Russia-Ukrainian War

[Xerxes]

The enemy gets a vote too. 
 

Both sides have to decide (or being compelled to decide) that it is over. Both sides will feel that they are not getting everything they wanted, such is the outcome with negotiations with equal peers. 

 

The concept of this xxx country winning or losing is highly relative. A “win” against tangible objective within a few weeks of war breaking out has more value than the same “win” against the same objectives achieved 4 years later.
 

The longest a war goes the concept of win and losing start to overlap. Because as “duration” takes over, opportunity cost etc start to seep in, and become a factor. Win at what cost ? Lose at what gain. Is a Pyrrhic victory really a win. 
 

The only thing is that is absolutely absolute is the concept of “unconditional surrender”. Not seen since the dark days of world war 2, according to my history scrolls. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

15 hours ago, Pelagic said:

I think missed in the news around Patriot batteries is Ben Wallace's statement yesterday that he's open to sending longer ranged missiles to Ukraine if Russia keeps targeting civilian infrastructure. Patriots are just part of a unified NATO message to knock off the attacks on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

 

Also possibly a preemptive response to Russia acquiring ballistic missiles from Iran as a lot of the other air defense aid has focused on cost effective solutions to low altitude cruise missiles and drones.

I think that's the way I see it too.

[Xerxes]

Too bad they had not thought about sending Patriots to Yemen. You know that other war, where the bully wanted to re-establish its suzerainty, over what it consider to be its “sphere of influence”. Yemen lost. Qatar only survived the contest of being “independent” of Saudi yoke by being one of the wealthiest nation on earth.
 

I thought the “sphere of influence” concept as per the board members should not exists in 21st century. Yet it seems like everything else it exists when it is convenient to exists. 

 

Those Patriots would have sure handy to deter Saudi bombing of school buses, hospital and schools. Not exactly a pretty scene. It could have been a message to the Saudi to knock it off. 
 

But maybe that would have been too weird !! After all the bombs, planes and missile came from the West, the enablers. Even the planes were re-fuelled by US tankers on the way to drop their payload. 
 

Hypocrisy and geopolitics always go hand in hand. Unfortunately. 
 

 

EDIT:  ranting over. Aeroplane mode back “on”. Back on Ukraine being as that is the only thing that ever mattered. 

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Xerxes

[james22]

15 hours ago, Pelagic said:

I think missed in the news around Patriot batteries...

 

The Ukrainians are expected to need six to eight weeks of training in Europe to begin operating the system, and a full 10 months to reach full operating capability.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-patriot-missiles-pentagon-russia-missile-defense/

 

Missed is the assumption of a long war.

[Spekulatius]

10 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

Too bad they had not thought about sending Patriots to Yemen. You know that other war, where the bully wanted to re-establish its suzerainty, over what it consider to be its “sphere of influence”. Yemen lost. Qatar only survived the contest of being “independent” of Saudi yoke by being one of the wealthiest nation on earth.
 

I thought the “sphere of influence” concept as per the board members should not exists in 21st century. Yet it seems like everything else it exists when it is convenient to exists. 

 

Those Patriots would have sure handy to deter Saudi bombing of school buses, hospital and schools. Not exactly a pretty scene. It could have been a message to the Saudi to knock it off. 
 

But maybe that would have been too weird !! After all the bombs, planes and missile came from the West, the enablers. Even the planes were re-fuelled by US tankers on the way to drop their payload. 
 

Hypocrisy and geopolitics always go hand in hand. Unfortunately. 
 

 

EDIT:  ranting over. Aeroplane mode back “on”. Back on Ukraine being as that is the only thing that ever mattered. 

 

Why would the US sent patriots to Yemen to help the Houthi? The Houthi are not our friends and neither are the Saudis. In fact if I read this correctly, the Houthis are loosely allied with Iran, so if the US sends Patriots to Yemen, they could end up in Iranian hands.

 

if there is a conflict to stay way from, that sure looks like one. Ukraine is an entirely different case, imo.

[Xerxes]

6 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Why would the US sent patriots to Yemen to help the Houthi? The Houthi are not our friends and neither are the Saudis. In fact if I read this correctly, the Houthis are loosely allied with Iran, so if the US sends Patriots to Yemen, they could end up in Iranian hands.

 

if there is a conflict to stay way from, that sure looks like one. Ukraine is an entirely different case, imo.

I agree. It is geopolitics. 

My note was for folks who for whatever reason decided this is the first time civilians are targeted since the dawn of mankind. And how sad it is. Never mind that we do that ourselves on a dime, with no second thought.  
 

