Russia-Ukrainian War

[Spekulatius]

29 minutes ago, Castanza said:

Lol ok well most credible historians would disagree with that. This has been rehashed so many times it’s nauseating how blind some are to the reality of cause and effect. 
 

Cuban missile crisis ring a bell? Lucky we had Kennedy or we’d have 50m people dead…. 

And a lot of credible historians would disagree with your view and this also has been repeated ad nausea. Putin is really concerned about a democracy starting to prosper at his doorstep from a former Sovjet Union state proving there is a better way and undermining his raison d‘etre. Makes more sense to me. Same than XJP in China with HK and Taiwan.

[Castanza]

24 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

And a lot of credible historians would disagree with your view and this also has been repeated ad nausea. Putin is really concerned about a democracy starting to prosper at his doorstep from a former Sovjet Union state proving there is a better way and undermining his raison d‘etre. Makes more sense to me. Same than XJP in China with HK and Taiwan.

I think all of the things mentioned are factors. But for anyone to say NATO using Ukraine as a launch site against Russia is not a factor is simply ignorant. US wouldn’t stand for missiles in Cuba or Canada pointed at us. “Just keeping the peace though”. 
 

Putin has been saying for over a decade this was a concern. I think there is credibility to Ukraine being a geographical point of defense. Zeihan has pointed this out as well. Does Putin want the USSR back? Probably so. I mean he grew up there and saw a country that in his eyes was great and United and strong end up in ruins. He’s wrong, but his sentiment or nostalgia is understandable. A lot of people seem to miss the fact that Putin also understands the degrading demographics of Russia. So this being a last ditch effort to maintain the Motherland is understandable through his actions (although not justifiable).
 

People will probably say that I’m crazy for saying that as well, but it’s well documented. And in my opinion if people can’t understand that point of view the. 1.) You haven’t walked in another’s shoes 2.) They don’t understand humans, political sociology, or nation states and likely think geopolitics is nothing more than a black and white game of risk. 
 

Putin is not a rational actor. He sees this as a last ditch effort and that he is backed into a corner. This is primarily why I think deescalation at all costs should be forefront on the Wests minds. Not matching escalation with weapons that are basically used for war crimes. This is the closest we’ve been to a nuke clacking off in a long time and too many people see this situation as simple and in black and white terms whit it is far far from that. 
 

As Bertrand Russell said….You can only expect a man to walk a tightrope so long before he falls….. 

 

sometime some day someone will clack one off and everyone if they survive will lol back at how foolish they were in their thinking. It’s short sighted by the west. We came close enough with Cuba… 

[Xerxes]

@Castanza

 

Kennedy and this Russian guy, who thankfully was not a complete idiot like the overexcited “patriotic” General Lemay

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-soviet-submarine-captain-who-averted-nuclear-war-awarded-future-of-life-prize

[Xerxes]

On the cluster munitions, the view that Ukraine can cleanup their own land, after the fact so it is their choice to use or not is based on the view that Ukraine will be able to eject +180,000 Russian troops from its territory by force or through treaty. 
 

Another way to think of it, if they are unable to eject all Russians (very highly plausible scenario), these weapons are really intended for Ukraine to “scorched earth” what it cannot have. 
 

And U.S. DoD can finally clear its inventory and release some constrained cash flow on paper to the delight of its accountants. Got to tidy up that DoD balance sheet. 
 

——

 

In any case, the Wagner episode has shown the cracks in the Kremlin regime, it is no surprise that Biden administration is leaning into it hard. Got to lean in, and lean in until something breaks. The old man wants its legacy.
 

Definitely above my pay grade. 

[Castanza]

17 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

On the cluster munitions, the view that Ukraine can cleanup their own land, after the fact so it is their choice to use or not is based on the view that Ukraine will be able to eject +180,000 Russian troops from its territory by force or through treaty. 
 

Another way to think of it, if they are unable to eject all Russians (very highly plausible scenario), these weapons are really intended for Ukraine to “scorched earth” what it cannot have. 
 

And U.S. DoD can finally clear its inventory and release some constrained cash flow on paper to the delight of its accountants. Got to tidy up that DoD balance sheet. 
 

