The why it was possible in Chechnya is that the rebels have started fighting between themselves; specifically, the (older) Chechen traditionalist / nationalist faction was unhappy with the growing power of the (newer) Salafi fundamentalist faction.

Thus, Kadyrov - except back then it was Ahmad Kadyrov; Ramzan is his son and successor. As the Chief Mufti of Chechnya, he was one of the most powerful figures in the traditionalist camp, and one with the most to lose from Salafism gaining ground (traditional Chechen Islam is Sufi).

Ahmad Kadyrov was all in with the rebels during the first Chechen war, officially declaring it a jihad in his capacity as a mufti. Ramzan boasted of "killing his first Russian at 16" at the time. But by 1999, the Kadyrov clan decided that Salafis are more dangerous than Russians, and switched allegiance.

That is why Russia could install that puppet government relatively easily - because they had considerable local support: not just the Kadyrov clan, but numerous others aligned with it. Ukraine also has many potential collaborators, but mostly in the East, and they are already mostly in the separatist militias. I expect that Russia will recruit from those for its occupation administration.

There’s also the issue that Chechnya is about 2/3 the size of Donetsk, let alone comparing it to Ukraine as a whole.

I doubt Chechnya has the opportunity to be outfitted with a drone air force and TOW/MANPADS for any Ukrainian that wants them. Chechnya involved muslims. Ukrainians are far more European, yes that makes a difference.

Chechnya didn't have direct NATO border nations and supply lines.

I don't believe this to be the normal massive asymmetric difference in firepower if NATO arms the Ukrainians enough. IF they are given sufficient drones, I believe Ukraine could actually have a firepower and battlefield advantage.

Now, I don't know for sure NATO is going to commit to such supply. I think they'll be a bit more reserved, but the more weaponry Russia use, the more NATO will supply Ukraine. NATO may decided to supply just enough to bog down Russia but not hand Ukraine a rapid victory.

I 100% believe NATO could equip Ukraine with enough weapons for certain victory. It now comes down to whether NATO does that.

Missiles: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/03/03/ukrain...

Turkey is supplying new drones. I bet there are more on the way. Stingers and Polish MANPADS are being supplied.

These are the publicly announced numbers. Those numbers tell me NATO will supply ample weaponry.

Ukraine is a nation of 40,000,000 people. And they appear spoiling for a fight. How many of those would train to fight? 2 million? 5 million? 10 million? If Ukraine gets 1 million volunteers and full arms support from the West, Russia is doomed.

I'll be interested to see if female fighting units start getting news like in Kurdistan. If that happens, Russia is in deep trouble.

> Ukrainians are far more European, yes that makes a difference

There’s also a gigantic diaspora: I had no idea I knew so many Ukrainians. Also the amount of posts on LinkedIn where people point out some portion of their dev team is in Ukraine, and now some Product Manager in Spokane is all in on supporting Ukraine because his front-end guy is in a bunker

My wife is in a similar position here in Oregon. Two of her direct reports are Ukrainian, and one just took a leave of absence that wasn't explicitly "I'm off to defend my homeland," but it wasn't explicitly not that, either.

> Ukraine because his front-end guy is in a bunker

Those are two very different fronts. How grim.

> I 100% believe NATO could equip Ukraine with enough weapons for certain victory

Also curious to know how many unofficial troops from NATO countries show up. Russia’s neighbours aren’t fans, and bored Slav, Baltic, and Scandi kids who did military service and wanna be heroes showing up in great numbers isn’t outside the realm of possibility

And since Chechnya was mentioned, I recall the war nerd discussing that if there's a conflict with Russia, there is the possibility that Chechens show up.

And he emphasized: They are BADASSES. Apparently they were winning the war with Russia until Russia cut a "Red Wedding" deal with the non-muslim contingent of the Chechen resistance. I believe Chechens were in ISIS/Syria and were basically the most effective soldiers.

As you said this could become a perverse version of ISIS: a call to arms to anyone that wants a piece of Russia, from bored teenagers to other conflict regions.

Maybe it's been sufficiently long that those soldiers have finally aged out, or maybe they haven't.

If Ukraine/NATO really is offering 45000 Euros in bitcoin per Russia soldier that surrenders for POW status, then they would probably provide pay to experienced anti-Russia fighters.

