it's this vacillation between war being the crisis to end all crises on the one hand and then immediately pivoting to war being so trivial as to be considered a useful tool for the ritual humiliation — Isaac

Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. Whole libraries devoted to bad feelings and positive international strategic outcomes.

I recall something about revanchism being the almost direct cause of WWII, but maybe that's just fake news history.

There isn't enough trust to do a cease fire, much less a deal about Ukraine's future.

Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. Whole libraries devoted to bad feelings and positive international outcomes. — StreetlightX

Ha, indeed! One only need look at the massive improvement in global inequality which came about after Bin Laden's humiliating defeat...

...One might have to look quite hard of course...

...Perhaps a microscope...?

I wouldn't necissarily take public diplomatic statements by Lavrov and company at face value. This is the same guy who spent months saying Russia wouldn't invade Ukraine.

What they're publicly offering is the status quo antebellum, and it's hard to see how Putin survived that politically. Granted, if he keeps the blockade of outside information up, perhaps it can be spun as a victory.

To me, it seems like having your military humiliated, having 5,000-12,000 KIA in two weeks, leveling large areas of cities, losing billions, crashing your currency, (likely) going into bankruptcy (according to the ratings agencies), etc. all to pull out and leave the same "drug addicted Neo-Nazis in power," would be untenable politically if Putin is to remain as leader, even in a state as autocratic as Russia.

The problem of securing peace might hinge on which "Neo-Nazis," have to be removed from power. Obviously demands that Ukraine shift military units over to disarming Nazi sympathizing paramilitary units that are currently holding down Russian invasion forces aren't going to be tenable because there is no physical way to make it happen. The "Neo-Nazis" could also include a bunch of moderates, and be a poison pill designed to split Ukrainian ranks? It's unclear because I haven't seen the demand fleshed out.

The other issue is NATO and the EU. Moldova is moving towards joining the EU. The EU provides security assistance for member states, but nothing like NATO (for one, it lacks US military intervention). Ukraine would benefit more long term from being in the EU than NATO in terms of technical support and economic aid, but NATO is the bigger goal now.

Obviously, they have a very good reason to want to join NATO. They were just invaded by a country claiming publicly that they would not invade. Russian decision-making for the invasion is extremely opaque and centralized, so any security assurances Russia gives appear like they are going to be able to be overturned based on the will of Russia's leadership at any time.

My guess, given Russia's previous demands, is that the demands are such that Ukraine can not only not join NATO, but cannot receive military aid and training from NATO. It should be clear why this is untenable. Ukraine is quite poor and lacks the ability to sustain the defense posture it has now. If they give up outside military aid, Russia will inevitably be able to grow stronger relative to them. Given the current situation, what is to stop Russia from deciding that the Ukrainian state has become "too Nazified," in five years, and launching another invasion?

NATO membership also let's the Ukrainians get out of investing so much in defense. They have a huge rebuilding project going forwards. They're already a poor country. Having to maintain a large military is a major burden. That, for everyone asking what possible good NATO does, is a major benefit of the alliance for Europeans. Defense spending can remain very low while still funding an adequate deterrent force. It also appears to have reduced the risk of interstate conflict.

Tangentially related, Moldova is moving towards EU membership. Russian troops have been occupying parts of Moldova since 1992 for "peace keeping purposes." There has been no conflict in 30 years. It signed treaties to vacate Moldova's land but reneged on them. Laws against the public advocating for the military's removal are draconian by even Russian standards, with seven year prison sentences for even digital protests. So, while the public in the region initially supported a split from Moldova, it is somewhat unclear if they still do, although the military is a huge part of the economy and it's unclear what an unwinding would look like.

The region is strategically relevant as an area from which to launch attacks on Ukraine, as we are seeing now. It's actually probably hurting Russia right now as it has encouraged them to launch more lines of attack than they can secure, and their lines of communications are being effectively harassed on every effort, often up to the Russian border.

Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. — StreetlightX

:up: Intriguing. An example, if it's not too much to ask.

