The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[ngatimozart]

I was wondering if hostilities do start in Ukraine. If Belarusian forces became involved would that create a different response from NATO.

It would certainly cause considerable concern in European capitals and NATO. I would suspect that NATO may go on to a war footing. The Baltic States would be extremely concerned as would Poland. Wars in Europe have started over far less and two global wars have originated from there.

 

[koxinga]

Lukashenko has enough problems to deal with. There is no benefit for him or Belarus to get actively involved. At best, he will allow Russian troops to cross their lands unopposed.

 

[Ananda]

Right now is so fluid. However for me, If Russia do enter Ukraine, I'm still not see Russia wants to dwell in Western and Central Ukraine. If I'm betting man, I still put my odds on Russia carving Ukraine and put friendly regime in East to counter pro west Western Ukraine.

Most likely Russia conducting heavy air strike to pacified West and Central Ukraine infrastructure and Military concentration. Then create somekind of larger uprising in the East.

Afterall what's strategic of Ukraine in term of Industry and Coastal area still in East. Area that consistently majority voted for Pro Russian President.

 

[ngatimozart]

Lukashenko has enough problems to deal with. There is no benefit for him or Belarus to get actively involved. At best, he will allow Russian troops to cross their lands unopposed.

All depends if he's be made an offer that he can't refuse, it's hard to resist - extra territory etc, and the old standby of a foreign adventure to distract the peasants at home from the domestic problems.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

All depends if he's be made an offer that he can't refuse, it's hard to resist - extra territory etc, and the old standby of a foreign adventure to distract the peasants at home from the domestic problems.

I think Belarus getting involved in a Russian war would go down badly with the general public. They already want him out, so having Belarusians get involved in an invasion of Ukraine and all the sanctions that would come with it could trigger mass protests again.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'm not sure it was Ukraine that made the decision. Rather it was a small group of unelected right wing radicals that came to power after the Euromaidan, and promptly made strong moves intended to force the country down a certain path. Remember, Turchinov and Yatsenyk hail from Svoboda, a border-line neo-Nazi group (they cleaned up their website during the Euromaidan, before that it had lines on there about cleansing Ukraine from Russians and Jews). Neither Svoboda nor Right Sector, could win an election in Ukraine. So who really made the decision?

That's what I heard on Russian national television, that the government is neo-Nazis. Unfortunately I was disinterested in the topic when it was still rolling.
The west treated it as a dangerous but still fringe group, even those who had no side to pick in the conflict.
Regardless, when you eliminate all foreign influences (i.e hard influences, like appointed government officials), you get a sovereign decision. And for the better or worse, a sovereign decision must be respected. There are many reasons to believe a shift to NATO and EU and the west in general, is logical from a Ukrainian standpoint regardless of the government's ideology, with the sole exception of being a pre-2014 vassal state.

By supporting Ukraine, the west basically grooms a nation that could become truly democratic within 20-30 years.
Russia could actually show much more peaceful intent by respecting this decision, thus maintaining economical interests in Ukraine, and increasing economical and resource dependence of the west on Russia.
This would in turn be a much more powerful deterrent against the west, as evident by German inaction on Ukraine.
This shows Russia pretty much made a gamble with Ukraine, and an actual war would mean the gamble is very likely lost, and war is a last minute attempt at remedy.

The west can avert the war via many means. Arming Ukraine is definitely one of them (albeit likely not enough).
If a war is averted, Russia's chances of redemption are reduced significantly, as it will further deter western nations from economical dealings with it, which further reduces Russia's deterrence in turn.

 

[Atunga]

Lukashenko has enough problems to deal with. There is no benefit for him or Belarus to get actively involved. At best, he will allow Russian troops to cross their lands unopposed.

Belarus’s Lukashenko says annexed Crimea is legally Russian

Lukashenko, in Support of Russian “Ally,” Threatens Ukraine with “Consequences” - Kyiv Post - Ukraine's Global Voice

Belarusian dictator Aleksandr Lukashenko has accused the Ukrainian leadership of being erratic and language… - Jan. 21, 2022. By Kyiv Post

www.kyivpost.com

Belarus is 100% in with Russia on Ukraine, Lukashenko stopped being neutral after Western backed demonstrations threatened to topple him last year.. what the Western response will be, if he actively joins Russia to attack Ukraine or allows Russia to use his country as a lunch pad for attack is left to be seen

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I think Belarus getting involved in a Russian war would go down badly with the general public. They already want him out, so having Belarusians get involved in an invasion of Ukraine and all the sanctions that would come with it could trigger mass protests again.