——

 

In any case, the Wagner episode has shown the cracks in the Kremlin regime, it is no surprise that Biden administration is leaning into it hard. Got to lean in, and lean in until something breaks. The old man wants its legacy.
 

Definitely above my pay grade. 

Cleanuo is a long road no matter how you look at it. Ukraine is going to need a lot of help on this front (already are in many cases). 
 

The Wagner development is definitely a big deal. I’m sure the CIA is in the trenching looking for ways to exploit this further. 
 

———————

To the others on this thread. I am 100% behind Ukraine and I do think the US has a responsibility to support through supply. However I think NATO is a primary cause of this war. I don’t think Putins actions are justified, but when I put myself in the shoes of the Russians I do understand it. Looking here at home there are plenty of people who would do desperate things to preserve the Republic. You can feel that in the air with the previous election. But often people are misaligned with the wrong person or take the wrong path. Frankly I get very tired of hearing people say “so and so would t do that.” Or “it doesn’t make sense for Russia to do that”. 
 

Nothing about war makes sense, and history is primarily filled with illogical and irrational individuals. There has been a lot of luck involved in very high stakes situations over the past 80 years. At some point the die is going to hit. 
 

 

[lnofeisone]

Can the answer be lot more straightforward? Ukraine is struggling to reclaim its territory and just needs nastier weapons to make progress. Russia is well dug in and more importantly, had adapted to be more effective. Mines, helicopters, lancets - are all things that Russia has perfected and it's now causing Ukarine major headaches. Just my 2 cents. 

[Xerxes]

57 minutes ago, lnofeisone said:

Can the answer be lot more straightforward? Ukraine is struggling to reclaim its territory and just needs nastier weapons to make progress. Russia is well dug in and more importantly, had adapted to be more effective. Mines, helicopters, lancets - are all things that Russia has perfected and it's now causing Ukarine major headaches. Just my 2 cents. 

Certainly. That said we are just having conversations, shooting different scenarios, challenging different points of views, going down the rabbit hole for the hell of it etc. 

 

if you want to be absolutely factual, than 90% of what has been said in this thread is mostly speculation and “what ifs” and throwing in stuff from recent and past history. 
 

I dare say, this thread itself is a piece of history in some ways, capturing the different points of view, different biases, etc as events unfolded over now 450+ or so days. 

[Castanza]

10 hours ago, lnofeisone said:

Can the answer be lot more straightforward? Ukraine is struggling to reclaim its territory and just needs nastier weapons to make progress. Russia is well dug in and more importantly, had adapted to be more effective. Mines, helicopters, lancets - are all things that Russia has perfected and it's now causing Ukarine major headaches. Just my 2 cents. 

Nothing wrong with that view if you’re primarily interested in battlefield analysis. 

[lnofeisone]

20 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Certainly. That said we are just having conversations, shooting different scenarios, challenging different points of views, going down the rabbit hole for the hell of it etc. 

 

if you want to be absolutely factual, than 90% of what has been said in this thread is mostly speculation and “what ifs” and throwing in stuff from recent and past history. 
 

I dare say, this thread itself is a piece of history in some ways, capturing the different points of view, different biases, etc as events unfolded over now 450+ or so days. 

100% agree. We are all sharing opinions and opinions changed as the war evolved (e.g., west involvement, weapons upgrades, the weather). 

 

@Castanza - I think the battlefield will decide the outcome of this situation. It's clear Ukraine is committed but so is Putin. Something's gotta give. 

[John Hjorth]

Just some educational info here [without the intent to appear condecending towards fellow board members posting in this topic, or for that matter any CoBF member] :

 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Press Release [July 7^th 2023] : Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2014-2023).

Full document in PDF with data tables and charts.

 

Whose war is it : The war belongs Russia and Ukraine.

Whose problem is the war? : To me, it's primairily a problem held and owned by Europe, because the war is going on in Europe and destabilizes Europe in a material way. ['Europe' here includes both  Russia and Ukraine.]

In the end it's an issue for every state in the western world, where societal values are based on democracy and freedom.

