Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[sguberman]

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1503397795323162633

[Stranger in a strange land]

German ministry of defense has made its first decision on how to use its new 100 billion Euro budget.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1503299897868664833

good news for everyone (except German taxpayers and Russia)!

I thought the Germans were banned from running any military.

They will be straight into Poland.

You are thinking of Article V and Japan. And even then, it was just a ban on offensive wars.

Article 9. Article 5 of the NATO charter is the language about how an attack on the sovreign territory of one is to be treated as an attack on all.

But, no, Germany isn't banned from having a military. In fact both Germanies had pretty big and well-equipped ones during the Cold War. I don't know German, but to my understanding, Bundeswehr means "Federal Armed Forces".

[Sir Mohamed]

Seems like the PRC denies reports about Russia requesting military assistance.

https://twitter.com/aguilarcamin/status/1503364613953499136

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

A more thorough account of what was captured at Berdyansk. Some of it belonged to the navy, and some to the Sea Guard. 11 vessels counted here, including 6 repurposed civilian ones, 4 patrol boats and the tug.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kemal_115/status/1503381973087268866

[Stranger in a strange land]

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1503397795323162633

Let's crunch some numbers here:
Russia started the invasion with around 200,000 men, not all of whom are on the Kyiv Axis. Around 10% have been killed, wounded, captured, or deserted at this point. Russia also needs to put troops behind the lines to secure their supply lines. A single tank takes many trucks and supply vehicles to keep it fueled and supplied. Let's say he has about 100K men to surround and attack Kyiv, a city of 3 million.

They seem to have lost 20,000 men (including around 6,000 killed) so far, and urban combat in the largest cities hasn't even started yet. Actually taking Kyiv is going to require house-to-house fighting, and I don't see the Ukrainians giving up. Yes, Putin can keep calling up reservists but the skill, motivation, and fitness of these men is going to be questionable, and going to decline with each call-up. Yes, he could get Kyiv in the end, but that will take months and probably cost as many men as the US lost during the entire eight-year Vietnam War against a smaller population base.

[sguberman]

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1503401052250554370

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/Dialog_UA/status/1503062160355872771

[Person Man]

German ministry of defense has made its first decision on how to use its new 100 billion Euro budget.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1503299897868664833

good news for everyone (except German taxpayers and Russia)!

I thought the Germans were banned from running any military.

They will be straight into Poland.

I assume that it's just a bad joke.

[The Dowager Mod]

There are still some brave people in Russia.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1503446891014537222

[It’s so Joever]

Once again Estonia is literally the best country on Earth https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-nato-country-estonia-calls-for-immediate-establishment-of-no-fly-zone

[Logical]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1503417654232682496

[Middle-aged Europe]

German ministry of defense has made its first decision on how to use its new 100 billion Euro budget.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1503299897868664833

good news for everyone (except German taxpayers and Russia)!

I thought the Germans were banned from running any military.

They will be straight into Poland.

You are thinking of Article V and Japan. And even then, it was just a ban on offensive wars.

Article 9. Article 5 of the NATO charter is the language about how an attack on the sovreign territory of one is to be treated as an attack on all.

But, no, Germany isn't banned from having a military. In fact both Germanies had pretty big and well-equipped ones during the Cold War. I don't know German, but to my understanding, Bundeswehr means "Federal Armed Forces".

A literal translation of Bundeswehr would be "Federal Defense". Etymologically the term traces its roots back to the armed forces of the Weimar Republic, the Reichswehr. Since the formation of the Federal Republic in 1949 was in many ways a reboot of the failed democracy of Weimar they had retained the names of all the institutions and simply replaced "Reich" with "Bund" everywhere.

Originally, the Federal Republic was supposed to be a fully demilitarized state given the history of WWII, and to a lesser extent WWI. The beginning of the Cold War led to a face-heel turn and the eventual formation of the Bundeswehr in 1955 - a highly controversial decision at the time merely a decade after Hitler's death.

The baggage of WWII had the result that the Bundeswehr never managed to reach much of a high standing within Germany's post-war society. The fact that the troops still experience a neo-Nazi scandal within their ranks every couple of years (in a way Germany's version of Ukraine's problems with the Azov Battalion) doesn't help matters either. Soldiers often have the reputation of being right-wing, in some cases very right-wing, while the majority of the country's civilian population tends to despise any form of nationalism.

In addition, the Bundeswehr is notoriously plagued by a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy. As a stand-up comedian very recently commented on Olaf Scholz' rearmament plans: "We all know how such plans previously ended in our country... with non-functioning weapons and a committee of inquiry!"

[President Johnson]

German ministry of defense has made its first decision on how to use its new 100 billion Euro budget.

https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1503299897868664833

This a very good decision. Our military equipment and jets have been quite pathetic for a long time and utterly unworthy of the fourth largest economy in the world and the most powerful country in Europe.

