when the story is that this is "Putin's war" that no one in autocratic dictatorship Russia actually supports? :chin: — Tzeentch

I think there are some that do support Putin and do think it's time to "make Russia Great again". Or as it's put: "Defend Fortress Russia from the evil West". Just as there are those who oppose his policies.

I think an important aspect of NATO's behavior in regards to the war in Ukraine is being left unaddressed.

Who have been some of the biggest hawks from the NATO side?

The United States (the most influential NATO member by a mile-and-a-half) and the United Kingdom, both having been involved in the blocking of a peace deal that was on the table in April of 2022.

What do these states have in common?

They're both island nations, and they don't share the same security concerns that the countries on the European mainland do.

Odd, how we Europeans are letting countries who will not bear the full burden of war in Europe stoke the fires.


Therefore following statement:

Europe would be better off replacing NATO with a military coalition that involves only the countries connected to the European mainland.

The combined GDP of the European nations dwarfs that of Russia (the only geopolitical competitor in the region), so there's really no reason Europe should lean on the United States for their security.


Obviously the practical implementation of this is a whole other story. The European Union is a non-democratic abomination that needs to be replaced with something that is actually functional before this could ever happen, but lets leave that aside for now.

Slovakia basks under NATO umbrella, sends Ukraine old arms
^{— Karel Janicek · AP News · Mar 1, 2023}

Not really surprising I suppose.

The report has takeaways.

Slovakia is a Ukraine neighbor and has been "invaded" by NATO forces :smile: that don't otherwise interfere in political processes or daily lives or whatever. The Slovaks don't consider NATO a security threat. They seem to be (and have been) doing relatively/reasonably well as far as the regular Jane and John Slovak goes. Go figure.

^{(you may contrast with other/parallel developments like ... Feb 2022, Mar 2022, Mar 2022, Jul 2022, Aug 2022, Sep 2022, W, W, W, W, W, W, W, W ... anyway, much has been posted in the thread prior)}

They're looking into sending some old "unwieldy" gear to the Ukrainians except keeping one of them as a museum piece. I guess the protection is what the Ukrainians (once) hoped for, which isn't something the UN can do.

Obviously the practical implementation of this is a whole other story. The European Union is a non-democratic abomination that needs to be replaced with something that is actually functional before this could ever happen, but lets leave that aside for now. — Tzeentch

Yet that's practically the whole point whatever one might think of the EU. It's more easy to agree on what is desirable, than on what is feasible. Outside the EU (or some other form of federation) Europeans might go back to compete one another not only economically but also for security. And outside the US sphere of influence, we might compete not only with Russia, and China and other regional or global competitors, but also with the US. Good luck with that.

The west is stupid as bean straw. In 2014, the Maidan riots are escalated, conscious of the fact that the Crimea for Russia is of central strategic importance.
Today China is warned to deliver arms to Russia, but you deliver weapons to Ukraine yourself. Stupidity has always been dangerous and led to a world war every time.

So you agree that a European security cooperation that does not involve primarily the United States and the United Kingdom would be beneficial to Europe, and it's just the practical aspects that you are worried about?

Stupidity has always been dangerous — Wolfgang

This is the one thing that you said that even makes any sense. The rest is a confused, ungrammatical mess.

↪neomac
So you agree that a European security cooperation that does not involve primarily the United States and the United Kingdom would be beneficial to Europe, and it's just the practical aspects that you are worried about? — Tzeentch

Yes if it was feasible and sustainable. In the shitty situation we are I simply don't see how we can get there. Even less, safely (or "democratically" for that matter).

sorry, ich sollte den Übersetzer nicht verwenden.

Putin’s War Against Ukraine: The End of The Beginning
^{— Eugene Rumer · Carnegie · Feb 17, 2023}

Russia was favored to win quickly. A year later, he is betting on the opposite—to wage a long war against Ukraine, exploiting the advantages that Russia’s size, resilient economy, and relative security from retaliation afford him. Victory on the battlefield has proved elusive. A counteroffensive in Donbas, combined with the ongoing campaign of terror against Ukrainian cities and towns and destruction of the country’s infrastructure, is his next best options.