If you are a -stan with issues with Russia, then this is a golden opportunity: a possible "death blow" to Russia militarily and economically, possibly cause regime change, and possibly destroy any appetite for war by oligarchs and people in Russia.

The announced figure the other day was 16000. That's two to three days after the request. It's being connected via reddit[0] and other platforms (which can be found from Reddit).

[0] https://reddit.com/r/volunteersforukraine

> 16000

That's about two infantry divisions - not to be sneezed at.

> NATO may decided to supply just enough to bog down Russia but not hand Ukraine a rapid victory.

If you read a bit more of ACOUP, it's clear that the only path to a "rapid victory" is a set battle against the Russian armed forces, resulting in a decisive defeat for Russia. Even with copious supplies from the west, Ukraine simply couldn't do that. Even if NATO decided to pile in with divisions and air-cover, a rapid victory seems unlikely.

> IF they are given sufficient drones, I believe Ukraine could actually have a firepower and battlefield advantage.

The Turkish drones seem to be wreaking havoc on Russia already.

I think I read an assessment that mobilization of the population would yield 900.000 fighters.

It's not an apples to apples comparison.

Chechnya population in 1992 was about 800,000. Ukraine has a population of 41,000,000.

Chechnya did not receive military or humanitarian aid, and if it did, it was not as substantial as what Ukraine is receiving now. Ukrainian allies are supplying fuel, food, vehicles, weapons, training, volunteers, humanitarian aid, intelligence, etc.

Russia back then was not sanctioned economically to the extent we see today or kicked out of the banking system. For example, the Soviet Union had banks in the SWIFT system. Now, Russia has been completely isolated: Russian companies cannot do business internationally due to being unable to transfer money or process payments, the value of Russian company stocks has gone to zero, their stock exchange ceased operations (temporarily), their population are doing bank runs, their currency is worth nothing and its economy is expected to collapse soon.

And, unlike Russian equipment where most of the equipment spending has been diverted to corrupt endeavors, Ukrainian military equipment works. Most Russian military equipment now doesn't meet their own specifications.

I agree Ukraine will be a much tougher situation for Russia to conquer and hold onto, but you also exaggerate the extent of their economic pain:

> Now, Russia has been completely isolated: Russian companies cannot do business internationally due to being unable to transfer money or process payments, the value of Russian company stocks has gone to zero, their stock exchange ceased operations (temporarily), their population are doing bank runs, their currency is worth nothing and its economy is expected to collapse soon.

Russian companies can do business with the world outside the "West", notably China, which is already a voracious consumer of Russian raw materials. The stocks that crashed to zero are the ones listed in Western stock exchanges, not the ones in Russia itself. Yes, the currency has halved, but it has done so many, many times before since 1990. So while the economy will certainly take a beating, it's not going to "collapse" entirely.

My predictions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine:

1. Water flow through the North Crimean Canal is restored.

2. Kyiv is surrounded from all directions. Ukranian president dies in combat.

3. Odessa is surrounded from the north, then the Russian navy attacks it from the Black sea. Population is forced to evacuate.

4. Donetsk and Luhansk become fully annexed by Russia.

5. Kharkiv is surrounded from all directions.

6. Russian economy collapses. Putin's key supporters turn against him and stage a coup.

7. Ukraine negotiates a ceasefire, then joins the European Union.

8. Unless Ukraine signed a peace treaty granting territory to Russia, Russia will be forced to give up all annexed territories.

> Donetsk and Luhansk become fully annexed by Russia.

It's always possible, but Russia started the war by recognizing their independence from Ukraine. This is the kind of thing that would happen after the war concluded ("we held a referendum and they decided to rejoin Russia"); it'd be kind of strange during a war the purpose of which is to grant them independence.

Donetsk and Luhansk already held referendums, but they were considered fraudulent.

> Ukranian president dies in combat.

That presupposes that he joins the armed forces; at the moment, he is a non-combatant. If he is shot, that would make him a victim of assassination, not a combat casualty.

> Ukraine negotiates a ceasefire, then joins the European Union.

Wooh! Just join! It takes a while to join the EU. Ask Turkey.

Would be nice if the EU sped up the accession of whatever is left of Ukraine after this war, if only to protect it from further Russian imperialism.