If there's one thing the eastern bloc is good at, it's cracking down on protesters.
Lukashenko doesn't have to worry about elections and popularity either.

Belarus is 100% in with Russia on Ukraine, Lukashenko stopped being neutral after Western backed demonstrations threatened to topple him last year

There is no such thing as western-backed demonstrations or Russia-backed demonstrations.
If a foreign entity can get tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters to act with resolve against the government, the problem is not with foreign interference - the problem is with the local government whose policies are so bad that people are easily brought over the edge on it.

When I see Hezbollah marches in London, I don't think of how Hezbollah infiltrates other countries. I think of how the British education system failed in that regard, or how its law enforcement failed there.

In Israel, if you pay each protester $1,000 to raise ISIS banners in city squares, you'll get tons of riled up soccer fans raising half-assed flags and chanting slogans before devolving to beating each other up, pissing on the flags, and dispersing to various clubs and bars or their homes within the first 5 minutes.

Pay them $10,000 each, and you get something more persistent, this time adding some below the poverty line, but nothing with actual resolve against anyone. Do the bare minimum and go home.

Hamas are constantly devoting more money than that to try and recruit new terrorists to kill policemen, soldiers, civilians, whatever, with no real success.

 

[Feanor]

If there's one thing the eastern bloc is good at, it's cracking down on protesters.
Lukashenko doesn't have to worry about elections and popularity either.

I'm not sure this is true. He came very close to being ousted during the last major protests. And remember when dictatorships fall, the leader could face murder like Gaddafi did, not comfortable retirement, like an elected president. Lukashenko needs to restore his image in his domestic public, otherwise the next round of protests may require more repression and make his rule more unstable.

There is no such thing as western-backed demonstrations or Russia-backed demonstrations.
If a foreign entity can get tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters to act with resolve against the government, the problem is not with foreign interference - the problem is with the local government whose policies are so bad that people are easily brought over the edge on it.

When I see Hezbollah marches in London, I don't think of how Hezbollah infiltrates other countries. I think of how the British education system failed in that regard, or how its law enforcement failed there.

In Israel, if you pay each protester $1,000 to raise ISIS banners in city squares, you'll get tons of riled up soccer fans raising half-assed flags and chanting slogans before devolving to beating each other up, pissing on the flags, and dispersing to various clubs and bars or their homes within the first 5 minutes.

Pay them $10,000 each, and you get something more persistent, this time adding some below the poverty line, but nothing with actual resolve against anyone. Do the bare minimum and go home.

Hamas are constantly devoting more money than that to try and recruit new terrorists to kill policemen, soldiers, civilians, whatever, with no real success.

You're not totally wrong but take the ex-Soviet states where in many (most really) the governments are corrupt, and the situation is permanently, potentially, volatile. Now can foreign involvement shift potential volatility into actual volatility? I think it can. There are many cases where without foreign involvements the protests are limited and fizzle out, but with foreign funding, media support, organizational support, and political pressure brought to bear on the regime, the protests can get much stronger. Sure the conditions need to exist in the first place to make this possible, but consider the recent anti-COVID measures protests in the Netherlands. Let's do a thought experiment, and have a situation where every other EU country heavily criticizes the COVID measures as authoritarian, threatens or imposes actual economic sanctions on the Netherlands, and foreign media runs a non-stop campaign for support for the protesters. Could this not turn what was a relatively minor protests into something much larger? It absolutely could (whether it would topple the government or not is another story). Finding an excuse to mobilize people can be tough in some situations, but very easy in others. And when you're dealing with developing countries, or underdeveloped countries, that aren't going to be democratic by their very nature, this is almost always going to be easy.

And I think it can accurately be said that the west backed the Euromaidan through public expressions of support, and diplomatic pressure on the Ukrainian government. Just like Russia backed the anti-Maidan through similar measures. One was more successful then the other, but this has to do with particular circumstances, and not with democracy. It doesn't mean that the Euromaidan occurred solely because of western support. But it's completely plausible that without western support it may well have not resulted in a coup d'etat. Just like, without very public Russian support, the anti-Maidan would probably have been beaten into the ground and dispersed by Ukrainian security forces.

 

[Feanor]

That's what I heard on Russian national television, that the government is neo-Nazis. Unfortunately I was disinterested in the topic when it was still rolling.
The west treated it as a dangerous but still fringe group, even those who had no side to pick in the conflict.
Regardless, when you eliminate all foreign influences (i.e hard influences, like appointed government officials), you get a sovereign decision. And for the better or worse, a sovereign decision must be respected. There are many reasons to believe a shift to NATO and EU and the west in general, is logical from a Ukrainian standpoint regardless of the government's ideology, with the sole exception of being a pre-2014 vassal state.

