Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[nicholas.slaydon]

So the descriptions (I can find an English language source) of the Russian the ‘proposal’ is reminding me of nothing so much as Chamberlain’s proposal to the Boers or the Australian-Hungarian ultimatum. A laundry list of demands the other side can’t meet in the period, designed to be rejected right before a war starts.

[nicholas.slaydon]

I take the position for peace as much as I can, but I cannot honestly fathom that the West is about to let Russia take Ukraine. I'm not a hawk, but this is worth going to war over. Right now, I feel like this is Chamberlain giving up Austria. What happens when Russia goes after the Baltics, countries under Article 5 protections? I'm not fond as to how the US is treating this situation, but I have a far more negative opinion as to how the EU is dealing with this.

Not just this, but what kind of message will the United States and Europe be sending to the world if we don't defend Ukraine? Will China now see its opportunity in Taiwan? Will Serbia see its moment to forcibly integrate Kosovo once and for all? Will the Republika Srpska push Bosnia into another violent civil war knowing the United States and NATO won't defend the territorial integrity of Bosnia? Allowing the Russians to harass Ukraine will only lead to cascading ill effects for the whole world order.

[nicholas.slaydon]

So apart from actually starting WW3, what are our options?

Tough sounding rhetoric is all well and good, but apart from the real danger of things escalating out of control it doesn't take into account the immense war weariness throughout the democratic world.

(why else was Afghanistan abandoned?)

If the United States and NATO made it clear beyond any doubt that they will defend the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine to the hilt, and began to station combat ready troops in Ukraine, Putin would undoubtedly stand down. Putin can win a war against Ukraine alone, but with the United States and the whole of NATO committed to defending Ukraine, Russia wouldn't even stand the shadow of a chance, and wouldn't risk the dangers of attacking NATO troops.

[nicholas.slaydon]

So apart from actually starting WW3, what are our options?

Tough sounding rhetoric is all well and good, but apart from the real danger of things escalating out of control it doesn't take into account the immense war weariness throughout the democratic world.

(why else was Afghanistan abandoned?)

If the United States and NATO made it clear beyond any doubt that they will defend the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine to the hilt, and began to station combat ready troops in Ukraine, Putin would undoubtedly stand down. Putin can win a war against Ukraine alone, but with the United States and the whole of NATO committed to defending Ukraine, Russia wouldn't even stand the shadow of a chance, and wouldn't risk the dangers of attacking NATO troops.

More likely he'll just throw more troops in.

I'm really disturbed that this entire forum seems to be cheering for WW3.

Mutually Assured Destruction is enough of a deterrent for nuclear war. Worldwide nuclear war is a thing for Sci-fi, and doesn't represent a very prominent threat in real world terms. I don't think Joe Biden or Vladimir Putin have any desire whatsoever to destroy human life on earth in a global nuclear war, and anyone who thinks they realistically have that capacity is simply fear mongering.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

[nicholas.slaydon]

If Vaccinated Russian Bear could contain his giddiness about the invasion of a foreign country, this thread would be much more bearable....

Yeah if Trump had successfully stolen the 2020 election I suppose he would have just given Ukraine to Putin without a fight.

Pretty dumb point tbh. Assuming Putin does invade, of the last three presidents Trump will be the only one Ukraine didn't lose any more territory under.

Exactly, it not like Biden is going to defend Ukraine from full invasion except with strong words and a light slap on the wrist.

[nicholas.slaydon]

This has been such an useful thread in identifying the wretched posters on this site.

For a forum that is quite politically aware that pores over every intricacy and facet of US domestic issues, it's quite strange to me that the vast majority accept American "freedom and democracy" propaganda as the inalienable truth and refuses to even consider the notion that American actions paint a quite different picture than what they say, and that they're just a side in the great power competition, like one side of a football match where both sides try to game the system and cheat the rules to win.

