As someone living on the eastern NATO border this has been a most interesting week. In the Chinese proverb way.
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.
I've barely followed what's going on in the conflict, but I think some regions of Eastern Ukraine are the insurgents with respect to the Ukraine government. So in their case perhaps they've had the time for the past years and finally Ukraine's watches are winding down there. Great proverb.
Then maybe you should go bone up on what has happened in the last week or so before commenting? Things have moved quite a bit compared to the state that you describe, to put it very mildly.
No I know enough to know about the separatist regions, if not by propaganda then by actual action because western governments have begun to scrutinize business dealings with entities in those separatist regions, not just Russia. If everybody had to be actual experts in something before commenting on it here, there would be zero comments about any Russia/Ukraine story.
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.
So you're unable to even point out what part of my comment was not correct or outdated. Doesn't sound like you actually even know. Maybe you should take your own advice with respect to commenting then.
It reads as though you completely missed the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine and that therefore the situation you describe is technically correct but taken as a fragment of the whole currently utterly irrelevant.
I can't help that you "read" something I did not write, and can not follow the context of the discussion.
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.
Ok. I found it hard to imagine, but I know one other person that was quite literally so out of touch that he had missed the last week so it was for me at least plausible.
Kyivindependent is a news agency hosted in Kyiv, they are obviously pro Ukraine, at the same time I've been reading their stuff for the last couple of days and if the news is bad for their side they report it straight. I'd give them a chance.
All the Russian speaking Ukrainians are pro Ukraine and want the Russians out. So how likely do you think it is that those regions are really separatist?
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)
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.
Good luck finding video on YouTube favorable to any Russian viewpoints. “The media” is cultivated to display or at least promote the main narrative of the US policymakers.
> All the Russian speaking Ukrainians are pro Ukraine and want the Russians out.
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?
> All the Russian speaking Ukrainians are pro Ukraine and want the Russians out
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.
Ukraine has the time, in the sense that each day that the Russian army is delayed there are more chances that someone in Russia will decide to get rid of Putin. This is roughly what happens to every dictator that doesn't know when to stop, and usually dictators are so much self confident that they soon lose any contact with reality. Putin has gone too far and now he can't withdraw because that would be his political death, and can't drag things for too long because of the above reason, therefore he hopes to bring Ukrainians to their knees as quick as possible, but that can't be achieved without hitting indiscriminately lots of civilians, therefore no matter how it ends, he's already fucked.
Also, he presumably knows all skeletons in the closet kept by the oligarchs, so it's very likely that if an international arrest warrant is issued, he'll rather be executed in Russia than surrendered.
This perspective seems to be incredibly optimistic. Oil-rich dictators can live a long time, even as they drive their countries to ruin. I don't know that there is much of a power base against him, and he still seems to have broad support from the populace (which might or might not matter).
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.
That is wishful thinking. Despite the initial blunders, Russia is advancing in Ukraine at the same pace Germany was in Poland. And it's unlikely they'll get worse as time goes on (the Wehrmacht in its time used Poland to massively improve their operational readiness). Dictators in times of war, in countries subjected to isolation, tend to stick around. And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change.
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.
Russia can and in a way has won 'stage 1', the quick advance. But now they have to keep it, supply their troops and maintain presence and that is a very expensive operation in a country that really doesn't want you. Extra hard when it's cold you have no food and you're running out of fuel. Vehicles are being abandoned and there is plenty of evidence for self sabotage.
Contradicting stories about that, some say that deal fell through, which given the publicity they initially attached to it makes it seem as though that was conditional on something, which I have no idea about.
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.
> Ever wonder why Zelensky is asking the civilians to fight?
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.
> 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.
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.
Hey I personally know Ukrainians, also those with a military background. And I can tell you, you are full of shit.
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.
You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about so I'll just stop responding but just know that I got a good chuckle out of this comment because of the incredible disconnect between the situation as it is and your view of it.
