Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Full invasion like this one?

Yes although I read that Kyiv falling in 72 hours is US intelligence's worst case assessment. I think that number was given to Congress because of the criticism they received over Afghanistan.

Chair of the Joint Chiefs Milley said Kiev could fall in 72 hours.

Yes that's what I referred to: probably arse-covering after US intelligence assessments of Afghanistan were far too optimistic.

OK then let's assume the above assessment is correct. Kiev falls in 2-3 days.....and then what??

It's difficult to say, but I think the most logical plan for Russia is something along the lines of the Bild scoop last week:

https://twitter.com/JulianRoepcke/status/1489721702452019201

I highly doubt the intelligence sourcing is actually legitimate here and it reads like hearsay, i.e. what a foreign intelligence agency thinks Russia could do...but if one accepts an invasion of Ukraine intending to take Kyiv and force a political settlement, this is IMO the most logical way to go about it. 1) Destroy the Ukrainian military, 2) siege Kyiv, cut off electricity, water, food etc. and force it to surrender, 3) collapse the Zelensky govt, 4) install new pro-Russian government in Kyiv, 5) quickly hold legitimising election or referendum, 6) use army and Rosgvardia to suppress dissent. I don't know if that's necessarily what Russia will try to do, but it's what makes most sense to me politically and strategically once you've already decided to invade and take cities.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Imo, it sounds 100 times more insane than Pee-tape and probably comes from the same source  

[StateBoiler]

There's finally a diplomatic plan from the French and Germans: get both sides back on the Minsk II agreement. Problem is the how and the Ukrainians say it won't work.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/can-ukraine-and-russia-be-persuaded-to-abide-by-minsk-accords

The next day in Kyiv, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, reaffirmed to Macron what he has been saying for months: Ukraine is committed to fulfilling the Minsk accords, as long as this happens in the way Kyiv interprets them.

Privately, however, Ukrainian officials are more downbeat. “Minsk is impossible to fulfil. It would lead to the destruction of Ukraine as a state if we did,” said one high-ranking government official.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why you need smart people running your country's foreign policy.

The Minsk accords were signed in February 2015, after a 16-hour overnight negotiating session in the Belarusian capital. Of the four leaders involved: Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko, France’s François Hollande and Germany’s Angela Merkel, only Putin is still in office.

The document called for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, and did bring major military hostilities to an end, but the conflict has continued to simmer and little progress has been made on any of the political steps.

The agreement calls for the withdrawal of foreign troops and mercenaries, as well as constitutional reform in Ukraine that would provide for decentralisation and elections in the current territories, which are financed and administered by Moscow.

For a long time, the main stumbling block was over sequencing. Kyiv insisted the separatists should first disarm, while Moscow demanded political reform first.

There is little appetite in Ukrainian society for any Minsk-based settlement that could give parliamentary seats to Russia’s proxies, and essentially give Moscow a say in the running of Ukraine.

There is also the fact that seven years have elapsed since the accords were signed. A de facto line of control now snakes through the Luhansk and Donetsk regions, and since the coronavirus pandemic hit, crossings have fallen dramatically in number.

“The people on the other side have spent eight years being subjected to propaganda about Ukraine, most of them have been given Russian passports. Their leaders are Russian citizens. How are we expected now to integrate them back, and have their representatives sit in Kyiv? It doesn’t make sense,” said the high-ranking official.

Russia has given out more than 700,000 passports to residents of the territories, according to a recent statement by a Russian official.

Is this official tacitly admitting Crimea and Donbass are never coming back to Ukraine?

Critics of the Minsk agreement say Poroshenko signed it in 2015 because a gun was pointed at Ukraine’s head, as Kyiv’s forces faced total military defeat from an enemy that was receiving covert support from the Kremlin.

“From my point of view, the Minsk agreements were born dead,” said Volodymyr Ariev, an MP from Poroshenko’s party. “The conditions were always impossible to implement. We understood it clearly at the time, but we signed it to buy time for Ukraine: to have time to restore our government, our army, intelligence and security system.”

