Great Power contentions

[Sarmatian]

Ok, guys, I'm not going to go point by point on this, I will just summarize my position.

I certainly believe Ukrainian officials are vastly exaggerating civilian deaths when they speak to the media, and I'm even going to skip the part of weapons being distributed to tens of thousands of civilians in Ukraine.

For Russia, this is a carefully planned operation. They perceive NATO in Ukraine as a grave threat to their security. They will not stop until they achieve their goals. It is very hard to predict duration, but based on what;s going on. I think realistically we can expect some sort of settlement in May or June.

Russia's major goals are recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and firm political guarantees about Ukraine not joining NATO. I think Ukraine still has a chance of keeping Donetsk and Lugansk if they show a willingness for a constitutional change that would allow those regions to be self governed, although probably with Russian peacekeeping force stationed there for a time.

[spmetla]

It's a fair position and I think we all know we won't see where things are until this concludes due to the fog of war etc...

The Ukrainians are undoubtedly upping the estimates in civilian casualties and in damage they are doing to the Russians, with Russian media banned in the West and Russia banning facebook, twitter, and instagram it's created an internet dominated by Ukrainian info operations.

Estimates from 6 March by UN and Red Cross though: OHCHR said that 1,123 civilian casualties in Ukraine have been verified: 364 killed, including 25 children, and 759 injured. The casualties are undoubtedly a lot higher though but hard to count and verify in a war zone. Also, this is from ten days ago, a lot has changed in Russian targeting of cities in that time.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03...0759%20injured.

As for the operation, as an outside observer this looks to be a poorly planned operation due to some extremely optimistic intelligence assessments on the part of the Russians. Just like the US was wrong in Iraq, Russia was wrong about the Ukrainians ability to resist. Zelensky's leadership has also galvanized his country and the West against Russia.

You are right about their worry about NATO, however this attack has resulted in a strengthening of NATO and closer ties among the local neutrals. Russia may get the Ukraine to be neutral in regards to NATO but I think Ukraine intends to stick with EU accession at some point so not true neutrality.

As for duration, well no one knows, your estimate seems about right as the Russians are not making a lot of progress and the Ukrainians can't push them back with the current equipment they have.

As for the Russian demands, well they've changed drastically in tenor the last few weeks. If regime change wasn't a goal though then why the attack toward Kiev and the Northern cities? Russia's only real successes have been in the South. We'll see how it plays out though, I don't think the Ukraine will want the separatist parts of Donetsk and Luhansk any more as they are just fuel for potential future conflict and would hinder any EU accession.

I appreciate your contrary opinion, no need for the backroom to just be an echo-chamber.

[Pannonian]

It's a fair position and I think we all know we won't see where things are until this concludes due to the fog of war etc...

The Ukrainians are undoubtedly upping the estimates in civilian casualties and in damage they are doing to the Russians, with Russian media banned in the West and Russia banning facebook, twitter, and instagram it's created an internet dominated by Ukrainian info operations.

Estimates from 6 March by UN and Red Cross though: OHCHR said that 1,123 civilian casualties in Ukraine have been verified: 364 killed, including 25 children, and 759 injured. The casualties are undoubtedly a lot higher though but hard to count and verify in a war zone. Also, this is from ten days ago, a lot has changed in Russian targeting of cities in that time.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03...0759%20injured.

As for the operation, as an outside observer this looks to be a poorly planned operation due to some extremely optimistic intelligence assessments on the part of the Russians. Just like the US was wrong in Iraq, Russia was wrong about the Ukrainians ability to resist. Zelensky's leadership has also galvanized his country and the West against Russia.

You are right about their worry about NATO, however this attack has resulted in a strengthening of NATO and closer ties among the local neutrals. Russia may get the Ukraine to be neutral in regards to NATO but I think Ukraine intends to stick with EU accession at some point so not true neutrality.

As for duration, well no one knows, your estimate seems about right as the Russians are not making a lot of progress and the Ukrainians can't push them back with the current equipment they have.

As for the Russian demands, well they've changed drastically in tenor the last few weeks. If regime change wasn't a goal though then why the attack toward Kiev and the Northern cities? Russia's only real successes have been in the South. We'll see how it plays out though, I don't think the Ukraine will want the separatist parts of Donetsk and Luhansk any more as they are just fuel for potential future conflict and would hinder any EU accession.

I appreciate your contrary opinion, no need for the backroom to just be an echo-chamber.

What's to stop the EU/NATO from arming and training the Ukrainian military in preparation for round 3? Ukraine can even pay for it in token amounts, or with the aid of loans that are never meant to be repaid. Ukraine can modernise in every facet in contrast to a still-sanctioned Russia, whilst being formally neutral and not a member of EU/NATO. And unlike Afghanistan, I doubt the Ukrainians will skim off the military aid in the knowledge that Russia will be preparing for another round.

[Sarmatian]

It's a fair position and I think we all know we won't see where things are until this concludes due to the fog of war etc...