Latest Defence Intelligence update on the situation in Ukraine - 24 February 2023
^{— Ministry of Defence UK · Feb 24, 2023}

In recent weeks, Russia has likely changed its approach again. Its campaign now likely primarily seeks to degrade the Ukrainian military, rather than being focused on seizing substantial new territory.
The Russian leadership is likely pursuing a long-term operation where they bank that Russia’s advantages in population and resources will eventually exhaust Ukraine.

So Russia's strategy is that a sufficient supply of bodies (Russian bodies) will eventually exhaust Ukraine's supply of shells. :sad: — Sir Balthazar Wobbly · Feb 24, 2023

CIA director William Burns on "Face the Nation"
^{— Margaret Brennan · CBS News · Feb 26, 2023}

At some point, he's going to have to face up to increasing costs as well, in coffins coming home to some of the poorest parts of Russia because many of the conscripts, you know, who are being thrown as cannon fodder in the front and the Donbas as well, come from Dagestan and Buryatia, the poorest parts of Russia as well.

Merc head Prigozhin is apparently unhappy (also Feb 28, 2023) ...
Wagner chief warns of collapse of Russian front line if there is retreat from Bakhmut
^{— Lauren Sforza · The Hill · Mar 6, 2023}
Potentially being "set up"...? A ruse...?

Seems a stretch that the current situation was Putin's plan all along. (?)


On another note, Mearsheimer or Yudin? A bit of both?
It’s not NATO — Putin always has had expansionist designs
^{— Alexander J Motyl · The Hill · Mar 6, 2023}

Seems a stretch that the current situation was Putin's plan all along. (?) — jorndoe

I think Putin had hoped the West would back down after the initial invasion, and a negotiated deal could be struck. (Peace talks in late March/early April 2022 imply as much).

They may have expected the United States to back down, since the US cannot afford to bind itself in Eastern Europe with China being the real threat to its global influence.

When the US blocked peace talks, I think the annexation of Donbas and Zaporizhzhia was the plan B, and by and the large the Russians have been successful at turning the war in their favor. Ukraine is on western life support, and it's a matter of time before the continued pressure of war takes its toll.


Ultimately western support will only delay the inevitable. The type of aid Ukraine is receiving is not the type that can turn a losing war into a win (or even a stalemate for that matter). Handfuls of high-tech equipment don't win wars. They are barely worth setting up the elaborate logistical chains to get them operational in the first place.

The only reason these things aren't yet part of the western common sense is because of a relentless propaganda campaign.

For example, the defense on Kiev has been framed as a heroic Ukrainian defense and a huge failure of the Russian armed forces. However, the order of battle on the Ukrainian side was never disclosed which means it's hard to tell what exactly happened.
Recently, Seymour Hersh gave an interview in which he named the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders at the battle of Kiev. Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. The Russians attacked Kiev with ~21,000 troops. This is a small amount for a city as large as Kiev, but against a defending force of 60,000 there's simply no way this force was meant to capture the capital. One would have expected the Russians to aim for a local numerical advantage of at least 3:1, especially for the type of urban fighting the capture would have involved. This would have required roughly 180,000 troops - basically the entire Russian invading force.

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.


Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. But ultimately it's in everybody's best interest, and especially the Ukrainians', that we don't harbor illusions. Young men are needlessly dying every day for a country that's clinging to futile dreams of victory.

When peace talks were started in late March, that should have been the end of the war.

But the question I have for you, is, are you supporting Putin's war? — Wayfarer

Of course not.

Because it seems to me, that you're basically repeating Russian propoganda. — Wayfarer

That is because everything that contradicts the western narrative is automatically labeled as Russian propaganda.

All of what I said is supported by hard facts and expert opinions (which I will happily share if you're interested).


I'm laying out the painful reality of the situation, because cheerleading and sugar coating aren't going to change it, and the price of ignorance is paid every day by the young men dying on the frontline, and civilians suffering under the war.

This is just really rude. No sense flagging a mod but @Tzeentch (unlike myself) has been pretty much as calm and polite a poster here as any and us merely presenting a view which is widely supported by qualified academics.

Let's not forget, Putin is an authoritarian dictator at best, a genocidal war criminal at worst. Accusing someone of "supporting" him or his war is a horrible thing to say.

