Aside from that It's extremely difficult to get reliable information from any source I have found about the details of the situation. I've not seen anything that is contrary to what I said though. Maybe you can enlighten me.
https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent
they're pretty good and if they make mistakes they admit them and correct.
In context it's clear I was talking about this situation of the separatist regions contrasting with the situation of Russia occupying Ukraine. So you're totally out to lunch if you think I completely missed that.
Russia claims that the Russians that are fighting there are "volunteers". So basically everybody in that region knows very well who they are really fighting. Not Ukrainians but Russian "volunteers".
Ukrainians have both the time (they tasted western freedom and don't want to go back, russian troops need to be paid by the day) and the watches (javlins, stingers, US intelligence and now extra jet fighters)
How do you know this to be the case?
Here is the media of the current situation. Doesn't seem very welcoming does it?
People seem to make the mistake to think that the citizens that speak Russian are automatically pro Russian. But that isn't the case, they are Lithuanians first for the most part.
I didn't say they wanted Russian occupation necessarily, just that they were separatist from Ukraine. They were all significantly in favor of Ukrainian independence from USSR of course.
> So how likely do you think it is that those regions are really separatist?
Are you in denial of the existence of Ukrainian separatist regions and the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic?
The ethnic lines between Government/Separatists aren't that clear and if that were the case, then Putin would be correct in criticising discrimination too.
Take for example Saddam Hussein. His 1980-1988 failed invasion of Iran cost 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqi lives (plus wounded and 70,000 Iraqi POWs held by Iran). Then the 1990-1991 failed invasion of Kuwait cost another 20,000 to 50,000 Iraqi lives… And yet he might well have never lost control, short of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
I really don't see much hope for Ukraine, and considering the size of the NATO fast response teams, I expect more countries to fold before Russia starts stalling. I'd say every country without its own autonomous nuclear arsenal is at risk. That's includes everyone under America's umbrella.
Supply their troops right across their border? Where do you think ukraine is? The side that will have problems with supplies is the one that had their armories, oil refineries, storage facilities, etc destroyed.
> maintain presence
Something they've done for centuries? They don't have to maintain a presence. The ukrainian army will. Notice how there aren't any major battles? Ever wonder why Zelensky is asking the civilians to fight? Because most of the ukranian army is not fighting.
> that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you.
Half the country is russian to begin with. More than half the country voted to align with russia. That's why the West staged a coup.
> Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel.
It's only going to get warmer and Russia is not going to run out of food nor fuel. You do realize russia is the largest fossil fuel producer right?
> Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage.
Then how come major ukrainian cities are under seige?
Read what you wrote and ask yourself, is it really what's happening or is it what you wish was happening? I don't think the ghost of kiev is going to save ukraine. Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives. No country is going to step in to fight russia.
Because the total size of the Ukraine armed forces of allservekces is smaller than the Russian + Belarusian land forces deployed against them, not to count the supporting air and naval forces, where Ukraine is outnumbered by more than an order of magnitude.
> Unless a major power steps in to help ukraine, it'll be "liberated" in the next few weeks. And then ukranians will go on with their lives.
This is as stupid as when people said the same basic thing about the 2003 Iraq invasion. (Something along that line is, IIRC, a big factor in Gen. Franks describing then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth”.) People can't be relied on to just go back to their lives when a hostile foreign occupation is imposed, even if the regular forces of the preceding government are comprehensively defeated.
> No country is going to step in to fight russia.
Just like no country stepped in to fight the USSR (or the US) in Afghanistan. And neither of the armies involved in that had the degree of morale and logistical problems the Russian Army has displayed thus far in Ukraine.
The ukranian army is 250000 strong, there are less than 200000 russians in ukraine. What does army size have to do with anything. Smaller armies have fought larger armies all the time.
> People can't be relied on to just go back to their lives when a hostile foreign occupation is imposed, even if the regular forces of the preceding government are comprehensively defeated.
Ukraine : Russia != Iraq : US. Ukraine is ethnically, religiously, militarily, historically, etc tied with russia. Iraq has nothing to do with the US. Until just 8 years ago, russia and ukraine was intertwined. Yes, if saudi arabia or turkey invaded ukraine, I would expect a massive insurgency. Was there a massive insurgency after the union beat the confederates? Of course not, because we were the same people.
> Just like no country stepped in to fight the USSR (or the US) in Afghanistan.
Sarcasm?