 

I have no problem with understanding the stances of @cubsfan and @Castanza about USAs participation in the financing of the war. As a Dane, I'm actually embarrased by the Danish part of the data in the above mentioned material.

Edited July 10, 2023 by John Hjorth

[John Hjorth]

Bloomberg [July 10^th 2023] : Erdogan Links Sweden’s NATO Entry to Turkey’s EU Bid.

 

The man is an intellectual pygmy. The legal framework for EU has nothing to do with the legal framework for NATO.

 

 

[cubsfan]

10 hours ago, John Hjorth said:

Just some educational info here [without the intent to appear condecending towards fellow board members posting in this topic, or for that matter any CoBF member] :

 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Press Release [July 7^th 2023] : Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries (2014-2023).

Full document in PDF with data tables and charts.

 

Whose war is it : The war belongs Russia and Ukraine.

Whose problem is the war? : To me, it's primairily a problem held and owned by Europe, because the war is going on in Europe and destabilizes Europe in a material way. ['Europe' here includes both  Russia and Ukraine.]

In the end it's an issue for every state in the western world, where societal values are based on democracy and freedom.

 

I have no problem with understanding the stances of @cubsfan and @Castanza about USAs participation in the financing of the war. As a Dane, I'm actually embarrased by the Danish part of the data in the above mentioned material.

Yes, the war is primarily a serious problem for Europe- which is exactly why it’s a large problem for the USA. Unless you want every country in the world nuking up - you’re going to have to have a serious Western world alliance (Europe & USA).

 The pacifist in both spheres need to go. Only then is Putin and President Xi going to understand this alliance can NEVER be defeated- and these wars of aggression will eventually be met with defeat.

 

Its not at all about spreading democracy and that nonsense. It’s about living alongside each other and benefiting from free trade - as the post WWII period has brought us.

 

Extremely weak world leaders have brought us to this moment.

[John Hjorth]

KAL cartoon [July 6^th 2023] in The Economist. [Perhaps needless to say, but I like it [  ], especially on a day where there will be a solution for a roadmap for  Swedens NATO membership, and thereby for the NATO members in Northern Europe in the Baltics and Nordics.]

 

[changegonnacome]

Ukraine's 'fast path' to NATO membership......feels a little like kabuki theatre.........its been 'given' to Ukraine by NATO members such that they can give it away in peace talks with Russia (potentially later this year)......not sure of the accuracy of reports but certainly the very early sketches of a peace deal Zelensky offered to Russia at the outset of the conflict had NATO neutrality as its tent pole feature.

[Xerxes]

Any talk of NATO membership (and with it the coveted Article 5 clause) for Ukraine, in current state (or even in a cease-fire scenario), can potentially be dilutive to Article 5 itself, and what it represents.  

 

Kremlin’ red line were shown to be phantom lines, NATO’ vaunted Article 5 should not (must not) turn out to be a phantom. A premature induction of a war-torn Ukraine could easily dilute that if turn out to be a phantom or a dud.   

There was a time and place to do that, like decades ago. Whether it was right to do it then or wrong, that is water under the bridge. Today however it is a mistake. 

[Spekulatius]

Ukraine's NATO membership is not going to happen until there is a piece deal. NATO has never admitted any nation with an open conflict. More likely than not, Ukraine's NATO membership is going to be part of  (or a side deal) of a peace deal with Russia.

 

FWIW, one of the reasons why Russia kept the stale war in the Donbas going from 2014 to 2022 is to prevent Ukraine joining the NATO, knowing too well the unwritten rule about open conflict.

[changegonnacome]

 

Back to earlier questions of NATO encroachment as contributory factor to Russia's decision to invade Ukraine check out this recent interview with Biden from the weekend.

 

Where Biden 1m28secs into the interview recounts how his first meeting with Putin as president two years ago in Geneva (June 2021) had at its core a demand from Russia/Putin that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO....Biden it seems in that meeting reiterated the NATO trope which is that it has an 'open door' policy and would not rule out Ukraine joining. This from a President who's son was on the board of Ukranian gas company......and where the former president had called up the Ukranian president to have a political rival investigated.

