Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[FunkMonk]

Going to need Gaijin de KGB to make a return and school us on whether we should call Russian soldiers "orcs" or not

[Habbaku]

Going to need Gaijin de KGB to make a return and school us on whether we should call Russian soldiers "orcs" or not

Pretty convenient he disappeared around the time of the invasion!

[Barrister]

So this is funny enough to post even knowing it might not be true.

Supposedly the reasons Russians were digging trenches in the highly radioactive "Red Forest" in Chernobyl is they were using maps from 1985.  The accident happened in 1986.

https://twitter.com/CanadianUkrain1/status/1513518524983136256

(posted by a supposed Canadian foreign fighter in Ukraine)

[FunkMonk]

Going to need Gaijin de KGB to make a return and school us on whether we should call Russian soldiers "orcs" or not

Pretty convenient he disappeared around the time of the invasion!

Found him:

[OttoVonBismarck]

Russians as a people are monsters, accept it or be intentionally delusional. Those are your two options.

European colonial powers often committed war crimes in their colonies during the 20th century, most often during their decolonization wars.  The US war in Vietnam wasn't pretty either.  There war crimes committed and uninvestigated by the US Military during the Korean War.  Not that the locals were always angels either, but still. 

It is not unexpected from countries with an imperialist doctrine.  Doesn't mean much of the society itself, except that might makes right.  They accept it as part of being a powerful empire, to be rejected is inconceivable.  The entire Iraq war of 2003 was planned with the mindset that most of the Iraquis would welcome Americans with open arms and work together toward democracy and prosperity without significant hiccups.  For the Russians, to be rejected as such was inconceivable as well.  The soldiers react with frustrations, and the difference with the modern NATO armies is we all investigate and prosecute potential war criminals now.  Trump supporters would likely not, but the military establishment, for now*, will not go along.  Russia is still at the stage where they accept this as the normal course of war.



*Before Berkut has a brain hemorrhage or something, I simply mean that top military echelons could be replaced by pro-Trump with the same mindset as the current Republicans, when they retake the presidency.

Let's be serious here, it is fashionable to non-stop bash the British Empire and America's overseas imperialism, and absolutely in many, many respects those policies frequently had terrible outcomes. But you also know it is more complicated than that. There are plenty of places that were under British dominion that literally only have things like paved roads, some semblance of literacy etc because of the British Empire. As often as the Western bad faith evil shit did happen, there was some genuine Western belief that we were improving the world. I think a fair analysis of imperialism is a mixed bag, and I have always thought that--and I also think it has to be judged in the context of the early 20th and 19th century.

For what it is worth, I afford the Soviet Union a lot of the same leeway. In many ways the USSR made good faith efforts, at times, to move away from Russian supremacy and mistreatment of ethnic minorities. Was it perfect? Nope, and it also varied--obviously the partial genocide against Ukrainians under Stalin and pogroms against Jews cannot be ignored. However I think a fair reading of Soviet policy would also give an honestly mixed interpretation. There are plenty of places in Central Asia that are now independent countries where many of the locals will tell you life is in everyway worse now than it was under the Soviets. There is a difference between what a country does and what its ethos is. The USSR, in my opinion, had a utopian ethos that was not intrinsically immoral. It was a country ran by men who very often were immoral, and I think the same can be said of Western imperialism.

Modern Russia doesn't fit this--modern Russia is simple fascist nationalism, married to an increasingly xenophobic and superstitious Russian Orthodox church and a grotesque form of Russian revisionism--and a huge portion of the Russian population is in the train riding along with Putin, he isn't doing this by himself.

[Berkut]

Modern Russia doesn't fit this--modern Russia is simple fascist nationalism, married to an increasingly xenophobic and superstitious Russian Orthodox church and a grotesque form of Russian revisionism--and a huge portion of the Russian population is in the train riding along with Putin, he isn't doing this by himself.

I think this is actually a really good point.

Putin's Russia is a not a return to the USSR in any real way. It is something much more ideologically contemptible.

[The Brain]

"Russian soldier" is one of the worst things you can call a person. I see little need for people in Western comfy chairs to use other words.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Romanovs swung back and forth between conservative reformism from above and obscurantist reaction.  Putin began his political career in the mode of Alexander II and moved towards that of Alexander III.  But in each case his model was imperial Russia not communist Russia.  Unfortunately, although Putin seems to have taken on the reactionary instincts and nationalist prejudices of Alexander III, he has not absorbed his predecessor's caution and shrewd diplomacy on the international stage.

[The Larch]

The German president Steinmeier, who served as foreign minister for Merkel and chief of staff for Schröder before, wanted to travel to Kyiv, but Zelensky did not want to meet him. He is seen as too close to Russia, which is probably a fair characterisation of his past, although I tend to believe him that he changed his mind.

Ukrainian diplomacy towards Germany is very confrontational. I guess that's their choice, but not sure if it maximises German contributions to the Ukrainian cause.

Regarding this, I just read that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany has been relentless in badgering German politicians  and media (to insulting points) about Germany not doing enough to help Ukraine. What's the opinion over there about this?

[Sheilbh]

Regarding this, I just read that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany has been relentless in badgering German politicians  and media (to insulting points) about Germany not doing enough to help Ukraine. What's the opinion over there about this?

I read a piece on him and apparently it is at Zelensky's direction. I suppose the counter-factual for Ukraine about the ambassador is would Germany be discussing sending tanks if they didn't have a very vocal, confrontational approach?