> And neither of the armies involved in that had the degree of morale and logistical problems the Russian Army has displayed thus far in Ukraine.
Right. Because they ghost of kiev is terrorizing them right? You are literally restating intelligence propaganda. It's standard propaganda during war to portray the enemy has low morale. The russians are saying the same thing about the ukranians and the west.
People just cling to propaganda that matches their agenda. The first casualty in war is truth. I would stop believing all the propaganda and just think about what's happening rationally.
You claim that the Ukrainian army, under control of the anti-russian government, is not fighting? Why is that? And the government that staged a coup against the will of the people is now giving those people guns to fight against... who exactly?
Your story is completely contradicting itself kamaraad. Even the Russian speaking Ukrainians want the Russians out.
And guess what, Zelenskyy's first language is Russian.
If you really the situation this way I can definitely assume you know no Ukrainians at all. It's such an absurd statement given the current situation and how Ukrainians are reacting (I know 2 who just left Sweden to go back there and help), I'm saving your comment to come pester you when the insurgency and urban warfare starts in a few months.
What an utter bullshit comment.
It did not as far as evidence goes it was initiated by Ukrainians themselves. The west did happily supply the weapons to questionable groups, but the will to change was certainly there. If that reduced corruption is another question.
A bit ironic that separatists are called separatists in light of the revolution though. Although the party that came to power after the revolution has since been replaced by the current one. I think they formed just 2-3 years ago.
Zelenskyy was elected president in 2019 with 73.2% of the votes.
Do you actually believe yourself or do you know you are lying?
I was talking about before the coup where the ukranian population voted for a pro-russia president. Not 5 years after the coup. Lets see what the election results will be 5 years after russia takes control over ukraine and propagandize nonstop for 5 years.
> Do you actually believe yourself or do you know you are lying?
Do you really think I was referring to zelensky? Do you really think I would lie about such a trivial thing that anyone could google within a second? Or do you think you misunderstood what I was talking about. What I wrote "More than half the country voted to align with russia. That's why the West staged a coup."
Why did you cut out the "That's why the West staged a coup" part?
NONE of the former Soviet controlled states want to join Russia ever again. Have you noticed they all joined EU? Why is that, because EU "staged coups"?
Maybe EU is able to provide its citizens with a proper life. Maybe the values we have resonate more with people than the values Putin has. Because of this idiot dictator, we have to put more money into our military again, instead of using it to improve our lives.
I proved I was right in the original post. Also, it is not a lie. It's factually correct.
> And if you wonder why, read some history.
Does it appear to you I know nothing about history, geopolitics, etc?
> NONE of the former Soviet controlled states want to join Russia ever again.
Many don't. But can't say none. Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Kazakhstan have joined eurasion economic zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
> Have you noticed they all joined EU?
All?
> Why is that, because EU "staged coups"?
In a way, yes. Not militarily, but financially. Well some militarily. But yes, unfortunately, nations sell themselves to the highest bidder. Just like human beings.
> Because of this idiot dictator
Do you realize that by calling a democratically elected leader a dictator, you are making a mockery of democracy.
> we have to put more money into our military again, instead of using it to improve our lives.
Welcome to our world buddy. Maintaing the american empire is bleeding us try. Imagine if there was no NATO. No EU. No war in ukraine. No wasted money on wars. If NATO disbanded after the fall of the soviet union and european nations remained sovereign, we wouldn't be having so many issues.
Just like the evil soviet empire necessitated the creation of NATO, the evil NATO/EU empire is now necessitating the creation of the "soviet" empire.
If you truly cared about peace, improving your lives, etc, you'd be just as against the NATO/EU empire as you are against putin.
You forgot to answer my question: 'Why did you cut out the "That's why the West staged a coup" part?'
If you call Russia a democracy, you're even more stupid than I thought.
> You forgot to answer my question
Russia will "win" the invasion. But so long as enough Ukrainians (it need only be a small minority) would prefer to die than be subjugated and there are enough others to materially support them the conclusion is a forgone one. The Russian people will run out of fucks to give long before Ukraine runs out of people.
Is it not fair to say the nuclear deterrent has weakened, and the reason Poland had to wait was because NATO was afraid of supporting the resistance too much?
You never know. You could see, in the broadcast Putin's security council meeting the fidgeting and fear of its members. And those are supposedly the people who will take over if Putin croaks.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/feb/28/russian-for...