Lock and reload, onward to the next Punic War!

He said many of the points in Minsk were incompatible with the Ukrainian constitution, and that with Russia, Ukraine could not be expected to fulfil its demands.

“Macron cannot compel Ukraine to do it Moscow’s way,” said Ariev.

Asked during his press conference with Macron about Ukraine’s reluctance to implement the Minsk accords, Putin used a phrase that some interpreted as carrying sinister undertones: “Like it or not, you’ll have to tolerate it, my beauty.”

The next day, Zelenskiy responded that Ukraine was indeed “tolerant”, as it put up with so much from Russia. But keen to avoid a Russian invasion, as well as to remove the looming threat of one which is eroding Ukraine’s economy, Zelenskiy is also pushing Minsk as a viable solution, at least in public.

Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Zelenskiy’s chief of staff, said the accords could still provide a viable roadmap if interpreted correctly.

“Within the Minsk framework it is really possible to pass to peace through any difficulties, but the steps and their content can only be those that fully respect the sovereignty of Ukraine,” he said.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

OK then let's assume the above assessment is correct. Kiev falls in 2-3 days.....and then what??

That's my point. I don't doubt we can take Kiev in 24 hours, and whole Ukraine in 3 days, lol. But then what? Guerrilla warfare will start sooner or later and we will just start to kill the civilians/Ukraine army in the cities? No way. I don't believe there is anything positive Putin can gain by actually taking Kiev.

What I don't see is what precisely is the upside of occupying large swathes of eastern Ukraine?

Crimea I understand due to the strategic importance in the Black sea, and the most Eastern oblast maybe, given how many Russians living there. But everywhere else there will be large contingencies of angry armed nationalist Ukrainians who will wage guerilla warfare on Russian troops for as long as they occupy. Eastern Ukraine is not so resource-filled as to provide that much.

What, then is the endgame? install a more explicitly pro-Russian government in Kiev? I don't see the exit strategy here

I agree with this. There's a high risk of Russia getting stuck with a domestically unpopular and highly costly occupation if it goes down this path. My view is the Russian leadership may nevertheless decide to invade if they think the cost of inaction is even higher.

One cost of inaction would obviously be military: Ukraine is reforming its army along NATO lines, Ukraine is developing ballistic missiles to hit Russian cities within minutes, Ukraine has bought and deployed Turkish drones of the type that were decisive in the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020 and could roll back Russia in Donbas. Ukraine likely couldn't put up much of a conventional fight against a Russian invasion today, but in 5 years time it may have enough capability to effectively deter Russian aggression. Added to that is the NATO factor, not simply membership which is a long ways off, but Russia has started complaining about "NATO infrastructure" in Ukraine as a red line: arms shipments, training etc.. Even if Ukraine doesn't join NATO in the future, NATO countries may consider they have an obligation to defend a Ukraine they have increasing links to, just as everyone knows Finland and Sweden would be defended in a war with Russia despite not having formal NATO membership. Especially if EU accession happens (which is what Euromaidan and the 2014 invasion were about). And if NATO membership were to happen - and the Russian leadership believes it was lied to over previous NATO expansion, knows Ukraine is a candidate and that the West insists it has no veto, therefore Russia has to assume future Ukraine NATO membership as a realistic worst case scenario -  then NATO would be able to base troops just a few hundred kilometres from Volgograd, Voronezh, Moscow etc. if it wanted to. So it would be a strategic disaster.