If this thread is a "cesspool" it's because of posts like this which turn everything into brutish tribalism.

OK, point taken. I've deleted those comments. I was angry, because I've just been watching the reports on the unbelievable savagery that is entailed by Putin's war. I'll keep out of this thread, I don't have anything to say, other than that.

Thanks. Anger is understandable, many of my posts here could fall under a similar criticism and are motivated by the same anger you feel (I just disagree with you about how to stop this hell) and were it one of mine you were responding to I would have let it be.

As @Tzeentch said...

the price of ignorance is paid every day by the young men dying on the frontline, and civilians suffering under the war. — Tzeentch

Being charitable, I think all of us here feel that and just disagree over who is ignorant of what.

Assuming that's true, and I suspect that it is (and probably the reason why the order of battle remains undisclosed), this means the defense of Kiev was a successful Russian attempt at diverting forces away from the east. — Tzeentch

Logic jump [1].

If we are to believe Hersh's sources, it turns out the idea of the advance on Kiev being a binding operation and not an attempt at capturing and occupying Kiev - an idea that I have posited multiple times in this thread - wasn't so far-fetched after all. In fact, it might've been exactly what took place. — Tzeentch

In other words, the western media spin was pure bullshit to influence the public perception of Ukraine's chances in this war.

Let me end by saying, I find no pleasure in these hard facts. — Tzeentch

Rhetoric jump.


[1]
BTW Scott Ritter, a "diversion theory" supporter (I suspect it's him your first expert source), also claims:
Moscow had opted not to employ its forces according to standard doctrine, opting instead to take a light approach, which appeared to be born from a concerted effort to minimise civilian casualties and harm to civilian infrastructure that itself was derived from a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the situation on the ground in Ukraine.
The reported purging of 150 officers from the 5th Department of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), responsible for operations in the so-called ‘near abroad’ (which includes Ukraine), along with the
arrest of Sergei Beseda, the former head of the department, suggests that Russia had suffered a failure of intelligence the likes of which has not been seen since the Israeli failure to predict the Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War of October 1973.
While the Russian government has remained characteristically tight-lipped about any possible shortcomings regarding the work of the 5th Department prior to the start of the military operation, the statements by Russian leadership suggesting that the Ukrainian military might remain in its barracks and that civilian leadership would not interfere with Russia military operations suggest that these assumptions were made using intelligence provided by the 5th Department.
That such assumptions, if indeed they were made, proved to be so fundamentally off target, when combined with the preparedness of the Ukrainian military to engage the initial columns of Russian forces, suggests that the work of the 5th Department had been disrupted by Ukrainian security services, who took control of Russian human networks and fed false reports back to the Russian leadership.
The fact is that columns of Russian troops, advancing boldly into Ukraine without the kind of attention to route security and flank protection that would normally accompany offensive operations, found themselves cut off and annihilated by well-prepared Ukrainian ambushes. It was, to use an American colloquialism, a Turkey shoot, and the Ukrainian government made effective use of combat footage obtained from such encounters to great effect in shaping global public opinion about the effectiveness of Ukraine’s defences. However, the limitations of the Ukrainian armed forces did not allow it to turn its impressive tactical victories into positive operational and strategic outcomes.
https://www.herald.co.zw/ukraine-winning-battle-on-twitter-on-the-ground-kiev-is-losing-fight/

Scott Ritter, a "diversion theory" supporter (I suspect it's him your first expert source)... — neomac

Couldn't be further from the truth. I don't take Scott Ritter very seriously.

Do you?

Couldn't be further from the truth. I don't take Scott Ritter very seriously. — Tzeentch

Then which other expert is explicitly supporting the "diversion hypothesis" as you do?

Do you? — Tzeentch

Scott Ritter is a controversial commentator but his article is interesting because despite his expertise ("United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter), having many times taken issue with the western narrative (at the point of being accused of spreading pro-Russia propaganda https://russiavsworld.org/scott-ritter-how-former-sex-offender-and-us-marine-works-for-russian-propaganda/), and being supporter of the "diversion hypothesis", yet he doesn't find outlandish the idea that there was a Russian intelligence failure about an easy capitulation by Kiev which might explain the weird behavior of the Russian military around Kiev at the beginning of the war. He didn't claim this was a piece of Western fabricated narrative (60K Ukrainian troops do not prove that either!). Yet this is not incompatible with a "diversion" strategy as a plan B.