The Ukrainians are undoubtedly upping the estimates in civilian casualties and in damage they are doing to the Russians, with Russian media banned in the West and Russia banning facebook, twitter, and instagram it's created an internet dominated by Ukrainian info operations.

Estimates from 6 March by UN and Red Cross though: OHCHR said that 1,123 civilian casualties in Ukraine have been verified: 364 killed, including 25 children, and 759 injured. The casualties are undoubtedly a lot higher though but hard to count and verify in a war zone. Also, this is from ten days ago, a lot has changed in Russian targeting of cities in that time.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03...0759%20injured.

As for the operation, as an outside observer this looks to be a poorly planned operation due to some extremely optimistic intelligence assessments on the part of the Russians. Just like the US was wrong in Iraq, Russia was wrong about the Ukrainians ability to resist. Zelensky's leadership has also galvanized his country and the West against Russia.

You are right about their worry about NATO, however this attack has resulted in a strengthening of NATO and closer ties among the local neutrals. Russia may get the Ukraine to be neutral in regards to NATO but I think Ukraine intends to stick with EU accession at some point so not true neutrality.

As for duration, well no one knows, your estimate seems about right as the Russians are not making a lot of progress and the Ukrainians can't push them back with the current equipment they have.

As for the Russian demands, well they've changed drastically in tenor the last few weeks. If regime change wasn't a goal though then why the attack toward Kiev and the Northern cities? Russia's only real successes have been in the South. We'll see how it plays out though, I don't think the Ukraine will want the separatist parts of Donetsk and Luhansk any more as they are just fuel for potential future conflict and would hinder any EU accession.

I appreciate your contrary opinion, no need for the backroom to just be an echo-chamber.

I don't think Russian position has changed drastically. The goals always were

1) demilitarization (read: limits on armed forces)
2) military neutrality
3) Crimea recognition

Political and economic considerations were not a part of equation at any point. Obviously, Russia would prefer Ukraine in their own economic zone, but those were never red lines for Russia. There are multiple statements from Russian officials from the last decade that they don't mind Ukraine joining EU.

Regarding poor planning and execution... well, it is certainly a possibility. The problem I have with that is that we don't really know what the Russians expected. No one ever said it would be an easy operation. It was western analysts who said that Russia expected no resistance.

On the other hand, this operation was very carefully planned by Russia. They worked it out with China to get their backing. A major meeting between Putin and Xi happened on the 15th December, with Xi declaring that Russo-Chinese relations are "more than an alliance".
On the same day Russia delivered their demands to NATO.
They have also carefully prepared with OPEC to ensure oil production isn't increased, thus ensuring that the West pays for their own sanctions to a degree.
All that tells me they didn't expect this will be an "quick in an out" operation, like the one that happened in Crimea. Ukraine is a huge country with a large population, and most of that population is very anti-Russian at the moment. They knew that Ukraine has been upgrading their army and had NATO equipment and instructors, for years now. I do not think anyone was naive enough to think this would be quick and easy.

What's to stop the EU/NATO from arming and training the Ukrainian military in preparation for round 3? Ukraine can even pay for it in token amounts, or with the aid of loans that are never meant to be repaid. Ukraine can modernise in every facet in contrast to a still-sanctioned Russia, whilst being formally neutral and not a member of EU/NATO. And unlike Afghanistan, I doubt the Ukrainians will skim off the military aid in the knowledge that Russia will be preparing for another round.

Well, it will probably be based on verification. After demilitarization, it would be impossible for Ukraine to increase their combat capabilities without Russia knowing about it. That would include tight limits on foreign military involvement.
Most importantly for Russia, that would certainly include Ukraine being legally forbidden from allowing any NATO military equipment on its territory.

Such treaties are usually in effect as long as they are enforceable. So, we can probably expect it will for sure be in effect for at least a few decades, and after that it will depend on the balance of power in the region and the world.

[Pannonian]

Well, it will probably be based on verification. After demilitarization, it would be impossible for Ukraine to increase their combat capabilities without Russia knowing about it. That would include tight limits on foreign military involvement.
Most importantly for Russia, that would certainly include Ukraine being legally forbidden from allowing any NATO military equipment on its territory.

Such treaties are usually in effect as long as they are enforceable. So, we can probably expect it will for sure be in effect for at least a few decades, and after that it will depend on the balance of power in the region and the world.

Demilitarisation? Why on earth would anyone agree to demilitarisation after their neighbour had invaded them and taken chunks of their territory?

[Sarmatian]

I believe your estimate of the Russian goals to be fairly accurate. It fits the data/scope of operations I am seeing. I am sure it was planned and thought out, but so were the Schlieffen Plan and Hull's Invasion of Canada -- no plan survives contact with the enemy and the Russians do not appear (so far) to have been well prepared to adapt to changes.

As to Ukrainian exaggerations, it is almost a cliche to note that truth is an early casualty in warfare. Some of this is purposeful deception and some of this is misperception. I believe the Russians to be using deception to a greater degree, but believe both nations assessments are inaccurate for a myriad of perceptual reasons.

I am not saying that all is going perfectly. We have no way of knowing what they expected. I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that they expected it would be quick and easy*.