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
Because "That's why the West staged a coup" is also a lie. Ukrainians want to join EU. And if you wonder why, read some history.
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.
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?'
You and the parent comment are operating on totally different time scales.
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.
Poland is also a good reference point for the argument you're making. They had a long lasting resistance movement, hundreds of thousands of diehard fighters. Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence. As for material support, it assumes both ability and willingness on the part of sympathizers. The ability might be gone were the Baltics or Finland be invaded, and the willingness might vanish when the war takes a sufficiently heavy toll.
>Yet it had to wait until 1989 for any sort of independence.
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?
> And even then, the absence of Putin doesn't mean the general trajectory of Russia would change.
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.
The mujahideen also had the mountains of Afghanistan. Anyone who is under the illusion that Ukraine can mount a similar insurgency to the afghans has not studied much history.
"Russia would need significantly more ground forces to conquer Ukraine — far more than the current 3.4 Russian soldiers per 1,000 Ukrainian citizens. The force ratios in successful operations are astronomically higher, such as 89.3 troops per 1,000 inhabitants in Germany (1945), 17.5 in Bosnia (1995), 9.8 in East Timor (2000), and 19.3 in Kosovo (2000). High numbers of troops and police are critical to establish basic law & order. In fact, the number of Russian soldiers in Ukraine aren’t even enough to hold any major cities for long. They will be in serious danger of being picked apart by Ukrainian insurgents.
Yes, I agree. It really is a shame that Ukraine doesn’t have an 8,700ft, 1,100 mile long mountain range cutting through the western side of the country. Oh wait, never mind, it does.
As much as I wish that were true, you are plain wrong.
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.
Interesting. Do you think Soviets soldiers had a lot in common with the Afghan mujahideen? What comparisons would you make with the Russians now fighting Ukrainians?
Or drive there, the number of Javelins and RPGs in circulation handily outnumbers the number of tanks and armored vehicles. It would be like driving into a meatgrinder.
Or fly for that matter, with all the Stingers. I can't imagine flying some expensive attack helicopter, and at any time some Volodymyr can pop out behind a corner with a Stinger and a finger on the trigger.
As far as I know, no Scandinavian country has joined NATO recently. Yes, there are discussions in Sweden, and even more in Finland, but that is not the same as actually applying for a membership. Such things take time.
And I am not quite so sure about Ukraine being already lost.
I understand that and you’re of course right. This has been perhaps unwarranted hyperbole on my part. The fact is though, this topic was basically inexistent in any public discourse anywhere and as good as unthinkable. It isn’t anymore and that in itself is a tectonic shift.
Sorry that you're being downvoted for an unpopular take.
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.
There a lots of these articles now on why it is really the west's fault for not giving Putin whatever he wanted. This is deeply disrespectful to the Ukrainian people fighting a defensive war against a brutal dictator that kills his own people without second thoughts.
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.
The involvement of the west was questionable. Ukraine had a revolution that purged a pro-Russian government. The west should never have been involved after the government changed. Because now the obvious accusation is that it facilitated that change and some leaked info from the Bush government could very well hint at that as they wanted to influence who would become part of a new government. That would not be unusual for the US, on the contrary it is pretty much by the playbook of facilitated regime changes.
And such influence is certainly not in the interest of the people that primarily rose up against corruption.
This reads more like an unsourced, conspiratorial rant than an educated analysis of NATO expansion.
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.
Thank you for a well thought out response. As I understand it, the LPR and DPR were actually funded by Russia to prolong instability in Ukraine. One of the reasons for that was because NATO wouldn't want to admit a country currently in conflict and that would suit Russia's interests.
I'm not sure Theresa May gets any real credit for Brexit as a concept. She didn't campaign for it; she was just daft enough to think anyone could negotiate something that satisfied the multitude of unworkable or contrasting promises.
> she was just daft enough to think anyone could negotiate something that satisfied the multitude of unworkable or contrasting promises
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.
