Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[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.

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.

Not just naivete, but arrogance as well.  All throughout the presidency Obama was dismissive of Russia and failed to understand the threat that it posed.  The most inexcusable part was that even after seven years on the job he still underestimated the threat Putin posed to 2016 elections.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Not just naivete, but arrogance as well.  All throughout the presidency Obama was dismissive of Russia and failed to understand the threat that it posed.  The most inexcusable part was that even after seven years on the job he still underestimated the threat Putin posed to 2016 elections.

Yeah, Obama is going to go down in history for his poor judgments - not just on Russia but Syria too.

[Barrister]

Just going to post a Twitter link, but not link directly to the picture:

Live dog sitting beside dead owner who appears to have been out riding his/her bike before being shot by Russians from outskirts of Kyiv.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1511028945965228040

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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 jury is still very much out on that given the situation in the Donbass.
(imho) Ukraine only wins if it gets the Russians out. At the very least back to the lines before 27th of Feb, ideally out of Crimea and those two "People's Republics".
Anything else will just leave it open for a repeat with a better prepared Russian army.

(imho again) After that, if it comes to pass (hopefully) Ukraine will need to be integrated into the Western alliances.

That said: given that politics in the West has, over the last decade or so, veered ever more into the emotional and moralistic... As more reports of warcrimes come out the calls to do more will probably increase. And politicians may not be able to withstand the pressure.
We'll see.

Especially as the results of the grain shortages start hitting the rest of the world.

[HVC]

That's really heartbreaking. Although a part of me wonders why you're riding a bike in a war zone.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Hindsight is 20/20.  When Obama said that Putin's bad boy was much much lower. He hadn't invaded Georgia, he hadn't annexed Crimea, declared a special operation against Ukraine and leveled her cities, he hadn't spammed the US election, I don't think he'd even assassinated a defector.

Merkel is not looking good.

[Sheilbh]

He invaded Georgia in 2008 during the US presidential campaign. Fair on Crimea.

Edit: And, of course, by 2016 Putin had invaded Georgia, annexed Crimea, levelled Aleppo and used cyber attacks on other American allies.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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.

More or less every politician in Europe, left (obviously, the (extreme/far) left has a history of backing the enemies of the west, making them hostile to democracy), right (again obviously, as the (extreme/far) right has a history of backing the enemies of democracy, making them hostile to the west) and center (obviously once more since it's so fricking good to have a spot at the feeding throughs) of the past 20 years.

Merkel stopped looking good in 2015.

[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.

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

Because the goal is to make the conflict end. We are winning right now, and should not do anything to jeopardize that. 

Intervening militarily could be exactly the political win Putin needs to revitalize the willingness of his people to fight. Now they are not fighting to subjugate Ukraine, they are fighting to defend themselves from NATO. Putin was right all along, and NATO was looking to put troops into Ukraine, just look - there are NATO troops there now attacking Russians!

Does that push China to start supporting Russia more directly? India? We've successfully kept both of them effectively neutral, and that has been a political effort. 

We are winning. Why do something drastic when we are winning?

[Zanza]

To be fair to Merkel, this mercantilist foreign policy where morals and even geostrategy were more or less ignored was broad consensus in Germany. That said her successor government shows that Germans can be convinced to follow a different political course.

I wrote the quoted post below  in September 2021 - I guess the last line on Putin is now in hindsight meaningless. I would also add that her role on the Minsk agreement must be seen much more critical now...

On foreign policy, Merkel also has some rather big failures, e.g.:
a) the unopposed rise of Orban's autocracy, which was criticized way too late by Merkel's EPP
b) Schäuble's handling of the Eurozone debt crisis where something similar to the now planned Corona helps would have been better
c) Her unilateral action instead of the usual multilateral approach in the refugee situation of 2015, which led to a strong AfD and considerable strife within the EU and a shitty deal with Erdogan (and tacit acceptance of thousands drowning each year)
d) Her support for Nordstream 2, which I feel does not serve German, only Russian interests and wasting political capital with Biden for this

Also a hypothetical: She wanted to join Bush in Iraq...

That said, she also created stability (which is typically good in foreign policy) and was a respected interlocutor for many foreign politicians, even e.g. Putin.

[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?

Because the goal is to make the conflict end. We are winning right now, and should not do anything to jeopardize that.

Intervening militarily could be exactly the political win Putin needs to revitalize the willingness of his people to fight. Now they are not fighting to subjugate Ukraine, they are fighting to defend themselves from NATO. Putin was right all along, and NATO was looking to put troops into Ukraine, just look - there are NATO troops there now attacking Russians!

Does that push China to start supporting Russia more directly? India? We've successfully kept both of them effectively neutral, and that has been a political effort.

We are winning. Why do something drastic when we are winning?

That makes sense.  Thanks for explaining.

[celedhring]

My fear is that Russia will be able to gain a decent foothold in the East and the South, now that they aren't saddled with insane war goals.

[Zanza]

We are winning. Why do something drastic when we are winning?

It's a Phyrric victory though if it means destroyed Ukrainian cities and massacred civilians as well as famine in Africa and the Middle East...

[Jacob]

That's really heartbreaking. Although a part of me wonders why you're riding a bike in a war zone.

He lived there, and he probably had to go somewhere. Biking is faster than walking.

[Berkut]

We are winning. Why do something drastic when we are winning?

It's a Phyrric victory though if it means destroyed Ukrainian cities and massacred civilians as well as famine in Africa and the Middle East...

How would intervening change that? Would NATO troops or aircraft fighting with Russian troops or aircraft make there be less massacred civilians or starving in Africa?

I suspect it would, in the long run, likely create more, not less.

There are no non-phyricc victories here. Russia has already killed thousands and destroyed the peace. There isn't a scenario from this point on where we all get to revel in some kind of clear, painless win. 

I mean, by the standard you are stating, WW2 was a Phyricc victory, right?