Ukraine's highest peak is 6,700, and the Carpathians are at the very western edge of Ukraine - if resistance merely survives in the Carpathians then the Russians have comprehensively won.
And I am not quite so sure about Ukraine being already lost.
Here is an interesting article from an economic forecaster, Martin Armstrong, that underlines some of the dirty dealings that lead us to where we are with this conflict.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/russia...
*PS can someone please upvote so HN isn't a constant echo-chamber
PPS well that went well
When you see a bully walking around the classroom punching other kids we should not think wait we must look at both sides of the story. I am sure the bully needs and deserves help, but right now lets address the kids getting punched.
Neither NATO nor EU has tried to force countries to join, in fact they often reject applications. They exists because the US is willing to provide security guarantees to smaller countries without interfering in their domestic agenda.
For example Norway just joined the anti-nuclear weapon group as an observer. The US was not a fan at all, but did not try to block it.
And such influence is certainly not in the interest of the people that primarily rose up against corruption.
He managed to hit: - Netflix won't host his movie that is a one-sided defence of his $700M fraud conviction, equates it to cancel culture - The Clintons are to blame - The Clintons wanted to "take over" Russia after the fall of the USSR - NATO isn't a defensive alliance because it "moves in aggressive ways" - The emergence of the LPR and DPR was totally just a self determined act and had nothing to do with a Russian invasion
Repeating Putin talking points and engaging in whataboutism doesn't make for a meaningful analysis.
Browder and Safra are but the tip of the iceberg.
Both are directly or indirectly linked to Epstein and Maxwell as I am sure you are aware.
Wonder what the aliens watching Earth think of all this!
Let’s not steal the credit from Boris Johnson and Theresa May for that.
Another take: She didn't realize that Boris Johnson wanted power, and therefore would do everything possible to undermine her. There was no way to make a deal with Johnson.
An electoral system where the majority of votes cast were not in his favour
They didn't have an original idea in their lives. The idea is Dugin's, the funding comes from the Russian tax payer, the public face was Nigel Farage, the campaign strategy and slogans come from Dom Cummings.
One tiny quibble:
> the funding comes from the Russian tax payer
And perhaps mainly from the ordinary European who heats with gas.
That didn't happen overnight, and neither will energy independence.
What kind of big projects do you think will create public dismay? Infrastructure projects create jobs, which increases economic activity and boosts stock market indices. Why would this be a problem for the public?
Thing is, if energy independence doesn't happen overnight, climate change might renderer Europe and US uninhabitable.
The only countries that profit from that is those that have access to artic circle.
Ukraine can win, they just can't meet the bulk of Russia's forces head on. They can, however, defeat Russia in time, and with the support of allies that time can be short. If Ukraine comes out of this an EU member then they will have profound and victory that will benefit Ukraine for generations.
This is an opportunity. Putin has rolled the dice and thrown the first punch. Russia needs punishment in the form of military humiliation and Putin has given the West a once in a century moment to deliver exactly that.
My prediction is the West will give material aide, but Ukraine will fall and we’ll enter another Cold War.
To suggest the West will go to war is just wishful thinking. Ukraine will be sacrificed for a temporary and unstable peace in Eastern Europe. Putin called NATO’s bluff and NATO won’t push harder.
I see the attack on Ukraine as an existential threat to the West as a whole - and Im probably not the only one asking if maybe its worth risking nuclear conflict. Can we trust Putin with a nuclear arsenal in any case, even if he withdraws ?
"The West" vs. Russia is just a military execution of Russia.
That reality remains the one means we have of stopping their nukes.
I was thinking about that. They are now going to deliver some Migs to the Ukrainian army, because their pilots can already operate those. But let's say they don't have enough pilots for that, who is to say who's operating those Migs? Some Polish volunteers that joined the foreign army recently?
Russia also pulled that stunt in the east where Russian "volunteers" are fighting alongside the separatists.
No, they aren’t. That now-deleted tweeted from an adviser to European Parliament doesn’t reflect reality, and has been denied by NATO, Poland (who was the one state specifically rumored to be providing planes), and every other source its been attempted to be confirmed with.
Your logic is left over from pre-nuclear times, when it still made sense. As horrifying as it might be be to face this cold, post-nuclear calculus, we must do it to survive as a species. Which is not to say that we should not push back against aggressive dictators — we must, as much as we are able — but conventional warfare between nuclear powers has to forever be off the table.