Ritual humiliation of singular individuals having always been a mover and shaker of world history of course. — StreetlightX

In politics, individuals who are movers and shakers, is a bad thing. So this needs to be discouraged. As movers and shakers, these individuals are out of line with "the will of the people", which exists as the establishment. In science and engineering, there is high esteem for the innovations of the movers and shakers. People like Einstein receive high respect. Shaking up the political order (which dictates right and wrong), is necessarily wrong. That's why democracies don't ever seem to be able to proceed with real change.

I also think the Ukrainians have growing confidence in their ability to hold out in the medium term and get better terms for long term security.

Russian combat effectiveness seems to have plunged. They're using reconstituted regiments now, forming new units out of ones cut down far from dull strength. Conservative US estimates are 5-6,000 KIA, which would mean an additional 10,000-15,000+ wounded.

This is borne out by the recruitment drive in Syria, consideration of using unreliable Belarusian forces, and use of Chechen irregulars and mercenaries like the Wagner Group as frontal assault units for their main effort on Kyiv. Also the abandonment of Kharkiv.

(Incidentally, a leader for part of Russia's amorphous mercenary Wagner Group is a Nazi with SS tattoos. Gotta send the Nazis to take out the Jewish-Nazis in Kyiv!)

If their last General Staff report is borne out and not based on bad estimates, they repelled a major assault by a regiment sized battle group yesterday with relatively little forces or losses. This would go along with analysis suggesting low morale and very high losses in their most well trained units had led to a rapid decay in combat effectiveness. Russia has, aside from yesterday's loss, been unable to mobilize any sort of offensive above the battalion level for weeks.

Doctrine and leadership are falling apart. For example:

https://mobile.twitter.com/armedforcesukr/status/1501834943051280386?s=21

Here we see a large tank column, looks like a battalion, that should be capable of pushing past serious resistance. It is ambushed with minor losses. It retreats to regroup, which makes sense. It does so in a hotzone, which does not. Predictably, it gets blasted with artillery, inflicting more losses and likely crashing morale, then beats a full retreat, having gained no ground.

This is not a combat effective unit.

So in Ukraine, Russia are...

having [their] military humiliated, having 5,000-12,000 KIA in two weeks, leveling large areas of cities, losing billions, crashing your currency, (likely) going into bankruptcy (according to the ratings agencies) — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yet...

Ukraine is quite poor and lacks the ability to sustain the defense posture it has now — Count Timothy von Icarus

...and...

Given the current situation, what is to stop Russia from deciding that the Ukrainian state has become "too Nazified," in five years, and launching another invasion? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is it? Are Russia so weak (economically and militarily) that they're about to be defeated after barely two weeks, or are they so strong that only full NATO membership will hold them back from just taking whatever bit of Ukraine take their fancy?

It's difficult to see which cartoon of Russia you're going with here, the useless humiliated ex-bully or the evil Empire complete with Darth Vader and death star.

That's why democracies don't ever seem to be able to proceed with real change. — Metaphysician Undercover

Real change or fast change? Fast change does not equal positive change and fast change rarely equals long lasting change. In a democracy, the change requires examination and execution by the people. When a majority, close to all people agree (I mean a majority of people that does not exclude minorities or one group over another), that's when change solidifies itself into cultural and political change. Some people just want change for the sake of it or for their individual or small group collective to gain something over others. Which is why we see war, conflict, terror and pain. Little of that leads to long lasting positive change, instead risk triggering a cycle of violence that is even hard to get rid of, even within a peaceful democracy. Look at systemic racism for example, so ingrained in the system that even when whole communities agree that it's a problem, it is still hard to get rid of.

Change for a whole system or people takes time and often need to take time. When people enter their 30s they start to lock themselves into ideologies and values. It becomes harder to change the older they get. So even if change happens in a democracy, they will hold on to older values like an anchor holding society back. This is why cultural change happens quicker when booming generations start to disappear or younger people in a booming generation get into power.

The clash in Russia right now is primarily between the young generation who grew up in the post-Soviet era and the older generation stuck in those old values while the people in power, mainly Putin, tries desperately to hold onto the old empire ideals. The collapse of Russia won't just be economical, the collapse is cultural. The rift between the old and new is so vast that revolution might be a real scenario. When the fear of being shot in the street by a fascist police becomes less than the fear of a dark future for the nation, that's when people will overthrow the government. A small group of people demonstrating will not do that, but a million young Russians, even turning some of the police to their side, will.