I'm a bit annoyed that people say 52% is "the electorate said...", and the referendum was non-binding, the government could've said "OK, but here are the effects of Brexit and why we're not going to proceed...".
It's easy to forget, but the last 2 elections were based on getting Brexit done. The first one did not go terribly well for Theresa May, the second went well for Boris. The difference was the leader of the party - the policies were not radically different to a layman. It's hard to see it as more than a popularity contest.
Wouldn’t have changed anything, except perhaps May would have been removed sooner and Johnson would have been made leader to fight and win the 2017 GE. There’s no way the Tories could have ignored the referendum results.
> Let’s not steal the credit from Boris Johnson and Theresa May for that.
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.
In the post WW2 era, the Allies pulled together to institute the Marshall Plan which rebuilt Europe's infrastructure and led to diplomatic alliances to deter expansion of the Iron Curtain.
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?
"Ukraine, unfortunately, cannot win - it already lost, even if Russian forces withdraw this instant."
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.
I think people are underestimating Putin and Russia. This is a regime willing to poison dissidents in foreign countries with nerve gas and radioactive isotopes. If you think Russia won’t bring that heavy hand to Ukraine you’re kidding yourself.
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.
indeed.. I think there is a chance Europe will offer air support in Ukraine, and get drawn into this conflict, and thus be at war with Russia. which will mean EU, USA, UK, CAN, AUS .. will be at war with Russia. ie. WWIII.
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 ?
> I think there is a chance Europe will offer air support in Ukraine
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.
> They are now going to deliver some Migs to the Ukrainian army
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.
Nothing - as in literally nothing - is worth seriously risking nuclear conflict. I can’t believe intelligent people are even entertaining this thought. The war is a travesty of the highest order, but I fear an existential threat to the West far, far less than the extinguishing of human civilization. Even the worst authoritarian empires, on a multi-generational timescale, can be outlasted. Nuclear war cannot.
If the risk is too high, no it is not, almost tautologically so. If nothing is left of humanity but a smoldering crater, then democracy is, and always has been, entirely meaningless. And the survivors (if any) would never forgive us.
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.
Rule by a dictatorial kleptocracy renders humanity entirely meaningless. We must always fight against dictatorship and must never let it win. Better dead than yield to dictatorship.
It renders humanity less meaningful for a temporary period of time. Empires and regimes always dissipate eventually. Nuclear annihilation renders humanity meaningless forever. It is an unfathomably selfish preference, especially given that countless humans with meaningful lives have lived under kleptocratic dictatorships. I do not consent to be part of your death wish.
(But I do desperately hope and pray that Ukraine somehow manages to beat Russia back without massive loss of life.)
So "serious" = "high"? Yeah, then of course I agree. The trouble is only determining is the risk high/serious or not.
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.
well this is what Putin is gambling on - that he is willing to go closer to the nuclear brink and thus will win. That was true a month ago, I'm not sure its true today.
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.
Along with others here, I'm questioning your "Ukraine...cannot win" comment.
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?
> I wonder if they have given China extra pause in their stance toward Taiwan.
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.
> 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.
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 world would react differently to a CCP invasion of Taiwan for sure, but not in the way you imply. It would be a full scale war against US, Japan, Australia, UK at least right away. With the current president, being a democratic country the US people can of course choose an isolationist president and change their policies.
In the same way that the North’s claim on the US South is valid. Mainland China is the Confederacy. Taiwan is the Union. Taiwan and the North were the original governments.
Taiwan was a frontier until the Nationalists, losing the civil war to the Communists, fled there. Taiwan has never been the government of China. Are you saying the Nationalists were the original government of China? They didn't exist as a party until the 20th century and didn't last as a party in mainland China past 1949.
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'.
> Taiwan's claim on China is more valid - after all, they are the original China unspoiled by the demon of communism.
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).
> 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?
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.
> probably because they believed that Russia would easily walk over Ukraine
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.
I didn't say NATO, I said "the west", but you're right, I probably should have said "the world" or something else.
