Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Jacob]

'Regime change' may be Putin's main aim, so less chance of a conventional invasion, but instead attacks to destabilise the Ukrainian government.
I've heard suggested limited fighting combined with massive cyber attacks, attempts to destroy/bringdown the electric grid and targeted attacks on Ukraine's military top brass and political leaders. That might mainly leave individuals ready to comprise with Putin and form a new government.

That's a reasonable point. If Putin can affect or even change the Ukrainian government by moving his divisions around inside Russia and say some sharp words, that may be a pretty good return on investment for him.

[Maladict]

The idea of an all-out cyberwar scares the crap out of me.

[Habbaku]

This is the bullshit the Russians are putting out there:

[grumbler]

Putin as Littlefinger, guess.

Chaos is a ladder?

[Razgovory]

Putin as Littlefinger, guess.

Chaos is a ladder Lada?

FYP

[Tamas]

Russia continues efforts to de-escalate in the face of continued Western push for war:

A senior Russian official has said a nuclear missile crisis between Moscow and Washington was unavoidable without measures to ensure restraint and predictability.

The Russian state news agency Tass was quoting Vladimir Ermakov, a senior Russian foreign ministry official. According to Tass, he said Moscow thought the United States was preparing to deploy short and intermediate range missiles to Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

[Jacob]

"Threatening with conventional forces didn't get us the response we wanted, so now we're going to try nukes...."

Just great.

[Jacob]

Dmytro Kuleba - the Ukrainian foreign minister - is in Denmark. His main points:

The struggle in Ukraine is of global significance. If Putin gets away with his BS here, he will be encouraged to act more aggressively across the globe - in Europe, in the Arctic, in the Black Sea. The rest of the world will see the West as weak.

He thinks there are four key points in the response to Russian aggression:

1. Sending a clear, collective message to Russia that military aggression will fail.

2. Sending a clear, collective message about the serious impact of the economic sanction that can be levelled against Russia.

3. Strengthening Ukraine's military forces, and enhancing military co-operation between Ukraine and the West.

4. Ensuring Ukraine's economical and financial stability.

According to Kuleba, Putin's plan A is not to attack Ukraine with military force but to use the threat of invasion to destabilize Ukraine, create panic, and force concessions. It also includes other forms of hybrid warfare such as cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns.

During the visit it was also announced that Denmark is providing a little over US$130 million to the Ukraine over the next five years to shore up their military.

[Malthus]

Seems to me Putin isn't wedded to any one plan.

If the West appears weak enough, he's bite off as much of Ukraine as he could chew (as indeed, he's already done before in Crimea and with the "separatists").

If the West appears too united, he'll claim it is all US anti-Russian hysteria and engage in unconventional tactics to destabilize Ukraine and, to the extent possible, the West.

The only thing that is consistent is his malice and determination to use any means to enhance his power; and his propaganda, bolstered by half-truths and outright lies, that the West is doing the exact same thing to Russia.

The problem with Putinite tactics is that, while they are initially quite successful, they inevitably have the effect of creating the very situation that Putin's propaganda states already exists: all of his enemies will unite against him (having no choice).

Ultimately, Putin's Russia simply lacks the raw economic might to force other nations to do his bidding.

[Tamas]

New theory: Lukashenko offered an oath of fealty to Putin to save his skin, but the problem was how to bring in Russian troops which can defend him if it comes to that, without triggering an uprising.

They tried first with the migrant channeling bruhaha, but that failed. So they started sabre-rattling with Ukraine - now there are lots of Russian troops are being moved in to Belarus and nobody will be very surprised if they stay for a while (which we know it may last 50 years)

[Jacob]

Not completely implausible, Tamas.

[Josquius]

It's amazing to see how many from the stupider segments of the left are trying to paint America as the aggressor in this.
It just makes zero sense even in a world where America is evil incarnate.

[Sheilbh]

The split in US (and UK) thinking v Ukraine's view is really striking and reinforced by GdM and Jake's posts.

From an (American) CNN reporter - which was apparently echoed by correspondents in Ukraine from what they heard from sources in Zelensky's team:

Alexander Marquardt
@MarquardtA
A Russian invasion is now virtually certain once the ground freezes, Biden said to Zelensky, a senior Ukrainian official told @mchancecnn. Kyiv could be "sacked," Russian forces may attempt to occupy it, "prepare for impact", Biden said, according to this official.

The White House clutched their pearls about anonymous sources (the only way you'll get any information that isn't pure spin for national security issues) but disputed this version of the call:

Jim Sciutto
@jimsciutto
—>> WH on Biden-Zelensky call: "Anonymous sources are "leaking" falsehoods. President Biden said that there is a distinct possibility that the Russians could invade Ukraine in February. He has said this publicly and we have been warning about this for months..." 1/
2/ "...Reports of anything more or different than that are completely false." - @emilyhorne46, NSC Spokesperson
And this: "Also, no one said 'sacked.' The only person who should be 'sacked' is the anonymous source who is circulating an inaccurate portrayal of this conversation." 3/

Zelensky reportedly urged Biden to calm down because of the risk of panic which would cripple Ukraine's economy and thought there'd been a breakthrough in the talks in Paris (which would, as we've discussed, basically point to Minsk/Normandy).

But Ukrainian officials have acknowledged to Jeremy Cliffe that there could be a few reasons for US alarm v their calmness: the US is trying to pressure Ukraine to engage/concede on Minsk; they're under-estimating Ukrainian resistance (and viewing this through the prism of 2014); the US has intel on an imminent attack that the Ukrainians don't; or US have intel/fears on Putin's mental state.

Unclear what's right but the gap is a little alarming because it feels like the US is either overhyping the danger which creates a risk of playing into Putin's hands and causing a panic in Ukraine, or Ukrainian government is underestimating imminent danger. Or it could maybe be a bit of good cop/bad cop as Ukraine's engaging with talks with Russia.

[Tamas]

I think it is easy to see why Ukrainian leaders would want to publicly downplay the danger. Primarily, their ability to prepare may very well be below what their public would consider sufficient. If you are saying you don't have to prepare for war then pretend you have been Pearl Harbored that's easier to explain away than talking about imminent aggression and then being caught with your pants down and your country collapsing 2 weeks into the conflict.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It's amazing to see how many from the stupider segments of the left are trying to paint America as the aggressor in this.

this is more or less standard behaviour of the (more extreme) left for the last 70 years: anyone not America/The West good, America/The West bad. All from the safety and luxury of their western and US-protected societies and economies.