Quick and easy in this case is relative. If they achieve their goals after a few months, it could still be argued that it was quick. But, I do not think they expected it would be over in a few days, or even weeks.

Commenting further on the point of civilian casualties. I would ask if you have seen some of the images of cities on the frontline. There are kilometer-swathes of flats and houses ruined or even leveled, WW2-style. Several million civilians were and still are resident in these cities. It's basically infeasible to only produce hundreds of deaths with such tactics, which we also know killed countless thousands in Syria. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Battle of Mosul, amid less intense fighting, and over a slower advance.

Just one mass grave.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1502759855689457665 [VIDEO]

This is all before you take into account the known deliberate targeting of individual civilians, which includes shooting at almost every single humanitarian corridor. It remains to characterize today's worst incident, the likely killing of hundreds of civilians in a bombing on a Mariupol theater designated as a civilian space.

I am going by UN numbers. Anything easily verifiable would have already been included in that number. 691* deaths was a figure from two days ago.

The real number is probably considerably higher. How much, we can only guess. The lowest estimates for Iraq invasion put the number at around 4000 civilian deaths during 40 days of combat operations. More realistic estimates place civilian deaths at more than 7000, and there are also estimates that go over 10000.

There doesn't seem to be a huge discrepancy between civilian deaths in those two invasions, which points me to think that there's no deliberate targeting of civilians as a policy of the Russian army.

*That number includes civilian deaths in Donbas areas by the Ukrainian armed forces.

Why launch an extremely costly invasion for all that when it would have been easily achieved by negotiations in 2014? Ukraine's military poses no independent threat to Russia, and barely existed in 2014. Putin made a mess for himself by annexing Crimea, even when Russian military basing there was under no threat. He could have negotiated a favorable arrangement with a new Ukrainian government 8 years go, a path he very deliberately foreclosed. Unless we do judge Putin insane, the rational explanation is that his goals were more maximalist.

One would think that, but any attempts by Russia to do exactly that were rebuffed by US and Kiev.

I've always understood the goal to be political and economic domination over Kyiv, which are the motives claimed by Putin and relayed through state media to the Russian public, and are demonstrated by such actions as the abduction of Ukrainian politicians and activists, and the attempt to install a Kherson People's Republic.

Well, you've always been wrong.

Russian position regarding NATO expansion has been clear for decades now. In 2008, US ambassador to Moscow wrote to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

It was inferred by the lack of supply, organization, and preparation for a conventional conflict, and the insistence on driving unsupported columns into city centers (a tactic limited to the first week for some reason). While this could also reflect an overall lack of capability on the Russian military's part, the consensus that Putin did not expect protracted conventional resistance is well-founded. There was also that captured document implying a 15-day timetable for the operation.

It remains possible that Putin's goal was always something very limited, but such scenarios do not conform to Occam's Razor, and anyway cannot really redeem Russian performance in its particulars.

I would disagree with that. Occam's Razor is applied when we don't have enough information, so we assume the simplest answer is more likely to be correct. Since it is has been well documented that Russia's primary concern is not allowing NATO in Ukraine there's no need to even consider using it. And even if we did apply it, your conclusion certainly wouldn't have been within its confines, because it involves a lot of jumping through hoops to get to it.

Has the backing proved more than moral yet?

There's no need for it to be anything more than moral yet.

Cite?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...udi-arabia-uae

"Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman, and his counterpart in the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed, are yet to agree to a phone call with the west’s most powerful man – a scenario all but unthinkable during previous administrations."

It would be naive to overestimate the minds of autocrats.

Here's a bit from Putin's latest address:
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status...16136966828043 [video]

Yes, undoubtedly, they will try to wager on a so-called fifth-column, on national traitors, on those who make money here, with us, but live there. Live there not even in a geographical sense of the word, but by their intentions, by their slavish consciousness. I'm not talking about those who have villas in Miami or the French Riviera [*wink wink*], who can't get by without foie gras, or so-called gender freedoms. The problem is absolutely not in that. I repeat, it's that many of such people, by their essence [?], find themselves namely there, but not here with our people. Not with Russia. This is, by their opinion - by their opinion - a sign of membership in a higher caste, a higher race. Similar people are ready to sell their dear mother if only for permission to sit in the entry hall of this uppermost caste. And they want to resemble it, in every way imitate it. But they either forget or don't understand at all, that this so-called higher caste, if it even needs them, then only as consumables, so as to utilize them for the carrying through of maximal damage to our people.

Opposition to Ukraine in NATO and NATO in Ukraine is not Putin, it is Russia. It is Yeltsin, and before him Gorbachev, and every single policy maker of note in Russia for that last three decades.

In 1997, almost 50 US foreign policy experts wrote a letter to Clinton calling NATO expansion "policy error of historic proportions"

"In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the "ins" and the "outs," foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;"

There was no notion of Putin in 1997.

I do not understand what is your point with the video.

