Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Sheilbh]

Let's all remember that the worst case is not a worse government in Russia, the worst case would be a long civil war in a gifantic country with thousands and thousands of nukes.

Someone could sell the Iranians a few hundred for example....

Yeah - one of the reasons I find the whole "decolonise Russia" discourse a bit alarming. They've got about 2,000 nukes - it'd be like one of those mad alt-history collapse of the US situations.

[The Brain]

What would drive a civil war? The non-Russian parts splitting off wouldn't necessarily be very disruptive, and non-Russians don't tend to control nukes. A hundred years ago you had revolutionaries wanting to overturn society and build a dystopian hell, foreign powers wanting to force the country back into fighting Germany, and what not. I think ordinary Russians (on all levels) are generally content to sit on their asses and just see who wins the possibly violent power struggle in Moscow, and would grudgingly accept a regime that withdraws from Ukraine since it would mean a softening of sanctions and fewer boys sent to war. Can a major civil war happen? Sure. Do I think it's very likely? No.

[Jacob]

I don't think a civil war would be driven by popular sentiment in the provinces, but rather by elites with control of military forces being unable to agree on how to share power. People like Kadyrov and Prigozhin, for example. Someone setting themselves up as spokesperson for "disgruntled mobiks" or "returned veterans who were betrayed by the generals" or, maybe a regional commander collaborating with a regional governor.

That could, superficially, look like it's driven by popular sentiment - it might be used as propaganda - for example, but I don't think it'll be the primary cause.

[The Larch]

Regarding Belarus, I'd assume that their possible intervention has a larger value for Russia as a threat rather than as a reality, as it'd force Ukraine to keep a relevant amount of troops covering the Belarussian border instead of being in the front. The moment they actually invade I'd guess that they'd be trounced in no time or there would be mass dessertions at levels unheard of since the Germans in the spring of '45. If it manages to keep troops tied down far away from the frontlines for a month or two that buys time for Russia to whip into some kind of shape their raw recruits from the partial mobilization.

As for the bombing of Kiev, it's a sad reality by now that whenever Russia suffers a relevant setback the answer is lashing out against civilian targets. Apparently the new general in charge of the war in Ukraine, Surovikin, has a track record in Syria of targetting civilian objectives with glee, so more bombings of this kind minght be in the cards for the foreseeable future. Apparently the guy is nicknamed General Armageddon... 

[DGuller]

I agree that Belarus is more dangerous as "fleet in being" than as an actual combatant.  While it's not a combatant, Ukraine won't attack it, but it will always be a thorn in its side that will drawn down some of its combat ability.

[Legbiter]

NATO would chip in 4, maybe 5 extra HIMARS with munitions to go along and that's it. Lots of dead Belarusian soldiers disassembled into meat chunks, all strewn across the Belarus-Ukrainian border.

The Central Committee is busy with upcoming meetings to discuss the next 5 year plan wrt potatoes plus winter is fast approaching. I'll believe it when I see it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't think a civil war would be driven by popular sentiment in the provinces, but rather by elites with control of military forces being unable to agree on how to share power. People like Kadyrov and Prigozhin, for example. Someone setting themselves up as spokesperson for "disgruntled mobiks" or "returned veterans who were betrayed by the generals" or, maybe a regional commander collaborating with a regional governor.

That could, superficially, look like it's driven by popular sentiment - it might be used as propaganda - for example, but I don't think it'll be the primary cause.

Kadyrov is a Chechen with a powerbase in the tiny Chechen Republic, and importantly he is not ethnically Russian--he would be a non-entity in a civil war.

[The Larch]

I mean, last week Lukashenko was floating the idea of pressing schoolchildren for agricultural work, so I doubt their army is anything to be proud of.

Belarus: Mobilise children to harvest potatoes and apples, says Lukashenko

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has called for schoolchildren to be mobilised to harvest apples and potatoes.

Lukashenko said it was "savagery" that children could not be used to help with the country's agricultural industry.

"What kind of example are we going to set for our schoolchildren, our children?" he told a government meeting on Monday.

"They say it's exploitation, but what kind of exploitation is it if a person goes to work for five or six hours?"

"It will be happiness for the parents and good physical training for the children."

Schoolchildren and students were previously mobilised to help farmers harvest crops in the former Soviet Union (USSR).

The Belarusian president -- a former Soviet manager at a collective farm -- is known for his verbal outbursts and radical proposals.

In 2020, Lukashenko recommended that a daily glass of vodka and fieldwork on a tractor would help cure COVID-19.

The Belarusian President has also accused Ukraine of "provocations" by sending 15,000 troops to the border area to build defences and conduct reconnaissance.

Belarus allowed its ally Moscow to station troops in the country for its invasion in February but Lukashenko has said he was not planning a mobilisation of military forces to support Moscow.

The 68-year-old has ruled with an iron fist since 1994 and has faced unprecedented opposition protests since his disputed re-election in 2020.

[Legbiter]

I mean, last week Lukashenko was floating the idea of pressing schoolchildren for agricultural work, so I doubt their army is anything to be proud of.

Builds character. Helps the nation. 

[Razgovory]

Belarussian television

[alfred russel]

This is one area eastern europe > western europe. In the east, they have bountiful and strong potato harvests, so many potato even the president must get involved. Children must leave the school to pick the potato. In the west they have potato famine. Presidents and prime ministers don't pick the potato.

[DGuller]

I mean, last week Lukashenko was floating the idea of pressing schoolchildren for agricultural work, so I doubt their army is anything to be proud of.

Mobilizing all kinds of people for collecting harvest has been a pretty normal part of Soviet experience, so while this idea is terrible, it's not completely out there for someone growing up in Soviet Union.  I remember reading the book upon which the super popular "The Meeting Place Cannot Be Changed" Soviet movie was made, and in the book all the cops investigating a series of murders were pressed into digging for a day.

[Jacob]

I don't think a civil war would be driven by popular sentiment in the provinces, but rather by elites with control of military forces being unable to agree on how to share power. People like Kadyrov and Prigozhin, for example. Someone setting themselves up as spokesperson for "disgruntled mobiks" or "returned veterans who were betrayed by the generals" or, maybe a regional commander collaborating with a regional governor.

That could, superficially, look like it's driven by popular sentiment - it might be used as propaganda - for example, but I don't think it'll be the primary cause.

Kadyrov is a Chechen with a powerbase in the tiny Chechen Republic, and importantly he is not ethnically Russian--he would be a non-entity in a civil war.

I don't think he'd be able to make a play for control, but having a loyal army with a reputation makes him a potential factor IMO.

Not that I know much

[Tonitrus]

Kadyrov is just a paid-off warlord in the Putin mob.  He'd probably take Chechnya on the road to independence again if he thought the RF itself was going to crack and he could get away with it.

[Duque de Bragança]

This is like Germany firing V2s at Britain. No real military purpose, just terrorism.

At least Germany had the 'excuse' their cities were being obliterated, too.

Germany actually started terror bombing in WW2, e.g. Rotterdam. The Nazis did not need an excuse. If somehow Germany had the resources to bomb Britain during the war, it would have done so regardless.

No one needs an excuse for Rotterdam 

Not a Feneyoord fan, right?