The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[Feanor]

Dont get me wrong, I agree completely with the concept that RU wanted a quick regime change and things spun way out of control. Now we have "good money following bad" and the RU demands are knowingly unacceptable to UKR at this time.

This runs counter to your argument that Putin isn't afraid of NATO because he is willing to cause these things.

A challenge to all our Russians out there who think NATO is a threat to Russia.

Please develop a reasonable scenario where NATO invades Russia. Please tell us, why its happening, how the various powers achieve the political consensus to do so, the NATO and Russian force structures, and how NATO is going to supply this effort. Also tell us what the invaders hope to achieve.

I already provided a hypothetical. You chose to hand-wave it away. You simultaneously talk about how NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was a good thing and how removing odious dictators is a good thing, yet pretend that Russian concerns about a similar NATO intervention in Russia are somehow not real. The reality is that if NATO can intervene in Russia with impunity, and considers it worthwhile, they will do so. Hence why Russia at the strategic level has been trying to make it impossible. This is why Russia doesn't want NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, this is why Russia is worried about NATO and US BMD capabilities, this is why Russia is concerned about NATO bases.

To be clear a scenario where NATO intervenes within Russia would involve Russia being significantly weaker than it is today. It would likely require Russia to be facing considerable internal turmoil. However let's not forget, during the Russian Civil War western countries were willing to put boots on the ground inside the former empire. How do you ensure that can't be done in the future?

 

[Rob c]

However let's not forget, during the Russian Civil War western countries were willing to put boots on the ground inside the former empire. How do you ensure that can't be done in the future?

The Future is always an unknown and should there be a significant revolution or civil war I would think that the possibility of an intervention by some countries is possible. However as NATO requires 100% agreement for aggressive action not covered by article 5, I think NATO intervention would be highly unlikely.

 

[Feanor]

The Future is always an unknown and should there be a significant revolution or civil war I would think that the possibility of an intervention by some countries is possible. However as NATO requires 100% agreement for aggressive action not covered by article 5, I think NATO intervention would be highly unlikely.

NATO provides a flexible framework for joint action. It doesn't have to be NATO as an organization. The fact that a number of major powers have a high degree of interoperability, shared processes, and facilities, means you don't need an official NATO mission to bomb Libya. Several nations can act together. Obviously nothing can be set in stone, but this is where likelihoods start to play a role. If NATO bases are next door and can provide direct access, suddenly a limited intervention becomes possibly, and throwing their support behind the next Prigozhin who marches on Moscow with a mercenary army so long as he totally pinky-promises to support democracy might be a viable option. Consider the noxious stew of actors that benefited from western action in Libya. But if the nearest NATO base is hundreds of kms away from the area you would want to intervene in, with multiple international boundaries in the way, and suddenly it becomes much more difficult. If Georgia is in NATO and Russia is having a third Chechen War, with some generalized nastiness in other Caucus provinces, stepping in under the guise of protecting civilians becomes potentially possible. If the nearest NATO facility is in Romania, or better yet in Italy, suddenly it's much more difficult. Or let's consider the question of Tatar separatism. If Azerbaijan and Armenia are close partners, and Georgia is a NATO member, and you have bases in Central Asia (to fight terrorism of course, definitely not a threat to Russia) then suddenly it might be possible to insert forces into Tatarstan via the Caspian. If the Stans are friendly with Russia, Georgia is finlandized, and Armenia is a Russian ally, suddenly there might be no viable option. Or at least it might be difficult enough to dissuade parties from acting.

I believe this is the context within which the threat of NATO to Russia should be considered. Let's not forget, until very recently (~a decade ago) the VVS was in such sorry state that Finland or Denmark could chase them out of the sky, or at least inflict very nasty casualties. Russia's performance in Ukraine also speaks for itself. Lots of perserverance, political will, on the ground innovation, and willingness to tough it out. But if the kind of force Russian went into Ukraine with instead faced off against a similar-sized NATO force, it would have ended much worse for Russia. Russia is powerful but also not powerful, depending on a number of factors. Limiting NATO's ability to reach into Russia can be done with air defenses and powerful ground forces. But it can also be done with a wall of neutral, ideally friendly, but if not at least finlandized, countries. This is where I think he's wrong in arguing that Putin isn't afraid of NATO because he pushed Finland and Sweden to join. I suspect he didn't think they would. And Russia took steps to form additional ground forces units in that area in response to them joining NATO. That's a sign they didn't expect it and are concerned about it. Intent is one thing, outcome is another.

TL;DR - I think Russian leadership is very much concerned with NATO expansion, these concerns are real, and there is a real chance of some form of foreign intervention within Russia in the next ~50 years.