Ukraine's military is the only thing protecting it from Russia, so it seems highly unlikely that they will concede to demilitarization. NATO neutrality on the other hand was always on the table, and even more so now, because if Ukraine can throw off Russia without NATO's direct intervention (assuming this remains the case), why would they need to join NATO?

Demilitarisation? Why on earth would anyone agree to demilitarisation after their neighbour had invaded them and taken chunks of their territory?

In this case, they will accept it because they have no other choice. Otherwise, they would be committing suicide out of the fear of death.

[spmetla]

Biden Announces $800 Million in New Ukraine Assistance
https://www.voanews.com/a/biden-anno...p/6488192.html

“This new package on its own is going to provide unprecedented assistance to Ukraine,” the president added. “It includes 800 anti-aircraft systems to make sure the Ukrainian military can continue to stop the planes and helicopters that have been attacking their people and to defend their Ukrainian airspace.”

In addition to the 800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems that Biden mentioned, the package includes 2,000 Javelin and 1,000 light anti-armor weapons, and 6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems; hundreds of grenade launchers, shotguns and machine guns; thousands of rifles and pistols; more than 20 million rounds of ammunition and tens of thousands of sets of body armor and helmets.

Seeing that the US is in addition to the above also working to transfer former Soviet air defense systems from several NATO nations to the Ukraine I still can't see why the MiG-29 transfer is off the table. Put the damn planes on a flat bed truck and drive them over if need be, they don't need to be flown from NATO countries to Ukraine. Those S-300 air defense systems are just as big a system and signature for moving over the border and would be a hell of a lot more useful with some fighter aircraft to complement their attacks.

I am not saying that all is going perfectly. We have no way of knowing what they expected. I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that they expected it would be quick and easy*.

Quick and easy in this case is relative. If they achieve their goals after a few months, it could still be argued that it was quick. But, I do not think they expected it would be over in a few days, or even weeks.

Based on Putin putting the head of the FSB under house arrest and the loss of several Major Generals to combat in the last week there is no doubt that this war is going poorly for Russia and not as expected. Lossing a fifth of the tank force sent in is an absolutely crazy level of losses.

The indicator of the quick and easy though was the use of the VDV to go and seize forward airfields and getting repulsed. Airborne forces are extremely vulnerable without support and so far forward of their own lines so to commit them as happened is an indicator that they expected a much easier fight than happened, just like the Allied powers when they did Operation Market Garden.

Opposition to Ukraine in NATO and NATO in Ukraine is not Putin, it is Russia. It is Yeltsin, and before him Gorbachev, and every single policy maker of note in Russia for that last three decades.

In 1997, almost 50 US foreign policy experts wrote a letter to Clinton calling NATO expansion "policy error of historic proportions"

The expansion of NATO will always end up being a what if type of event. However, it's not like NATO has invaded and forced these countries into the fold, its those countries not trusting Russia due to a history of mistrust. It's a chicken egg situation, did Russia become revisionist because of NATO expansion or was that going to happen anyway which makes the expansion of a NATO a prudent policy in view of a Russia that remained at odds with the West.

As for Ukraine specifically, I'm happy with them not being in NATO however I'd like them to be eventually admitted to the EU. If Mexico for some reason became a Chinese ally that'd be a certain threat the US and would make sense for the US to oppose however it would not justify the US invading to topple that government or demand neutrality.
The requirements for EU accension are high though so it will take a long time. Having the Ukraine demilitarize though is ludicrous as without outside security guarantees they'd be at the mercy of the will of the Kremlin in regard to anything they choose to do as a nation. The Ukraine didn't invade Russia, or threaten it. All they did was overthrow a pro-Moscow government and put in one that wanted a future with the EU. Russia invading Crimea the moment the government in Kiev wasn't manned by their puppet certainly shows that they had no intention of letting Ukraine decide it's own course.

[Montmorency]

I am not saying that all is going perfectly. We have no way of knowing what they expected. I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that they expected it would be quick and easy*.

Quick and easy in this case is relative. If they achieve their goals after a few months, it could still be argued that it was quick. But, I do not think they expected it would be over in a few days, or even weeks.

How do you confront the evidence against this? Your only evidence for it is that you don't believe the Kremlin could be so stupid or arrogant.

There doesn't seem to be a huge discrepancy between civilian deaths in those two invasions, which points me to think that there's no deliberate targeting of civilians as a policy of the Russian army.

It is a fact, protested by the UN, that the Russians have been targeting civilians, on many occasions, documented by reporters and third parties on the ground, as well as the actual victims. That is what we know so far.

And for reference, after two weeks the Iraqi Body Count project was estimating

The site estimates between 574 and 733 Iraqi civilians have died since the attack began.

Major conventional fighting would basically end in Iraq by three weeks after D0, with the fall of Baghdad, so most of the civilian casualties must have been priced in by the time the quoted estimate was published. The IBC would in a few months revise its estimate of civilian casualties upward by an order of magnitude.

In Mariupol, the city government - people on the ground - claimed two days ago that 2400 civilian deaths had been confirmed. This is in a city that has been under siege, under heavy bombardment, for 2 weeks. Here is some aerial footage of Mariupol.