In other words if a Russian-sponsored anti-Maidan had violently ousted the Turchinov-Yatsenyuk government, causing them to flee the country, and Ukraine to join the CSTO, you would expect the US and EU to "respect the sovereign decision"? It's laughable to even propose that.

By supporting Ukraine, the west basically grooms a nation that could become truly democratic within 20-30 years.
Russia could actually show much more peaceful intent by respecting this decision, thus maintaining economical interests in Ukraine, and increasing economical and resource dependence of the west on Russia.

Again I'm not sold this decision was made by "Ukraine" as an entity, rather by a small group that hijacked the national politics. I'm also not sold on the benign intentions of the west vis-a-vis the future of Ukraine. Nor do I think a democratic pro-western Ukraine might not still end up hostile to Russia for any of a number of reasons.

This would in turn be a much more powerful deterrent against the west, as evident by German inaction on Ukraine.
This shows Russia pretty much made a gamble with Ukraine, and an actual war would mean the gamble is very likely lost, and war is a last minute attempt at remedy.

The west can avert the war via many means. Arming Ukraine is definitely one of them (albeit likely not enough).
If a war is averted, Russia's chances of redemption are reduced significantly, as it will further deter western nations from economical dealings with it, which further reduces Russia's deterrence in turn.

If war is averted, i.e. prevented, this will deter western nations from dealing with Russia? Sorry I don't follow. Do you mind clarifying?

While we're at, it, and given the political realities of the situation (no wishful thinking allowed) what do you see as a resolution to this situation?

 

[Atunga]

Russia Ruling Party Urges the Kremlin to Arm Ukraine Separatists - The Moscow Times

Russia’s ruling, pro-Kremlin party will ask the country’s leadership to deliver military supplies to eastern Ukraine’s separatist-held breakaway regions, a senior lawmaker said Wednesday, a new escalation of rhetoric amid ongoing tensions over Ukraine. “We appeal to the leadership of our...

www.themoscowtimes.com

The Russians are talking about openly supplying arms to the donbass separatists as a result of the US and UK sending arms to Ukraine. Russia has been arming the separatists covertly since 2014 in denial. if the Kremlin accepts to openly provide arms to the donbass separatists, what kind of weapons will they provide the separatists to counter the anti tank missiles Ukraine got from US and Uk? will the Russians be willing to supply the separatists with panstir missile defence systems to counter TB2s Ukraine bought from Turkey?

Germany’s offer to Ukraine of 5,000 helmets is ‘joke’, says Vitali Klitschko

Kyiv mayor ‘left speechless’ as Berlin faces pressure from other EU members to back military training mission

www.theguardian.com

Ukraine is angry with the Germans for not giving enough support in terms of military hardware, the Germans are also opposed to an EU military training program for Ukraine, is this because of German long standing tradition of not supplying lethal weapons to war zones or is it because they don't trust the intelligence US and Uk is providing on Russian intent to attack Ukraine? Italy, Spain, Austria and Greece are also opposed to the training program, could this be connected to the intelligence they received that they don't entirely trust or could it be something else? A German naval commander lost his job and the Croatian president received some backlash for talking publicly

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In other words if a Russian-sponsored anti-Maidan had violently ousted the Turchinov-Yatsenyuk government, causing them to flee the country, and Ukraine to join the CSTO, you would expect the US and EU to "respect the sovereign decision"? It's laughable to even propose that.

Diplomatically I expect an offense. But no military action. That is what I mean by "respect". It can be protested and condemned, but not to a point it warrants an invasion.

If war is averted, i.e. prevented, this will deter western nations from dealing with Russia? Sorry I don't follow. Do you mind clarifying?

Yes. Economical dealings between Russia and the west are dictated (their viability, that is) by how stable they might be. For example if we shift the Nordstream from having pipelines running to mere negotiations, today's Europe, in the face of a Russian invasion to Ukraine being a possible reality, would likely seek a different solution to an energy shortage.

What I meant is that a hypothetically more peaceful Russian policy would allow it to be more economically involved with Europe which would then create mutual deterrence as the EU has developed for its members. But this path is now gone.
Russia's aggressive policy of asserting itself through military means rather than soft power, is a deterrent against economical dealings. Which is bad for Russia. Now, if a war is averted, Russia cannot really get things back to the way they were. There is just a lot less trust in Russia now. It will help, but not entirely.
Europeans will be much more reluctant to cooperate with Russia in the future regardless of future events.

