It can be, relatively speaking, quite easy to defend a city, the Syrian rebels in East Aleppo became quite good at it pretty fast, the same goes for the rebels in the Damascus neighbourhood of Jobar (for this latter example I recommend this video [1], it gives a general idea of how it well went; bear in mind that it was filmed from the pov of the government forces).
The problem is that the attacking force at some point realises that the defendants are pretty well dug in and the commanders of those attacking forces also realise that one of the few solutions available in order to achieve victory is to, almost quite literally, flatten the city. That's what happened in East Aleppo (with the help of the Russian airforce), that's what happened in Jobar, too. Not sure if the flattening of Kyiv would be the best thing for the Ukranian people going forward.
The other choice is a siege. See the Siege of Sarajevo [1]. A dramatically numerically inferior force (by 5:1) laid siege to a numerically superior, but poorly equipped, force that was intermittently supported by the UN/NATO. It lasted just under 4 years, and ended in a stalemate and some absolute horror stories from survivors.
And of course if a city under siege cannot get sufficient resources in and is not self sufficient (let alone while under siege), then a siege can end a conflict extremely quickly.
Although not suited to an airlift of heavy items, a swarm of drones would be super difficult to defend against in an urban environment. Have them drop thermite or pipebombs or just draw fire to find enemy positions, or distract them during an assault.
The propaganda machine still speaks of a special operation to liberate Ukraine.
You can't keep up this picture for long. There are too many communication channels between Ukranians and Russians that will chip away at this warped image of reality.
Cutting aqueducts in most cases means people running out of water in short time, considering the actual whether. While it's perfectly possible to store non marginal quantity of water most people do not do that in cities, exactly where water is less available. Contaminating water with mild bacteria not enough to kill 99% of the people, but enough to reduce their capacity is another quick and easy task, water tend to be much controlled nearby sources, not as much below, sure boiling it suffice, but boil demand energy and in most cases having energy in a city it's not that easy, not much wood, almost nothing to produce it in place. Food might last longer but not that longer: most people are not really combatant and do not want to fight till victory or death.
Consider a thing: modern society is hyper fragile respect of the past, especially cities where very few people can block many others, almost the opposite of a very large slice of human history. Also modern society are not much ideologically propelled and widespread corruption of most actual government do make most people thinking that one or another does not change almost anything. There is a minority of fanatic, that's what they are, nor really Patriots, who accept a fight at any price, but those tend to be unpopular in their own people even more than in the enemies.
Also smart people know that there is no point in fighting a lost war, it's better to inject themselves in the winning order to undermine it slowly from the inside.
Except that Ukrainians know, that they will not have independence as a country, if they lose this. They don't want to be governed from Moscow by the Kremlin. It is not over until it is over. As long as they resist, they inflict a cost on Putin and they know that. They might suffer lots of losses, but they are aware of that and still fighting. Every Russian tank, helicopter, other vehicle they destroy costs a lot of money to replace. For Ukrainians it is a cost of lives, for Russia it is a severe financial loss. If they manage to make it a disaster for Putin, then we might see Putin being replaced and this whole offensive collapse.
They have already lost even before the war begun simply because they do not have enough firepower and autonomy to win. So their best choice is not try fighting to the death resulting in a totally devastated country that need to be rebuilt, under the winners rules and condition, with their best citizen already dead, but welcome the winner (not joking) to force him to avoid much damage to the invaded country, because their own military and population will not accept a war any longer, and being able to offer a working country that need people who know how things work there to remain afloat, so the enemy can only accept to a certain extent local rulers.
Doing so they:
- preserve their country in the short term
- keep a very little bit of sovereignty they will not get from a full defeat in the short-medium term
- have room to sabotage internally the enemy in the mean-long run
The sole that benefit form a strenuous resistance in Ukraine is actually the west who get a weakened Russia at the expense of Ukrainian life and richness. The very same that happen with Arab springs, Colorful revolution etc: previous dictatorship get weakened or destroyed to be substituted by others, always at people expense, against people interest.
Did you try to imaging who benefit from Ukrainian war? Try to depict the global picture:
- the USA and UK that have very deep social unrest due to the economic crisis, the covid governance etc inducted by the push to the neoliberal Green New Deal/Great Reset have them silenced because now there is a war;
- the EU that have started to consider established mutually benefit partnership with the Russian Fed. now fall back under the NATO umbrella, against EU interests since the partnership with the USA is well established but it's not fair for EU, while a new one with Russia since they desperately need a partner and China is really not a friend would be far more balanced;
- EU gov, facing similar unrest than UK/USA ones now have something else to divert public opinion angry;
- Russian gov can justify growing domestic poverty and oppression "due to the war";
- China have the occasion to deeply tie Russia as the sole reliable and strong partner, forcing Russian to cooperate on hi tech military gear and more natural resources, probably enough to overpower USA;
So the real winner here are the Chinese, without even a fight. The second winner are the western neoliberals, especially those from WEF/IMF etc since the Green New Deal became an even more important priority WHILE the classic energy sources remain in a very strong position. The third only partial winner is the Putin entourage that winning a war means securing more years in power and more domestic power while actually securing their indefensible western side. The looser? Surely Ukrainian people, BUT ALSO EU people, and ultimately USA/UK people who have their unrest set aside unresolved because "of external priorities".
Remember to win a war the very first basic need is knowing who is your enemy...
People don't want to give up their whole nation and independence, just for some slim chance of getting back at the invading force, by sabotaging their actions in a conquered country. Once they allow the Kremlin to take over, they will have a hard time to get rid of them. There will be armed troops in the streets for years. Who doesn't do what they are ordered from Kremlin side will be replaced. "Just another Ukrainian."-style. Meanwhile Russia will have plenty of time to reinforce areas of control inside the conquered country, making it very hard or impossible to retake what was stolen. Ukraine's best chance for any independent future is to deal as much damage to the aggressor as possible.