On Houthi, your comment is a simplification. Houthi themselves would heavily push back by being called pawns of Tehran. They are a Shia-offshoot but pre-dated 1979 Iranian revolution I imagine by centuries. 
 

It is one of those situation where the tie between Tehran and Houthi drastically strengthened thanks to the Saudi invasion in 2015. Much like that of West and Ukraine, and how Kremlin got a blowback for trying to bring Ukraine under its yoke.

 

Like it or not, ignore it or not. U.S. is the prime enabler for Saudi atrocities in Yemen.  

 

 

[Xerxes]

On 12/8/2022 at 4:18 PM, Xerxes said:

I have not read. But i think it deserve printing and reading back to back. I am planning to do so myself. Looking fast, there are some passage in relation to the post occupation plans, had it come to pass. 

 

https://static.rusi.org/359-SR-Ukraine-Preliminary-Lessons-Feb-July-2022-web-final.pdf

 

 

the conclusion from the long RUSI report were cited in the AW article, precisely on the topic of air dominance and need for Western surface to air missiles 

 

[Parsad]

14 hours ago, ANP301191 said:

I dont think the risk of war expanding to encompass other European nations is as high a risk today as it was a few months ago. Putin has had multiple opportunities to expand the warzone, but he hasn't (probably the easiest would have been when Finland applied for NATO membership). I also believe that most European countries do not have the popular political will to actual engage in anything more than what is being done today. If you read the local papers in Belgium for example, 60% (my estimation over the past 2 weeks - annecdotal) of the articles that cover Ukraine and Russia, also talk about how energy prices have risen because of the war. Speaking for myself, our energy prices are up over 150% year on year. Food inflation is probably closer to 30% than the official 12% put out by the Belgian government. I am pretty confident that most, if not all, EU countries are in a similar predicament, and hence, I dont see any of them wanting to heat up the conflict either.

 

I think the most logical endpoint of this has to be an exit ramp for Putin, as much as I hate saying it. He has to be able to declare victory because I don't see him surviving in Russia if the elites think of the war as a complete loss, and from everything he has done and whatever he has said, I believe that he will absolutely burn down the world with him if he goes down. It, then, behooves us in the West to provide the Ukrainians with sufficient arms to make sure that the victory he declares is as small as possible. Whether the Patriot Missiles are the right armaments or not, I cannot say, I have no understanding of arms, but I don't accept the belief that by providing more/better arms to Ukraine we risk a larger conflict.

 

I agree with Putin needing to save face to end the war.  The only way that happens, which I've been saying from the beginning, is if he gets a piece of the Ukraine...bringing the Crimea region back into the fold.  Cheers!

[formthirteen]

11 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

I agree with Putin needing to save face to end the war.

 

I understand your viewpoint, but the easiest off-ramp is Russia leaving Ukraine and Crimea. Russia's propaganda machine is able to spin that as a victory to the people of Russia, for example, ”We were right, NATO attacked us but we are still here”.

 

Also, Russia does not respect any contracts or treaties, only power and force.

 

Putin is Russia. Invading and destabilizing neighbors is Russia's culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia). Removing Putin will not change that culture.

 

Basically, it's a war of memes and cultures:

A war of Borscht (see video):

No opinion on the war, other than ”it is what it is”.

Edited December 15, 2022 by formthirteen

[Dinar]

4 hours ago, formthirteen said:

 

I understand your viewpoint, but the easiest off-ramp is Russia leaving Ukraine and Crimea. Russia's propaganda machine is able to spin that as a victory to the people of Russia, for example, ”We were right, NATO attacked us but we are still here”.

 

Also, Russia does not respect any contracts or treaties, only power and force.

 

Putin is Russia. Invading and destabilizing neighbors is Russia's culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia). Removing Putin will not change that culture.

 

Basically, it's a war of memes and cultures:

A war of Borscht (see video):

No opinion on the war, other than ”it is what it is”.

Actually, no.  Neither Putin nor any other Russian leader will be able to sell leaving Crimea.    You are conveniently ignoring history.  Crimea was part of Russia for two centuries before it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by Khruschev (Ukrainian) to celebrate 300 year anniversary of Russia - Ukraine unification.  Also, eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine are very different.  Eastern Ukraine is very much like Russia while  Western Ukraine, a huge chunk of which like Lviv (Lemberg) was Austrian until 1917, is more nationalistic and closer to Poland and Austria.  Even in Soviet times, everyone spoke Ukrainian and did not want to speak Russian in Western Ukraine (Lviv, et all) while speaking Russian and not Ukrainian in the eastern part.  