Then which other expert is explicitly supporting the "diversion hypothesis" as you do? — neomac

I never said any expert explicitly supports it. What I said was that Hersh's recent interviews lend credibility to the idea, since he states his sources from within US intelligence believed it.

He also gave the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders, which supports the hypothesis.

If you're going to turn this into a repeat of our previous argument, I suggest you stop here.

He also gave the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders, which supports the hypothesis. — Tzeentch

No it doesn't. Indeed, again Scott Ritter in that article gives similar figures: The fact of the matter remains, however, that a force of 40 000 men, no matter how aggressively employed, cannot take, and hold, a city of some three million inhabitants defended by a mix of 60 000 regular, reserve, and territorial soldiers.
Yet he doesn't think that the number of troops or their movements of Kiev are enough evidence to automatically exclude the possibility that in the earliest phases of the war the Russians were hoping for a quick Ukrainian capitulation due to wrong belief that the Ukrainian military and population would have not resisted.

Yet he doesn't think... — neomac

I don't care about what Scott Ritter thinks. He goes around proclaiming Putin to be a great man and Russia being "on the right side of history", etc. I don't trust such a person's judgement. If you do, good for you.

Hersh's sources from the US intelligence services seemed to believe the drive on Kiev could have been a diversion. Hersh states that explicitly. Looking at the facts as we know them, I came to the same conclusion, and I do have the relevant academic background to develop my own general picture based on rudimentary data like troop numbers, movements, etc. That's good enough for me. If you're not convinced, that's fine too.

New intelligence reviewed by U.S. officials suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year, a step toward determining responsibility for an act of sabotage that has confounded investigators on both sides of the Atlantic for months.

U.S. officials said that they had no evidence President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top lieutenants were involved in the operation, or that the perpetrators were acting at the direction of any Ukrainian government officials.

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say

Oh boy, they must be getting desperate in Washington. Been a while since I had a laugh like this.

He goes around proclaiming Putin to be a great man and Russia being "on the right side of history", etc. I don't trust such a person's judgement. If you do, good for you. — Tzeentch

Those statements express some personal opinion that go beyond hard facts and what they might imply. Number of land troops and land movements do not falsify the Western narrative of the earliest phases of the war and grounded on the Russian intelligence failures. That's all.

The issue isn't actually one of overall military power or even Russia's or Ukraine's ability to attack/defend, it's a matter of home support and logistics:
The Ukrainian forces are far more motivated than the Russian forces, and are working with modern equipment. While you said the simple addition of modern technology won't sway the war, there is significance in the reliability and longevity of the weapons of each side, if the soviet-era weapons Russia is using fail due to poor upkeep or simple age, then the technology supplied will have, in part, swayed the war.

Furthermore, it is in the United State's interest to continue to supply Ukraine, and they can afford it, even with the growing dominance of China in an economic and geopolitical sphere; the USA spends an absurd amount on the military, and could afford to continue supplying Ukraine longer than Russia can afford to supply their war effort.

In conclusion, the supply of arms to Ukraine will easily continue, and the will of the Ukrainian armies will outlast that of the Russian armies; there is little chance that Russia will end this war gaining anything.

Not only are they using Ukraine as a proxy in their war with Russia, but now a scapegoat.

Something was tagged for moderation? :D What happened?

Calls for special tribunal for Russia’s ‘war crimes’ in Ukraine
^{— Al Jazeera · Jan 17, 2023}

When peace talks were started in late March, that should have been the end of the war. — Tzeentch

