Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[BG-NY]

Well, it's a viewpoint that's acceptable but dumb.

How is it dumb from the position of Americans? What do Americans gain directly from supporting NATO?

[Horus]

Well, it's a viewpoint that's acceptable but dumb.

How is it dumb from the position of Americans? What do Americans gain directly from supporting NATO?

While I am strongly non interventionist, it's important to have friends.

America First is a good idea, America Alone could be catastrophic.

[BG-NY]

While I am strongly non interventionist, it's important to have friends.

America First is a good idea, America Alone could be catastrophic.

Everything in geopolitics is transactional, though.

What is Europe providing in the relationship? They have stauncher tariffs than we do, support mass migration (that will eventually hit the US), and are collectively intervening more than does the US.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, it's a viewpoint that's acceptable but dumb.

How is it dumb from the position of Americans? What do Americans gain directly from supporting NATO?

You are changing the parameters of your initial question here.

My assessment that is a "dumb" position to take was in direct reference to your statement that "what Russia is doing is wrong and that Ukraine's allies have the right to support their efforts, but to oppose US membership in NATO".

This is of course a contradictory or at least self-defeating position because a unified NATO that includes the United States is the best way to counter Russia and help Ukraine.

[BG-NY]

You are changing the parameters of your initial question here.

My assessment that is a "dumb" position to take was in direct reference to your statement that "what Russia is doing is wrong and that Ukraine's allies have the right to support their efforts, but to oppose US membership in NATO".

This is of course a contradictory or at least self-defeating position to take because a unified NATO that includes the United States is the best way to counter Russia and help Ukraine.

Are you suggesting it's a dumb position for Ukraine's sake, Europe's sake, or from America's sake? My point here is what is good for Europe isn't necessarily good for America. Hence it may be "dumb" from Europe's POV to not support America's membership in NATO, but is it dumb *from America's POV* to not support America's membership in NATO?

[Oryxslayer]

You are changing the parameters of your initial question here.

My assessment that is a "dumb" position to take was in direct reference to your statement that "what Russia is doing is wrong and that Ukraine's allies have the right to support their efforts, but to oppose US membership in NATO".

This is of course a contradictory or at least self-defeating position to take because a unified NATO that includes the United States is the best way to counter Russia and help Ukraine.

Are you suggesting it's a dumb position for Ukraine's sake, Europe's sake, or from America's sake? My point here is what is good for Europe isn't necessarily good for America. Hence it may be "dumb" from Europe's POV to not support America's membership in NATO, but is it dumb *from America's POV* to not support America's membership in NATO?

This is a very simplistic view that falls apart upon examination of precedent.

NATO, and most alliances around the world today, are defensive alliances. They by treaty and definition matter very little in peacetime. If a European country wants to go off adventuring, such as France in the Sahara, they are not going to get the rest of two continents on their side automatically - ditto in reverse for the US. It only matters if attacked.

A defensive alliance is effectively a old-school version of a nuclear deterrent - albeit of course this one comes with nukes. It is there to deter aggressor from attacking nations. The stronger and wider the defensive alliance, the less likely the aggressor is to attack. Peace through strength. If someone is outside the pact, but aligned with it like we are seeing in Ukraine, then the pact still finds itself required by public opinion and pressure to commit significant and extraordinary resources. You are spending more than the minimum necessary. But contrast, if Ukraine was hypothetically (unlikely) inside NATO before 2022, Russia would never have attacked. The US would never have needed to spend billions on Ukraine.

This truth has been recognized most by the realist thinkers weirdly since Ukraine attacked. If we assume NATO expansion post 1990 would anger Russia, then the rational move from those inside would have been to not expand. But the east new their history and forced NATO's hands to let them in. Once you started letting countries in, you accepted therefore that you were angering the Russia intelligentsia. The correct play from this point then would have been to expand even more aggressively. If NATO would have expanded to it's fullest extent, accepting the fact that Russia would hate them, then Russia would have no room to operate and peace would continue. This halfway-house we ended up in seemingly guaranteed aggression from Russia against the nonmembers, at least from the realist perspective.