So TLDR: PR damage was already done. Europeans won't trade as much with Russia and will seek alternatives. War will aggravate things, but can't go back to way things were.

 

[Ananda]

The damage of Russia-Europe Trade already happen after the sactions to Russia. However Russia also has something that Europe wants, abundant energy source that (for Europe) relative cheaper from other alternatives.

US or UK can talk much for Northern Europe to cut Nordstream if situation in Ukraine continue to tense. Well unless full blown war happen, Nordsteam will continue regardless what happen in Ukraine (asside full blown war). Reason is simple, will US tax payers going to subsidise Euro Tax payers (especialy German and other North European) for higher energy bills ? In the consumers (thus the politicians constituents) mind, what come out from their wallets for energy bills is more important, and can change their perceptions where the energy coming from.

Also talking that Ukraine already transitioning to democracy after Euro Maiden, basically is (sorry mods for the term) still BS. If we are honest, that's not much different between Ukraine and Russia politics at this moment. Both still controls by oligarchs, is just the one in Ukraine is Pro West and the Russian ones incressingly anti US. So expecting Ukraine to be more democratic just because they are in closer trends to West, is still similar expecting Saudis and the Gulf kingdoms on democratics path, just because they are still pro west. Will Ukraine present Oligarchs open for "democratic" concession in the East with Pro Russian populations ? I didn't see that. Those Right Wing Ukrainian Nationalists Oligarchs does not want to give room for Pro Russian ethnics in the East. Similar thing is also happen in Russia. Ethnic politics is matter in both of them, and not democracy.

The potential war in Ukraine has to be honest has nothing to do on enhancing western value of democracy in Ukraine. Is all the game of influence speares of both West and Russia. That's why for Russia the ultimate deals is not with European, but with US. If the deals breakdown is also back to Russian and US game.

Cold War 2.0 already in full motion regardless the outcome in Ukraine. Ukraine is just another field of game.

Add:
Mods, just a tought. Many topics in this thread already similar with other thread of Russia-West. It can not help it, since both topic is very intanggle. Could it be better some of the conversation in both thread being combine?

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The damage of Russia-Europe Trade already happen after the sactions to Russia. However Russia also has something that Europe wants, abundant energy source that (for Europe) relative cheaper from other alternatives.

US or UK can talk much for Northern Europe to cut Nordstream if situation in Ukraine continue to tense. Well unless full blown war happen, Nordsteam will continue regardless what happen in Ukraine (asside full blown war). Reason is simple, will US tax payers going to subsidise Euro Tax payers (especialy German and other North European) for higher energy bills ? In the consumers (thus the politicians constituents) mind, what come out from their wallets for energy bills is more important, and can change their perceptions where the energy coming from.

Also talking that Ukraine already transitioning to democracy after Euro Maiden, basically is (sorry mods for the term) still BS. If we are honest, that's not much different between Ukraine and Russia politics at this moment. Both still controls by oligarchs, is just the one in Ukraine is Pro West and the Russian ones incressingly anti US. So expecting Ukraine to be more democratic just because they are in closer trends to West, is still similar expecting Saudis and the Gulf kingdoms on democratics path, just because they are still pro west. Will Ukraine present Oligarchs open for "democratic" concession in the East with Pro Russian populations ? I didn't see that. Those Right Wing Ukrainian Nationalists Oligarchs does not want to give room for Pro Russian ethnics in the East. Similar thing is also happen in Russia. Ethnic politics is matter in both of them, and not democracy.

The potential war in Ukraine has to be honest has nothing to do on enhancing western value of democracy in Ukraine. Is all the game of influence speares of both West and Russia. That's why for Russia the ultimate deals is not with European, but with US. If the deals breakdown is also back to Russian and US game.

Cold War 2.0 already in full motion regardless the outcome in Ukraine. Ukraine is just another field of game.

Add:
Mods, just a tought. Many topics in this thread already similar with other thread of Russia-West. It can not help it, since both topic is very intanggle. Could it be better some of the conversation in both thread being combine ?

I think its better to keep this thread seperated from the "Russia and the West" thread.

This is really a thread for the situation and developments in the Donbas.

 

[Ananda]

think its better to keep this thread seperated from the "Russia and the West" thread.

Agree, I'm not suggesting the thread to be combined. Just some of the conversation in this thread have topics that more on Russia-West then Donbas-Ukraine Frontline development (and I think I'm also bit responsible on that).

Just a thought to make this thread focus more on development in the field.