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.
No, NATO didn't invite Ukraine to join. Ukraine wanted to join but NATO didn't reach unanimous decision to allow Ukraine to join. Back then Germany voted against Ukraine joining, out of consideration for Russias interests. Since then, there was no new movement for a NATO membership. And again, during the last minute diplomatic efforts, the German chancellor very clearly offered to Putin, that the question of an Ukrainian NATO membership would be decided quite far into the future. So there was no actual thread of a NATO membership - any claims of that were just a made-up reason by Putin.
Also, while a lot of former Warshaw Pact countries did join the NATO, the NATO didn't install a permanent military presence in those countries.
> Also, while a lot of former Warshaw Pact countries did join the NATO, the NATO didn't install a permanent military presence in those countries.
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.
Well, yes, it is an invitation. But NATO didn't let the Ukraine join, that was blocked by at least Germany. And on during his visit in Moscow, Chanceller Scholz basically offered Putin that Ukraine joining into NATO could be very far in an undetermined future.
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.
Though I am aware of the blockade (I'm not American), I was not aware of the humanitarian crisis it caused.
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.
You are not correct when you say “without provocation”. The UKR government had been assaulting its own ethnically-Russian citizens in Donbass four 8 years. Russia went in to stop that. There are many journalistic documents that prove those societies.
I'm not sure what to believe anymore, honestly. Certainly there has been military action between Kyiv and the separatists. But there's been so much anti-Ukraine propaganda coming out of Russia in the past 8 years, plus what seems to be questionable or incomplete reporting from Western outlets, that it's hard to know where the truth is.
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.
With neighbors like Ukraine has article 5 is the obvious temptation, USA didn't have to do anything. Believe it or not Ukrainians can have their own opinions and not everything they do is because of they are pawns
I can't help but read that as you acknowledging Ukraine deserves some of the guilt of wanting to join NATO instead of just the USA's fault, which is definitely not what I meant. Russia is the lone guilty party in this invasion, or more specifically Putin, I feel pretty awful for the poor soldiers who are getting killed in foreign land or forced to play role of occupier to hostile locals. People who understand his concerns about NATO are people who have bought his lies.
Mostly the fault of the USA. But lets not forget the ridiculous scale and number of military interventions Cubas worldwide. They were hardly an innocent bystander during the cold war but a very active opponent.
In what ways was the US tempting Ukraine to join NATO? Because NATO expansionism is the core of Russia's propaganda, along with other non-sense like clearing the country of Jewish Nazism.
So Ukraine says "hey, we think we probably want to join NATO". And NATO responds "cool, that sounds good", and... so what? Ukraine is a sovereign nation and should be allowed to ally itself with whatever country or group it wants to. Perhaps Russia should take a hard look at why Ukraine didn't feel that allying with Russia would be in their best interests?
So, Mexico is a sovereign nation and should be allowed to ally with North Korea or Iran, right?
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.
I have been wondering the same thing; what was the trigger? Maybe new ties to Turkey:
> 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."
Russia Annex Crimea in response to that in 2012. Russia's power and economy is weakening. They needed time to prepare their forces and complete their Crimea annexation. We also had COVID in 2019-2022.
>given hope to other regions and countries that may come under threat in the future.
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.
> I surmise Ukraine will go the way of HK/Belarus and demonstrate that shitpost supremacy is not a counter to disproportionate military force.
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.
It means there is IMO collective delusion on UKR chances of "winning" due to manufactured misinfo landscape in western filter bubbles. By winning I define as UKR remaining a viable state with semblance of domestic serenity in face of RU pursing long broadcasted security interests. RU may not achieve it's OG strategic goals but it can ensure UKR regress and stay a collapsed buffer state with relatively minimal intervenion indefinitely. Which is still better than West leaning UKR long term.
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.
That's a reasonable take. But on the other hand...
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.