One would have to muster very strong evidence to discount such a figure as "vastly exaggerated."

Opposition to Ukraine in NATO and NATO in Ukraine is not Putin, it is Russia. It is Yeltsin, and before him Gorbachev, and every single policy maker of note in Russia for that last three decades.

I did not disagree that Russians dislike NATO as a concept. The problem for your construction was always that the Russian government's actions have not been consistent with a limited opposition to Ukrainian NATO accession, which was not a remote possibility in February 2014, when Putin ordered the seizure of Crimea and the partition of Ukraine hours after Yanukovych's flight. While these and subsequent encroachments are not consistent with the goal of mitigating a perceived security threat from Ukraine, they are consistent with colonialism.

Well, you've always been wrong.

Russian position regarding NATO expansion has been clear for decades now. In 2008, US ambassador to Moscow wrote to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

And yet, consistently, the Kremlin has reacted to Ukraine moving toward the EU, whereas NATO accession was never a short-term or medium-term prospect from the perspective of the US or of actual Ukrainian governments since 2014. At the same time, from 2014 to the declaration of war, Russian media and political discourse up to the President's office has objected to Ukraine's economic and cultural "separation" from Russia.

At some point we must admit that the NATO angle is discredited as propaganda for outsiders.

I would disagree with that. Occam's Razor is applied when we don't have enough information, so we assume the simplest answer is more likely to be correct. Since it is has been well documented that Russia's primary concern is not allowing NATO in Ukraine there's no need to even consider using it. And even if we did apply it, your conclusion certainly wouldn't have been within its confines, because it involves a lot of jumping through hoops to get to it.

...

The only choice we have is to assess the Russian government and military by their words, actions, and results, not alternate universe hypotheticals. What I described is what's going on; we have a lot of information. The Russian government gives such-and-such reasons for its invasion. The Russian media presents such-and-such stories to justify the government. The Russian military's tactics are such-and-such, their losses are such-and-such, their progress on the ground is such-and-such. It's all verifiable. When assessing a situation one must account for a well-documented set of facts; it is never fruitful to generate facts from first principles. A comprehensive explanation that captures what we observe involves various manifestations of malice, corruption, and incompetence.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...udi-arabia-uae

"Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman, and his counterpart in the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed, are yet to agree to a phone call with the west’s most powerful man – a scenario all but unthinkable during previous administrations."

I just referenced early-year reporting that shows that OPEC+, led by Russia and the Saudis, just prior to the invasion agreed to gradually return their output to pre-pandemic levels by mid-2022, and the Saudis continue to produce up to their quota, which is indeed for their part already at its pre-pandemic level.

Especially when the Saudis now only have about 1 million bpd in spare capacity, whereas in late 2019 they maintained 2 million bpd spare capacity (with overall OPEC spare capacity being over 3 million bpd, as opposed to non-Saudi OPEC having no spare capacity today). From all the information I have in front of me your theory is not much more credible or substantive than the Republican Party theory that JCPOA was designed to enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

I do not understand what is your point with the video.

That when Putin says he upholds fascism, we ought to believe him, and ought to have believed him all the other times he advanced Russian ultranationalism in the vein of Ilyin, Galkovsky, and Dugin, and worked to rearrange Russian society on the basis of their conspiratorial, anti-liberal hierachies. The final metastasis into imperial expansion was by those qualities a barely-repressed matter of time - we just dared to hope otherwise. When Putin claims he is fighting for the "right to be and remain Russia", take him seriously and literally.

The video meme alludes to the classic nature of the rhetoric of self-purification and purges of cosmopolitans to strengthen the nation and its cohesion.

What Russia is doing here is basically implementing Monroe's doctrine on a much smaller scale.

The Monroe Doctrine was abandoned nearly 100 years ago, and the US has not attacked another country to annex territory since the 19th century. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the watershed event that henceforth guaranteed geographic buffers between superpowers in terms of nuclear missile deployments up to the present day, and foreclosed the possibility of Ukraine hosting American missiles even if it or the Americans wanted it, which neither ever did, and which the Russian government never believed they did.

This "smaller scale" is the largest military operation in Europe since WW2, with whose instigator it shares common designs.

It depends how you look at it. Zelensky did call on his western allies to force Russia to return Crimea. The options discussed were purely diplomatic. But, if you're in position of Russia, and all NATO members recognize Crimea as Ukrainian territory, Ukraine joins NATO and activates article 5, on the account that a foreign country has troops in its territory - what happens then?

This was never a possibility, including for the reason that NATO traditionally does not consider candidates who have compromised territorial integrity and maintain claims on territory they don't control. That disqualification is precisely what Putin triggered by severing parts of Georgia in 2008. The idea that Ukraine had to be destroyed following Russia's attempt to conquer it for fear that it would expeditiously be admitted to NATO for the purpose of activating the alliance's self-defense clause against Russia is very obviously a false pretext. Not that it is too false for the Russians to wield in concept, but it is not even one the Russians themselves invoked.

Russia can not fight NATO, so their choice is either accept NATO demands or destroy the world.