Putin is a complete hypocrite, of course, because if he manages to take the Ukraine, then there will truly be no buffer country between him and NATO. Is he going to go insane again then, claiming, that for example Romania needs to be demilitarized? Then he takes that and claims the same for the next country? When does it stop?
If the result is a weakened Russia, then that's good. Empires governed by madmen and dictators should be weakened. We have no use for them in a modern world. In the end Putin will probably manage to reach the exact opposite of what he wants. He wants less threat of NATO, according to his own words, but with this unjustified attack, he has caused NATO partners to move closer together and he has inflicted a cost on his country, which will hopefully be significant enough to stand as a warning for other countries invading their neighbors.
China is probably as you say benefitting from all of this. The Chinese government probably is happy right now, that things escalated and that Russia is sanctioned. They can just watch it all play out and act as the "great peaceful bystander" calling for peace, giving themselves a "peace image", all the while they are still putting Uigures into "re-education" camps. It means, that they can dictate trade with Russia more, as Russia has less options. No one wants to buy your gas? Oh how sad! You can sell to us at reduced price! Only on the very surface Russia and China are friendly towards each other. China will take advantage of any economic situation it can take advantage of. There is however not much anyone can do about more trade between those two anyway. In my opinion it is better to do something now than allowing Putin to chip away at Europe.
Edit: And yes, I agree, Putin is the kind of dictator, who looks for outside trouble, when things inside are not going well. Typical dictator stuff. Nothing else is to be expected from him.
Is actual Ukraine in independent nation? Did you try to see actual gov history? Hint: they are actors, their last work was a series about a new Ukrainian government (start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People the actual real President as the main actor of the fictional president).
If they decide to impromptu join Russian Federation say "thanks, you free us from a western-made puppet government" Russians can't remain in arm there, just like they aren't for similar reasons remained in Kz even with the mocked-up CSTO umbrella. Of course their will remain now if a Resistance start to operate, in that very case they have a perfectly licit and justifiable reason to be there: "Russian people, we the government, goes to Ukraine to free the country from the western nazi-armed oppressors (witch is actually a real fact, since both USA and UK do not denied that they have armed and trained Azov battalion and co) and we have to stay because such bad crooks still plague the country bombing, raping and killing people". They can't tell the same if mass of locals citizens welcome them and formally demand to be part of the Federation. In that case the Russian surely keep a bit of grip, but can't really establish a puppet regime with strong military presence. They need to be soft, and being soft the locals do have power to organize slowly and slowly form their own government, a really democratic one, powerless at first but a small growth at a time more influential, enough to rule in a decades.
Also think twice and twice again about China profit: so far despite it's enormous growth China can't really overpower USA, yes they can build many more low tech ships, but they can't military confront the USA not on the sea not on abroad lands. With Russian natural resources AND Russian tech they can in few years, and they already need to counter the USA because just to eat they need to be in South America, APAC and Africa, witch means they need to control seas, a thing that USA and UK can't tolerate because it's the sole remaining imperial power they have, a power so far no other nation can menace.
For USA keep Europe means remain the tech leader since they can drain EU resources and control it's development, but keeping EU at the price of giving China the Russian Federation means that all needed basis for a III world war are finally made and sealed. Avoid escalation in that case is next to impossible, remember that in both WWI and WWII all nations involved do not, do never wanted a real world war, things just escalate to it. Do you think it's worth risking the end of humanity just for the profit of some cancer of humanity actually ruling on their own people back in all world power, both formal dictatorship like China or formal but not substantial Democracies like Russian and USA, and France and Italy and Germany etc?
> Is actual Ukraine in independent nation? Did you try to see actual gov history? Hint: they are actors, their last work was a series about a new Ukrainian government (start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People the actual real President as the main actor of the fictional president).
OK, we can stop repeating Kremlin propaganda now. No one cares about the previous job of the democratically elected president and it is no new information anyway. Apparently in this dark hour, he is doing a fine job. If you want another example for an actor getting to a high position in politics, take Schwarzenegger. Actors probably do have some skills and qualifications, which are of good use in politics. For example they are used to being in front of the camera. With sufficient popularity, they are also used to talking to many people. Being an actor furthermore does not mean, that for your whole life you must remain an actor.
You appeal to stereotypes, trying to downtalk the elected Ukrainian president. As if actors in general were incapable of ever entering politics or government. This is clearly wrong as shown by other examples.
No, I appeal to observation, take another one, for instance: https://www.energyintel.com/download?issueId=0000017e-2c65-d... about Kazakhstan, is this Russian propaganda? Does it tell the same story of our "pravda"? To me it clearly state that Kz energy system is in western hand thanks to a local dictator, himself also voted, formally, like another dictator name Adolf, like another one name Erdogan or another more named Orban, or another one named Kaczyński just to name few of them.
Some are just puppet, some gain power and became dictator but no dictatorship born strong and powerful and very rarely born alone, without external help of some interested actor.
Long story short if you consider actual Ukrainian government a Democratic one, and even one that act well... That's not Russian but USA propaganda and that's hold the same level of truth, around 0... I told you another story: while living in France I'm Italian, actual Italian government formally is a Democratic one, and following the press it acting well. Following many Citizens believes, mine included, as a nephew of two Italian Partisans from WWII is that's actual head of state is a dictator that must be arrested for high treason, embezzlement, participation in crimes against humanity, along his public-private entourage. ANY civil servant that do not act accordingly must be considered partner and so at minimum banned from any public office for life. Did you have any suspicions about that? Or, following the press you read you imagining a Democratically elected (he was not, but that's by law, to avoid directly voting head of states in a way a power of the State can remove the other and they surveil each others avoiding the need of a civil war in case one try to grab power) and well acting leader?