I also wonder how much Ukraine is, for understandable reasons, just the most vocal bit of wider discontent. I mentioned earlier but the most cynical and frustrated takes on German policy I've read in recent weeks have come from other Europeans, particularly French commentators and foreign policy think tankers (who are broadly close to Macron). It's striking that there seems to be more sympathy from Washington and London for Berlin's position (and the slow process of change) than many European capitals.

On this, though, Kyiv has invited Scholz to visit, which I think makes sense both because he's a key decision maker and, also, not as closely associated with Schroeder and Merkel's foreign policy.

[Sheilbh]

Separately Ukrainian intelligence have arrested Putin's close friend and ally (and, allegedly, one of Putin's "wallets") Viktor Medvedchuk:


He was under house arrest at the time of the invasion and escaped shortly afterwards but has now been caught again. I'm slightly surprised he was still, presumably, in Ukraine

[The Larch]

Regarding this, I just read that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany has been relentless in badgering German politicians  and media (to insulting points) about Germany not doing enough to help Ukraine. What's the opinion over there about this?

I read a piece on him and apparently it is at Zelensky's direction. I suppose the counter-factual for Ukraine about the ambassador is would Germany be discussing sending tanks if they didn't have a very vocal, confrontational approach?

I also wonder how much Ukraine is, for understandable reasons, just the most vocal bit of wider discontent. I mentioned earlier but the most cynical and frustrated takes on German policy I've read in recent weeks have come from other Europeans, particularly French commentators and foreign policy think tankers (who are broadly close to Macron). It's striking that there seems to be more sympathy from Washington and London for Berlin's position (and the slow process of change) than many European capitals.

On this, though, Kyiv has invited Scholz to visit, which I think makes sense both because he's a key decision maker and, also, not as closely associated with Schroeder and Merkel's foreign policy.

Apparently he was already controversial before the war, mainly towards Steinmeier, and has now dialed it up to 11.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Regarding this, I just read that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany has been relentless in badgering German politicians  and media (to insulting points) about Germany not doing enough to help Ukraine. What's the opinion over there about this?

I read a piece on him and apparently it is at Zelensky's direction. I suppose the counter-factual for Ukraine about the ambassador is would Germany be discussing sending tanks if they didn't have a very vocal, confrontational approach?

I also wonder how much Ukraine is, for understandable reasons, just the most vocal bit of wider discontent. I mentioned earlier but the most cynical and frustrated takes on German policy I've read in recent weeks have come from other Europeans, particularly French commentators and foreign policy think tankers (who are broadly close to Macron). It's striking that there seems to be more sympathy from Washington and London for Berlin's position (and the slow process of change) than many European capitals.

On this, though, Kyiv has invited Scholz to visit, which I think makes sense both because he's a key decision maker and, also, not as closely associated with Schroeder and Merkel's foreign policy.

Well our perspectives are different, right? I think continental Europeans are much more likely to view Germany as being a leading state because...Germany has always been a leading power in continental Europe. Germany's shift after WWII (which the Western Allies absolutely favored) to being an economic power with no teeth otherwise is a major historical anomaly. The reality is that anomaly may simply no longer be viable.

The UK has always been a bit apart of that, with closer economic and social ties to Europe but much closer military ties to the United States, and the United States obviously despite how big and powerful Germany is...is yet moreso big and powerful so I think has a different perspective in understanding the competing interests Germany has. Most sober American analysts think Germany and a few other European great powers need to step up, but are also quite aware that the United States is fairly unique in being positioned to spent $750bn/yr on a globe-spanning military force.

[OttoVonBismarck]

U.S. to increase scope of weapons aid:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/04/12/pentagon-ukraine-weapons/

Pentagon looks to vastly expand weapons for Ukraine
By Dan Lamothe and Karoun Demirjian
Today at 5:59 p.m. EDT

The Biden administration is poised to dramatically expand the scope of weapons it's providing Ukraine, U.S. officials said Tuesday, with the Pentagon looking to send Mi-17 helicopters that can be equipped to attack Russian vehicles, armored Humvees and a range of other arms.

The new aid package could be worth $750 million, these people said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the transfer has not yet been finalized.

Preliminary plans circulating among government officials and lawmakers in Washington also includes howitzer cannons, coastal defense drones and protective suits to safeguard personnel in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear weapons attack, the officials said, though they cautioned that it was not immediately clear if all of those items would end up in the final package.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby declined to comment.

The prospective new delivery, first reported by Reuters, comes on top of the more than $2.4 billion in U.S. security assistance provided since President Biden took office last year, including $1.7 billion in aid since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his administration have pleaded for more sophisticated weapons to counter the Russian military's technological advantages. Ukraine's military has defied initial expectations and mounted a ferocious resistance, having already staved off a bloody, weeks-long assault on the capital, Kyiv, that was aimed at toppling Zelensky's administration.

[grumbler]

I can't recall the name of the book, but one I read talked about the Soviet atrocities against civilians (mostly Germans) in Poland and eastern German (which became Polish).  The surprising part for me was that the atrocities were carried out not by the front-line troops that captured the towns and took the losses - they were disciplined except when it came to booze and when drunk - but by the second-echelon units that lacked discipline and the self-respect that comes from risking your life for your buddies. 

There might be a connection between the lack of self-respect among Russian combat troops we've discussed and the atrocities they are committing in Ukraine.  Not because they are "orks" but because they serve in an army that doesn't care about their reputation, so they indulge themselves in a mob-like fashion (and we know where a mob mentality leads).