In that regard a fast change can happen even with a positive outcome. But it's rare that a violent act create a positive outcome. Maybe blocking democracy's ability to change through peaceful processes leads to the only time democracy creates change fast, i.e revolution. Since by definition, it becomes a democratic act when it requires a majority of people to be able to overthrow the power of a nation.

This is not a combat effective unit. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But they're still able to bomb a children's hospital. I don't think Ukrainians want to hold out for a better deal. There just isn't any deal on the table now because they're locked in. A cease fire would give Ukraine time to get civilians out and regroup. Putin doesn't want that. He's just lying about the deal. He wants the Ukrainians to stop fighting so he can get his shit together and crush Kiev.

There is nothing contradictory about it. Russia is obviously in a stronger strategic position, with its developed arms industry, much larger population, much larger military, much larger reserves, much larger economy, the fact that its infrastructure isn't being destroyed, etc.

It's humiliating at the operational level because they went at lengths to present themselves as a peer rival to NATO and have had abysmal performance in some areas. $15 million AA systems turned on and functional left for the enemy (twice!). Dozens of abandoned vehicles within their claimed zone of control left for civilians to tow off (or sometimes they are driven off right to the Ukrainians because they were left undisabled, with fuel). Running out of fuel almost immediately, which would happen to any military, but not on such a huge scale. Suicidal air assaults with no SEAD happening not a few times, but over and over with the same result. Looting, including from private residences by soldiers. Expired rations for the soldiers. Bodies of your fallen soldiers in areas of your control left for days for civilians to document. Parking in tight squares in range of enemy artillery. Losing tanks and men in horrific deaths due to not vetting the load bearing capacity of bridges. Sending police in police gear into combat. Using mercenaries as front line assault units. Losing two generals and two colonels because they have to move to the front due to bad comms. Using unencrypted comms and getting trolled by civilians.

That's the humiliating part. Also shows terrible training if their doctrine focused on NATO. I can't imagine their losses with those huge convoys and massed tanks if A-10s were in the sky. Whole tank divisions would be wrecked.

You can note that I in no way claimed Russia was on the verge of "defeat." I said they were rapidly losing combat effectiveness and have lacked the ability to carry out an effective push on the outskirts of Kyiv, let alone an assault into the city. This is the opinion of professional analysts. I said it looked particularly dire for Russia if the Ukrainian General Staff's last report was accurate. It may not be. There is evidence of the engagement in open sources but not enough to vet OPFOR numbers so it is unclear if they actually repulsed a reinforced regiment, or a smaller unit.

This may be proven wrong. Recent assaults have been with reorganized formations, up to the regiment level. The Russian pause near Kyiv was likely to allow time to reorganize units at reduced strength into new, combined full strength units, as well as to bring supplies up. However, this appears to have been completed days ago and no meaningful push has appeared.

They may be waiting for troops moving from points east. The assault on Kharkiv seems to have been abandoned and it appears most resources from the Sumy axis are moving towards Kyiv rather than attempting the earlier link up with forces south, with Dinipro as a central objective.

The Sumy axis has been fairly successful, so perhaps the infusion of resources and higher morale troops will change conditions around Kyiv. However, the push west for them is going slow and costing them. If they take their previous approach, sticking to main roads and bypassing large areas of the countryside, it seems likely that they might run into further issues with long lines of communications that are far from secure. This risks turning an effective component of the invasion into an ineffective one.

In time, Russia can reinforce units around Kyiv, bring in additional assets, bring in more competent leadership, etc. This is why I said Ukraine likely feels decently about their odds "in the medium term." This is not in contradiction with the military situation being "dire" in the long term. Their hope is that political and economic factors will intervene within that time frame to force a settlement.