America is hardly the white knight it claims itself to be, and NATO moving east is a real threat to Russia (right at a time when geographic armor makes for less than it used to be, and the only geographic armor Russia has is flat land on the North European Plain).
I've said it before but I'll say it again: Russia is refreshingly honest about how the game is actually played.

What threat is NATO to Russia? Does anyone realistically think that anyone in the NATO alliance would ever dream of an offensive attack against Russia? NATO is very clearly a defensive alliance, and Russia's actions in Georgia and Ukraine only continue to prove why the alliance is valid and necessary.

[nicholas.slaydon]

At least, West supports Ukraine with memes

https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081

Based USA

[nicholas.slaydon]

We need to fight this. It won’t stop with Ukraine.

If you're ready to put on a helmet and take up an AK, go right ahead, but no sane Western power would risk sending boots on the ground to start WW3.

If he does go in, western troops will probably roll up en masse to the Baltics / Eastern Europe anyway, preventing further land grabs.

Isn't it the insane thing to do on the part of western nations to not intervene? Wouldn't the same thing be to defend the Ukrainians and their territorial sovereignty just as we claim? If we won't defend Ukrainian sovereignty like we say we support, then what is the word of a western nation worth?

[nicholas.slaydon]

CNN's ground reporter in Kyiv is reporting explosions nearer to downtown and says (via Interior Minister) that there are already hundreds of casualties nationwide

I desperately wish we could do more to help the poor people of Ukraine. And shame on the pro-Putin shills here!

[nicholas.slaydon]

The most tragic part of all of this is that the west could have easily prevented this and chose not to. If there's any justice in history Biden will be remembered in the same breath as Chamberlain. We are hoping hard for the best.

[nicholas.slaydon]

May every Russian  Soldier who enters the Ukraine catch a bullet through the eye socket.  Every. God. Damned. One.

There, I said it.

[nicholas.slaydon]

We shouldn't want anyone to die. The best thing would be if all fighting stopped right now. It won't, and so Ukraine has to defend itself. But the whole thing is a tragedy.

I agree that all deaths are a tragedy, and wish that this war had never started. However, let's not get it confused as to who the villain in this war is, and it sure as hell isn't Ukraine.

[nicholas.slaydon]

May every Russian  Soldier who enters the Ukraine catch a bullet through the eye socket.  Every. God. Damned. One.

There, I said it.

nothing wrong with saying that

If you really want to wish death on someone, perhaps do it upon the leader who sent the young Russian soldiers into Ukraine, not on the young soldiers themselves who are not really the ones responsible for all this, remember that they are pawns in a larger machine.

However it is those pawns as a part of a larger machine that are making this war go on. Without the consent of the soldiers, this war would not be able to go on. The decisions of Vladimir Putin are evil, and so therefore those that uphold those orders and carry them out are likewise just as evil.

[nicholas.slaydon]

We ought to get BigSerg in here to see another perspective.

Wrong

[nicholas.slaydon]

What is Putin's long-term plan, right now? Does anyone have anything but a vague idea? He's pointed out what he doesn't like about the status quo, but what does he intend to do with Ukraine? Does Putin himself even know yet?

He wants to turn Ukraine into a Vassal State, loyal to him and " Mother Russia ".

It's an extremely ideological bent.

I mean stuff like, what happens with Zelensky, what precisely he intends to take from Ukraine (or even none at all from it), and those sort of specifics.

Well from what Putin was saying in his unhinged speech about how Ukraine is a fake country only created in 1917, and that how Ukraine has always been a historic part of "Russia", seems to say to me that he wants nothing short of full annexation.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Petition to unmute BigSerg on this thread to widen perspectives shared

X TheReckoning

No

[nicholas.slaydon]

https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1497975134069706752
Translation:

Georgian: A ship from Russia? We're not refueling you.
Russian: Who is talking to us?
Georgian: A Senior Mate from Georgia. We will not refuel your ship. Russian warship go f[inks] yourself.
Russian: Please drop the politics. We're almost out of fuel.
Georgian: Well if you're almost out of fuel then take out the paddles and start rowing.
Other Georgian: Go f[inks] yourselves.
Georgian: Glory to the heroes, Glory to Ukraine!