(But I do desperately hope and pray that Ukraine somehow manages to beat Russia back without massive loss of life.)
> If the risk is too high, no it is not
Which shows why your original statement was wrong: It depends on how high the risk is. If the risk is low enough, it may be worth taking.
Remains only to find out exactly how high it is... Which becomes, AFAICS, an investigation into the psyche of Vladimir Putin.
On the whole, I lean towards Putin not being quite that crazy -- and hey, remember that even the Soviet Union had that ultimate safeguard, officers willing to disobey orders -- so it shouldn't be all that high. But it's hard to say for sure.
Wars are not decided based on pure logic - we are somewhat intelligent apes, we will risk it all to defend our tribe - particularly if we feel the aggression is unfair and unjustified.
As I see it, they have already won, and will continue to win for a long long time.
What I mean by this is that western countries didn't support them in the way (I feel) they should have, probably because they believed that Russia would easily walk over Ukraine, similar to how it had caused such confusion and prevented a defense in Crimea (I'm not a historian, this is my naive view of those events).
Ukraine stood up to the bully, and showed us (the west) that we were wrong to not believe in them. It isn't over, and it can't be claimed as a victory yet, but they convinced the west that they had enough of a chance that we should come to their aid. They showed us what the Ukrainian spirit is. They have given hope to other regions and countries that may come under threat in the future.
I wonder if they have given China extra pause in their stance toward Taiwan.
If Putin loses in Ukraine, could that also mean the end of his regime in Russia? The Russian people are standing up to him. He has proven that he is not only fallible. Will this also be taken as a sign of weakness to Russians?
You're absolutely right about cheap energy, and it's why I thought this was a strange time for Russia to invade Ukraine. Europe will be coming out of winter in a few weeks. This gives the summer to shore up reserves and build out alternative energy sources. Remember, Tesla built the Adelaide, Australia power plant in less than 100 days[1].
What happens when Europe faced with the threat of a lack of energy going into next winter?
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/elon-musk-wins-50m-bet-with-giant...
I expect so. But China is a great power, and Russia is only a regional power. It's much easier and cheaper to isolate Russia.
China's claim on Taiwan is 1000x more valid than the Russian claim on Ukraine, and the world would react differently. I say this as someone who likes the RoC, and thinks they have a right to self-determination.
Ultimately, though, China is trying to win the economic and political game. You need a large military to play that game as a great power, but you don't have to actually invade people to exercise military power. And wars are terribly costly when you're trying to modernize infrastructure. Decoupling China from the US would be terribly costly to both sides, while trade is profitable. So they use that to buy a sphere of influence, largely in Africa and South America. Putin is the idiot who still thinks he can invade his way to a sphere of influence, which hasn't really worked out for anyone after the Spanish-American war.
The PRC claim to Taiwan is about as weak as can be. They have after all _never_ ruled the island. The mainland and Taiwan have only been unified (if you can call the 45-49 “unified”) for four years in the last 125 years. Moscow ruled Ukraine up until a generation ago (not that I think that gives Russia any claim to Ukraine).
The PRC’s claim to Taiwan is ludicrous.
I think you got it backwards: Taiwan's claim on China is more valid - after all, they are the original China unspoiled by the demon of communism.
I don't say that to support the CCP - the only legitimate government is one chosen by the Chinese people - but saying "Taiwan and the North were the original governments" is plainly false. The Confuscian emporers, going back 2,000+ years and lasting until ~1911 (with many interruptions), would have by far the best claim on 'original government'.
I absolutely support the freedom of the people in Taiwan - and of those in all of China, though only the ones in Taiwan have it - but the parent doesn't make sense to me:
What is the "original China"? Imperial, Confucian China, which (including many interruptions) goes back over 2,000 years, and ended in ~1911? The predecessors to imperial China? Neither has anything to do with the Nationalists (who fled to Taiwan when they lost the civil war to the Communists).
Which region would that be?
Their military spending is less than France and Germany combined.
I believe that’s the play EU and NATO is going for. Putin made a mistake so obvious and of such magnitude that the western powers decided to go for the jugular. The risk is of course that it doesn’t work, as it didn’t in Belarus. We’re facing Cold War remastered in that case.
Sorry to be brass, but why would NATO support Ukraine? Its not a strategy ally. There aren't any special resources there. I don't know why the US was tempting Ukraine to join NATO in the first place.