We ALL live in some propaganda and the sole way to know what's "true enough" and "false enough" is summing different propaganda eliciting what can be true and what can't. Just to talk again about Italy: there is now a right polemic about a cut scene from the game War Thunder published on the main national headline (TG1 and TG2, like BBC in UK, formally) as a filmed scene of Kiev bombing. Some photos of crying mothers in tear is published saying they are Ukrainian mothers now while the source of the image came from 2014/Euromaidan massacre, so from the opposite side of the front.
Since I'm not there, nor I know people there I can't say what's really going on, but I read enough to know what's our propaganda and the other side one, also I see the effect. So I form my opinion and suggest anyone trying to do the same before fighting for their own enemy, against their own interest. I know many will never been able to do so, but on HN I hope there is a cohort of people who might be if at least pushed a bit to look for some information instead of blindly drinking the headlines of one or another side...
> You can't keep up this picture for long. There are too many communication channels between Ukranians and Russians that will chip away at this warped image of reality.
Especially that on Putin's side, they are only "defending separatist regions", just about any picture of the conflict contradicts the official narrative, there's no way to spin it, they can't even talk about any victories.
The problem with Gaza is as one of my friends from the Middle East summarized it: no government*
really cares about the Palestinians.
Sure, they'll use them for propaganda purposes, and to rail against Israel, but when it comes to taking actions with limited resources? Well, they don't care that much.
* Except maybe Iran. But there are a lot of mixed motivations (and religious baggage) between Hamas and Iran.
Flattening Kyiv is Putin's last resort: he can't retire and he can't drag things for too long, but should he give the order to level the city and reports would slip under the censorship to Russian people and the rest of the world, that would surely be the first day of his demise.
Dan Carlin's Hard Core History has an AMAZING history of Russia... I cant find which cast, but check out his site, as he has free episodes, but in addition - he puts some of the other eps in his shop on sale, for free!
And Constantinople is not Istanbul. The point ant6n made (grandparent post) was about the worldview of the (roughly) conservative old Russian nationalists who are dropping the bombs, and how much destruction they might find acceptable.
“When do you enlist?” is the ultimate skin in the game test. It’s amazing how quiet things get when you ask that question, whether we’re talking about Iraq / Afghanistan 20 years ago or this conflict now.
If you are willing to send other people to die for you then you should be prepared to make the same sacrifice as well because your name may very will come up in the draft.
Almost all analogies are bad and distracting, to some extent.
Itoh, I do think it gets across, coarsely, a point about the sentiment scape. Russian people's tolerance of Ukrainian suffering can't be taken for granted. Kievans haven't attacked them, or given Russians much reason to hate them. Hate is a necessary ingredient for that kind of war.
It's great to know someone else (coarsely) feels this way.
Once people introduce analogies, I give up as they
a) become a discussion about the analogy, or
b) result in further analogies, and further discussions not about the original argument.
If enough human rights abuses show up in media, NATO will grow a pair and get directly involved. That's probably Putin's biggest fear, and why he blusters so much. He thinks the west is decadent and cowardly. So far, in this case, he's been right.
The thing about western democracies is that they respond to public sentiment. If the populations are seething with anger, they will want blood. Especially the Americans.
Putin threatens nuclear war whenever he wants something. Nobody believes it. You think Putin will commit suicide - both for himself and his people - over Ukraine, which by now quite obviously doesn't want him, even to his own citizens?
You assume too much about Russia and Putin. Historically, the wests lack of understanding of motives and hard lines for Russia has almost caused several nuclear annihilation events.
People sometimes have hard lines that are surprising, and will cause them to do things that no rational person would do. Militaries and organizations do too.
War causes confusion, stress, anxiety, etc. which magnifies everything.
It doesn’t require ‘sane putin’ to push a button for someone somewhere to THINK it makes sense for him to and push the button in their exhausted and freaked out state of mind.
Putin didn’t start this invasion because he was bored.
Dictators generally do things because their internal power base demands something, but that is rarely visible to us, so we don’t know if a series of hardliner generals need this, or the base of paranoid hardline folks is getting angsty and he knows if he doesn’t appease them he is in trouble.
Near as I can tell, the senior leadership has already seen the writing on the wall re:getting frozen out of the west (sanctions and other stuff), and is seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.
They probably see this as now or never. We don’t know how desperate the leadership or Putin may be.
Ukraine, like Poland has historically been caught in the middle of these kinds of things, which sucks. it also isn’t their first time.
> seizing Ukraine for it’s strategic importance to Russia - food, energy, year round port, buffer against a land invasion to Moscow.
Wow, that's literally the worst take I've heard on this.
- Russia has food to spare, exports tons of wheat, and has declining population
- Russia produces tons of energy and exports tons of oil and gas
- Russia already has several year round ports in the Black Sea. You think upgrading one of them to whatever they wanted is more expensive than waging fucking war?
- How much of a speed bump do you think a "demilitarized and neutral" Ukraine would be to forces that are doing a land invasion on the largest nuclear power? Also, Baltics are already in NATO, and the drive from there to Moscow is same distance on similarly flat terrain. Also, Finland and Sweden might join NATO too now thanks to this war. Also, nobody is ever doing a land invasion on a nuclear Russia. If the nukes didn't even assure that, nobody would keep spending billions on maintaining them.
It is not only about what you have, but also about what you don't want your foe/customer to have. Lots of natural gas was discovered in Ukraine around 2011-2016. Donbass is famous for its coal mining too and you should also consider the numerous NPPs that provide about half of Ukraine's electricity. Imagine all these assets in the hands of US/EU companies. Now that sounds like becoming less energy dependent from Russia. You should inquire about some of the reasons for Syrian war too. It all looks like a big blatant chess game and you will be very lucky if you are just a spectator. Btw current mainstream media reporting from both sides is mostly useless.