Anyway, Lockheed Martin can actually send a Thank You card to the Kremlin for this.

[Torie]

https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1503397795323162633

Let's crunch some numbers here:
Russia started the invasion with around 200,000 men, not all of whom are on the Kyiv Axis. Around 10% have been killed, wounded, captured, or deserted at this point. Russia also needs to put troops behind the lines to secure their supply lines. A single tank takes many trucks and supply vehicles to keep it fueled and supplied. Let's say he has about 100K men to surround and attack Kyiv, a city of 3 million.

They seem to have lost 20,000 men (including around 6,000 killed) so far, and urban combat in the largest cities hasn't even started yet. Actually taking Kyiv is going to require house-to-house fighting, and I don't see the Ukrainians giving up. Yes, Putin can keep calling up reservists but the skill, motivation, and fitness of these men is going to be questionable, and going to decline with each call-up. Yes, he could get Kyiv in the end, but that will take months and probably cost as many men as the US lost during the entire eight-year Vietnam War against a smaller population base.

The problem with all of this is that Russia can just keep shooting in missiles and slowly destroys the cities without actually going in, until they are reduced to rubble and become unlivable. So then the question becomes whether the NATO is willing to tolerate that doing nothing. If China id really going to arm Russia now so that it can complete its conquest of Crimea expeditiously, and slaughter the residents at a rapid rate, I think that at that point the whole world order begins to fall apart, and it begins to become a bad sci fi novel come true, this planet divided into two hostile camps, with little or no commerce between the two, and a clear and present danger that they at some point blow the planet up.

[It’s so Joever]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1503417654232682496

Winnie the Pooh is an idiot. F**k it at this point they want an economic war, and we can win in the end. Let’s see how many Chinese people accept Xi’s bulls**t once they are economically declining rapidly.

[Frodo]

Here's a interesting article from a Chinese professor that's been translated about the possible impacts from the war from a Chinese perspective.

https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei-russia-ukraine-war-china-choice/

III. China’s Strategic Choice

1. China cannot be tied to Putin and needs to be cut off as soon as possible. In the sense that an escalation of conflict between Russia and the West helps divert U.S. attention from China, China should rejoice with and even support Putin, but only if Russia does not fall. Being in the same boat with Putin will impact China should he lose power. Unless Putin can secure victory with China’s backing, a prospect which looks bleak at the moment, China does not have the clout to back Russia. The law of international politics says that there are “no eternal allies nor perpetual enemies,” but “our interests are eternal and perpetual.” Under current international circumstances, China can only proceed by safeguarding its own best interests, choosing the lesser of two evils, and unloading the burden of Russia as soon as possible. At present, it is estimated that there is still a window period of one or two weeks before China loses its wiggle room. China must act decisively.

2. China should avoid playing both sides in the same boat, give up being neutral, and choose the mainstream position in the world. At present, China has tried not to offend either side and walked a middle ground in its international statements and choices, including abstaining from the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly votes. However, this position does not meet Russia’s needs, and it has infuriated Ukraine and its supporters as well as sympathizers, putting China on the wrong side of much of the world. In some cases, apparent neutrality is a sensible choice, but it does not apply to this war, where China has nothing to gain. Given that China has always advocated respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it can avoid further isolation only by standing with the majority of the countries in the world. This position is also conducive to the settlement of the Taiwan issue.

3. China should achieve the greatest possible strategic breakthrough and not be further isolated by the West. Cutting off from Putin and giving up neutrality will help build China’s international image and ease its relations with the U.S. and the West. Though difficult and requiring great wisdom, it is the best option for the future. The view that a geopolitical tussle in Europe triggered by the war in Ukraine will significantly delay the U.S. strategic shift from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region cannot be treated with excessive optimism. There are already voices in the U.S. that Europe is important, but China is more so, and the primary goal of the U.S. is to contain China from becoming the dominant power in the Indo-Pacific region. Under such circumstances, China’s top priority is to make appropriate strategic adjustments accordingly, to change the hostile American attitudes towards China, and to save itself from isolation. The bottom line is to prevent the U.S. and the West from imposing joint sanctions on China.

4. China should prevent the outbreak of world wars and nuclear wars and make irreplaceable contributions to world peace. As Putin has explicitly requested Russia’s strategic deterrent forces to enter a state of special combat readiness, the Russo-Ukrainian war may spiral out of control. A just cause attracts much support; an unjust one finds little. If Russia instigates a world war or even a nuclear war, it will surely risk the world’s turmoil. To demonstrate China’s role as a responsible major power, China not only cannot stand with Putin, but also should take concrete actions to prevent Putin’s possible adventures. China is the only country in the world with this capability, and it must give full play to this unique advantage. Putin’s departure from China’s support will most likely end the war, or at least not dare to escalate the war. As a result, China will surely win widespread international praise for maintaining world peace, which may help China prevent isolation but also find an opportunity to improve its relations with the United States and the West.