 

As the old ad used to say - Heineken doesn't do US puppet regimes....but if they did 2020/2021 Ukraine sure would be a one of the best in the world.

 

Part of your intelligence apparatus job is to figure out your opponents red line issues........the foreign policy establishments failure in Washington to identify and classify Ukraine correctly as a red line issue for Russia.....to correctly identify a point of escalation that would have negative & sub-optimal consequences...is a great failing of the modern foreign relations class inside the beltway........ Putin is to blame too of course.....he invaded......but did it really advance the Ukrainian nations interest to encourage them and support them to pivot so completely to the West....there's literally 1000's of young men in trenches paying for that hubris and its turned out to be in nobody's interest not least the Ukrainians.

 

Sometimes in international relations......countries say what they mean and mean what they say......no 4D chess or gamesmanship involved.....Putin the expansionary imperialist remains one of the great myths in our culture.......it's really Putin the insecure existentialist which rings truest when one looks at the pattern of events and ignores the stories.....and meetings recounted by Biden such as this as recently as June 2021 + many other examples of Putin at every juncture demanding Ukrainian neutrality point to that.

 

As I've pointed out many times before as matter of quantitative fact rather than a qualitative theory (which can always be argued).... 185,000 invading troops is the not the army of a wannabe imperialist....for an imperialist this would simply be a division of ay invading army one of 20 or 30 perhaps for an invasion plan that covered a territory as vast as Ukranians.

 

 

[ValueArb]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Back to earlier questions of NATO encroachment as contributory factor to Russia's decision to invade Ukraine check out this recent interview with Biden from the weekend.

 

Where Biden 1m28secs into the interview recounts how his first meeting with Putin as president two years ago in Geneva (June 2021) had at its core a demand from Russia/Putin that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO....Biden it seems in that meeting reiterated the NATO trope which is that it has an 'open door' policy and would not rule out Ukraine joining. This from a President who's son was on the board of Ukranian gas company......and where the former president had called up the Ukranian president to have a political rival investigated.

 

As the old ad used to say - Heineken doesn't do US puppet regimes....but if they did 2020/2021 Ukraine sure would be a one of the best in the world.

 

Part of your intelligence apparatus job is to figure out your opponents red line issues........the foreign policy establishments failure in Washington to identify and classify Ukraine correctly as a red line issue for Russia.....to correctly identify a point of escalation that would have negative & sub-optimal consequences...is a great failing of the modern foreign relations class inside the beltway........ Putin is to blame too of course.....he invaded......but did it really advance the Ukrainian nations interest to encourage them and support them to pivot so completely to the West....there's literally 1000's of young men in trenches paying for that hubris and its turned out to be in nobody's interest not least the Ukrainians.

 

Sometimes in international relations......countries say what they mean and mean what they say......no 4D chess or gamesmanship involved.....Putin the expansionary imperialist remains one of the great myths in our culture.......it's really Putin the insecure existentialist which rings truest when one looks at the pattern of events and ignores the stories.....and meetings recounted by Biden such as this as recently as June 2021 + many other examples of Putin at every juncture demanding Ukrainian neutrality point to that.

 

As I've pointed out many times before as matter of quantitative fact rather than a qualitative theory (which can always be argued).... 185,000 invading troops is the not the army of a wannabe imperialist....for an imperialist this would simply be a division of ay invading army one of 20 or 30 perhaps for an invasion plan that covered a territory as vast as Ukranians.

 

 

lets not forget that Putin earlier said he would have no issues with the Ukraine joining NATO and even considered having Russia join.

[changegonnacome]

2 hours ago, ValueArb said:

lets not forget that Putin earlier said he would have no issues with the Ukraine joining NATO and even considered having Russia join.

Not sure what that’s got to do with anything….what you reference is the early musing (brain farts) of Putin who was yet to be President of Russia….and was making come on eyes at the west…..that was about 21yrs ago! 

 

Since at least 2006 Putin has been crystal clear that Ukranian neutrality was a redline security issue for Russia akin to the Monroe Doctrine that the US has made crystal clear for about a 100yrs.