The key to ending the war (assuming Putin is rational and just miscalculated) is to find a way for him to save face, so he can declare victory and leave Ukraine.  

As for Russia not respecting treaties and only respecting power and force, yes you are right.  Sadly, however this is not limited to Russia.  Germany, US, China, Japan and the list goes on.  

[formthirteen]

10 minutes ago, Dinar said:

Actually, no.  Neither Putin nor any other Russian leader will be able to sell leaving Crimea.    You are conveniently ignoring history.  Crimea was part of Russia for two centuries before it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954 by Khruschev (Ukrainian) to celebrate 300 year anniversary of Russia - Ukraine unification.  Also, eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine are very different.  Eastern Ukraine is very much like Russia while  Western Ukraine, a huge chunk of which like Lviv (Lemberg) was Austrian until 1917, is more nationalistic and closer to Poland and Austria.  Even in Soviet times, everyone spoke Ukrainian and did not want to speak Russian in Western Ukraine (Lviv, et all) while speaking Russian and not Ukrainian in the eastern part.  

The key to ending the war (assuming Putin is rational and just miscalculated) is to find a way for him to save face, so he can declare victory and leave Ukraine.  

As for Russia not respecting treaties and only respecting power and force, yes you are right.  Sadly, however this is not limited to Russia.  Germany, US, China, Japan and the list goes on.  

 

History is complex and everyone is ”conveniently" ignoring historical memes.

 

Everyone hopefully agrees that it was unnecessary to humiliate Germany after WW1. Russia was humiliated in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, but most of it was because of their own stupidity. This time it seems they are humiliating themselves again.

 

But maybe you're right, we could bow down to Russia and let ”Putin” take Sudetenland Crimea. Wait, don't forget to give him Eastern Ukraine, and what should we do about Southern Ukraine? Okay, let's give him Abkhazia and Transnistria too.

 

It seems Russia's meme writers (Pushkin, Putin, etc) are more powerful than international law.

[Dinar]

2 minutes ago, formthirteen said:

 

History is complex and everyone is ”conveniently" ignoring historical memes.

 

Everyone hopefully agrees that it was unnecessary to humiliate Germany after WW1. Russia was humiliated in 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed, but most of it was because of their own stupidity. This time it seems they are humiliating themselves again.

 

But maybe you're right, we could bow down to Russia and let ”Putin” take Sudetenland Crimea. Wait, don't forget to give him Eastern Ukraine, and what should we do about Southern Ukraine? Okay, let's give him Abkhazia and Transnistria too.

 

It seems Russia's meme writers (Pushkin, Putin, etc) are more powerful than international law.

Ok, when you compare Putin to Hitler, I know that further discussion is not productive.  Sandro from Chegem (Fazil Iskander) would laugh at you and your assertions regarding Abkhazia and Transnistria.  

[formthirteen]

25 minutes ago, Dinar said:

Ok, when you compare Putin to Hitler, I know that further discussion is not productive.  Sandro from Chegem (Fazil Iskander) would laugh at you and your assertions regarding Abkhazia and Transnistria.  

 

You are correct. I will buy you a beer after the history books about this conflict have been written. We can discuss historical facts, sorry, I mean we can discuss the best memes from books and thought leaders. I'm interested in everyone's viewpoint.

Edited December 15, 2022 by formthirteen

[UK]

https://www.economist.com/zaluzhny-transcript

 

TE: Are your allies holding you back in any way from advancing on Crimea?
VZ: I can’t answer the question of whether they are holding back or not. I will simply state the facts. In order to reach the borders of Crimea, as of today we need to cover a distance of 84km to Melitopol. By the way, this is enough for us, because Melitopol would give us a full fire control of the land corridor, because from Melitopol we can already fire at the Crimean Isthmus, with the very same himars and so on. Why am I saying this to you? Because it goes back to my earlier point about resources. I can calculate, based on the task at hand, what kind of resource is needed to build combat capability.
We are talking about the scale of World War One…that is what Antony Radakin [Britain’s top soldier] told me. When I told him that the British Army fired a million shells in World War One, I was told, “We will lose Europe. We will have nothing to live on if you fire that many shells.” When they say, “You get 50,000 shells”, the people who count the money faint. The biggest problem is that they really don’t have it.
With this kind of resources I can’t conduct new big operations, even though we are working on one right now. It is on the way, but you don’t see it yet. We use a lot fewer shells.
I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 ifvs, 500 Howitzers. Then, I think it is completely realistic to get to the lines of February 23rd. But I can’t do it with two brigades. I get what I get, but it is less than what I need. It is not yet time to appeal to Ukrainian soldiers in the way that Mannerheim appealed to Finnish soldiers. We can and should take a lot more territory.
TE: What do you make of Russia’s mobilisation?
VZ: Russian mobilisation has worked. It is not true that their problems are so dire that these people will not fight. They will. A tsar tells them to go to war, and they go to war. I’ve studied the history of the two Chechen wars—it was the same. They may not be that well equipped, but they still present a problem for us. We estimate that they have a reserve of 1.2m-1.5m people… The Russians are preparing some 200,000 fresh troops. I have no doubt they will have another go at Kyiv.