I appreciate your perspective. Yet, the west is playing the same game that Putin is - what line is too far to cross? The west has already armed and continues to supply Ukraine, which is probably part of the reason Putin's assault is struggling. I'm sure the west is also supplying satellite and other intelligence to Kyiv. So the "intervene and I nuke you" line has already been crossed, depending on your definition of "intervene".
AFAICT nobody is suggesting putting troops on the ground in Russia. Nobody in the west has any desire to conquer Russian territory.
There's a big spectrum between "stand back and watch" and "march troops to Moscow". Obviously "supply Ukraine" is already in progress. "Bomb Russian logistics convoys in Ukraine" could be too. Hell, the west doesn't even have to admit it. "We have no idea why your tanks are flaming wrecks, maybe their car warranty has expired?"
I'll go out on a limb and call that cyberattacks prove to have zero benefit other than emotional catharsis. They will have no effect in the outcome of this war.
The way a lot of the western news is tilted, the ‘madman with nukes’ line is pretty clear. If Russia hits a nuclear waste storage depot (oops, already happened), or hints at using nukes (well, moving them to Belarus, that already happened) - when does it seem to make sense to ‘intervene’ by marching troops to Moscow? Many folks on the internet clearly already are.
It’s easy for that to get way out of control, very very quickly.
> It’s easy for that to get way out of control, very very quickly.
I generally agree, but there are emotional limits to this kind of thing. Americans have historically been very willing to commit airplanes and bombs to righteous causes, but marching to Moscow would be a very different matter. I assume the same thing is happening with Russia's conscripts: "Why the fuck are we doing this?"
Also, 100% agree they definitely are playing a similar game - but one is doing it via social influence, the other via active military invasion and an ‘unsolicited’ one at that.
Not that the US (with occasional other Allies) hasn’t done similar, they just aren’t in this case.
I expect a negotiated peace where the world gives away the eastern third of Ukraine and the west goes home patting themselves on the back but Ukraine is left with losing Crimea and it's eastern third. It's then just a matter of time before we repeat this whole mess and Ukraine is chipped away at until it's gone.
It's difficult for me to imagine a negotiated peace that doesn't involve NATO guarantees of sovereignty for the remaining parts of Ukraine. Otherwise, what's the value from Ukraine's perspective?
So one way or another this will end in short order. Or it will be WW3 (not necessarily nuclear, but it's a risk).
Governments and organisations do tend to violate agreements if and when it suits them. Look at NATO expansion...
"After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia."[0]
Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right? Just trying to think of a way out of this mess with the fewest casualties.
Yes. History has shown that you need to stop conquerers at the earliest opportunity. Famously, both Western Europe and Russia made deals with Hitler, thinking they had bought peace.
> Not a Russian apologist here, but is that the worst outcome? It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right? In the spirit of self-determination, why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia? These borders are less than 30 years old, it's not inconceivable that there could be adjustments, right?
Those are some of the Russian talking points, FWIW. It has nothing to with such movements; Russia just uses them (and creates them to a large extent) as excuses to invade - following the exact tactics of many conquerers throughout history: 'We have people living across the border!' Many Americans live in the north of Mexico, and many Mexicans live in southwestern US. We could do the same with every border in the world, just about. And then there are the Russians living in the rest of Europe, who no doubt need protection. What about Cyprus and London?
If they didn't (create and) use those excuses, they'd create and use others.
> why shouldn't they be allowed to cleave off and join Russia?
We have no evidence that it's desired. But most of all, countries aren't smartphone brands - 'I'm tired of Apple, I'm switching to Samsung!' There's a reason that you ever (hardly ever?) hear of such a thing happening. We already have neighboring conquerers using the excuse described above; now we give a big carrot to neighbors fomenting rebellions. And the chaos of international borders changing, with all the geopolitical issues and crises involved. The clearly better solution would be people moving themselves to the other country.
> It does appear that there is some separatist movement in the disputed territories, right?
'Technically', yes, but that's not the problem at stake here. That's what everyone assumed was the problem at stake before Thursday.
If it was about the Donbass provinces, Russia would just be invading them. (It already has, they have been largely 'rebel'-controlled for a very long time - an invasion would have been more of a formality than a practical change in the status quo.)
Instead, it's invading them, and the entirety of Ukraine, including all the parts that have very few ethnic Russians.
'Russian national self-determination' is just the excuse for a land grab in the west.
Very good point. I just want there to be a simple answer to stop the bloodshed, but there isn't one. The alternative, the reality, is just so gruesome I wished there was a way out of this for all involved.
The ‘simple’ answer is for Ukrainians to universally take up arms and repel Russia.
Russia will either have to capitulate (which will likely result in Putin’s ousting and likely death), or get stuck in a intractable guerilla war that will be quickly impossible to prosecute due to economic issues.
It’s very, very unlikely Putin or anyone else could nuke the Ukraine due to both proximity, cultural history, and lack of any conceivable threat from Ukraine that could justify it.
Even obliterating Kiev through traditional means would be very, very difficult to do - it has a lot of history for Russia and many Russians have strong emotional ties there. Desertions, defections, and insubordination would be difficult to counter.
It will cost lives, but all available options will. That Russia has been pretty blatant here will make it easier than if they’d been subtle.
It's not a simple answer for people who aren't men under the age of 25.
It's easy to talk about how other people should resist an invasion to the death, but if I were living in Ukraine right now, I'd either be getting the hell out, or strongly prioritizing survival.
For people who have to actually live with it[1], a bad peace is in most cases preferable to a good war. That's why so much political effort goes into avoiding war in the first place.
[1] States, unlike people, have a vastly different view on war. A state can often cease to exist because of a war, even if the people it governed don't go anywhere. What is an existential struggle for a state or an ideology is often not one for its subjects... But the subjects are the ones who have to fight for the state.