 

[vikingatespam]

This runs counter to your argument that Putin isn't afraid of NATO because he is willing to cause these things.

Quite the opposite. Putin has no fear of NATO so he is happy to make demands that will knowingly be unacceptable to UKR - he has no fear of NATO intervention.

I already provided a hypothetical. You chose to hand-wave it away.

You failed to provide what I asked for. As a reminder, for a hypothetical invasion of Russia:

1) Please tell us, why its happening
2) how the various powers achieve the political consensus to do so
3) the NATO and Russian force structures
4) and how NATO is going to supply this effort
5) Also tell us what the invaders hope to achieve.

You simultaneously talk about how NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was a good thing and how removing odious dictators is a good thing, yet pretend that Russian concerns about a similar NATO intervention in Russia are somehow not real.

They literally, completely, rationally are not real - they are stuff of propaganda and fiction. A convenient common external foe used by Putin to rally the flag.

The reality is that if NATO can intervene in Russia with impunity,

Stop changing words. We were saying invasion, now you are saying intervention.

Answer my 5 questions above. They are the heart of any ability to invade Russia.

To be clear a scenario where NATO intervenes within Russia would involve Russia being significantly weaker than it is today. It would likely require Russia to be facing considerable internal turmoil. However let's not forget, during the Russian Civil War western countries were willing to put boots on the ground inside the former empire. How do you ensure that can't be done in the future?

Nuclear.Weapons.

If you read my previous posts, I would surmise the most likely western response to a Russian civil war is to look smug and not give a shit any more.

What possible benefit to NATO would involve an invasion of Russia, when a nuclear response is likely.

Back to you.

 

[vikingatespam]

The Future is always an unknown and should there be a significant revolution or civil war I would think that the possibility of an intervention by some countries is possible. However as NATO requires 100% agreement for aggressive action not covered by article 5, I think NATO intervention would be highly unlikely.

Thats precisely one of my points. What possible benefit would NATO gain by inserting itself into a total bloodbath by 2 parties that would be seen as equally guilty ?

 

[vikingatespam]

NATO provides a flexible framework for joint action. It doesn't have to be NATO as an organization. The fact that a number of major powers have a high degree of interoperability, shared processes, and facilities, means you don't need an official NATO mission to bomb Libya. Several nations can act together. Obviously nothing can be set in stone, but this is where likelihoods start to play a role. If NATO bases are next door and can provide direct access, suddenly a limited intervention becomes possibly, and throwing their support behind the next Prigozhin who marches on Moscow with a mercenary army so long as he totally pinky-promises to support democracy might be a viable option. Consider the noxious stew of actors that benefited from western action in Libya. But if the nearest NATO base is hundreds of kms away from the area you would want to intervene in, with multiple international boundaries in the way, and suddenly it becomes much more difficult. If Georgia is in NATO and Russia is having a third Chechen War, with some generalized nastiness in other Caucus provinces, stepping in under the guise of protecting civilians becomes potentially possible. If the nearest NATO facility is in Romania, or better yet in Italy, suddenly it's much more difficult. Or let's consider the question of Tatar separatism. If Azerbaijan and Armenia are close partners, and Georgia is a NATO member, and you have bases in Central Asia (to fight terrorism of course, definitely not a threat to Russia) then suddenly it might be possible to insert forces into Tatarstan via the Caspian. If the Stans are friendly with Russia, Georgia is finlandized, and Armenia is a Russian ally, suddenly there might be no viable option. Or at least it might be difficult enough to dissuade parties from acting.

At the end of the day, how many NATO divisions are invading ? (that was part of question #3). If its less than 50 or so, and the requisite logistical base, a ground invasion is a total, complete fantasy.

I believe this is the context within which the threat of NATO to Russia should be considered. Let's not forget, until very recently (~a decade ago) the VVS was in such sorry state that Finland or Denmark could chase them out of the sky, or at least inflict very nasty casualties.

...but NATO didnt do that and the military balance is far more beneficial to Russia. So whats the fear ?

Russia's performance in Ukraine also speaks for itself. Lots of perserverance, political will, on the ground innovation, and willingness to tough it out. But if the kind of force Russian went into Ukraine with instead faced off against a similar-sized NATO force, it would have ended much worse for Russia. Russia is powerful but also not powerful, depending on a number of factors. Limiting NATO's ability to reach into Russia can be done with air defenses and powerful ground forces. But it can also be done with a wall of neutral, ideally friendly, but if not at least finlandized, countries. This is where I think he's wrong in arguing that Putin isn't afraid of NATO because he pushed Finland and Sweden to join. I suspect he didn't think they would. And Russia took steps to form additional ground forces units in that area in response to them joining NATO. That's a sign they didn't expect it and are concerned about it. Intent is one thing, outcome is another.