[Xerxes]

@Dinar

 

Don't fight it. There is no use.

These mood swings come and go.

 

20 years ago, after 9/11, the talk in town was all about "muslim spreading islam by the sword". If you saw a bearded person, you needed to look at them suspiciously. Everyone suddenly became a history expert.

 

I, a persian, who actually has grievences for the islamic invasion of Persia, was utterly disgusted everyday-Westerner behaviour toward everyday-Arabs after 9/11.

 

Now 20 years later, Westerners literally fall over themselves to run (not fast enough) to Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Egypt and to do selfies. It is a process that needs to exhaust itself.

 

------------------------------------

EDIT @formthirteen This is not toward you at all. Just a general comment. Please dont take it the wrong way.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

Don't worry about Putin saving face - he can stand tipsy with champagne in his golden hall blurting out unscripted whatever he wants. If need be, he can sell why he lost Crimea too to his fellow Russians , if indeed this is what happens.

 

They may not believe the story, but they will pretend to.

[Xerxes]

8 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Don't worry about Putin saving face - he can stand tipsy with champagne in his golden hall blurting out unscripted whatever he wants. If need be, he can sell why he lost Crimea too to his fellow Russians , if indeed this is what happens.

 

They may not believe the story, but they will pretend to.

 

Like everything else ... And then what ?

 

@Spekulatius

 

I am curious, suppose that Ukraine takes back Crimea and somesort of cease-fire is established.

What do you think will happen to the majority Russian-speaking population in Crimea ?

 

Afterall, Ukraine would need to ensure that Russian concentration in Crimea is diluated through forced re-location etc. No ?

They do not want a potential rebellious territory so close to Russia. And I would do the samething if I were Ukrainian. I would want to bring Ukrainian population into Crimea and do everything I can to cap the local Russian population, either through forced location etc.

 

How would you go about solving that ?

 

 

[Spekulatius]

36 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

Like everything else ... And then what ?

 

@Spekulatius

 

I am curious, suppose that Ukraine takes back Crimea and somesort of cease-fire is established.

What do you think will happen to the majority Russian-speaking population in Crimea ?

 

Afterall, Ukraine would need to ensure that Russian concentration in Crimea is diluated through forced re-location etc. No ?

They do not want a potential rebellious territory so close to Russia. And I would do the samething if I were Ukrainian. I would want to bring Ukrainian population into Crimea and do everything I can to cap the local Russian population, either through forced location etc.

 

How would you go about solving that ?

 

 

I have no idea and don't make the rules. In the ideal case, the people living there got a say (referendum) and decide where they feel they belong to. Same in Donbas.

[formthirteen]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

EDIT @formthirteen This is not toward you at all. Just a general comment. Please dont take it the wrong way.

 

No worries. I know there are multiple viewpoints and interpretations and enjoy hearing more about them. I try to stay neutral and I try not to offend anyone, but my thinking is probably affected by the historical memes that have been repeated to me (my culture).

 

Here's a photo of me trying to enjoy myself right now:

Edited December 15, 2022 by formthirteen

[Xerxes]

19 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I have no idea and don't make the rules. In the ideal case, the people living there got a say (referendum) and decide where they feel they belong to. Same in Donbas.

 

Why there is a need for a referendum ? (rhetorical Q)

 

If Ukrainian blood has been spilled to re-conquer lost territory. Than whoever doesn't like it, and doesnt want be a newly minted Ukrainian citizen, can just move to Russia.

 

A referendum implies that there is a possbility of Russian Crimeans voting to stay in Russian Federation. And what would be the return on investment on all that Ukrainian blood spilled to re-conquer those territories.

 

If Russian Crimeans vote to stay in Russian Federation, after Ukrainian re-conquest, I think it is clear that they do not want to move out of their houses, but rather the border to move so that they remain Russian.