Most of my family is military (multiple generations), and all but one of them have purple hearts.
I have kids who will (relatively) shortly be military aged, and have been through some really shitty life experiences that have surprising corollaries to this situation.
I personally am 'not of fighting age', but know that despite how wise it would be personally, I would have to take up arms in this situation.
I hate war. My family does too. But what you are describing (and the individual incentives), while 100% true, with a strong and hungry adversary lead to a situation where the society overall will be conquered, and everyone's individual situation will be worse.
Sometimes far, far worse. It's the short term safe option that feeds into the long term disaster.
Overlooking corruption because confronting it is too painful often leads to the same outcome - suffocating corruption everywhere.
That it is possible for some to live in those situations doesn't take away from what is truly being lost.
Because it almost never stops at whatever border they thought crossing would keep them safe. Giving in means they'll take more, and more, and more - and be stronger each time they do.
The kind of hunger this type of diseased mind and government has can never be sated. Only stopped.
Good fences make good neighbors, because firm boundaries that are firmly defended keeps everyone honest and normal people from turning into opportunists and predators.
Something that happens surprisingly easy for a very large portion of the population when enabled.
If no one is going to stand and protect what is theirs when something like that happens, they won't have it for very long. And when a lot of people in a society won't do that, that society won't last for long.
Zelensky knows better than most what he is dealing with - his grandfathers siblings were murdered in WW2 by the Nazis for being Jewish. But Ukraine overall has long experience being abused by Russia, especially USSR Russia.
He's putting his ass on the line and leading the way he is, because he truly knows the stakes and what he is dealing with, and has the courage to face it, and the love for himself and the people to do what needs to be done to keep them truly safe.
If you research the Holodomor, understand the impact that the years behind the iron curtain had on eastern Europe, and the crushing of the East German (and many other countries) spirit and it's long term consequences, you might better understand the stakes.
If you think Putin is going to be better than Stalin and the rest, that is very, very unlikely.
And if you think these refugees are going to be safe one border over - I appreciate the optimism. For those staring something like this in the face, understand, but appreciate what they're really facing.
Stalinism isn't a realistic outcome of this conflict. You have a poor understanding of what modern Russian repression looks like.
If the war goes on for any length of time, though, all the mass death and destruction that comes to fighting a modern war in urban areas will take place. See - literally any war zone in history, but I'd like to draw particular attention to Chechnya. It wasn't the peacetime repression that killed two hundred thousand people, there, and displaced half a million more. It was the war.
Your entire family fought in wars, but how many of them have lived in the middle of one? There's a staggering difference of perspective between bringing war to foreign soil (which, if your family has been receiving purple hearts, they've been doing), and living through one fought in your back yard.
The separatists have been heavily subsidized by Russia to the point it's sometimes been difficult to tell who is who.
Not meaning to sound hostile, but what you just wrote has been the goal of Putin's strategy with subsidizing the separatists all along. It's to create the appearance of a genuine resistance movement that's really just an arm of the Russian military. It's Putin's MO.
Part of the reason for this recent invasion is because the typical espionage and information warfare that has brought Putin success started failing.
Completely agree ; Personally, I think this was all about Odessa, and really Putin's plan was to seize the eastern territory along with Odessa, as truly he is after the port, and believed that he could turn immediately to negotiations and "peace" so long as he keeps Odessa (the Crimea playbook)
and it COMPLETELY backfired on him...
Which I think ties to my other theory ;
What if the reason it is backfiring in such a spectacular way, is that, perhaps, Putin was not playing along with the WEF great reset agenda. While Putin was planning the Crimean Copy for grabbing Odessa, the NWO took this as the opportunity to knock him out of the way?
If Putin wanted Odessa, he and his military leadership didn't design the offensive to support that goal.
IMHO, that was never in the cards, because an effective amphibious assault would have required obscene and internationally-outrageous damage to civilians and shipping. Or unexpectedly optimistic progress on the Crimean front, which by its positioning needed to fight north and east. Odessa would have added west.
That depends on how likely the next couple layers below him are to recognize it, and think that ignoring him is better than not. I don’t know how that would shake out.
I had this conversation the other day, but my friend did make a good point in that he could seek asylum and retire. He knows the day he steps down and stays in Russia though that he is a dead man walking. He has too many enemies to stay alive very long.
Putin can't do much if other people aren't convinced that their least-bad course of action is following him.
You seem him calling on the Ukraine military to overthrow the government (which is probably not a great sign of how well his “demilitarize Ukraine” operation is going)? That option isn't available on only one side of the conflict.
It has nothing to do with cowardice. If a hostile nation state is willing to burn resources holding territory that contains insurgent forces we would be stupid to discourage it. As americans well know, it is really hard to maintain an extended occupation without a loss of money, moral, and life.
At this point ideally we let Russia flood Ukraine with its mediocre ground forces while very aggressively arming the Ukrainians, then cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines, make it difficult to get back out of Ukraine, and let the Ukrainians slaughter the captive invading force (which will promptly surrender as they realize what has happened).
The Russians are primed for this setup, they've walked into it. It's the last thing Russia expects. NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
It would risk an open war with Russia. That's acceptable if it happens. NATO can cripple half of Russia's army trivially in the field.
Putin will push the nuclear angle as this unfolds. So simultaneously encourage Putin's inner circle to kill him or otherwise depose him before he leads them (and their families) into senseless nuclear destruction, by offering peace to the Russia state if it removes Putin (and no military figures from Russia will be tried for war crimes for what they've done thus far re Ukraine). The Russian state will suffer no other losses post agreement, it'll be a neutral peace.
It’s actually more or less the public expert consensus too. Albeit the expert consensus has a lot of nuance. We know from OSINT sources that they US Military taught the Ukrainian military Taliban tactics that they learned from fighting the Taliban.