Essentially, if you are a isolationist America-Firster, you should support NATO and NATO expansion from a position of an insurance policy. You don't dump your insurance just cause your house has never burned or you have never crashed a car. Cause the possibility is always there. So it is better for the US long-term to expand NATO, ensure peace among her friends, and spend/commit comparatively minimal resources annually. The alternative is dumping the insurance, and risking there being a conflict, like we see in the Ukraine now, where the US has to commit more resources than it would in the annual sums on not just defense exports, but also the eventual rebuilding.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Immortal Regiment parades are, in practice, obviously more a tool of Putin's propaganda than not, but it says a lot about what's happening to thousands and thousands of young Russians that the people who founded the practice are against this war.

"The Flowers of the Forest", the Scottish folk song associated with the Battle of Flodden, might also make a good musical point of reference for you, NOVA.

[Lord Halifax]

While I am strongly non interventionist, it's important to have friends.

America First is a good idea, America Alone could be catastrophic.

Everything in geopolitics is transactional, though.

What is Europe providing in the relationship? They have stauncher tariffs than we do, support mass migration (that will eventually hit the US), and are collectively intervening more than does the US.

in what world is Europe more pro-immigration than the US?

[Omega21]

Putin starting "surgical" mobilization

Still unconfirmed, treat accordingly

Would make perfect sense though. By going this route, Putin:

1. Avoids backlash within the general population
2. Gets at least somewhat capable, fresh manpower
3. Combat effectiveness & survivability are likely superior to hastily trained, mobilized conscripts.

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1525971884101103617

Edit:

Some confirmations seem to be trickling in

https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/status/1525947831525199872

[Badger]

While I am strongly non interventionist, it's important to have friends.

America First is a good idea, America Alone could be catastrophic.

Everything in geopolitics is transactional, though.

What is Europe providing in the relationship? They have stauncher tariffs than we do, support mass migration (that will eventually hit the US), and are collectively intervening more than does the US.

in what world is Europe more pro-immigration than the US?

Perhaps my numbers are off and I welcome being corrected, but it seems like countries like Sweden in Germany Poland have accepted far more refugees per capita in recent immigrant waves than the US.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

While I am strongly non interventionist, it's important to have friends.

America First is a good idea, America Alone could be catastrophic.

Everything in geopolitics is transactional, though.

What is Europe providing in the relationship? They have stauncher tariffs than we do, support mass migration (that will eventually hit the US), and are collectively intervening more than does the US.

in what world is Europe more pro-immigration than the US?

Perhaps my numbers are off and I welcome being corrected, but it seems like countries like Sweden in Germany Poland have accepted far more refugees per capita in recent immigrant waves than the US.

This is true, but Europe is generally more protectionist w.r.t. economic migration (outside of the EU, that is).

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Putin starting "surgical" mobilization

Still unconfirmed, treat accordingly

Would make perfect sense though. By going this route, Putin:

1. Avoids backlash within the general population
2. Gets at least somewhat capable, fresh manpower
3. Combat effectiveness & survivability are likely superior to hastily trained, mobilized conscripts.

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1525971884101103617
Edit:

Some confirmations seem to be trickling in

https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/status/1525947831525199872

These people are likely to be more capable, but they are also likely to be richer and more socially entrenched than conscripts, so I’m not sure how politically safe it is to start by mobilising them (outside of the regional mobilisation which has already begun in Crimea, that is).

On the plus side, older men have more adrenaline, and what tends to make them poorer soldiers is (most often) a significantly slower healing factor, meaning they often can’t fight well in lengthy deployments. The problem of lengthy deployments matters less when the army is taking horrific casualties anyway.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Um, kay.

[Woody]

https://mobile.twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1525993365438976005

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Um, kay.

I’d remain skeptical of that report until Colonel Sanders makes a statement on the matter.

[Woody]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ThatKHersch/status/1526083901189414912

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1526188874539704320

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-16-22/h_167ab523a8d66c93bafa773d9460043a

"On May 16th, as a result of negotiations with representatives of Ukrainian servicemen blocked on the territory of the Azovstal Metallurgical Plant in Mariupol, an agreement was reached on the removal of the wounded," the ministry said, according to state news agency RIA Novosti.

"Currently, a ceasefire regime has been established in the area of ​​the enterprise and a humanitarian corridor has been opened, through which wounded Ukrainian servicemen are being delivered to a medical facility in Novoazovsk, Donetsk People's Republic, to provide them with all the necessary assistance," the statement continues.