Incredibly based.

[nicholas.slaydon]

If the EU's Ukrainian assistance includes access to NATO's air-to-air weapons systems, then tonight is gonna be a very bad night to be a Belarusian paratrooper.

May they rest in pieces

[nicholas.slaydon]

Here is the Wikipedia Article on the Azov Battalion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

Even in that article, it mentions that one of the Azov battalion's most prominent members is Nathan Khazin, an ordained Jewish Rabbi.  How far do you have to stoop to claim that a Jewish rabbi is a leading figure of a Neo-Nazi group? It's absolutely disgusting!  Just because some members of the battalion are fascists does not mean that they all are, or that their whole group is. Even if the battalion was comprised of 100% Fascists and Nazis, it would even matter. Far-right lunatics have just as much right to defend themselves and their country as anyone else.

[nicholas.slaydon]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/status/1498722287520030722

Erdogan unironically being the best NATO leader in this conflict was not something that I had predicted.

[nicholas.slaydon]

So, what do people think might be the endgame here? Ultimately it feels like, if the combatants remain only Russia (plus Belarus) and Ukraine, Russia is likely to win the conventional war eventually, even if it takes them months to occupy the whole country. On the other hand, in the last few days, the European powers (and the US, operating behind the scenes) seem to have committed themselves quite far towards a position where Russia cannot be allowed to win the conventional war. Right now, that doesn't mean direct intervention because the Russians aren't about to win, and clearly there are high hopes on the European side that the Ukrainians can ultimately repel the Russian forces without direct military intervention by the rest of Europe. But what happens if, as is more likely, the Ukrainians eventually start to crumble under the pressure? Given the implicit commitments by the UK, France, etc. to preventing Russia from winning, not to mention the strong pressure from Poland, Romania, the Baltics, etc. and popular sentiment in all of the above countries, it feels like a European intervention would have to happen at some point. I think we all hope it doesn't come to that, but isn't that starting to feel inevitable? Not now, and maybe not until May or so, but at some point?

No. Everybody who sits in the government of a NATO or EU country knows perfectly well what a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation would mean and could result in. Western sanctions are also not designed to necessarily prevent a Russian win in Ukraine, since everybody in these governments already assumes that a Russian victory will sooner or later be likely. The purpose of the sanctions is punishment as well as deterrence against future Russian trangressions against other European countries, maybe coupled with the hope that the sanctions might create enough pressure in and on Russia to make them withdraw from Ukraine. But everybody knows that that last part is a gamble that could go either way.

That's the whole problem with the thinking in NATO member countries. Punishment is not enough to deter bad actions, we should be engaging in trying to prevent such actions from occurring in the first place rather than just punishing the bad actors after the fact. Had NATO members acted earlier in protecting Ukraine they wouldn't be in the situation they are in today.

[nicholas.slaydon]

So, what do people think might be the endgame here? Ultimately it feels like, if the combatants remain only Russia (plus Belarus) and Ukraine, Russia is likely to win the conventional war eventually, even if it takes them months to occupy the whole country. On the other hand, in the last few days, the European powers (and the US, operating behind the scenes) seem to have committed themselves quite far towards a position where Russia cannot be allowed to win the conventional war. Right now, that doesn't mean direct intervention because the Russians aren't about to win, and clearly there are high hopes on the European side that the Ukrainians can ultimately repel the Russian forces without direct military intervention by the rest of Europe. But what happens if, as is more likely, the Ukrainians eventually start to crumble under the pressure? Given the implicit commitments by the UK, France, etc. to preventing Russia from winning, not to mention the strong pressure from Poland, Romania, the Baltics, etc. and popular sentiment in all of the above countries, it feels like a European intervention would have to happen at some point. I think we all hope it doesn't come to that, but isn't that starting to feel inevitable? Not now, and maybe not until May or so, but at some point?