None of which changes the fact that Putin has denuded his borders with NATO, and seeks to further the frontage with NATO countries. Those 2 observable actions contradict any fear of NATO. That doesnt even include the nuclear posture.

All Russia had to do was to continue formenting separatist fighting in Lu and Don., and stay directly out of it. UKR could not join NATO due to bylaws, and the EU powers would continue to disarm.

Instead we have Cold War 2. if Putin feared NATO so much, why is he goading a military buildup in the west ?

TL;DR - I think Russian leadership is very much concerned with NATO expansion, these concerns are real, and there is a real chance of some form of foreign intervention within Russia in the next ~50 years.

Leadership = Putin. Putin is using fears of NATO like Hitler used the Jews. LOOK ! External Enemy Bad !

 

[vikingatespam]

This is where I think he's wrong in arguing that Putin isn't afraid of NATO because he pushed Finland and Sweden to join. I suspect he didn't think they would. And Russia took steps to form additional ground forces units in that area in response to them joining NATO. That's a sign they didn't expect it and are concerned about it. Intent is one thing, outcome is another.

Not expect it !?!? Hold shit, the dumbass Putin flew a nuclear bomber near the Swedish border in response to Swedish considerations of joining NATO. All he had to do was say nice words and cut a trade deal.

The mind boggles on the political incompetence of Putin in this regard.

 

[Stampede]

I recall a discussion some forty years ago in a Russian political history subject taken at Uni.
The course dealt with Europe up until modern times. ( Cold War 1980s )
The take away from the lecturer and consequent discussion was Russia over the centuries has always wanted / liked / got a strong leader!
The conversation then centred around is that what Russia and the region like, or is that what they get inflicted upon them?
To this day, I still really don’t know the answer; but I think it’s still relevant today.
Since the end of the Cold War it’s been interesting to observe the leadership dynamics of Russia and the various breakaway republics forming their own nation states.
Did Russia need a Putin to hold the now down sized nation of Russia together.
Is he the savour or the dictatorial gremlin.

Yes the west has meddled in Russian in the past.
There is a precedent that could be seen as a threat.
But I’d suggest there is another threat to Russia, an internal one!

What would Russia have been like with a leader or leaders that were not the hard guy? What would that Russia have looked like?
Dysfunctional or progressive?

90s Russia experienced turbulent times . I get it.
I also get that post cold war NATO was much smaller than it is today and the West were then very keen to dismantle their navy and air forces reduce their armies and spend their money on other things
The people of Western Europe were generally happy to get rid of conscription and focus on other things with the fall of the iron curtain.
Eastern Europe was still a very fluid space with former republics making their own paths as independent nations. Russia to was trying to accommodate its future.

So did Russian invade Ukraine or did Putin invade Ukraine,

I think it’s the former.
I also think it cannot be justified in any way that you look at it.
From the view of the west or the East.

The only view that makes sense is that like the lecturer proposed,Russia likes / gets a strong leader.

Strong dictatorial leaders often do really dumb things like invading neighbours who are not really a threat.

Existential or otherwise

The Russia Ukraine war needs closure ASAP

Current and future generations depend on it


Regards S

 

[Redshift]

Not that the UKR demands are knowingly acceptable to RU at this time.

Like wanting their country back ..... Or wanting to be able to choose their own leaders ... Or being able to defend themselves against existential threats .... Naughty naughty Ukraine how dare they.

 

[rsemmes]

Like wanting their country back ..... Or wanting to be able to choose their own leaders ... Or being able to defend themselves against existential threats .... Naughty naughty Ukraine how dare they.

"... acceptable to RU". It is not a good idea to read from a high horse.

 

[vikingatespam]

Did Russia need a Putin to hold the now down sized nation of Russia together.
Is he the savour or the dictatorial gremlin.

Putin was the right man in power after the collapse of the SU. A strong man, who helped restore a sense of pride to the country, and who helped the economy greatly.

However now he is leading Russia to ruin.

 

[rsemmes]

Putin was the right man in power after the collapse of the SU. A strong man, who helped restore a sense of pride to the country, and who helped the economy greatly.
However now he is leading Russia to ruin.

In the two countries where I see the current state of affairs from, that "ruin" is moving in a very slow motion. Ukraine seems to be in a lot worse situation.

 

[swerve]

Ukraine was putting itself back together, reducing corruption, & with its economy growing, until Putin decided to ruin it.