But they're still able to bomb a children's hospital. — frank

The cannon fodder doesn't bomb the hospitals or maternity facilities. The cannon fodder are young conscripts at the front not knowing what they're doing, the real military competence in the Russian force stays behind and use missiles and other long range attacks. Or, they are fundamentally incompetent because they can't aim. Either way, the Russian army looks pretty stupid. At the start of the invasion I said that Russia has power, but not much else. They have the most powerful bombs, the most tanks, the most everything, but they have the least strategic ability or intelligence. All the reports of troops getting blind drunk on vodka close to the date of invasion speaks for itself on what type of soldiers these are. The reports of looting and the calls they've made while doing so also shows that these soldiers are far from being battle ready, well trained operatives capable of logical and strategical thinking. Russia can only win by brute force, just push regardless of losses until they've conquered by numbers, but that would lead to extreme losses on the Russian side that will be very hard for Putin to cover up.

Russia is obviously in a stronger strategic position, with its developed arms industry, much larger population, much larger military, much larger reserves, much larger economy — Count Timothy von Icarus

Stronger position, not stronger strategic position. Brute force does not mean high strategic capability. Ukrainians have shown to have much better strategies, since they are able to hold against the invasion with less numbers and less technology. This is the problem with Russia, they have the most power but the least brain.

It's humiliating at the operational level because they went at lengths to present themselves as a peer rival to NATO and have had abysmal performance in some areas. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That doesn't explain the...

losing billions, crashing your currency, (likely) going into bankruptcy — Count Timothy von Icarus

I get the idea that operationally any number of mistakes might have happened in Ukraine's favour, but you go on to say...

My guess, given Russia's previous demands, is that the demands are such that Ukraine can not only not join NATO, but cannot receive military aid and training from NATO. It should be clear why this is untenable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see how your former assessment leads to the latter. If only a series of humiliating mistakes have given Ukraine a short term, unsustainable advantage, then in what sense is holding out for the military protection of NATO in their best interests when you're claiming the it's the financial muscle of the west that's causing Russia their only long-term harm?

Long-term, accepting being outside NATO gains Ukraine a ceasefire/peace, it loses them military protection, but the financial protection of sanctions against aggression are, you're saying, sufficiently damaging anyway to bring about near bankruptcy.

So what has Ukraine got to gain holding out for a better deal when, according to your analysis, the full military might of Russia might be just around the corner and sanctions are working just as well as the military defense they'd be giving up?

By bankruptcy I meant defaulting on their debt, the sovereign equivalent of bankruptcy in that creditors can legally seize your assets and are unlikely to lend to you in the future. Not that they would have some sort of total economic collapse.

Obviously they can maintain a war effort long term (look at the USSR during the German invasion, which, incidentally was also a series of crushing, incompetence-aided defeats that was later offset by longer term strategic advantages).

Sanctions won't stop an invasion. You can't fire sanctions at a helicopter and knock it out of the sky. I was in no way implying sanctions were causing Russia the most damage. They are causing significant additional damage to Putin's grip on power and reducing Russian incentives for continuing the war, but the main hit politically was is the surprise nature of the war for the Russian public, the attempts to hide the war, which will eventually fail, the high number of Russians killed and wounded, images of Russian attacks on civilians getting out, especially large scale attacks on residential areas populated overwhelmingly by ethnic Russians, and Russian citizens learning that friends and family in Ukraine have been killed, etc.

11 million Russians have family members in Ukraine, so efforts to hide the war seen particularly foolish because it's going to put moderates and even supporters in a position of facing prison sentences just for speaking the obvious truth about the "special operation."

Why do we need to recover territory, why is scaring the Russian army (if we even believed in such nonsense) necessary for us when we can apparently cripple Russia with sanctions instead? — Isaac

Precision of language is key here. The situation is simply too complex for vagueness to work. We don't need to recover territory. Ukraine does, or to be more precise, its current leaders appear to think so.

As for crippling Russia with sanctions, it's an approach that has its limits. For one, it will impoverish Europe and enrich China. It might even lead to global economic recession. For two, sanctions do not typically cripple a regime as much as the people suffering under that regime. Sanctions hit the poor disproportionally, while the rich and powerful find ways around them.

The best way forward for Ukraine is to win this war on the battlefield.