Why not limited invasion, like an expansion of the Donbas conflict to force Minsk implementation? Because there's no reason to believe it would achieve any of Russia's goals in averting the above. Russia inflicted a military defeat on Ukraine in 2015 to bring it to the negotiating table and then afterwards Ukraine refused to implement what it signed. Even a Georgia 2008-style invasion, i.e. destroy the Ukrainian military and go home, would likely just inflame Ukrainian public opinion to resist Russian demands further, backed up by the West, and not change the country's fundamental drift away from Russia (this may nevertheless be an option of the Russian leadership is seriously afraid of occupation). In fact Zelensky was on paper the perfect partner for Russia: a Russian speaker elected on a conciliatory platform with a large majority, and nevertheless he failed to implement anything Russia wanted in the face of domestic opposition and took a hard anti-Russian turn in the past year, jailing pro-Russian oligarchs and shutting down Russian media in Ukraine. So logically one comes to a place that if a westward-oriented Ukraine is a red line, some sort of regime change may be necessary.

I also think there's deeper historical, ideological and personal factors at play here for the Russian leadership. In July Putin published a long letter "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians", where he lays out why he believes Ukrainians are historically indivisible from Russians, that Ukraine is an artificial state, and that Ukrainians have never prospered apart from Russian rule. Stuff like Kiev is the capital of the first Rus state, is the mother of Russian cities and the Russian Orthodox Church, Ukrainian-born authors like Gogol are pillars of Russian literature and so on. It's strong stuff. And Putin is 69 years old, so he and his inner circle were middle aged when the USSR collapsed and the territory of Ukraine became (stably) independent of a Russian state for the first time in over 200 years. Hell, quite a few Russian elites were born in Ukraine before independence, will know people who were, will have Ukrainian friends and relatives etc.. So I think there is a sense of incomprehensibility for people of Putin's generation that Ukraine could choose the West over the "Russian sphere" and that it would be a historic tragedy for them and a deep wound in the Russian nation if it were to happen. And Putin has seen his historical mission as reviving Russia as a respected great power again after the disasters and humiliations of the 90s. He's coming close to retirement. From his perspective it may gut his legacy for Ukraine to be detached from Russia by the West under his rule.

(I also think historical-ideological-personal factors above may lead the Russian leadership to underrate the cost of occupation, i.e. if you do really believe Ukrainians and Russians are one people then you will downgrade the possibility of resistance to occupation and the number of troops you may need to commit.)

So yeah, a full invasion is of course seriously risky. But I think there are reasons to believe that the Russian leadership may consider the cost unacceptably high if they don't. This is just a gut analysis though.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1491768460216524803
https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1491782202954170374https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1491823783153442819

So proud, we are remaining the only trolling super power.

[AelroseB]

Russia seemingly preparing to invade Ukraine next week, according to Nick Schifrin, corroborated by Ali Rogin.
https://twitter.com/AliRogin/status/1492201860794662923

Biden also headed to Camp David as of now...

https://twitter.com/obdmiv/status/1492187411849355266

Please let this fizzle out into a nothing story.

[Alben Barkley]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/11/biden-ukraine-us-russian-invasion-winter-olympics

It’s happening.

[jaichind]

Theory: Russian invasion takes place during the Superbowl so the maximum number of Americans are preoccupied

[Cassius]

I’m surprised that Truss didn’t bring a balalaika and start doing the gopak in Red Square.

[Hindsight was 2020]

But if Putin’s endgame is to seize Kiev and declare checkmate on Zelensky, isn’t the best move (while humanly awful) on Zelensky part is to move the government out of Kiev to a city in the Western part of Ukraine and vow to never given in and force Russia to a longer and costlier war then they wanted?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Theory: Russian invasion takes place during the Superbowl so the maximum number of Americans are preoccupied

And help truckers to protest during Super Bowl 

[StateBoiler]

But if Putin’s endgame is to seize Kiev and declare checkmate on Zelensky, isn’t the best move (while humanly awful) on Zelensky part is to move the government out of Kiev to a city in the Western part of Ukraine and vow to never given in and force Russia to a longer and costlier war then they wanted?

Strategically, yes. However, the optics of the leader leaving the capital and what that tells everyone else look terrible.

As good a place as any to post, Russian Nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky reported yesterday to be in a hospital and really bad shape.

[PSOL]

Next week will be the best development in humanity since the development of the Covid-19 vaccines. I await either Russia being buried under the corpse of Ukraine or the sheer silence of this turning out to be a nothingburger.