A major superpower decided to invade a sovereign country with absolutely no provocation with the goal of extending their borders. This isn't the first time this has happened, and it won't be the last. It shouldn't be allowed.
Let's be clear here as well. Russia is not the only country to have done this. Western countries have been just as guilty in the past.
This is false. NATO in 2008 invited Ukraine to join. This is the equivalent of Cuba inviting Russia to setup a military base on US borders. The US's reaction was to economically nuke Cuba.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
The USSR put missiles in Cuba, and got the US to agree not to invade and to withdraw missiles from eastern Europe.
We need to know about the parallel universe where the "NATO aggression" results in Russia agreeing not to invade Ukraine.
Well, after those countries became NATO countries their own militaries were NATO militaries, so of course NATO has a permanent military presence in those countries. Unless they totally demilitarised.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
This is on NATO's website from 2008 meeting. How is "welcomes" not be interpreted as an invitation?
Ok, there was the Bay of Pigs, but the US pulled out support at the last minute. Had they invaded Cuba we'd be using that as an example of where the US did the wrong thing by invading a sovereign country (there are other examples...FYI, I'm not American).
As I commented elsewhere, this is a 14 year old invitation.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8942780/
We didn't take up arms, we just starved Cuba to death and didn't give them access to modern medicine.
The document you linked clearly states that the US now recognizes this was a mistake.
"The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has informed the US Government that such activities violate international law and has requested that the US take immediate steps to exempt food and medicine from the embargo."
But your initial comment was if Ukraine provoked Russia, so you're going down a rabbit hole of history that has no bearing on this.
That's conspicuously not what happened with Ukraine. It could not be more not what happened with Ukraine.
Cuba makes no sense as an argument about current events, and if it did, one could have a conversation without random whatabouts.
I don't see the difference.
You don't see a difference in what caused the crisis, right, sure.
THEN what happened?
In both cases, there was precedent for violating sovereignty. Bay of Pigs with the US, and Crimea with Russia, among other things.
But the US agreed to not invade again, and Russia on the other hand...invaded.
Did the separatist movements start because of Russian agitation, or because of actions the government of Ukraine took? Is Ukraine targeting ethnic Russians in the Donbass region, or are they just attacking separatists, who maybe(?) happen to mostly be ethnic Russians? I'm having a hard time understanding the true history here.
> NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
The USA would be understanding of Mexico’s sovereignty and stand by while North Korea sends military aid to Mexico, installs their elite sons and daughters as board members of Mexico’s largest corporations, and blatantly strategizes who will become the “elected” leader of Mexico.
Perhaps you should take a hard look at the reality of what all powerful nations do when they feel threatened by their foes close to their borders. Ignoring it is at everyone’s peril.
AFAIK they are allowed to do that. And if they did, the USA should take a long hard look at itself and think why Mexico wanted to do it.
There, do you have any more strawmen for us to burn?
Yes.
Or, more realistically, China.
Is this supposed to be trap of some kind?
> Over the past two years, NATO member Turkey and Ukraine have bolstered defense industry ties, including an agreement by Turkish drone-maker Baykar to build a production facility near Kyiv for its popular Bayraktar TB2 drone. The Ukrainian government has also dubbed Turkey "one of its key economic partners."
https://www.dw.com/en/turkeys-intelligence-agency-abducts-ar...
To be determined. I surmise Ukraine will go the way of HK/Belarus and demonstrate that shitpost supremacy is not a counter to disproportionate military force. That getting drunk on propaganda manufactured and reinforced by liberal western media is ultimately going to trigger harsher reprisals and bloodier escalations. The alternative to Putin's quick "special operations" / decapitation strike is UKR cities getting shelled to rubble that we witness now. PRC will learn not to half measure in the name of cross strait "brotherhood", strategy can change but enduring geopolitical interests do not. We're now setup for an even bloodier resumption of Chinese civil war, and TWers will see the cost of porcupine strategy and prolonged insurgency and connect the dots of how much more hopeless doing so on an isolated island will be.
>What happens when Europe faced with the threat of a lack of energy going into next winter?
What's the sociopolitical aftermath of EU embracing migrants? People are fickle once policy touch their lives, it's much easier to turn on the gas spigot again, waive away sanctions, reduced promised military expenditures than to kick out already settled migrants. There's also Trump 2024.
What does this even mean?