But if its all just Ukrainian private business then why are you even taking part in this discussion, you're not Ukrainian? All I'm saying is that we in the west didn't ought to be encouraging Ukraine militarily or through social media, to continue the war rather than sign the peace deal available. — Isaac

I'm not worried about the impact of our discussions here on the war. We are encouraging no one. There's no audience, and nobody ever fought a war because of a tweet... You are kidding yourself if you think you can influence anything from TPF, or Twitter for that matter. Your words are not going to save Ukraine. If you want to have an influence on this conflict, go fight in it, as many westerners are doing.

Why do you support the continuation of the war?

I don't think a single person here is Ukrainian, so everyone opposing the current peace deal is doing so for reasons other than those arising from being a Ukrainian. I'm disputing those reasons. — Isaac

And yet you absolutely ignore those reasons, you don't even know what my or other posters opinion is about that, since you don't pay attention... How can you dispute something that you know nothing of???? Logic, anyone?

Nahh. More haphazard lies from Isaac, that's what we deserve here. That's our lot.

The best way forward for Ukraine is to win this war on the battlefield.

100% correct. Sanctions only support defense to the varying degrees in which they erode public support for a war (sometimes this backfires by closing an economy and a public's access to information off) and erode the economic ability of combatants' to wage war (Russian access to microchips and are hugely relevant in this scenario).

In the event of an insurgency, the sanctions will have a multiplicative effect on Ukrainian resistance efforts because COIN required high force levels, which Russia will struggle to pay for.

Obviously though, military aid is, and will continue to remain more important.

As for the long term effects on Europe, this may be a net positive if it helps a drive towards lower emissions nuclear energy, increased cooperation and appreciation of the EU and NATO structures, and higher defense spending. Germany is already expanding defense spending tremendously in response to Putin's actions, to over $100 billion.

This would make it the third largest spender by a wide margin, except that Japan is also doing a huge surge in force build up in response to Chinese aggression. Both countries get more bang for their buck by benefiting from US hardware, which has had almost a century of massive investment as well.

This is a good suring up of the deterrent forces of China's neighbors, as combined Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, and Australian defense spending will be almost equal to China's, potentially ahead of it if Vietnam and the Philippines are included.

Yes, there's some silver linings here or there, but overall this war is a disaster for all, first of course for Ukraine and Russia, and second for the rest of us. The global economy is taking a hit, during a pandemic... If it leads to less globalisation, shorter local value chains, and less European dependency on petro-states, that'll I suppose be positive, further down the road. In the meantime, food prices are sky-rocketing.

“Biological research labs”. Russia claims they are bio-weapons labs; America claims they are bio-defence labs. One way or another, I’m sure American tax-payers love finding out they are funding this.

Victoria Nuland, who once handed out cookies to Maidan protesters, tells us all about them.

A useful counterweight to all our talk about the return of history, the new age of great-power conflict, etc:

**********

Russia is dying. In just the first week of Putin’s war, the country lost somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 men, according to western sources, an immense and needless tragedy for the poor families left behind to grieve.

Whether those in the Kremlin will weep for them, they must shudder at the thought that in the average week the country loses another 2,000 through population decline, a rate that rose to 20,000 during Covid. But even in normal periods, Russia is now shrinking by more than 100,000 people a year and with no prospect of raising fertility above the 2.1 total fertility rate (children-per-woman) replacement threshold.

The incomprehensible thing about this war is that Russia is not a belligerent young nation in need of expansion; it is not filled with frustrated young men hoping to assert themselves in conflict, as with Syria, Afghanistan or the world’s other conflict zones; it is already elderly, ageing quickly and in some parts heading for oblivion. Some 20,000 Russian villages have been completely abandoned in recent years, and 36,000 others have fewer than ten inhabitants left and will follow them soon. A third of land once farmed in the former USSR has now been abandoned.

If the Russians turn out to have no stomach for this fight, it will probably be for the simple fact that the country does not have enough men to spare. The majority of those poor young men killed for Russia’s honour will be their mother’s only son, in many cases their only child; this will make the impact of Putin’s crimes even more devastating for its victims.

https://edwest.substack.com/p/children-of-men-is-really-happening?s=w

America claims they are bio-defence labs. — NOS4A2

That’s not how Americans spell defense.