Germany cannot sustain its economy without expanding, so either it abandons remilitarization or conquers the world.



As the Russians used to say, смерть фашизму.

In regards to neutral status, Finland's example suggest it is quite possible, even if they were at war twice in recent years before that agreement was signed. USSR forced them to lease several naval bases after WW2 for 50 years. After the agreement was signed in 1955 or 56, can't remember, in which Finland agreed to neutrality, USSR cancelled the lease, returned all naval bases to Finland, demilitarized the border and there was a generally very prosperous relationship. Finland was free to pursue economic ties with both the West and USSR and develop in peace. It lasted over 70 years, and is currently still going on. I assume it will still go on unless Finland joins NATO.

The actual Finnish people unsurprisingly hated the imperial yoke of Finlandization, and they did not demilitarize - they maintained a strong, well-motivated conscript army to deter the Soviet Union. Poetically, today a majority of Finns report backing NATO accession for Finland for the first time in its history.

I know people in the West tend to see NATO almost purely in a positive light, but for the rest of the world, it is not so. Objectively, NATO countries have started most wars, invaded most countries, meddled the most in other countries affairs, both overtly and covertly, fostered and encouraged civil wars, propped up dictators and autocrats etc... since WW2, by a very large margin.

This is false on two accounts. First, it conflates NATO with the specific, independent, policies of the United States (and sometimes the UK and France). Second, it ignores that the USSR, and later Russia, match the US on the score of "started most wars, invaded most countries, meddled the most in other countries affairs, both overtly and covertly, fostered and encouraged civil wars, propped up dictators and autocrats."

In Europe, it's really just Serbia and Russia who hate NATO, and they hardly count.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ok, guys, I'm not going to go point by point on this, I will just summarize my position.

I certainly believe Ukrainian officials are vastly exaggerating civilian deaths when they speak to the media, and I'm even going to skip the part of weapons being distributed to tens of thousands of civilians in Ukraine.

For Russia, this is a carefully planned operation. They perceive NATO in Ukraine as a grave threat to their security. They will not stop until they achieve their goals. It is very hard to predict duration, but based on what;s going on. I think realistically we can expect some sort of settlement in May or June.

Russia's major goals are recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and firm political guarantees about Ukraine not joining NATO. I think Ukraine still has a chance of keeping Donetsk and Lugansk if they show a willingness for a constitutional change that would allow those regions to be self governed, although probably with Russian peacekeeping force stationed there for a time.

I believe your estimate of the Russian goals to be fairly accurate. It fits the data/scope of operations I am seeing. I am sure it was planned and thought out, but so were the Schlieffen Plan and Hull's Invasion of Canada -- no plan survives contact with the enemy and the Russians do not appear (so far) to have been well prepared to adapt to changes.

As to Ukrainian exaggerations, it is almost a cliche to note that truth is an early casualty in warfare. Some of this is purposeful deception and some of this is misperception. I believe the Russians to be using deception to a greater degree, but believe both nations assessments are inaccurate for a myriad of perceptual reasons.

[Montmorency]

Ни одной пяди чужой земли не хотим. Но и своей земли, ни одного вершка не отдадим.

Macron seems to be imitating Zelensky chic. He looks pretty good though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Elon Musk is very good at getting into Twitter fights, and now he's gone and trolled Ramzan Kadyrov into Navy SEALing by proxy at him.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Pentagon reports that Russia has committed 75% of its BTGs to the Ukraine war. Unclear if this refers specifically to Russia's ~170 Army BTGs, or includes VDV and Marines. 75% of 170 would accord with previous estimates of 120-125 BTGs in the AO, but it's a little unclear since we know VDV and Marines have been fighting on the ground as well.

Also assessed was that Ukraine and Russia each have lost 10% of their initial forces, which is rough for Ukraine until more Territorials can be trained.

Biden has agreed to send Ukraine 100 Switchblade loitering munitions!



Other NATO countries will contribute Starstreak, S-300, SA-8 Osa, and SA-13 Strela systems. NATO also preparing to deploy "substantially" more forces near Ukraine.

Poland is calling for a NATO peacekeeping mission with self-defense ROE in Ukraine, which sounds a lot like the security corridor I keep recommending.

That noble wrath may yet boil over, however slowly. I'm increasingly willing to defer to Biden's diplomatic process.

Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly planning to deforest the occupied regions to reduce cover for insurgents. This form of pillage is what Erdogan and Assad did in Afrin, so the allegation checks out, and fits with long-term plans of annexation or occupation.

As a reminder, here is Ukraine's eco-geography. Green is fantastic guerrilla terrain, and the forest steppe is quite hilly west of the Dnieper. There's a reason we've heard so much about irregular activities along the Kyiv-Sumy axis.





Two important points to balance:

1. Don't take the step that could lead to rapid escalation until you've prepared for the possibility of going all the way.
2. If the most powerful military, and military alliance, are deterred solely by nuclear posturing, then the potent lesson for all states is that acquiring nukes allows you to do whatever you please. Cf. North Korea.