This was going to be an asymmetric war from the very start.
As far as the nuke stuff goes, well that’s much harder.
Important caveat, we don’t know what the “real experts” i.e. people with access to classified information think. Because they aren’t talking to anyone but themselves and the long lens of history.
Those don't say that NATO should directly attack Russian forces, and that the risk of nuclear war is overblown and NATO should ignore it. If I'm missing something, please provide a quote.
Based on what I've read and on a lot of such reading in my past, I'm pretty confident nobody credible is saying anything like that.
Thanks for the link; very interesting. From that interview, the general seems to like the idea but also notes seemingly impossile obstacles to it ("PB" is retired U.S. General Philip Breedlove):
PB: I am actually a proponent of it [a no-fly zone]. But let me now tell you why it will probably not happen, because the reality of a no-fly zone is, it is an act of war. There are a lot of people who don’t understand no-fly zones. You don’t just say, “That’s a no fly zone.” You have to enforce a no-fly zone, which means you have to be willing to use force against those who break the no-fly zone. The second thing, which nobody understands, is if you put a no-fly zone in the eastern part of Ukraine, for instance, and we’re going to fly coalition or NATO aircraft into that no-fly zone, then we have to take out all the weapons that can fire into our no-fly zone and cause harm to our aircraft. So that means bombing enemy radars and missile systems on the other side of the border. And you know what that means, right? That is tantamount to war. So if we’re going to declare a no-fly zone, we have to take down the enemy’s capability to fire into and affect our no-fly zone. And few understand that. And that’s why, if you talk about a no-fly zone, it is a very sober decision because many in the world would interpret it as an act of war.
FP: Yet, in spite of all of that, you said you would actually support the idea of a no-fly zone?
PB: Are we going to sit and watch while a world power invades and destroys and subjugates a sovereign nation? Are we just going to watch? I mean, a friend recently said, “This is like biblical times, and the whole Colosseum is watching the lions and the Christians, and they’re pulling for the Christians, but they just watch.” So the question is, is the West going to tolerate Russia doing this to Ukraine? What if the Russians do what they did in eastern Syria and they drop barrel bombs and make rubble of cities and terrorize citizens and force them on the road and make them refugees across Europe? Where is the line that Russia crosses in its inhumanity such that the rest of the world reacts?
The analysis I was reading and where it was coming from was their experience in Syria where American and Russian forces have come into contact. But there's an asterisk here. They were Russian solders, but they were disavowed Russian soldiers acting under the Wagner group at an arm's length relationship, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khasham
I need to read up on how the no-fly zone was set up in Syria, but IIRC there were active clashes between American hardware and the Russians.
But that was a different context. It was a space far away from Russia's borders. It's another kettle of fish and it's not a good idea to do what was done in Syria here.
I apologize if I sounded too firm earlier, this is not my place of expertise. I am not an expert on geopolitics or foreign policy. It's not my area. I just like to read.
> cut the Russian troops off from their supply lines
> NATO should execute it in the guise of a peacekeeping no-fly zone over Ukraine.
NATO is absolutely not fighting Russia directly, as they've made clear. Both of the above would require direct conflict with Russian forces, who would resist very aggressively.
I actually understand how reality works, rather than drowning in the irrational, hyper emotionalism of: the world is gunna end if we face off with der Russia, The PuTin will Killeded us all ten times overs with the big nukes. Aka ignorant Reddit thinking.
The most important thing that can happen right now is to aggressively begin confronting Russia. They are weak, the invasion was a very bad idea, and they have zero global support for what they're doing and mediocre support at home for the invasion.
There is only one way to stop Putin and that's military confrontation. NATO is vastly superior to Russia's forces, now is an excellent time to cripple them in the field.
Every time war doesn't go Russia's way they're going to nuke the world? Yeah, sure. Good luck living in that universe. You know, we really can't defend Finland or Sweden or the Baltics (NATO), because hey Russia will nuke everybody, so they just get to keep taking territory at will. Time to go ahead and shut down NATO (you know, the organization that was originated specifically to stand off militarily with Russia, its primary reason for existing). No, time to start standing up to Russia in the field: this is what NATO is for.
Ukraine is doing the job that NATO ought to be doing. At the very least we should be helping them dramatically more than what we are now. Don't like the idea of direct confrontation (no-fly zone) - fine, then flood Ukraine with weapons at a much faster pace and put Russia in a position of having to declare war on NATO to stop it.
It's not a fantasy at all, which is of course why you have no greater retort than flinging ad hominem responses.
Russia's poorly organized, poorly funded, poorly trained military will be hyper exposed as they go fully into Ukraine (it already is). We also have the intel on the ground in Ukraine to help us out, we can maul Russia's tanks, artillery and mechanized forces and wipe out their supply lines, trapping their ground forces inside Ukraine with no supplies (aka they're dead). Russia can't project effectively outside of their borders when confronted with vastly superior NATO air power, so they won't be able to provide cover or resupply for their soldiers trapped in Ukraine. Their hardware will be wiped out. We can dismember their air force at the border as needed. And it'll be Ukrainians killing the Russian soldiers inside of Ukraine, not NATO soldiers. What else does Russia have?
They'd have one fall back: I'm gunna nuke you, I'm gunna nuke everyone, I'm gunna nuke the moon. [insert Putin turned Gollum snarl here] Bullshit. It's not sovereign Russian territory and they're not going to kill everyone in Russia for it.
That is quite a claim for anyone, especially about interational relations and war, which are especially opaque and unpredictable. Why do you believe that, and why would we believe it? Are you an expert or practitioner?
I'm seconding this, if air cover is provided, Ukraine has enough resources to trim off Russia's south, and its access to two seas.