 

What’s come out in recent past via the Biden interview above, some interviews/talks Boris Johnson has done collecting speaking fees and Macron has alliuded too…..Putin since 2008 has at every bilateral engagement with Western leaders and with increasing frequency/urgency over time made Ukranian neutrality non-membership of NATO clear as a Russia redline…..I don’t agree with a policy of appeasement with Russia…..their maneuvers and strategic plays around the globe should be met with toe to toe by the West….in regard to Ukraine there was a serious failure of judgement on the part of the US and it’s allies….a failure to fully identify Ukraine’s strategic importance to Russia….it’s this failure which is the sin oft repeated by US diplomacy overseas….(1) the idea that nation building is even possible  (Ukraine/Afghanistan/Iraq) & (2) failing to assess your opponents red lines (Russia/Ukraine) and failure to identify your opponents resolve and staying power is ultimately much higher than yours (Afghanistan/Iraq/Ukraine/Vietnam+++++++).

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, ValueArb said:

lets not forget that Putin earlier said he would have no issues with the Ukraine joining NATO and even considered having Russia join.

so. People flip flop all the time. 

 

Rumsfeld and Bush were kissing Iraqi asses before flipping on them. 
 

Saddam was kissing Saudi asses before flipping on them. 
 

Hitler was in bed with Stalin before flipping. 
 

I wanted to be a doctor before I flipped into engineering 
 

Italians flipped in both world wars. God may have mercy on their souls !

[Viking]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

Not sure what that’s got to do with anything….what you reference is the early musing (brain farts) of Putin who was yet to be President of Russia….and was making come on eyes at the west…..that was about 21yrs ago! 

 

Since at least 2006 Putin has been crystal clear that Ukranian neutrality was a redline security issue for Russia akin to the Monroe Doctrine that the US has made crystal clear for about a 100yrs.

 

What’s come out in recent past via the Biden interview above, some interviews/talks Boris Johnson has done collecting speaking fees and Macron has alliuded too…..Putin since 2008 has at every bilateral engagement with Western leaders and with increasing frequency/urgency over time made Ukranian neutrality non-membership of NATO clear as a Russia redline…..I don’t agree with a policy of appeasement with Russia…..their maneuvers and strategic plays around the globe should be met with toe to toe by the West….in regard to Ukraine there was a serious failure of judgement on the part of the US and it’s allies….a failure to fully identify Ukraine’s strategic importance to Russia….it’s this failure which is the sin oft repeated by US diplomacy overseas….(1) the idea that nation building is even possible  (Ukraine/Afghanistan/Iraq) & (2) failing to assess your opponents red lines (Russia/Ukraine) and failure to identify your opponents resolve and staying power is ultimately much higher than yours (Afghanistan/Iraq/Ukraine/Vietnam+++++++).

The simplest answer is usually the best. It is obvious Putin is a mole for the West. He was likely recruited in St. Petersburg before his political career got going. He single-handedly has:

• revitalized NATO
• convinced Finland and Sweden to join NATO, when neither country wanted to before
• convinced all countries in Europe neighbouring Russia to quickly and heavily re-arm
• severed decades old economic linkages with Germany
• convinced Germany to re-arm
• set the Russian economy back a generation
• permanently lowered the living standards of current and future generations of Russian kids
• killed tens of thousands of young Russian men; turning what was already a demographic problem into a nightmare
• convinced tens of thousands of Russians to leave their country (lots of whom are educated)
• accelerated by decades the decline of the Russian state
• economically, made Russia a vassal state of China

Simply amazing what he has accomplished in less than 18 months. And i don’t think he is close to being done.

Edited July 12, 2023 by Viking

[cubsfan]

7 hours ago, Viking said:

The simplest answer is usually the best. It is obvious Putin is a mole for the West. He was likely recruited in St. Petersburg before his political career got going. He single-handedly has:

• revitalized NATO
• convinced Finland and Sweden to join NATO, when neither country wanted to before
• convinced all countries in Europe neighbouring Russia to quickly and heavily re-arm
• severed decades old economic linkages with Germany
• convinced Germany to re-arm
• set the Russian economy back a generation
• permanently lowered the living standards of current and future generations of Russian kids
• killed tens of thousands of young Russian men; turning what was already a demographic problem into a nightmare
• convinced tens of thousands of Russians to leave their country (lots of whom are educated)
• accelerated by decades the decline of the Russian state
• economically, made Russia a vassal state of China

Simply amazing what he has accomplished in less than 18 months. And i don’t think he is close to being done.