How Taliban's Afghanistan and Syrian clusterfuck doing is precisely the right question. UKR "winning" = potentially decades as a collapsed state, which RU would rather have than UKR embracing west / replacing RU as gas station of EU. And with respect to RU and NATO / west EU, we're early days and have not seen RU responding to EU economic warfare and direct military support. RU unable to respond in kind doesnt mean they won't do so proportionally in other realms like cyber that makes EU lose proportionally less than RU but in aggregate more. Things can get a lot uglier for everyone now that bottom is out, I think we're on verge of entering territory of total non-kinetic warfare.
they already had a couple of revolutions when elections got rigged. now, based on what i am reading, even people that were pro-russian forever, after all the shelling hate russia with passion. it's will be much more than 1/10th
edit: there is an inflow of Ukrainian male population into Ukraine. There is Foreign Legion now
> 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.
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.
More likely, to me, is that China will see what did and didn't work with Russia's invasion or Ukraine, and take those learnings when they go for Taiwan. I unfortunately don't see Taiwan's position getting better because of any of this.
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.
A key difference is that Chinese citizens, soldiers, and leaders won’t lionize against the state. Nationalism is total. But no doubt China is taking notes.
Last time I was there (in college during Obama's presidency), most of the students I got close to secretly told me they disliked their leaders but couldn't do anything about it.
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.
Actually, it's Putin who cannot win. Even if he threw everything he had and managed to occupy a country of 44 million people, second largest in Europe by landmass - he wouldn't be able to hold it. That would require the kind of resources he doesn't have. Also the minute he withdraws, which is just a matter of time, ukrainians will kill his puppet government and take their country back. So yeah, Ukraine will suffer major losses, but ultimately time is on their side.
I hope the records of which citizens were given arms, will be destroyed before falling into Russian hands, and that people manage to hide those arms well.
“He must be given an option, otherwise this ends really, really ugly.”
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.
Very well written, I have similar weird feeling that the start of this war was important point in multiple plans which were designed for years and meant to be realized for decades and in the end can result in totally different world than we have now.
Who won and lost is not clear. West always writes Russian's off too early. They did subjugate Chechnya. In fact they were so effective that now their shock troops in Ukraine are Chechens.
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 did subjugate Chechnya. In fact they were so effective that now their shock troops in Ukraine are Chechens
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.
I think you could even argue that the 2nd Hetman constituted a Ukrainian state with some sense of a separate Ukrainian identity (Russian officer corps aside). I'm not really making any statement here about the situation prior to WWI, as I'm way less familiar. I'm only pointing out that there existed the idea of a Ukranian state made of Ukranian people prior to the dissolution of the USSR.
Any victory Putin has will be entirely phyrric. The west are determined to inflict severe economic damage on Russia. Which considering they represent about 50% of global GDP they are well capable of doing. Putin's reached the point of desperation where's he's hinting at using Nuclear weapons. That of course will never happen, the generals will put a bullet in him before they let him destroy their country.It almost feels like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, they roused a sleeping giant in the form of the USA which went on to crush them. This time round the sleeping giant is the EU and they're going to flatten Russia economically.
In the long run present day nominal GDP doesn't matter. For example, after world war I Germany had a very bad economic situation. Land, natural resources and culture matter. Russia is the largest country on Earth. China is the largest population and largest economy. India is a close second. The fact is Eurasia does not need the North Atlantic Empire.
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.
> It is not inevitable that America leads forever.
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.
At this point, Putin will likely achieve his goals regarding Ukraine (which I can’t imagine he’ll ever be willing to give up) in the near term, at huge human and economic cost, unless (a) NATO decides to step in after all (unlikely), in which case all bets are off, or (b) China decides to join the West in opposing Russia (quite unlikely, they don’t have much reason to), or (c) Putin is overturned from within Russia (also unlikely it seems to me). The situation is pretty much doomed to get uglier and to remain ugly for quite some
time.
The diplomatic channels are still open. Let's see if a miracle comes off it. I'm optimistic since there's not much left for Putin to prove. Europe is terrified and has wisely chosen to not engage with the Russian military.
