Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Zanza]

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.

Basically the 2014 situation for a larger territory.  However, this time it is total war for Ukraine and I doubt they will agree to another cease fire. This time they have lost so much already that continued fighting is more likely. Especially as they will long term overwhelm Russia materially due to Western support.

[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...

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?

I did not want to make an argument for intervention. I agree with your view. The "we are winning" just sounded too boastful to me, as I find it hard to call the situation in Ukraine winning. Russia might be losing, but so does Ukraine.

On WW2, it was a Phyrric victory for countries like Poland, the Baltics or even Britain I guess.

[Berkut]

Fair enough. I certainly did not intend to sound boastful at all. This is a fucking disaster for everyone.

[Zanza]

Germany has basically nationalized Gazprom Germania today. Let's see how long the gas keeps flowing.

[The Minsky Moment]

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).

As I understand it, implementing a no-fly zone would require significant military strikes of targets on Russian soil, both to suppress Russian air defense assets there and because a lot of the Russian air strikes have been from planes firing missiles into Ukraine while physically located on the Russian side of the border.

While I wouldn't have phrased the matter the same way Biden did, he had a point: if NATO is conducting military strikes and blowing up stuff in Russia, then as a practical matter NATO is at war with Russia no matter what euphemistic words are used to describe it, and if NATO is at war with Russia, then we are in WW3.  That doesn't necessarily mean nuclear escalation has to occur and in theory if both sides cooperate it could be possible to contain escalation.  However, history contains far more examples of conflicts that escalate past the ability of politicians to contain them then it does successful efforts to cabin military confrontations within "safe" boundaries once the shooting has started.

[viper37]

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?

Early to mid  2000s was clear enough for me.

[DGuller]

Putin's antagonism towards the West was building gradually, but if there was a single point in time when it should've become obvious to those who wanted to pay attention, it was 2007-2008.  I think it was around that point when Putin's belligerence became unmistakably in-your-face.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9KZuYbOjuI

Russian soldiers poisoned by gifts of food from Ukrainian civilians.  Two dead.

Pretty dodgy and not such a good idea.

[viper37]

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).

As I understand it, implementing a no-fly zone would require significant military strikes of targets on Russian soil, both to suppress Russian air defense assets there and because a lot of the Russian air strikes have been from planes firing missiles into Ukraine while physically located on the Russian side of the border.

While I wouldn't have phrased the matter the same way Biden did, he had a point: if NATO is conducting military strikes and blowing up stuff in Russia, then as a practical matter NATO is at war with Russia no matter what euphemistic words are used to describe it, and if NATO is at war with Russia, then we are in WW3.  That doesn't necessarily mean nuclear escalation has to occur and in theory if both sides cooperate it could be possible to contain escalation.  However, history contains far more examples of conflicts that escalate past the ability of politicians to contain them then it does successful efforts to cabin military confrontations within "safe" boundaries once the shooting has started.

I understand all these points. But imho the choice is war now or war later, once Russia has managed to get its head out of its collective asses and recruit formal allies to sustain its war effort, and bypass the economic sanctions.

While I agree that economic sanctions against Iraq crippled the country's ability to wage war, I am extremely doubtful that will work with a large country like Russia.

Seizing an oligarch' yacht is nice, but it has no real effect on the State.  These guys exists because of Putin, it's not that bi-lateral.

[Berkut]

The best way to help Putin recruit formal allies is to let him recast this war as a war against the aggression of NATO rather than a war of aggression against Ukraine.

There is no choice of war now or later, we already have war now. We should keep doing what we are doing already to win that war, or more of that. Which is exactly what I think we are doing.

[Jacob]

The best way to help Putin recruit formal allies is to let him recast this war as a war against the aggression of NATO rather than a war of aggression against Ukraine.

There is no choice of war now or later, we already have war now. We should keep doing what we are doing already to win that war, or more of that. Which is exactly what I think we are doing.

Yup.

My main concerns are:

1) That we continue to provide Ukraine with the level of support (in terms of quality and volume) that they need to win on the field of battle. This includes long term planning (i.e. if some systems require six months training, let's start training folks now because we can't assume the war is over in six months).

2) That we do it in such a way that Ukraine is set up to succeed as much as possible, even in the face of less supportive leaders being elected in some countries (Le Pen in France, Trump in the US, etc).

[DGuller]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9KZuYbOjuI

Russian soldiers poisoned by gifts of food from Ukrainian civilians.  Two dead.

Pretty dodgy and not such a good idea.

Yeah, I agree.  If such tactics continue, at some point the Russians may start targeting civilians.

[Berkut]

The best way to help Putin recruit formal allies is to let him recast this war as a war against the aggression of NATO rather than a war of aggression against Ukraine.

There is no choice of war now or later, we already have war now. We should keep doing what we are doing already to win that war, or more of that. Which is exactly what I think we are doing.

Yup.

My main concerns are:

1) That we continue to provide Ukraine with the level of support (in terms of quality and volume) that they need to win on the field of battle. This includes long term planning (i.e. if some systems require six months training, let's start training folks now because we can't assume the war is over in six months).

2) That we do it in such a way that Ukraine is set up to succeed as much as possible, even in the face of less supportive leaders being elected in some countries (Le Pen in France, Trump in the US, etc).

1) I figure investing in mid and long term capability for their military is a win-win. Because we want Ukraine to be more capable regardless of the outcomes that are likely at this point.

2) Yes, that is a good point, and a worrisome one. I don't know how to address it really, except to hope.

[grumbler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9KZuYbOjuI

Russian soldiers poisoned by gifts of food from Ukrainian civilians.  Two dead.

Pretty dodgy and not such a good idea.

Yeah, I agree.  If such tactics continue, at some point the Russians may start targeting civilians.

If such attacks continue, then the civilians lose their protected status under the Law of Armed Conflict (this is known as "perfidy").  Noncombatants are noncombatants even if the Russians are committing war crimes. The Ukrainian government needs to tell their people this, not encourage them to sacrifice their protected status.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I mean the Ukrainian government has told civilians to make molotov cocktails. I think they are profoundly uninterested in selling their people lies that if they behave the Russians won't hurt them.

Everyone has a moral obligation to resist invaders in a war of conquest, no matter the consequences, and no matter the law.