 

[Steinmetz]

Zelensky had a press conference today, and had a lot to say. Some excerpts:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487098131531681792

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487091530842189826

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487080367551045643

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487083420069117952

 

[Feanor]

Diplomatically I expect an offense. But no military action. That is what I mean by "respect". It can be protested and condemned, but not to a point it warrants an invasion.

I'm not sure I believe this. The US engages in military actions against sovereign states or in violation of their sovereignty on a regular basis, when it believes this to be in their interests. If they allowed Russia to hijack the government of Ukraine using internal tools, it would be for practical reasons, not out of some respect.

Yes. Economical dealings between Russia and the west are dictated (their viability, that is) by how stable they might be. For example if we shift the Nordstream from having pipelines running to mere negotiations, today's Europe, in the face of a Russian invasion to Ukraine being a possible reality, would likely seek a different solution to an energy shortage.

What I meant is that a hypothetically more peaceful Russian policy would allow it to be more economically involved with Europe which would then create mutual deterrence as the EU has developed for its members. But this path is now gone.
Russia's aggressive policy of asserting itself through military means rather than soft power, is a deterrent against economical dealings. Which is bad for Russia. Now, if a war is averted, Russia cannot really get things back to the way they were. There is just a lot less trust in Russia now. It will help, but not entirely.
Europeans will be much more reluctant to cooperate with Russia in the future regardless of future events.

So TLDR: PR damage was already done. Europeans won't trade as much with Russia and will seek alternatives. War will aggravate things, but can't go back to way things were.

Ok, but this has already happened. At this point would war improve or deteriorate relations between Russia and the EU? I suspect it would make it worse. So averting war is in principle desirable.

 

[cdxbow]

Interesting article suggesting some senior Russians don't feel Mr Putin's actions are beneficial for Russia Putin’s NATO power play stirs disquiet among Russia’s security elite | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)

An article by David Marples who feels conflict is inevitable Russia has reached the point of no return in its conflict with Ukraine (theconversation.com)

 

[Feanor]

An article by David Marples who feels conflict is inevitable Russia has reached the point of no return in its conflict with Ukraine (theconversation.com)

I strongly suspect this is untrue. Russia has drawn up troops and then drawn them back down many times in the past 8 years as a way of pressuring Ukraine. Russia is just as capable of backing off now as it has been at any point in the past and no imaginary embarrassment would prevent that, if that is what gets decided upon.

I think there are two key questions. Is Russian increase a response to their perception of a planned Ukrainian offensive? If yes, then a drawdown is practically inevitable once it becomes clear that no offensive is forthcoming (assuming no offensive is forthcoming). If no, then what is Russia's objective? I suspect that an invasion in and of itself is not the goal, otherwise there wouldn't be this giant diplomatic circus, and Ukraine wouldn't be given such a vast amount of advance warning (giving the west time to throw weapons into Ukraine and to coordinate a political response against the invasion). Russia has clearly shown in '08 and '14 that the government is willing to act rapidly and decisively, with international implications. This time the actions are very slow and deliberate. It's possible the objective is to get concessions on the points presented to the US. They can't reasonably expect to get all of what they asked for, so what is their realistic position that they're willing to settle for? And will they strike if they don't get an acceptable response?

 

[cdxbow]

I strongly suspect this is untrue. Russia has drawn up troops and then drawn them back down many times in the past 8 years as a way of pressuring Ukraine. Russia is just as capable of backing off now as it has been at any point in the past and no imaginary embarrassment would prevent that, if that is what gets decided upon.

I think there are two key questions. Is Russian increase a response to their perception of a planned Ukrainian offensive? If yes, then a drawdown is practically inevitable once it becomes clear that no offensive is forthcoming (assuming no offensive is forthcoming). If no, then what is Russia's objective? I suspect that an invasion in and of itself is not the goal, otherwise there wouldn't be this giant diplomatic circus, and Ukraine wouldn't be given such a vast amount of advance warning (giving the west time to throw weapons into Ukraine and to coordinate a political response against the invasion). Russia has clearly shown in '08 and '14 that the government is willing to act rapidly and decisively, with international implications. This time the actions are very slow and deliberate. It's possible the objective is to get concessions on the points presented to the US. They can't reasonably expect to get all of what they asked for, so what is their realistic position that they're willing to settle for? And will they strike if they don't get an acceptable response?

I agree it's more posturing at this point however the Russian opening gambit was so impossible for NATO, that it's difficult to see it as a basis for any sort of negotiation.

Feanor, what concessions do you think Mr Putin really expects? (I deliberately avoided the word 'wants')