 

[swerve]

Not expect it !?!? Hold shit, the dumbass Putin flew a nuclear bomber near the Swedish border in response to Swedish considerations of joining NATO. All he had to do was say nice words and cut a trade deal.

The mind boggles on the political incompetence of Putin in this regard.

Putin thinks the fable of the north wind & the sun is wrong, & the north wind should have just blown a bit harder. He doesn't get it.

 

[Feanor]

Quite the opposite. Putin has no fear of NATO so he is happy to make demands that will knowingly be unacceptable to UKR - he has no fear of NATO intervention.

Ukraine isn't NATO.

You failed to provide what I asked for. As a reminder, for a hypothetical invasion of Russia:

1) Please tell us, why its happening
2) how the various powers achieve the political consensus to do so
3) the NATO and Russian force structures
4) and how NATO is going to supply this effort
5) Also tell us what the invaders hope to achieve.

I'm not sure why you're hyper-fixated on some sort of Barbarossa style scenario. An invasion doesn't have to have it's goal be total occupation and annexation. And Russian elite's fear of NATO isn't just that they will march on Moscow. I outlined a couple of possible reasons for why a NATO intervention within Russia could happen. How the political consensus would be achieved would be highly specific to the circumstances. Some sort of political consensus has been achieved in past foreign actions both within a NATO umbrella and by a group of NATO members acting in concert. I'm not going to write you imaginary ORBATs for a hypothetical scenario, it's both time consuming and not useful. Logistics would also be highly situation dependent, but again I would point to this being precisely why Russia is paranoid about NATO bases near their borders and NATO member-states within the near-abroad. As to what they hope to achieve, it could be a variety of things, from regime change within Russia, to a support for an ethnic group's separatist aspirations, to leverage to force Russian concessions in some other area. If your claim is that NATO member states military action against Russia is inconceivable under literally any circumstances, I think we will have to agree to disagree. If you recognize that such action is at least under some circumstances a distinct possibility, then you have the reasons for Russia's concern.

They literally, completely, rationally are not real - they are stuff of propaganda and fiction. A convenient common external foe used by Putin to rally the flag.

They literally removed odious dictators. Putin is arguably such a leader (though I prefer the term authoritarian oligarchy because I think it's more meaningful).

Stop changing words. We were saying invasion, now you are saying intervention.

Answer my 5 questions above. They are the heart of any ability to invade Russia.

What's this "we"? You asked for an invasion scenario. I keep talking about the perceived threat.

Nuclear.Weapons.

People have this view of nuclear weapons as some ultima ratio regum. But they're really not. They're just really big bombs. They require technologically complex delivery systems, and can be intercepted. They can also be destroyed on the ground. And their use requires quite a bit of political will, given the hostility it's virtually guaranteed to incur upon their use. If you have a hardliner in office, with a firm grip on power, and a well functioning military machine, then it's possible to deter NATO with nukes. But if you have internal instability, a degradation of the military and security apparatus, considerable external pressure, and no guarantee of success, then suddenly you may not be willing to use nuclear weapons. Or worse, you may not be able to.

If you read my previous posts, I would surmise the most likely western response to a Russian civil war is to look smug and not give a shit any more.

I don't buy this for a second. The western response to civil wars in neighboring areas has been anything but that. Again, Libya, Yugoslavia, etc. There are many reasons to be concerned with such a scenario, not the least of it being nuclear weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

What possible benefit to NATO would involve an invasion of Russia, when a nuclear response is likely.

Back to you.

You're assuming two things, one that such a response is likely, and two that any nuclear response is successful. Neither is a given.

Thats precisely one of my points. What possible benefit would NATO gain by inserting itself into a total bloodbath by 2 parties that would be seen as equally guilty ?

That's easy, pick the party you like better, paint them as the "good guys" using the media machine, ignore their warcrimes, and then fragment a single, large, and often difficult to deal with country into smaller manageable chunks. A united large Russia, on a historic timescale, will always be at least a potential threat.

 

[Feanor]

At the end of the day, how many NATO divisions are invading ? (that was part of question #3). If its less than 50 or so, and the requisite logistical base, a ground invasion is a total, complete fantasy.

I once again don't understand your fixation with a Barbarossa-style invasion. I think I was clear from the start that there are many possible ways a conflict could play out. See my reply above.

...but NATO didnt do that and the military balance is far more beneficial to Russia. So whats the fear ?

NATO at that time was also far from Russia's borders, and it's not clear how the rest of the neighborhood would react. The fear is that they could.

None of which changes the fact that Putin has denuded his borders with NATO, and seeks to further the frontage with NATO countries. Those 2 observable actions contradict any fear of NATO. That doesnt even include the nuclear posture.