The absolute worst would be the continued escalation of economy warfare forcing China's hand in the conflict.
Putin wants Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine (Great Russia, White Russia, and Little Russia) unified, to restore the Russian empire and to reunify the Russian people. This is not about proving something, it’s to restore historic justice and to undo the humiliation and tragedy of Russia’s breakup over 30 years ago, in the eyes of Putin. His legacy depends on it, and also he believes that if it doesn’t happen soon, then it will become impossible, because of the cultural contagion of the West. That possibility is something Putin can’t stomach, and preventing it is worth a lot of Russian hardship to him.
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.
It’s more about identity than about ego, I’d say. If Russia isn’t Russia anymore, if a large part (or, worse, all) of it gets westernized, if the Russian culture seemingly erodes, Putin’s life will turn out to have been meaningless. His self-worth is irreversibly tied to it. That’s why authoritarian leaders are generally unable to say “oh, I guess I was wrong after all”.
> If Russia isn’t Russia anymore, if a large part (or, worse, all) of it gets westernized, if the Russian culture seemingly erodes
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.
From his article https://web.archive.org/web/20220227090945/http://en.kremlin...:
“The localization policy undoubtedly played a major role in the development and consolidation of the Ukrainian culture, language and identity. At the same time, under the guise of combating the so-called Russian great-power chauvinism, Ukrainization was often imposed on those who did not see themselves as Ukrainians. This Soviet national policy secured at the state level the provision on three separate Slavic peoples: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian, instead of the large Russian nation, a triune people comprising Velikorussians, Malorussians and Belorussians.”
So he doesn’t like the alleged “Ukrainization”, and certainly not an additional westernization (you know, with gay people and such).
Of course! But my point is that Putin seems to truly believe in that portrayal. If you take what he writes in those essays and says in his speeches at face value, then you can see why he takes the actions he does.
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.
Hey, it was just a funny take on the parent "from Putin's point of view". I think the guidelines about snark and sarcasm are about what you write in relation to other posters here, not Putin.
Oh I know, but I wasn't talking about the guidelines, just pointing out that a funny take doesn't make something less true, and undermines an important point. Also, I think snark and sarcasm should be allowed even towards other posters. It's healthier.
Why not leave it to Ukrainians to decide if they want to be reunited or not? Why does Putin believe it is right for him to make that choice for them? The fact that his army is actively bombing them makes this argument ridiculous.
Presumably it would be an impossible cognitive dissonance for him to acknowledge (to himself) that actually it would be justified for Ukrainians to turn their back from Russia and join the West. Those people must be misguided/contaminated or defectors, and surely those who can’t be turned back can only be a small minority.
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.
Not "not KGB", I think -- my guess would be that dude and his books and the KGB. From what I understand of their views, Dugin's fit in pretty well with the KGB's.
Is it really just those 3 that 2022 Putin wants back? The USSR had a number of republics bordering China that are now independent. Are those in his crosshairs as well?
I don’t think so, at least not necessarily, because they are not part of Russia’s historical core. He surely would like to have them back in Russia’s sphere of influence, but I don’t think they are essential to restoring Russia’s greatness. Ukraine is in another category.
> I don’t think so, at least not necessarily, because they are not part of Russia’s historical core.
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.)
Putin is referring a lot to pre-Soviet Russia in his elaborations. My impression is that his aspirations are more about tsarian Russia than about Soviet Russia.
Care to elaborate on what "Ukraine has already lost" means? Is joining the EU the loss? I would assume that if Russia withdrew this instant, Ukraine would likely survive this. No?
Even if the war ended right now, Ukraine has hundreds of thousands of refugees to move and shelter, huge amounts of destroyed infrastructure to repair and work around, most of their army expended, and a lot of civilian losses. They also won't get Crimea back, and they probably can't hold onto the separatist regions either.
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.