Novoazovsk is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Mariupol.

No response from Ukraine about this yet. But if true, those guys are most likely going to end up as prisoners, no way Russia is letting back members of Azov if they are in their hands.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1526188874539704320

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-16-22/h_167ab523a8d66c93bafa773d9460043a

"On May 16th, as a result of negotiations with representatives of Ukrainian servicemen blocked on the territory of the Azovstal Metallurgical Plant in Mariupol, an agreement was reached on the removal of the wounded," the ministry said, according to state news agency RIA Novosti.

"Currently, a ceasefire regime has been established in the area of ​​the enterprise and a humanitarian corridor has been opened, through which wounded Ukrainian servicemen are being delivered to a medical facility in Novoazovsk, Donetsk People's Republic, to provide them with all the necessary assistance," the statement continues.

Novoazovsk is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Mariupol.

No response from Ukraine about this yet. But if true, those guys are most likely going to end up as prisoners, no way Russia is letting them back members of Azov if they are in their hands.

What does Russia get from this?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1526188874539704320
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-16-22/h_167ab523a8d66c93bafa773d9460043a

"On May 16th, as a result of negotiations with representatives of Ukrainian servicemen blocked on the territory of the Azovstal Metallurgical Plant in Mariupol, an agreement was reached on the removal of the wounded," the ministry said, according to state news agency RIA Novosti.

"Currently, a ceasefire regime has been established in the area of the enterprise and a humanitarian corridor has been opened, through which wounded Ukrainian servicemen are being delivered to a medical facility in Novoazovsk, Donetsk People's Republic, to provide them with all the necessary assistance," the statement continues.

Novoazovsk is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Mariupol.

No response from Ukraine about this yet. But if true, those guys are most likely going to end up as prisoners, no way Russia is letting them back members of Azov if they are in their hands.

What does Russia get from this?

If it’s true, these hospitals are on territory Russia controls. Soldiers sent to them are effectively surrendering.

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1526188874539704320

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-16-22/h_167ab523a8d66c93bafa773d9460043a

"On May 16th, as a result of negotiations with representatives of Ukrainian servicemen blocked on the territory of the Azovstal Metallurgical Plant in Mariupol, an agreement was reached on the removal of the wounded," the ministry said, according to state news agency RIA Novosti.

"Currently, a ceasefire regime has been established in the area of ​​the enterprise and a humanitarian corridor has been opened, through which wounded Ukrainian servicemen are being delivered to a medical facility in Novoazovsk, Donetsk People's Republic, to provide them with all the necessary assistance," the statement continues.

Novoazovsk is about 25 miles (40 kilometers) from Mariupol.

No response from Ukraine about this yet. But if true, those guys are most likely going to end up as prisoners, no way Russia is letting them back members of Azov if they are in their hands.

What does Russia get from this?

More fighters out of the steel plant, more POWs, propaganda (Big scary Azov now taken as prisoners and under their care), etc..

[The Mikado]

Is it an acceptable viewpoint to you all to think that what Russia is doing is wrong and that Ukraine's allies have the right to support their efforts, but to oppose US membership in NATO?

Not sure what "acceptable" means here. I do think that it's really weird that all of you right wing nationalists are opposed to NATO, arguably the biggest force multiplier of US strength in existence.  

One thing Trump was right on that neither he nor Biden could fix but apparently Vladimir Putin could is that most European countries have been free-riding on their NATO commitments for years and years. The massive upswing in military spending in European allies and other non-NATO allies (Japan is DOUBLING its military spending) is a really, really good sign long term for the US and makes those allies significantly more worthwhile to the US. Thanks, Putin, for scaring everyone into paying their fair share!

Russia's military could only look potent in a world in which Western Europe free rides. A Germany that spends 2% GDP on their military as they've vowed to do now is going to be spending MORE than Russia spends on their military at 4% GDP because the German economy is just that big.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It appears that the graphic about Western artillery wrongly assumed Ukraine was being sent the most modern Western artillery:

https://www.twitter.com/noclador/status/1525965571061317632

It’s possible the unconfirmed reports about Canada sending something more advanced are true, but I’d doubt it until visual evidence comes in. The French/German/Norwegian systems are also supposed to be more advanced, but none have been delivered yet and they’re probably coming in much smaller numbers.