We're going around in circles. You're assuming this was the predicted outcome by Russia. I believe it wasn't based on a number of factors discussed above. They denuded the border partially because of a bigger problem, a botched invasion of Ukraine.

All Russia had to do was to continue formenting separatist fighting in Lu and Don., and stay directly out of it. UKR could not join NATO due to bylaws, and the EU powers would continue to disarm.

Well that's a good explanation for why this war was a mistake. But that was my position from the start.

Instead we have Cold War 2. if Putin feared NATO so much, why is he goading a military buildup in the west ?

He's painted himself into a corner. There is no good way currently for Russia to end this war, only bad ones. I also don't think the military buildup will stop even if Russia were to walk away from Ukraine.

Leadership = Putin. Putin is using fears of NATO like Hitler used the Jews. LOOK ! External Enemy Bad !

Jews were an internal enemy. But let's be clear, there is a general and wide-spread societal dislike of NATO in Russia that predates Putin's rise to power. I suspect he's tapped into something rather than created it. That having been said, sure. He's definitely using the fear of NATO as a domestic political tool. It doesn't mean the fear isn't real.

Not expect it !?!? Hold shit, the dumbass Putin flew a nuclear bomber near the Swedish border in response to Swedish considerations of joining NATO. All he had to do was say nice words and cut a trade deal.

The mind boggles on the political incompetence of Putin in this regard.

I don't think there are any nice words he could say that would have convinced Sweden that Russia wasn't a threat after they had invaded Ukraine.

Putin was the right man in power after the collapse of the SU. A strong man, who helped restore a sense of pride to the country, and who helped the economy greatly.

However now he is leading Russia to ruin.

I'm of the opinion that he was never the right man.

 

[rsemmes]

Ukraine was putting itself back together, reducing corruption, & with its economy growing, until Putin decided to ruin it.

I don't disagree, even if someone could add a few details to that wide, general description. I think that Putin decided to achieved something for his country, first by the threat of invasion, then by "politics by other means".
A point that I was trying to make is, if (big if, I think) Putin is leading Russia to ruin, Zelenski is leading Ukraine... Where?

Now, what "sanctions" could Putin have imposed on Ukraine to achieve his, Russia's, aims? That is international politics, isn't it? Like Brexit, negotiations and what conditions can we impose and which ones are we willing to take; and then to renegotiate. I cannot remember any article 50 between Russia and Ukraine.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't disagree, even if someone could add a few details to that wide, general description. I think that Putin decided to achieved something for his country, first by the threat of invasion, then by "politics by other means".
A point that I was trying to make is, if (big if, I think) Putin is leading Russia to ruin, Zelenski is leading Ukraine... Where?

Now, what "sanctions" could Putin have imposed on Ukraine to achieve his, Russia's, aims? That is international politics, isn't it? Like Brexit, negotiations and what conditions can we impose and which ones are we willing to take; and then to renegotiate. I cannot remember any article 50 between Russia and Ukraine.

If this $hit continues it will lead to ruin for both sides. When it ends the EU will have to provide massive economic assistance to Ukraine along with continued military support. Russians better upgrade their Mandarin skills along with increased Siberian raw material export to Xi...and bloody hell, maybe even Kim!

 

[swerve]

I don't disagree, even if someone could add a few details to that wide, general description. I think that Putin decided to achieved something for his country, first by the threat of invasion, then by "politics by other means".
A point that I was trying to make is, if (big if, I think) Putin is leading Russia to ruin, Zelenski is leading Ukraine... Where?

Now, what "sanctions" could Putin have imposed on Ukraine to achieve his, Russia's, aims? That is international politics, isn't it? Like Brexit, negotiations and what conditions can we impose and which ones are we willing to take; and then to renegotiate. I cannot remember any article 50 between Russia and Ukraine.

Zelensky's trying to preserve the independence of his country.

If you don't understand that, then I have no interest in further discussion with you. It's obvious.

Russia had signed agreements (not one: a few) in which it promised to respect the borders of Ukraine. They've frequently been referred to here. It broke them. It's violated the borders of Georgia more than once, invaded & seized territory, & supported a bandit state on Georgian territory, & the expulsion of Georgians from that state. It's supported, with troops, the carving out of a separate state, again with criminal connections, from Transnistria. It's threatened Estonia & Latvia, & financed separatist groups in both - & then acted offended when they sought the shelter of NATO membership.

 

[vikingatespam]

In the two countries where I see the current state of affairs from, that "ruin" is moving in a very slow motion. Ukraine seems to be in a lot worse situation.

UKR is indeed in a worse situation, but that is not of their own making.