The only problem Xi Jinping has in backing away from his 'limitless partnership' with Vladimir Putin is that he can ill afford to do so.  After all, how does he think other nations will react if and when China again offers an olive branch of friendship and alliance when it has proven such words aren't worth the paper they are printed on?  With Russia as a cautionary example, who is going to want to ally themselves with China?  They are already short on allies as it is.

[Torie]

Once again Estonia is literally the best country on Earth https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-nato-country-estonia-calls-for-immediate-establishment-of-no-fly-zone

Which brings up the question of what happens if some NATO member with more heft than Estonia goes "rogue" and imposes a no fly zone or something that Putin hates, and then Putin starts shooting missiles into that NATO country. What does Biden or Biden/Boris/Macron do then?

[AndyHogan14]

Once again Estonia is literally the best country on Earth https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-nato-country-estonia-calls-for-immediate-establishment-of-no-fly-zone

Which brings up the question of what happens if some NATO member with more heft than Estonia goes "rogue" and imposes a no fly zone or something that Putin hates, and then Putin starts shooting missiles into that NATO country. What does Biden or Biden/Boris/Macron do then?

From what I understand, we wouldn't do anything if Estonian (or Polish, Romanian, etc) forces are attacked in/over Ukraine. If Russia attacks a NATO country inside its borders, we would defend them (and would not go beyond NATO's borders).

[Middle-aged Europe]

There are still some brave people in Russia.
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1503446891014537222

Our hero of the hour is Marina Ovsyannikova, who is believed to be in police custody because she used the bad word ("war").


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60744605

Her Facebook profile can be found here and it is receiving a lot of traffic right now (26,000+ comments under her latest post): https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011086090322

[Storr]

Suck it Solovyov!

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1503450891646550020?s=20&t=g9OR7f5E...

[Logical]

Update on Chinese aid. My only response is lol.
https://twitter.com/KatieBoLillis/status/1503483167109435395
https://twitter.com/KatieBoLillis/status/1503483169911324675

[jaichind]

Ever since the SWIFT and central bank sanctions RUB has weakened to around 110.  Then this last week it weakened to around 130-135 on the concern of further sanctions might mean Russia will not be able to sell its energy.   This week RUB has strengthened to around 120 as that fear receded somewhat.  The current discussions with India on India buying Russian oil I suspect have something to do with this.

[Storr]

In 2021 polling results were: "26 percent of Finns are in favor of joining NATO, 40 percent are against joining NATO while 33 percent are undecided".

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/sisters-not-twins-prospects-finland-and-swedens-nato-accession

now, lmao:

https://twitter.com/eskelinen_antti/status/1503367541837680642?s=20&t=g9OR7f...

[Torie]

Once again Estonia is literally the best country on Earth https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russia-ukraine-nato-country-estonia-calls-for-immediate-establishment-of-no-fly-zone

Which brings up the question of what happens if some NATO member with more heft than Estonia goes "rogue" and imposes a no fly zone or something that Putin hates, and then Putin starts shooting missiles into that NATO country. What does Biden or Biden/Boris/Macron do then?

From what I understand, we wouldn't do anything if Estonian (or Polish, Romanian, etc) forces are attacked in/over Ukraine. If Russia attacks a NATO country inside its borders, we would defend them (and would not go beyond NATO's borders).

Well you can see where this is going. Hey Biden, 1) send in the very best missiles so that Ukraine can from afar blow to bits the incoming that is coming from afar, and give Ukraine planes if it is critical (I suspect it is not), because if you do not, 2) we are going in ourselves to give Ukraine assistance, and when Russia attacks us, it is WWIII. Which box do you want to check, box 1 or box 2?

Another way to put it, is that I think Poland if it wishes to go there, can force Biden's hand, if he seems otherwise willing to allow Ukraine to be destroyed, with a mass killing of civilians, because Ukraine would rather die than live in Putin's hellish world. I wonder how much chat there is about that behind closed doors, because I just don't think the if it isn't NATO soil, Putin to the extent he can, can slaughter whomever he wants, anywhere he wants, as he chases his mad fantasies into hell. And not that it can't be done, but as millions of Ukrainians, maybe 10 million flood into Europe, to escape the hellish dysutopia, is NATO's policy really sustainable? Is Biden's? 

At some point, one must choose.  The doors to easier way outs seem to be being locked, one by one, until there is no way out of the hallway other than cutting holes in the sheet rock.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Update on Chinese aid. My only response is lol.
https://twitter.com/KatieBoLillis/status/1503483167109435395
https://twitter.com/KatieBoLillis/status/1503483169911324675

That would make sense, but the US claims otherwise:

https://www.twitter.com/Dimi/status/1503484449987743746