South Russians don't feel pretty much any affinity for Moscow. This can potentially launch a chain reaction of Russia's disintegration.
Russia's Far East will almost certainly secede for its ethnic makeup, and the only ethnic Russian stronghold in the region being uniquely anti-russian (as a state) for so many reason, the latest being harsh draft, and using Far Eastern youth as a cannon fodder for the last 8 years.
Urals, and Siberia are uniquely resource rich, and they will want the money for themselves. There was a precedent: "The Republic of Urals" was a semi-functional regional autonomy for a few months in 1991.
Kalmikia, and Tatarstan can secede as well.
----
Militarily wise, Russia is at its weakest since its loss in first Chechnya war.
They just wasted at least 50% of Russia's current standing force on Ukraine, most of which is now stranded in Belarusian woods without supplies, and fuel, or destroyed in Ukraine.
Their bases near Ukraine are now standing empty.
My many contacts in Vladivostok report the same thing: military brass there "is thinking"
That is too calculating. The public responds to emotions, and for better or worse that narrative is being driven by TikTok and Twitter in realtime. Flattened cities, corpses, and streams of refugees will force the western leaders to do something. It won't look good at home in Russia either, which is probably why it hasn't happened (yet).
> I wonder how much he cares about his reputation.
Displaying disregard for reputation, morals, etc. is a common negotiating tactic in everything - in professional business, kids selling baseball cards, interational relations, family squabbles. That's what anger is: A display that you are willing to act out and cross lines.
Don't believe it; it's just a tactic. Ironically, it indicates the opposite to a degree: By making the display, they show that they care about what you think. For professional communicators like Putin (and anyone else in international relations) it's not a mistake:
The Russian government invests enormous effort in their reputation, from their public propaganda to social media disinformation campaigns. It's not at all because they don't care - they care very much. Every government ever needs legitimacy, the consent of the governed, who outnumber the government leaders a million-to-one. (They also need sufficient international relations to trade, to receive essential goods, and not to be destroyed.)
As it is rumored that Putin is actually (aside from the top 13s), the richest person in the world.
He seized all the oligarch's assets for himeself and his cronies, then requires % and payment in every endevour...
Just like Xi...
---
I personally thought he was just going after getting eastern Ukraine in order to obtain Odessa for the port.
I'd like to get confirmation on the bombing of the US Biolabs, though.... even though after it was reported that they were bombed, the US removed the documents from the site which talked about the US funding the joint Biolabs
Thankfully all the documents were archived prior :-) [0]
Now I am really unsure where the heck this is heading -- these are some really unprecedented events...
Is it that the world saw that the Bear was actually weak and everyone is turning on Russia because he was not playing along with WEF and the Great Reset?
As much as Russia have an overwhelming tactical advantage they also have the most to lose. Putin has staked everything on this being a war that he will win and win with ease. A loss is completely unacceptable and even a protracted siege or insurrection would be enormously costly.
They lost more soldiers just today than in all of the syrian war. And it's not about "all of russia ran out of ammo", it's "they overstretched their supply lines and can't supply enough ammo, fuel, etc, so their forces have just what they took with them".
Russian logistics are built around rail lines, as they are more efficient. Per Russian doctrine you are going to struggle to supply large numbers of forces beyond 50 miles from a railway line. You need to understand just how much stuff a modern army needs. Estimates from WW2 calculated that for every soldier in theatre they needed over 4 tons of material a month (that's ammo, food, medical supplies, replacement parts for vehicles and equipment, fuel, etc). And those numbers are likely higher in the modern era, with heavier and more powerful vehicles, increased usage of electronics, and munitions like missiles. A US armored division (on the order of 270 tanks and a similar number of other vehicles) on the move would consume 500,000 gallons of fuel per day.
Adding more trucks can even make the issues worse, since they need their own fuel, spare parts, maintanence staff, drivers, military police to provide security, etc. You basically have to use the rocket equation when accounting for logistics
It is not about trucks. If you've been paying attention, you saw that they just went for Kyiv and didn't bother capturing cities or territory, which left their supply lines VERY vulnerable to the Ukrainian army. And they didn't think that the operation will be longer than a couple of days, so didn't bother to take many supplies with them. They drastically underestimated the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian people's will to fight.
Because their stated goal is basically to capture Kyiv and install their own government. They were expecting that everything would go like Crimean operation, but didn't account for the fact that Ukrainian army evolved since, have lots of experience fighting russia-backed separatists in Donbass region and is much more passionate about fighting than 8 years ago, when russian army conducted Crimean operation.
I don't really understand how they could have expected that, since Ukrainians had been told in NOVEMBER that the operation was coming. (And I'm talking about the laypeople, just watching TV, Ukrainian officials were likely given much more details from US intelligence than just what Blinken said on CNN…)
Expecting to catch your opponent off-guard with a quick assault might work, but not if you give them a four-month notice beforehand…
I watched Putin's addresses. He is out of touch with reality. Turns out that Russian propaganda is quite light compared to hard stuff that Putin has been consuming. He is talking about genocide on Donbass. He is talking about "nazi" government. He, likely, thought that Ukrainian people will see his army as liberators(from democratically elected government, lol).
I think they've counted on the Ukrainian government (especially Zelensky and his closest circle) to give up the fighting and surrender early in the operation. Or have Ukrainian army overthrow him, Putin already suggested they don't need to take commands from this "narc" and "nazi" (btw Zelensky is jewish). It's either their intelligence is that bad (which I don't believe) or Putin just didn't listen, having some delusional picture of the current political and cultural state of Ukraine in his head.
They're completely different. Both are evil, but Putin is extremely clever, which makes him a lot more dangerous than Trump. Trump can't do much more aside speaking to people bellies; surely he can amass lots of uneducated angry proud boys around him, but has zero credibility among the high ranks in the military.