The “dumb version” is still as good as it was when it was made in 2005, but it can’t fire the long-rang projectiles that social media was discussing (which are pretty rare, anyway), which means it can’t reach Snake Island. More importantly, guidance will be less accurate, which has implications for the efficacy of Ukraine’s operations and civilian casualties/collateral damage.

The M777 is still a great backstop given Ukraine’s artillery needs, but I’d argue it’s not a massive qualitative upgrade over their best pre-existing artillery, and it’s probably outmatched by the best Russian kit. 

[jaichind]

Yes, but depending on what is being imported, it is so easy to cheat via "transhipment."

The idea is to impoverish Russia relatively speaking so that it has less capacity to finance war.

An issue I would appreciate your thoughts on, is the correlation between a free and open society (that hews to the rule of law more or less) and the ability to be cutting edge in technology. China seems able to progress without doing very well on those metrics, unlike Russia. Will that eventually bite China in the butt down the road, or is the respect for authority and obedience in Chinese culture its antidote or offsetting factor to that?

I am not sure Russia's underperformance in this war is due to poor technology.  Russia's military technology is cutting edge.  What Russia lacked was the industrial power to produce a large number of smart weapons to support a precision weapons intensive war AND produce enough low technology armaments to support a manpower-intensive attrition war.  Russia tried the first style of war and just ran out of high-tech weapons and now has to switch to a low-tech war to try to win a war of attrition which they can win if they had the political will to mobilize a larger military force.  So far they do not seem to want to pay a political price for that.

As for PRC in many ways, it is not free, from what I observed when I visit there it is not really getting in its way.  Namely, the free flow of technology ideas does not seem to be hindered.  What PRC has are a bunch of (mostly political) taboos that the government enforces or is self-enforced.  It is a truism that from everyone's point of view "My beliefs are logical and rational and your beliefs are a religion"  I would point out that the West has taboos as well which are de facto self-enforced.  Looking into Race and genetic explanations of differences in IQ is an example.  While I do not support any taboos in the PRC or the West all things equal they do not seem to be getting in the way of technological progress.

The main metric I uses is using the "voting with your feet" rule.  Back in the 1970s and 1980s the best and brightest of ROC in terms of STEM went to the USA and stayed there.  Starting in the 1990s the best and brightest of the ROC started to come back after their studies.  A similar pattern can be seen in PRC.  In the 1990s and 2000s, many of the best and brightest of the PRC went to the USA and stayed there.  This stopped being true in the 2010s.  Until COVID-19 many PRC students in the USA are not the best but are mostly rich kids with average abilities but with parents that want to buy a still presigius USA degree.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Yes, but depending on what is being imported, it is so easy to cheat via "transhipment."

The idea is to impoverish Russia relatively speaking so that it has less capacity to finance war.

An issue I would appreciate your thoughts on, is the correlation between a free and open society (that hews to the rule of law more or less) and the ability to be cutting edge in technology. China seems able to progress without doing very well on those metrics, unlike Russia. Will that eventually bite China in the butt down the road, or is the respect for authority and obedience in Chinese culture its antidote or offsetting factor to that?

I am not sure Russia's underperformance in this war is due to poor technology.  Russia's military technology is cutting edge.  What Russia lacked was the industrial power to produce a large number of smart weapons to support a precision weapons intensive war AND produce enough low technology armaments to support a manpower-intensive attrition war.  Russia tried the first style of war and just ran out of high-tech weapons and now has to switch to a low-tech war to try to win a war of attrition which they can win if they had the political will to mobilize a larger military force.  So far they do not seem to want to pay a political price for that.

A low-tech war of attrition, against an army backed by the United States with high-tech precision weaponry, is going to result in a lot of deaths.  I'm sure the Russian people will be happy to see their teenage sons conscripted to go get owned by 21st-century artillery in the Great Patriotic War (read: Putin personally wanting to conquer Ukraine and destroy its culture).

[Logical]

A deal has been made regarding Azovstal. Details to follow.
https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1526264699091922946
https://twitter.com/MarQs__/status/1526280841512509440
https://twitter.com/idreesali114/status/1526275795701964800