You also have no idea what you're talking about, because HK was part of China (just a "special administrative region"), and Belarus isn't democratic and wasn't invaded by another country to get taken over. The situation in Ukraine is dramatically different. You're talking like Ukraine has lost the war and Taiwan is next, but, besides that you're being hyperbolic and, again have no idea what you're talking about, you're disregarding the reality that Russia cannot sustain this war either economically or by force in Ukraine (they may be able to take control of the country but won't be able to occupy it forever, there is way too much resistance) and that Taiwan will likely have more direct military support.
Ditto with TW who has UKR tier of military support on paper, i.e. help country defend itself, except it's significant easier for PRC to turn TW info a isolated failed state if the geopolitical calculus neccessitates it. The reality is it costs a lot to integrate these regions RU/PRC but little to spoil them. UKR lost the war the same way Afghanistan did, it won't be a normal country for generations.
It took 20yr to replace the Taliban with the Taliban and that was without much external meddling. How's Syria doing? This could very much turn into "Iraq for white people" and unlike Ukraine does not have strong internal race/religion animosity (well it kind of does, but those regions left in 2014) that can be harnessed to keep the pressure off the invaders and puppet government.
With the west providing the people of Ukraine with financial, material and ideological support this has the potential to become an incredibly bloody conflict. Ukraine is 40million people. If even 1/10th of that say fuck it that nation is a level of ungovernable that is hard to appropriately quantify. I don't think many people appreciate the kind of "once in generations" abyss eastern Europe is staring into.
Or I could just be wrong and Ukraine could roll over. After all they were ruled by Russia historically and it hasn't been that long. Time will tell.
edit: there is an inflow of Ukrainian male population into Ukraine. There is Foreign Legion now
> If Putin loses in Ukraine, could that also mean the end of his regime in Russia? The Russian people are standing up to him.
If we see a loss of Putin's power in Russia as the world and his own population lionizes against him, a botched Taiwanese invasion could lead to a similar outcome in China.
Lots of food to chew on for the strategists.
Also, I expect that the Chinese government has tighter control ("physically" and propaganda-wise) of their people than is the case in Russia. So I don't know that we'd see demonstrations or protests if China invaded Taiwan. Also I would guess that more people in China believe that Taiwan should be ruled by Beijing than people in Russia who believe Ukraine should be ruled by Moscow. Unfortunately I can't find polling numbers on this, which isn't surprising, as that data may not exist outside of some Chinese intelligence system.
I attended lectures taught by incredibly nationalistic professors with an almost religiously fervent level of support for the CCP's "triumph over the America and the world" (paraphrase, but true to the content). Most of the young folks either didn't care or harbored distrust. They told me corruption was rampant and people were bitter.
After the earthquake, people really hated on the CCP.
Anecdotal, but it really shaped my opinions.
Look at Hong Kong. They clearly hate it, but they can't do anything about it.
Assuming we are still in a world where pure madness is not an option (nukes), it is possible Putin will commit to a protracted occupation of Ukraine (years). The west has a, how to put it, a lack of consistent ability to pay attention to a drawn out occupation in a land far far away (that shit might as well be middle earth to us).
Putin has said in his own words that if Russia is to be left out of the world, then why should Russia care what the world thinks?
They will occupy Ukraine for years, maintain and build relations with Iran, Brazil, China, India. The west will go through its own turn over, Trump may run again in 2024. It could be years, the EU could turn right wing. Border states will have to stop being romantic and start really incorporating the half a million Ukrainians (soon to be more, Britain has already Brexited because their population will not tolerate migration. Watch how awful the reality of the refugee crisis will be).
It will be 2032, years later, with new government powers all over the world. It’ll be a changed world, but perhaps not as ‘green’ as people believe. India and China increase their energy demands and Russia is still there to provide it. Like the Taliban, the world may tire of them by then and capitulate. Now they own Ukraine, and have demonstrated an ability to survive isolation.
The game plan may not be shock and awe or nuclear destruction, but a true willingness to simply endure. We are buying the narrative that Putin has lost because the invasion is taking so long, but in reality the whole thing is supposed to be a long drawn out operation. We’ll be tired of hearing about Ukraine in month 2, 3, 4 …. we’ll be exhausted. Reddit front page will be back to mostly cat videos. The window of opportunity is really on Ukraine and the west to do something now, not Russia.