[Hindsight was 2020]

But if Putin’s endgame is to seize Kiev and declare checkmate on Zelensky, isn’t the best move (while humanly awful) on Zelensky part is to move the government out of Kiev to a city in the Western part of Ukraine and vow to never given in and force Russia to a longer and costlier war then they wanted?

Strategically, yes. However, the optics of the leader leaving the capital and what that tells everyone else look terrible.

As good a place as any to post, Russian Nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky reported yesterday to be in a hospital and really nad shape.

True but staying at Kiev and just staying their for it to fall and risk his own capture has also horrible optics to it

[StateBoiler]

But if Putin’s endgame is to seize Kiev and declare checkmate on Zelensky, isn’t the best move (while humanly awful) on Zelensky part is to move the government out of Kiev to a city in the Western part of Ukraine and vow to never given in and force Russia to a longer and costlier war then they wanted?

Strategically, yes. However, the optics of the leader leaving the capital and what that tells everyone else look terrible.

As good a place as any to post, Russian Nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky reported yesterday to be in a hospital and really nad shape.

True but staying at Kiev and just staying their for it to fall and risk his own capture has also horrible optics to it

Yes. If they do that decision, it will be made last minute.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If there's an invasion then 'optics' are really the least important of things...

[Silent Hunter]

Kyiv is a city of nearly three million people. If a fight was put up for it, it would be messy.

[StateBoiler]

If there's an invasion then 'optics' are really the least important of things...

When you choose to be the leader of a country, part of the deal is you lose the right to treat your life as more important than the country: kings come and go, the state remains.

So the leader is going to retreat while telling the troops and citizens "fight hard and be brave"? What does that do to morale when it would already be incredibly low?

[Silent Hunter]

If there's an invasion then 'optics' are really the least important of things...

When you choose to be the leader of a country, part of the deal is you lose the right to treat your life as more important than the country: kings come and go, the state remains.

So the leader is going to retreat while telling the troops and citizens "fight hard and be brave"? What does that do to morale when it would already be incredibly low?

Depends on if they can effectively form a government in exile. Queen Wilhelmina did just fine out of the Second World War.

[Helsinkian]

It seems clear that plenty of high-ranking Germans would jump at the opportunity to sign a modern day version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact if given the chance.

https://twitter.com/general_ben/status/1492035185524752391

[Flyersfan232]

I need argument to to prove ww3 isn’t going to happen because of this to calm my step siblings down any tips

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Kyiv is a city of nearly three million people. If a fight was put up for it, it would be messy.

I think the most realistic "win" for Ukraine will be if they can force the Russian army to turn Kyiv into Grozny and collapse Russian domestic support for the war. Of course a lot of people would die in that scenario...

[StateBoiler]

It seems clear that plenty of high-ranking Germans would jump at the opportunity to sign a modern day version of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact if given the chance.

https://twitter.com/general_ben/status/1492035185524752391

Well, the Russians have done a good job imposing their will and position into the richest economy in Europe.

[Chips]

I need argument to to prove ww3 isn’t going to happen because of this to calm my step siblings down any tips

As of now, I don't think it's likely anyone will be dumb enough to ensure MAD. Especially since Biden has re-affirmed a few times now that he doesn't have plans to send US troops to directly fight in Ukraine. It's still not even 100% certain that Putin will go through with invading but nuclear armageddon seems highly unlikely, even in the event Putin goes through with the supposed plan. That doesn't mean a Russian-Ukraine war couldn't have big consequences for both countries and the world at large in other ways, but at least we're unlikely to all become radioactive dust. WW3 and nuclear war are basically synonymous at this point.

Hope this helps somewhat.

[afleitch]

Russia cannot fight a war that would involve mass civilian casualties. It cannot secure any land that it captures. It has no grounds it can make up to invade. It's propaganda output is weak and more unconvincing than usual.

It's just wanting attention.