I believe your estimate of the Russian goals to be fairly accurate. It fits the data/scope of operations I am seeing. I am sure it was planned and thought out, but so were the Schlieffen Plan and Hull's Invasion of Canada -- no plan survives contact with the enemy and the Russians do not appear (so far) to have been well prepared to adapt to changes.

As to Ukrainian exaggerations, it is almost a cliche to note that truth is an early casualty in warfare. Some of this is purposeful deception and some of this is misperception. I believe the Russians to be using deception to a greater degree, but believe both nations assessments are inaccurate for a myriad of perceptual reasons.

To offer an example, Russia claimed more TB2 Bayraktar downed than Ukraine ever possessed. Not a single loss has been documented as far as I know.

Ukraine claims 430 Russian tanks eliminated. The verifiable number (Oryx) alone is 233.

[Montmorency]

Ok, guys, I'm not going to go point by point on this, I will just summarize my position.

I certainly believe Ukrainian officials are vastly exaggerating civilian deaths when they speak to the media, and I'm even going to skip the part of weapons being distributed to tens of thousands of civilians in Ukraine.

For Russia, this is a carefully planned operation. They perceive NATO in Ukraine as a grave threat to their security. They will not stop until they achieve their goals. It is very hard to predict duration, but based on what;s going on. I think realistically we can expect some sort of settlement in May or June.

Russia's major goals are recognition of Crimea as part of Russia and firm political guarantees about Ukraine not joining NATO. I think Ukraine still has a chance of keeping Donetsk and Lugansk if they show a willingness for a constitutional change that would allow those regions to be self governed, although probably with Russian peacekeeping force stationed there for a time.

Commenting further on the point of civilian casualties. I would ask if you have seen some of the images of cities on the frontline. There are kilometer-swathes of flats and houses ruined or even leveled, WW2-style. Several million civilians were and still are resident in these cities. It's basically infeasible to only produce hundreds of deaths with such tactics, which we also know killed countless thousands in Syria. Thousands of civilians were killed in the Battle of Mosul, amid less intense fighting, and over a slower advance.

Just one mass grave.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1502759855689457665 [VIDEO]

This is all before you take into account the known deliberate targeting of individual civilians, which includes shooting at almost every single humanitarian corridor. It remains to characterize today's worst incident, the likely killing of hundreds of civilians in a bombing on a Mariupol theater designated as a civilian space.

I don't think Russian position has changed drastically. The goals always were

1) demilitarization (read: limits on armed forces)
2) military neutrality
3) Crimea recognition

Why launch an extremely costly invasion for all that when it would have been easily achieved by negotiations in 2014? Ukraine's military poses no independent threat to Russia, and barely existed in 2014. Putin made a mess for himself by annexing Crimea, even when Russian military basing there was under no threat. He could have negotiated a favorable arrangement with a new Ukrainian government 8 years go, a path he very deliberately foreclosed. Unless we do judge Putin insane, the rational explanation is that his goals were more maximalist.

I've always understood the goal to be political and economic domination over Kyiv, which are the motives claimed by Putin and relayed through state media to the Russian public, and are demonstrated by such actions as the abduction of Ukrainian politicians and activists, and the attempt to install a Kherson People's Republic.

Political and economic part were not a part of equation at any point. Obviously, Russia would prefer Ukraine in their own economic zone, but those were never red lines for Russia. There multiple statements from Russian officials from the last decade that they don't mind Ukraine joining NATO.

Putin ordered the annexation of Crimea and the creation of Novorossiya after the Ukrainian people rebelled when he directed his puppet to reject EU integration. NATO and EU membership, or the pursuit of it, have always been linked, with the notable exception of the UK.

Regarding poor planning and execution... well, it is certainly a possibility. The problem I have with that is that we don't really know what the Russians expected. No one ever said it would be an easy operation. It was western analysts who said that Russia expected no resistance.

It was inferred by the lack of supply, organization, and preparation for a conventional conflict, and the insistence on driving unsupported columns into city centers (a tactic limited to the first week for some reason). While this could also reflect an overall lack of capability on the Russian military's part, the consensus that Putin did not expect protracted conventional resistance is well-founded. There was also that captured document implying a 15-day timetable for the operation.

It remains possible that Putin's goal was always something very limited, but such scenarios do not conform to Occam's Razor, and anyway cannot really redeem Russian performance in its particulars.

To couch my words in a balanced manner, the level of careful planning on the part of the Russians, or how much Putin even allowed to be performed below the political level, remains unclear. (An example of Russian planning, though one I can't verify in mainstream media, is that rented storage space in Kyiv was filled with a stockpile of Russian dress uniforms.)

On the other hand, this operation was very carefully planned by Russia. They worked it out with China to get their backing. A major meeting between Putin and Xi happened on the 15th December, with Xi declaring that Russo-Chinese relations are "more than an alliance".

Has the backing proved more than moral yet?

They have also carefully prepared with OPEC to ensure oil production isn't increased, thus ensuring that the West pays for their own sanctions to a degree.

Cite?