I think that if Russia pulls back its troops Ukraine has a bright future. Even if Crimea and the other two regions are lost it will receive more investment than it would have received otherwise. Both the EU and the US want Ukraine to become a succesful EU country.
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.
The US couldn't manage to wipe out the Taliban in Afghanistan, nor prop up its replacement for more than a couple of weeks after two decades of preparation and $2.3 trillion in investment. Ukraine's insurgency would be supplied by allies with deep pockets and modern tech; Russia's occupation would be funded by a sanctioned Russia and the same army that's already struggling to meet their objectives in the early stages.
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.
my pet theory that they can't leave ukraine right now because they are stuck. totally messsed up logistics. this giant convoy could run out of supplies/fuel. they maybe literally can't drive out. ukranian drones started to blow up trains with fuel inside russia yesterday and belorusian partisans started to screw with train system in belorussia (for real, they demolished a bunch of control equipment centers. trains can't go anywhere).
their communication is shit (https://twitter.com/sbreakintl/status/1498619303717142529?s=...) and some of them simply can't reach command center to get orders
With a change of the regime in Kremlin, it's quite imaginable.
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.
I am worried they might create an uninhabitable belt on the western borders of Western Ukraine by nuking it with 10-100kT tactical nukes as they don't really care about people of Lviv and around and that would solve also their Polish "friendship" problem. A similar strategy was planned by French in the case of a war with USSR, nuking Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, so that the USSR army couldn't pass to Western Europe. I think all options are on the table, unfortunately.
They don’t. They’ll happily raze everything just so Ukrainians can’t defend. Then they’ll equally happily lend money on good interest so they can rebuild.
If history taught me anything, a retreating army will destroy everything around them just to damage their enemy and make their life hell. Imagine if Russian troops just flood Ukraine with land mines, it would take decades to make the country safe again. It’s been 30 years and Croatia is still riddled with land mines.
The wider West is only too happy to pay the price of accommodating refugees and reducing fossil fuel dependency .. and may even be happy to risk all out nuclear war to defend our "way of life" and liberal freedoms.
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.
Oh, it will survive. Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Iraq, Crimea, etc., they all survived. But…
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.
I think you're saying that Ukraine has lost the battle, but I'm saying they can still win the war. Virtually every country in Europe has had to undergo post-war reconstruction at some point in its history. I don't think that means they lost. They're still there, after all.
But lost I mean opportunity cost of waging war (yes I know it isn’t a choice) is devastating. It sets them back 20 years. Basically a generation of development has been lost.
It sounds cheesy, but if they're still a country and have allies and citizens who believe in their future, I don't consider that a loss. A loss would be if the dust settles and, for one reason or another, Ukraine is not recognized as a country anymore (either because Russia declares them as theirs and the rest of the world just forgets about it, or because they simply can't sustain themselves anymore).
Germany took Poland to start WW2. Did Poland lose?
Inversely, I'm concerned that it's strengthening relations among Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China. In the worst case, this is barreling towards a Cold War 2.0 where nations throw humanity out the window for political leverage:
* 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?).
This is the thing that drives me nuts about people in my country (USA). Especially the conservatives, those who buy the "America First" line and think we should be more isolationist. Embracing alternative (which usually ends up being renewable) energy sources seems like a no-brainer to reduce our dependence on the Saudis et al. Oil has given that region ridiculous amounts of geopolitical power.
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.
This development changes “transitory” inflation into a potential long term problem. Do not disregard that: inflation is what causes democracies to fail.
My predication, for the record: Putin is mad, old, and he certainly would not care to die these days looking outside the window into a sea of mushroom clouds. I'm virtually certain that he had at least one dream about this in his sleep - maybe long time ago, in the '80s.
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.
My pet theory is that Putin has received a diagnosis of some kind. One that has made him accelerate the actualisation of his dreams of Soviet reunification.
I think humanity could use the lesson of a catastrophic near-world-ending nuclear event. Look on the bright side, the future of humanity will be much more certain after we get through this learning.
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.