar high has worn off, prices in stores are beginning to creep up, increasing levels of cope have to be resorted to in order to maintain the cognitive dissonance. In a months' time it'll be a difficult sell to claim that adding several ruins of Ukrainian cities to Russia was worth the cost. 

[HVC]

A great fu by putin would be to release a list of all the politic8ans he bought off when he dies*


*by natural causes or other.

[The Brain]

The reason for refusing was that NATO did not wish to chance an escalation that could lead to nuclear war. That makes sense, up to a point; however, if Russia can attack any non-NATO country and threaten nuclear war to avoid a coalition forming to turf Russia out, that gives Russia the initiative.

That has always been the case. The whole point of NATO membership is to get security that you don't have without NATO membership.