No. Everybody who sits in the government of a NATO or EU country knows perfectly well what a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation would mean and could result in. Western sanctions are also not designed to necessarily prevent a Russian win in Ukraine, since everybody in these governments already assumes that a Russian victory will sooner or later be likely. The purpose of the sanctions is punishment as well as deterrence against future Russian trangressions against other European countries, maybe coupled with the hope that the sanctions might create enough pressure in and on Russia to make them withdraw from Ukraine. But everybody knows that that last part is a gamble that could go either way.

Or simply that the power elites and oligarchs, whose assets tank badly, at some point make an attempt to remove Putin from his throne. I think a lasting solution to this conflict can only happen without Putin. There won't be any kind of normalized relations with the West either as long as he's in the Kremlin. He basically burned down all bridges and lost all remaining credibility.

Even if the oligarchs did overthrow Putin, there is no guarantee that whoever replaced him won't be far worse, so I'm not really sure that's what we should be hoping for. When strongman dictators are removed from power there is always going to be a power vacuum to replace them, and situations like that can lead to some pretty unsavory people taking advantage of that vacuum.

[nicholas.slaydon]

So, what do people think might be the endgame here? Ultimately it feels like, if the combatants remain only Russia (plus Belarus) and Ukraine, Russia is likely to win the conventional war eventually, even if it takes them months to occupy the whole country. On the other hand, in the last few days, the European powers (and the US, operating behind the scenes) seem to have committed themselves quite far towards a position where Russia cannot be allowed to win the conventional war. Right now, that doesn't mean direct intervention because the Russians aren't about to win, and clearly there are high hopes on the European side that the Ukrainians can ultimately repel the Russian forces without direct military intervention by the rest of Europe. But what happens if, as is more likely, the Ukrainians eventually start to crumble under the pressure? Given the implicit commitments by the UK, France, etc. to preventing Russia from winning, not to mention the strong pressure from Poland, Romania, the Baltics, etc. and popular sentiment in all of the above countries, it feels like a European intervention would have to happen at some point. I think we all hope it doesn't come to that, but isn't that starting to feel inevitable? Not now, and maybe not until May or so, but at some point?

No. Everybody who sits in the government of a NATO or EU country knows perfectly well what a direct NATO-Russia military confrontation would mean and could result in. Western sanctions are also not designed to necessarily prevent a Russian win in Ukraine, since everybody in these governments already assumes that a Russian victory will sooner or later be likely. The purpose of the sanctions is punishment as well as deterrence against future Russian trangressions against other European countries, maybe coupled with the hope that the sanctions might create enough pressure in and on Russia to make them withdraw from Ukraine. But everybody knows that that last part is a gamble that could go either way.

Or simply that the power elites and oligarchs, whose assets tank badly, at some point make an attempt to remove Putin from his throne. I think a lasting solution to this conflict can only happen without Putin. There won't be any kind of normalized relations with the West either as long as he's in the Kremlin. He basically burned down all bridges and lost all remaining credibility.

Even if the oligarchs did overthrow Putin, there is no guarantee that whoever replaced him won't be far worse, so I'm not really sure that's what we should be hoping for. When strongman dictators are removed from power there is always going to be a power vacuum to replace them, and situations like that can lead to some pretty unsavory people taking advantage of that vacuum.

Any successor would most likely operate from a much weaker position though. Russia's economy will be in shambles and they need at least some goodwill from Western countries and from China to rebuild it, and neither will be "for free". So there wouldn't be much room for any adventures in Ukraine and elsewhere and a new Russian government would have to focus on making sure their own economy is at least stabilized to a certain degree.

Maybe you would be right, but extraordinary times, and terrible circumstances can often lead to nasty leaders taking charge of countries in shambles, and I'm so sure I would want to risk someone even worse than Putin seizing hold of Russia.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Full list here:

On the unexpected side, Serbia voted in favor as well

https://twitter.com/Brynwales/status/1499075649146961930

That is quite a shock, I thought they would be in the abstain category.