It also seems unlikely to me and I am skeptical. But logistics are hard under fire? Does Russia control the airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has aircraft? Are there enemy teams with shoulder-launched missiles along the route? With cheap drones for reconnaissance?
My impression is that the country is full of handheld antiair and antitank weapons, supplied by the west. That can't make it easy.
> Does Russia control the airspace or are the rumors true that Ukraine still has aircraft?
Hard to know for sure, since this is an information that really affect morale on either side (Knowing that you still have airplanes and that the Russians don't control the sky is really good for Ukrainian morale, and vice versa).
Russia claimed that their rockets destroyed Ukrainian planes and anti-aircraft defense in the first strike. And then they started loosing their own planes, tanks and trains to Ukrainian air forces. Planes simply weren't where Russians thought they would be, since there is large supply of leaks from Russian side, and Ukrainian military knew exactly when they would attack(they ended up striking an hour late tbh).
And those that are coming are state-of-the-art. It is quite possible that they're going to be effective enough for one kill per weapon and the volume flooding in is going to go through the Russian armour like the clap.
Saint Javelin (motto: do a flip then hit) seems to be every bit as effective against Russia's most modern tanks as she is against any other tank.
> So would Relikt-style ERA and soft-kill infrared defenses work against the Javelin? There’s simply no way to know for sure, unless Moscow were suddenly to invite Washington to test its anti-tank missiles against its best tanks in a friendly competition. But given that relations are too frosty for the United States to participate in Russia’s annual tank biathlon, don’t count on that happening.
The clever thing about the Javelin is that it doesn't fly at a tank, but climbs vertically and comes down from above, hitting the top. So it does a flip before hitting.
The funny thing about the Javelin is that launching it looks like a dud - the first stage is basically an elaborate unboxing.
It’s bogus, the standard rifle of the Russian forces is the AK-74, developed in the 1970s. Their main tank is the T-72 developed in the 70s but continuously developed and upgraded since. Most of their attack helicopters date from the 70s and 80s or later.
That may all sound dated, but bear in mind the M4 rifle used by US troops is based on a 60s design and the Abrams M1 tank is basically a 70s design. The Russian forces have been comprehensively re-equipped and resourced over the last decade and have experience from operations in Chechnya and Syria.
It’s literally named after the year it went into production. Of course it was a product of iterative design, refinement and experience going back decades.
Even if true pre WWII era ammo is often found by sportsmen and tested, it works just fine. Modern shell design which is over 100 years old doesn't degrade with time very much.
New ammo is more reliable of course, but old works well enough if you have a gun to use it in.
Russia has plenty of new artillery and arms. They have been building up a couple of decades. This is a tiny percentage of what they have waiting in the wings.
The Chezhoslovakia 68 scenario - quick takeover of the capital center with the central government - that Putin planned has already failed, in particular Russia failed to take the airfields near Kiev and can't bring the quick assault forces.
Russia officially announced that they intentionally slowed the offense on Kiev now. That naturally a total BS. Ukrainians have won the opening, and Putin has no game forward. With German Stingers Russia's air superiority will be drastically reduced. Even flattening Kiev wouldn't help Putin as it is already obvious that Ukrainians will be shooting even from those piles
of rubble Stalingrad style, and Ukrainian forces will be growing with each day while Russian dwindling.
By moving onto Kiev right now Putin will be going down the Hitler's path of failed Blitzkrieg -> Stalingrad -> to be ultimately beaten back, in this case, to Moscow by the Ukrainian led coalition (there is no need for other countries to officially declare war as there is a well established pattern of well equipped volunteers, and there is no nuke issue as Russia will not strike its own territory, and in general Russians would hardly provide any resistance as the Putin's bottom really isn't worth it for them) with Nuremberg 2, etc.
Ukraine, even with volunteers from other countries, cannot take Moscow. And why do you believe that an authoritarian regime will hesitate to use nukes on its own soil, if its survival is at stake?
>Ukraine, even with volunteers from other countries, cannot take Moscow.
it definitely can't now. The destruction of Kiev, if it is to happen, will change a lot. Many more Russians would want to get rid of Putin, including many in the army. Ukraine and allies may not want to invade Russia, yet they may have no choice as leaving that regime in power would be a threat to their own safety. Similarly to how in WWII USSR couldn't just stop at the borders and had to go all the way to Berlin.
Has just heard on the Ukrainian TV, channel 5, "We're going to win. And this is our chance to destroy Russian Empire, and we're going to use it. .... That self-proclaimed genius strategist and strong man whom the leaders of powerful rich countries are so afraid of is getting beaten by just a good guy who recently was just a showman. We Christened Russia, and we're going to give it the last rites." - it is a very significant change of tone from the previous days.
Definitely change of tone - they are having a blast on TV - "To see Kiev and die. Looks like you're insisting on doing it in that your own peculiar way - well, be my guest."
>And why do you believe that an authoritarian regime will hesitate to use nukes on its own soil, if its survival is at stake?
Nuking those Russian heavily populated areas there would definitely be suicidal, even if somebody manage to press the button.
Again, we aren't at that point yet. And such a scenario isn't given. Instead Putin can pause/freeze the war - pull away from Kiev, and keep the several beachheads they've gotten so far. The promise of frozen (in reality slow burning) war instead of hot would as usually calm down the Europe/NATO and will make it a local Ukrainian problem again ... for some number of years until some new development ...
The problem is that the attacking force at some point realises that the defendants are pretty well dug in and the commanders of those attacking forces also realise that one of the few solutions available in order to achieve victory is to, almost quite literally, flatten the city. That's what happened in East Aleppo (with the help of the Russian airforce), that's what happened in Jobar, too. Not sure if the flattening of Kyiv would be the best thing for the Ukranian people going forward.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9ZXPhmR7lQ