That said, I sadly doubt Ukraine will survive this ordeal.

> That said, I sadly doubt Ukraine will survive this ordeal.

Well, not if Russian and Ukrainian diplomats can get it together and see this conflict to a amicable conclusion. Ceasefire has to be top priority for the Ukrainian diplomats (as in, liberally accept conditions that stops the war). Whatever the new arrangement for the two countries look like will also probably take weeks, if not months, to draft up and agree to.

With their risky foreign policy, NATO dared Russia, and they called their bluff on it. It is time to accept that Russia didn't hesitate, and it'd be very prudent to move to limit the damage instead. That is, NATO should refrain from making matters worse by feeding the war, as it were, by arming Ukraine's civilians and sanctioning Russian business interests, among other things.

China isn't siding with NATO, and so far, India hasn't too (it may not, since in the century gone by, Russia has bailed out India in multiple wars against CENTO / US-aided Pakistan).

In sum, this is a dangerous enough situation to escalate any further as the West has done, even if without sending its military.

The EU is an economic union, not a military union. It's not in a position to protect anyone from military threats.

I happen to believe that Russia has over-reached itself rather badly; they aren't administering any of the territory they've got troops in, including the single city they've overrun (it's being administered by the incumbent mayor). Most of their supply columns seem to be bogged down, either by resistance or by mud. The best troops they have are paras in the south, and mercenaries around Kiev. Both groups have so far failed to achieve their objectives. The rest seem to be demoralised conscripts.

You use conscripts and mercenaries as cannon-fodder at the front of your attack; I imagine Russia will bring up better equipped and trained troops once they have suppressed Ukrainian air defences, and can provide close air support.

I think it's going to be long and nasty.

The European Union is a federation of countries and they do have the equivalent of a department of defense among other institutions.

In Ukraine, once the supply lines are cut, the main cities may fall. Once one city falls, the invaders will move on to other cities and start an avalanche effect.

Only some Russian banks have been cut off from SWIFT, not all, and their currency has only dropped 30% or so, which is far from being “worth nothing”.

Yes, Russia’s economy is being severely crippled. But you exaggerate the extent significantly.

Exactly zero russian banks have been cut off from SWIFT so far. The cut will only happen on March 12th.

Source: SWIFT itself. https://www.swift.com/news-events/news/message-swift-communi...

Indeed. So I should have said only some Russian banks are even going to be cut off from SWIFT (at least as far as we know now).

are there citations for the assertions about military equipment status?

I can't be bothered to look it up but Ukraine has spent a lot of time and money refurbishing their army after the 2014 crisis (where their army performed poorly against the separatists and Russians).

It's not "modern", but it is functional.

Kadyrov, a puppet? Russia was badly losing a war, and only managed to achieve peace by siding with one of the feuding clans and paying exorbitant tribute to it.

Kadyrov is totally uncontrollable, makes outrageous criminal statements, yet the Kremlin can't do anything to him because he has a very big private army. Chechen operatives act all over the country and are basically untouchable, kidnapping people even from the police custody without repercussions.

Checnya is less than 2 million people and less than 20k square kilometers.

Ukraine is 20 times larger. It is impossible for the Russian forces to hold by force, the population should agree to it or a puppet regime ia installed that is accepted by the population.

Now holding the east part, that seems reasonably easy, and to me it's clearly the end goal, the rest is just putting yourself inal a strong negotiating stance.

> Now holding the east part, that seems reasonably easy, and to me it's clearly the end goal

Judging from what Putin has actually said, the end-goal is much more expansive than that. I believed that a couple of weeks ago; but recent comments to the effect that Ukraine is a bogus state have changed my mind.

he said that, but I would rather believe that is a negotiation tactic than an actual aim.

Recognising chunks of Ukraine as "independent republics" and then moving troops in isn't a negotiating tactic. Encircling the capital isn't a negotiating tactic.

Macron said yesterday that Putin's end goal is to conquer all of Ukraine, not just the east.

That’s what Putin said, so you can just disregard that.

What motive would Putin have to tell Macron that he is more greedy than he actually is?

We know he hates to look weak, so if he "settles" for eastern Ukraine after saying that, he's going to look weak.

Russia _did_ have a puppet in Ukraine, but he was ousted in a populist uprising in 2014.