Wouldn't have ended (supposed) Putinian NATO-phobia. Their arguments against NATO expansion would apply to the remaining Ukraine just the same.
They might grab more land meanwhile, with future would-be / other autocrats/dictators taking notes, and UN votes being laughed at, at the expense of Ukrainians falling under Kremlin's rule. "Not standing up to the bully/thief/murderer means bullying/theft/murder" (or however it goes). I'm guessing the people in Seoul have been unhappy about Putin opening Pandora's nuclear box; it's out now, "What's next, Putin?"
Others see elevated Putin-phobia, fear, tension, justification for mobilization. ^{(Jun 24, 2022; Feb 17, 2023; Feb 26, 2023; Mar 6, 2023, Mar 7, 2023)}
The Ukrainians wouldn't have it, and would have been abandoned and left to Putin's devices, perhaps "deNazification" (+ anti-homosexual) efforts, whatever, all the while Putin being hailed/encouraged as a victorious leader at home.
Such flirting with complicity might have consequences, immediate-term peace-mongery setting the stage for longer-term disasters (to explain to upcoming generations), cashing in for an unknown future, a trajectory the Ukrainians were trying to put distance to.
At least volunteer soldiers of fortune can't quite be counted as victims (nor the likes of Yevgeny Sokolov).
No one should forget who unleashed (and is unleashing) the destruction + land grabbery on the Ukrainians. Nope, this ain't just "Western propaganda"; such handwave dismissal doesn't do anyone any favors (except the Putinistas). Talks are good though, exchange, keep trying, heck maybe disabuse "Gremlinian new reality" and other crap.
But of course — war :fire: is :death: bad — everyone already knows the various arguments, some have been repeated often enough without adding anything new.
Suppose they were to run with capitulation of regions. Then what?

I don't take Scott Ritter very seriously. — Tzeentch

Yudin, then? Others? (Just those assigning specific blame...?)

Hey , any updates from the ground?

Wouldn't have ended (supposed) Putinian NATO-phobia. Their arguments against NATO expansion would apply to the remaining Ukraine just the same. — jorndoe

No, it wouldn't have ended the mutual distrust, but it would have ended the war with Ukraine mostly intact, and it would have at least created a basis upon which nations could have gone into dialogue once again.

Most importantly, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives would not have been lost.

The Ukrainians wouldn't have it, ... — jorndoe

It's the Americans who blocked the peace talks in late March 2022, when, according to Sachs' account, an agreement was already on the table.

... all the while Putin being hailed/encouraged as a victorious leader at home. — jorndoe

In the era of modern propaganda literally anything can be spun into a victory, so the idea that we can somehow "teach Putin a lesson" is naive.

This is what is called "personalizing" a war - making a conflict that concerns millions about our feelings towards individual people.

But perhaps more importantly, Ukraine is getting utterly ruined, and it, not Russia, will suffer the most from the West playing hardball.

Such flirting with complicity might have consequences, ... — jorndoe

If you consider peace talks and compromise to be equal to criminal complicity, I don't know what to tell you.

Ideal solutions don't exist, so the only choice is compromise. The alternative is never-ending war.

Just curious, are you an American?

I don't take Scott Ritter very seriously. — Tzeentch

Yudin, then? Others? (Just those assigning specific blame...?) — jorndoe

I agree with Mearsheimer's view that the West, most notably the United States, bears primary responsibility for this conflict, though it goes without saying the Russians bear a great deal of responsibility as well.

@ssu @SophistiCat We discussed a while back about who bombed Nordstream. We now have an intelligence "leak" (officially sanctioned it seems) blaming private individuals. How likely is that really? Getting explosives? Planning? Skills? And no government involved? Colour me skeptical I guess.

Got to love the brazenness of these people...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html

Just a quick scan of the multiple named sources used to support this article...

U.S. officials suggests...

U.S. officials said...

U.S. officials said...

U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence...

U.S. officials say...

U.S. officials said...

U.S. officials described...

U.S. officials have not stated...

U.S. officials who have reviewed the new intelligence said...

Officials said...

... officials said...

Nice to see the New York Times fully asserting the independence of its journalism from it government.

Also pertinent, a FAIR report from 2016 concluded, of the New York Times...

After sorting and categorizing tens of thousands of data points and poring over hundreds of individual articles, blog posts and columns, I can only say with high confidence that the number of anonymous-source stories published by the Times in 2015 approached 6,000, out of roughly 88,000 individual articles, blog posts and columns from both the paper and wire services. (To view the full set of Times-authored anonymous-source stories for 2015, plus news desk and front-page analysis as well as a breakdown of bylines, go to this public Google Doc.) But I’m convinced the exact number is unknown by any mere mortal (or editor on Eighth Avenue). — https://fair.org/home/journalisms-dark-matter/