The UN can walk out of the chamber in protest, but cannot even ratify a modest peace keeping force. Not one country dare even send planes to create limited no fly zones over certain places, even Chernobyl. Most of us are not watching the poker hands carefully here. Just because you have two face cards to start with, doesn’t mean the flop won’t be a bunch of 2s and 7 of clubs. The flop is what’s going to get Zelinsky either killed in a air raid or exiled if he is smart.
The modern world is the slow apartheid state of Palestine, the silent destruction of Syria and Yemen, the ignored subjugation of Hong Kong, the forfeited Afghanistan to the Taliban, the tacit acceptance of Khosgi killing in an embassy. The occupation of Ukraine or the valiant liberation of a democratic state? Which of those two fits with all the others?
Europe sees a lot of parallels with what happend right before ww2 (germany taking a bite here and there; testing responses; extending influence and gathering resources)
couple of months of sanctions. Not sure how many russians will want to endure. Of course putin will try to turn it into some patriotic narative, but truth will spread. Holding ukrain will not be simple. People there have tasted freedom. It will not be so easy to feed government news to them.
On other hand every nation is born in blood and this is Ukraine's real birth. Likely the country will be smaller, lots of people will die, but this is the time it becomes a real nation(well it started in 2014). It is time to prepare for insurgency in the west Ukraine. It took Stalin 6 years to finish off UPA. But they were surrounded and without any help, plus they faced NKVD. Ukranian insurgency in the west with arms flowing through Carpathy will make Russian regret they were ever born. There will be nothing pretty about it.. but there will be no victory for the tsar this time.
They leveled Chechnya and finally had to cut a deal with Ramzan Kadyrov and his father to get him to switch sides in exchange for putting him in charge. I don't see a Kadyrov like figure popping up in Ukraine.
> this is Ukraine's real birth
Nestor Makhno would have probably disagreed with you.
But, hey, TIL: Makhno invented the Technical. Cool, thanks!
Yeah, Makhno was a really interesting guy.
Time will tell but much of the vaunted "Western" prosperity is a fading high from the now 70 year old post war era. It is not inevitable that America leads forever.
I wouldn't be too cocksure.
Also, things like population trends or nominal GDP are very changeable over the course of short decades. What matters is resources, land and will and unity of purpose.
I agree. At the same time, it seems fairly fundamental to me that people in a free functioning democratic society will always be more productive and able to outcompete those suffering under a dictatorship.
His victory is pyrric from a western, democratic point of view. From his point of view, it's a win - Russia is an authoritarian regime; the population (up to an extent) doesn't matter. People actually started to be jailed due to protesting already.
I don't think it's realistic that an insurrection will happen, but it'd be interesting to read opinions from Russian people.
afaik they were the first to burn in bombed convoy.
The absolute worst would be the continued escalation of economy warfare forcing China's hand in the conflict.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I believe Putin is delusional. Just trying to explain what appears to be his world view, based on his speeches and published articles.
What do you mean? You should have seen the surge of the Ukrainian culture in Ukraine after it westernized. After all, it's not the west that suppresses cultures in the region. If anything, it is the Russian regime.
So he doesn’t like the alleged “Ukrainization”, and certainly not an additional westernization (you know, with gay people and such).
That's a myth, a talking point in the Russian propaganda.
Everyone’s actions can be understood by realizing what they feel and believe. That doesn’t justify the actions, but it explains them. Trying to understand what Putin is about is important to making predictions about how he will react to possible courses of action from the rest of the world.
That's not all he wants. In the map[0] that Lukashenko accidentally(?) leaked today, Moldova is also marked for invasion.
[0] https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1573902/Lukashenko-bela...
Beliefs like that are not standalone, they fit into a belief system. You can’t overturn them unless you overturn the whole belief system. Seemingly absurd beliefs can come about by the psychological necessity of keeping the belief system consistent. Putin’s belief system probably was formed during his KGB time in the 70s and 80s, and has continued to develop and has become stronger and harder to change since then. He’ll be 70 in October, unlikely to fundamentally change his mind at that age.
Putin referred, in his war announcement speech, to the USSR as a historical Russia, and blamed it's leaders for allowing it to fall apart, implying that reversing that was among the goals of his efforts; his idea of the “Russian core” appears to be the union of former Soviet and Russian Imperial territory (possibly not including the North American holdings, but who really knows.)
Provided that the world continues to rally around Ukraine and gets critical supplies to the population centers they may avoid grievous additional losses, but Ukraine is unavoidably much worse off than it was pre-invasion.