 

By that logic, therefore, a referendum would never happen. If there is no referendum, Ukraine needs to protect its "weakest" link in the Russian-speaking territories with the newly minted local population, such that it is fully sovereign over Crimea.

 

This is complicated.

 

[Spekulatius]

33 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

Why there is a need for a referendum ? (rhetorical Q)

 

If Ukrainian blood has been spilled to re-conquer lost territory. Than whoever doesn't like it, and doesnt want be a newly minted Ukrainian citizen, can just move to Russia.

 

A referendum implies that there is a possbility of Russian Crimeans voting to stay in Russian Federation. And what would be the return on investment on all that Ukrainian blood spilled to re-conquer those territories.

 

If Russian Crimeans vote to stay in Russian Federation, after Ukrainian re-conquest, I think it is clear that they do not want to move out of their houses, but rather the border to move so that they remain Russian.

 

By that logic, therefore, a referendum would never happen. If there is no referendum, Ukraine needs to protect its "weakest" link in the Russian-speaking territories with the newly minted local population, such that it is fully sovereign over Crimea.

 

This is complicated.

 

It is complicated. I also said "ideal case" we and both know that ideal cases almost never happen. I have no idea how the people in Crimea or Donbas would vote, but I know that just because they speak Russian, does not necessarily imply they want to be Russian citizens. Perhaps they prefer to be a neutral state but that's even less likely.

[Xerxes]

6 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

It is complicated. I also said "ideal case" we and both know that ideal cases almost never happen. I have no idea how the people in Crimea or Donbas would vote, but I know that just because they speak Russian, does not necessarily imply they want to be Russian citizens. Perhaps they prefer to be a neutral state but that's even less likely.

 

Understood.

Cheers !

[UK]

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/ukraine-war-russia-enlists-singers-080018966.html

[Xerxes]

The Christmas bombings: A US airman recalls the Vietnam War's Operation Linebacker II, 50 years on | CNN

 

Not related Ukraine directly. Saw this on CNN. This December is the 50th anniversay of the "Christmas bombing of Hanoi" to force North Vietnam back on the negotiation table that were taking place in Paris five decades ago.

 

I think if people are concerned about what war (declared or undeclared) is really about it, should re-examine the case study from the 1960s and 70s. Anything that moves is a target. Anything that does not move is a target. What is legitimate or not, only gets debated in history books. War crimes only matters if your lose.

 

United States never declared war in the Vietnam, and its military mission was conduced through the "Military Assistance Command Vietnam" outfit. While, strategic bombing, i.e. B-52s, were directly coordinate by the White House.

 

Make of this what you will, but I think It is an interesting anecdote, in light all of we see in today's world.

 

--------------------------------------------

"Operation Linebacker II saw more than 200 American B-52 bombers fly 730 sorties and drop over 20,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam over a period of 12 days in December 1972, in a brutal assault aimed at shaking the Vietnamese “to their core,” in the words of then US national security adviser Henry Kissinger.

 

“They’re going to be so god damned surprised,” US President Richard Nixon replied to Kissinger on December 17, the eve of the mission.

 

In what would become known as “the Christmas bombings” in America and “the 11 days and nights” in Vietnam (no bombing took place on Christmas day), swathes of Hanoi were obliterated."

 

.........

 

“The resulting physical destruction was staggering: 1,600 military installations, miles of railway lines, hundreds of trucks and railway cars, eighty percent of electrical power plants, and countless factories and other structures were taken out of commission,” wrote Vietnam War historian Pierre Asselin in his 2018 book, “Vietnam’s American War: A History.”

 

“The Linebacker bombings crippled the North’s vital organs, obliterating the results of its communist transformation, and its ability to sustain the war in the South by extension,” Asselin wrote. Such was the devastation that one Soviet diplomat warned that North Vietnam faced becoming “a wasteland.”

[Pelagic]

@Xerxes The US actually had very strict targeting rules during the Vietnam war, especially for targets in the North. The port of Haiphong for instance was often off limits entirely due to the fear of striking Russian ships in port. Likewise for airfields in North Vietnam close to the Chinese border from which North Vietnamese fighter aircraft took off from. The use of air power in Vietnam is interesting, you have quite a few factions within the US command structure with different priorities and thought processes. Suffice to say, anything that moves was most certainly not a target, much to the chagrin of American airmen facing the same MiGs and SAM sites day after day that they couldn't target. Linebacker II in 1972 was impactful (to the extent it was) because it was when Nixon let strategic air command have their way to execute bombings against infrastructure that they had wanted to target all war long. 

 

This is a very good lecture on the topic.