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? — ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians. — Isaac

A choice. But not the only choice. Defend to get a better peace treaty is a possibility also.

.@ssu was trying to argue that Russia in 'attack mode' were so weak that the world's number 22 in army sizes (plus a few civilians) could reasonably take them on, yet no-one in the world is strong enough to present a threat to them in 'defence mode'. — Isaac

Is it so crazy to understand that defending against the US was successful for the Emirate of Afghanistan after two decades, yet attacking the US and trying to occupy California won't succeed?

Yes, countries when attacking other countries are weaker and while defending themselves are stronger.

You start loosing it, Isaac...

Here's a good primer on Putin, made by PBS Frontline. Tells well how we are where we are now and just how and why Putin got to power. Worth seeing.

"Putin must be punished" is indeed just about the most stupid, sociopath approach to international politics I can imagine. But this is to be expected from those who treat the latter as a video game. — StreetlightX

It is a selling point for whatever. Rallying public opinion with private opinion is key.

In time, Russia can reinforce units around Kyiv, bring in additional assets, bring in more competent leadership, etc. This is why I said Ukraine likely feels decently about their odds "in the medium term." This is not in contradiction with the military situation being "dire" in the long term. Their hope is that political and economic factors will intervene within that time frame to force a settlement. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's a hopeful analysis. Dirty business this war. Any war for that matter.

I hope somebody wins, quickly. No one seems to agree with me that Ukraine will come out of this much stronger, because world support is on its side, world money, world rebuilding of armed forces, and security assurances from Russia.





Meanwhile there is the interview with Charlie Rose.

There is the interview with Charlie Rose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKT-XmvIwKM

This is my opinion.
Putin seems to be a realist, an immensely practical man and a very forthright in this speech: typically European in outlook. Did he start a war and get people killed? No leader of any country can avoid that taking on that responsibility, to use military force, they cannot be and should not be put in that position. There are no pacifist presidents or prime ministers. Not among the powerful nations which rely on force.

I can't help feel that both Ukraine and Putin have been provoked, manipulated by the 'cunning' and perhaps unprincipled other parties.

Obviously they can maintain a war effort long term — Count Timothy von Icarus

So how come...

The best way forward for Ukraine is to win this war on the battlefield. — Olivier5

...is

100% correct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...?

How do you see a chance for Ukraine against a superior force undamaged by sanctions which can maintain a long term war effort, yet with the same breath say that Ukraine cannot give up NATO membership. I can't see a way those aren't directly contradictory statements. Is Ukraine strong enough to convincingly repel Russian invasions on its own or isn't it? You seem to say it is when asked about continuing this war, but then say it isn't when asked about the reasons for not accepting the terms offered.

Sanctions won't stop an invasion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

...yet...

They are causing significant additional damage to Putin's grip on power and reducing Russian incentives for continuing the war — Count Timothy von Icarus

...sounds like stopping an invasion. Surely if something can reduce the incentive for continuing a war, the war no longer continues, no? Or do wars continue despite having no incentives to do so?

11 million Russians have family members in Ukraine, so efforts to hide the war seen particularly foolish because it's going to put moderates and even supporters in a position of facing prison sentences just for speaking the obvious truth about the "special operation." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why would they need to 'hide' the war? Again, I'm getting this mixed picture. Putin the dictator with an iron grip on power, shooting dissenters left right and centre, powerful enough to send armies to do his bidding - when we want to make the war sound strategically mad. Then Putin the fragile madman who can't even allow images of war out lest his volatile population reach for the guillotine. Which is it?

And?

“Biological research labs”. Russia claims they are bio-weapons labs; America claims they are bio-defence labs. One way or another, I’m sure American tax-payers love finding out they are funding this.

Victoria Nuland, who once handed out cookies to Maidan protesters, tells us all about them. — NOS4A2

The best bit about this story is the 'fact checkers' response. This one from USA today is priceless (if you're into dark humour)...

"Some people suggested that the US Government are funding bio-weapons labs in Ukraine...

...We asked the US Government and they said they weren't".

So that's that 'fact-checked'