The Ukrainian people also seem to have a strong will to build/rebuild and defend Ukraine so they are reliable partners unlike the cases we've seen in other countries.
Russia leaves Ukraine in defeat in at some point in the future. The question is largely how many innocent dead are left in the wake.
I suppose that a lot of the Russian elites, locked out of their wealth and prospects, would be more than happy to see and even effect a serious change of the leadership. I hope they have a fair chance.
A huge lot of non-elites would support that, too.
I don't think there's a single scenario where Russia wins.
Ukraine agreeing to the loan would mean agreeing to debt slavery.
Thinking like a person: no more wars in Europe.
https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/landmines-still-pose-th...
We now have the perfect excuse to unleash all the decades long pent up hate of Putins regime.
Ursula Von de Leyen seemed to capture the zeitgeist when she slipped up and said "Ukraine is part of us" or words to that effect. Attack on Ukraine is felt as an attack on the West .. even on the other side of the world.
Rebuilding infrastructure lost this week will take billions of dollars and years of time. Some displaced people won’t come back. More of both with every passing week of this tragedy. That’s completely discounting people who died.
Russian people, the normal citizens, also lost, and lost big. The currency and market sanctions have blown up savings and businesses basically overnight. Also, don’t forget that every other Russian family has Ukrainian relatives.
Germany took Poland to start WW2. Did Poland lose?
Kind of, yeah: After WW2, Poland was part of the Warsaw[1] Pact for forty years. And if Communism hadn't fallen, they'd still be.
___
[1]: The name becomes doubly ironic in this specific context.
* Saudi Arabia has consistently rebuffed Biden's calls to pump more oil [1]. Even after releasing oil from our strategic reserves, oil futures have jumped over 10% in a single day [2]. As discussed in the article, high prices only aid the Russian kleptocracy.
* In an attempt to appease Saudi Arabia, the US added more sanctions on Yemen, undoubtedly worsening the humanitarian disaster there [3].
* Similarly, China is propping up the major Russian exports of Wheat [4] and natural gas [5]. Again, to our detriment, under the consideration that wheat futures went up today (8% I think?).
[1] - https://www.axios.com/biden-drill-oil-saudi-arabia-energy-co...
[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-28/oil-stead...
[3] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/28/ukraine-russia-war-spil...
[4] - https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3168278/u...
[5] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-28/gazprom-p...
But I guess "green energy" is a "dirty librull" thing, so they can't get behind it even if it would dovetail with their foreign policy platform in other ways.
I mean, surely it is a massive disruption, but...<gestures vaguely at the Berlin airlift and currently ongoing LNG shipments to Europe>.
Saying the price will be huge - compared to what alternative right now? Are there really any costs that are not opportunity costs?
So he is mad, surrounded by yes-man with a populace that is used to being lied to all the time, used to the feeling that they know more than what is allowed to say publicly, you can read The Master and Margarita, written about hundred years ago, that describes this same exact feeling.
Ukrainians, in an act of fatal heroism will fight; all that gets bloody. Kiev stands; Russians will try to starve the city to death; won't let any humanitarian help into the city; West will try to not lose their cool about the atrocities; but then something happens; some image that just surpasses the cruel picture of war we already have; people in West will demand justice; it will be hard to be bystanders when millions of lives are at stakes so obviously. That will be on a Friday. On Sunday, we defconned our way back to the stone age; world population will be back to 500M to 1B within this year.
And a new world will be born.
Something is definitely not adding up.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-he-hasnt-dec...
A demented dictator with nukes?
Monkey's paw twists...
Ghosts of 1939, about which I’ve heard stories from my grandfather and was taught in history lessons, suddenly came to life just around the corner. The only consolation is that the west finally saw the Kremlin for what it always has been - a treacherous, lying dictatorship that seeks to enrich itself through any means and cannot be trusted.
Putin managed to do in a single week what multiple US presidents couldn’t in years - remilitarization of Germany. Also, he managed to get Scandinavia to join NATO and dismissed any ideas some countries might have had about leaving EU for decades.
Europe will pay a price which is unknown, but it is certain it will be huge. You just don’t quit drugs (cheap energy) in a week. There will be massive projects undertaken to public dismay.
Ukraine, unfortunately, cannot win - it already lost, even if Russian forces withdraw this instant. The question which remains is can Putin still win. He must be given an option, otherwise this ends really, really ugly.