OPEC, Russia Agree to Keep Boosting Oil Output, Jolting Prices

OPEC and a group of Russia-led oil producers agreed to continue pumping more crude, betting that pent-up demand in a post-lockdown world will outweigh any hit to economic activity by the recent permutations of Covid-19.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allied producers led by Russia said Thursday they would raise their collective production by another 400,000 barrels a day in January. The group agreed earlier this year to boost output in such increments each month until production reaches pre-pandemic levels.

The White House had put pressure on the group to accelerate that pace. Many market watchers, meanwhile, expected the group, which calls itself OPEC+, to pause in opening taps any wider. That expectation came amid the uncertain economic impact of new travel bans going up to curb the Omicron variant and fresh lockdowns in places like Europe, which is suffering through another wave of the older, Delta variant.

Oil Price Rise Blamed in Part on OPEC, Russian Output Shortfalls

PEC and its Russia-led partners have promised to increase oil production to pre-pandemic levels this year but are falling short of those public commitments, stoking fast-rising global crude markets.

Last month, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its Russia-led allies increased their collective production by 250,000 barrels a day, or 60% of what the two groups promised for the month, according to the International Energy Agency. Overall, the group is pumping 790,000 barrels a day below its publicly stated targets, said the Paris-based watchdog, which advises industrialized nations on energy.
[...]
OPEC+ cut its production deeply in early 2020 by a collective 9.7 million barrels a day, equivalent to about 10% of global demand at the time. The group has since agreed to restore 6.4 million barrels a day of those cuts. It has promised to further increase output each month by 400,000 barrels a day until the group is back at pre-Covid-19 pumping levels.
[...]
In December, Nigeria, a top African producer, pumped 460,000 barrels a day below its quota, after a malfunctioning barge triggered the shutdown of a major export terminal. In Angola, technical issues and a lack of investment have sent production to 17-year lows.

Last month, Russia pumped below its OPEC+ quota for the first since the group cut output. It had promised to boost output in the month by 20,000 barrels a day, but instead cut output by 10,000 barrels a day, the IEA said, blaming slower-than-expected development of some fields. A Russian Energy Ministry spokesman said he couldn’t immediately comment.

The IEA cut Iraq’s sustainable capacity estimates by 140,000 barrels a day due to lingering bottlenecks in aging southern infrastructure. Pipelines are frequently targeted by insurgents or fail due to lack of maintenance. In the most recent outage, a key oil pipeline to Turkey was knocked out by an explosion blamed on a falling pylon.

Those and other obstacles leave Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. as the world’s only major producers with sizable spare capacity, about 3.25 million barrels a day, according to the IEA.

Since 2014 Russia has always, as far as I know, opposed production cuts, even when the OPEC loosening in 2014-15 dovetailed with sanctions to cause considerable stress to the Russian economy. It took some conflict with the Saudis at the beginning of the pandemic for Russia to agree to a cut. The Saudis are set to return to pre-pandemic quotas in a few months under current protocol. Record profit margins are a more likely barrier to dipping into their limited spare capacity than some secret pact with Russia.

All that tells me they didn't expect this will be an "quick in an out" operation, like the one that happened in Crimea. Ukraine is a huge country with a large population, and most of that population is very anti-Russian at the moment. They knew that Ukraine has been upgrading their army and had NATO equipment and instructors, for years now. I do not think anyone was naive enough to think this would be quick and easy.

It would be naive to overestimate the minds of autocrats.

Here's a bit from Putin's latest address:
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status...16136966828043 [video]

Yes, undoubtedly, they will try to wager on a so-called fifth-column, on national traitors, on those who make money here, with us, but live there. Live there not even in a geographical sense of the word, but by their intentions, by their slavish consciousness. I'm not talking about those who have villas in Miami or the French Riviera [*wink wink*], who can't get by without foie gras, or so-called gender freedoms. The problem is absolutely not in that. I repeat, it's that many of such people, by their essence [?], find themselves namely there, but not here with our people. Not with Russia. This is, by their opinion - by their opinion - a sign of membership in a higher caste, a higher race. Similar people are ready to sell their dear mother if only for permission to sit in the entry hall of this uppermost caste. And they want to resemble it, in every way imitate it. But they either forget or don't understand at all, that this so-called higher caste, if it even needs them, then only as consumables, so as to utilize them for the carrying through of maximal damage to our people.

Well, it will probably be based on verification. After demilitarization, it would be impossible for Ukraine to increase their combat capabilities without Russia knowing about it. That would include tight limits on foreign military involvement.
Most importantly for Russia, that would certainly include Ukraine being legally forbidden from allowing any NATO military equipment on its territory.

Such treaties are usually in effect as long as they are enforceable. So, we can probably expect it will for sure be in effect for at least a few decades, and after that it will depend on the balance of power in the region and the world.

Ukraine's military is the only thing protecting it from Russia, so it seems highly unlikely that they will concede to demilitarization. NATO neutrality on the other hand was always on the table, and even more so now, because if Ukraine can throw off Russia without NATO's direct intervention (assuming this remains the case), why would they need to join NATO?