+ 1 on that!

[Spekulatius]

8 hours ago, Viking said:

The simplest answer is usually the best. It is obvious Putin is a mole for the West. He was likely recruited in St. Petersburg before his political career got going. He single-handedly has:

• revitalized NATO
• convinced Finland and Sweden to join NATO, when neither country wanted to before
• convinced all countries in Europe neighbouring Russia to quickly and heavily re-arm
• severed decades old economic linkages with Germany
• convinced Germany to re-arm
• set the Russian economy back a generation
• permanently lowered the living standards of current and future generations of Russian kids
• killed tens of thousands of young Russian men; turning what was already a demographic problem into a nightmare
• convinced tens of thousands of Russians to leave their country (lots of whom are educated)
• accelerated by decades the decline of the Russian state
• economically, made Russia a vassal state of China

Simply amazing what he has accomplished in less than 18 months. And i don’t think he is close to being done.

Great list. You can add that managed to get India to pivoting away from Russia. Greatest CIA intelligence spyop ever that nobody talks about.

 

[changegonnacome]

9 hours ago, Viking said:

The simplest answer is usually the best. It is obvious Putin is a mole for the West. He was likely recruited in St. Petersburg before his political career got going. He single-handedly has:

• revitalized NATO
• convinced Finland and Sweden to join NATO, when neither country wanted to before
• convinced all countries in Europe neighbouring Russia to quickly and heavily re-arm
• severed decades old economic linkages with Germany
• convinced Germany to re-arm
• set the Russian economy back a generation
• permanently lowered the living standards of current and future generations of Russian kids
• killed tens of thousands of young Russian men; turning what was already a demographic problem into a nightmare
• convinced tens of thousands of Russians to leave their country (lots of whom are educated)
• accelerated by decades the decline of the Russian state
• economically, made Russia a vassal state of China

Simply amazing what he has accomplished in less than 18 months. And i don’t think he is close to being done.

 

Yep great list @Viking....if your hinting that this is a great outcome for the US from a global strategic competition point of view........I kind of agree with wholeheartedly....to it I would add making the EU energy dependent on the USA for LNG over time too ensuring their continued role as a client state of the US.........where we differ of course........is that a whole Country (Ukraine) has been be tossed on the fire to achieve your list of US 'wins' & where I've argued that this conflict was avoidable with just tiny bit more accommodation to Russia's security concerns*..... the above US strategic aims in the region (Russia containment/outright hostility).......has now come at cost of ten of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian young men dead............and millions upon millions of Ukrainian refugee families strewn across Europe.

 

* at its core however if you believe Putin the imperialist story you believe this conflict was unavoidable......if unavoidable of course you think of only the good things that have come out of it from a US strategic point of view and that's understandable....its more uncomfortable to do what I've done.......which is to ask was their a third way where the West could have handled the Ukraine portfolio with a degree more humility & caution to the complexity of a small country (Ukraine) neighbouring a large powerful country like Russia. The problem with the zealots in the State Department in every US nation building exercise I've ever studied that's ended exactly like the situation we have in Ukraine....is a complete lack of understanding of history and complete inability once words like 'freedom' 'democracy' 'liberty' are thrown around in regards to a nation.... to come to a pragmatic US foreign policy strategy that might achieve both US security aims in a region but also optimize to what practically work out best for the people of that nation.

[changegonnacome]

9 hours ago, Viking said:

economically, made Russia a vassal state of China

 

One quibble with your list - the above is a complete and utter DISASTER for US foreign policy over the long pull for the only strategic competition that truly MATTERS this century - USA vs China

 

Pairing up Russia so completely - a resource and energy rich country to your greatest rival who's achilles heel is their lack of energy & resources...does that sound like a good outcome?....it will prove to be a deep deep strategic blunder for US foreign policy.......separating Russia from China should have been aim of the game....not driving Russia into the arms of China.