Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/Sierra__Alpha/status/1465790255026610176?s=20

Deleted, what did it say?

It was probably fake news. Some Russian sources claim that Putin will make astatement  at 2:00 am.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's great to see DavidB back!   

[Hnv1]

https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1466044586774740992?s=21

Definitely happening now. I’ll put good money on a smash and grab before Boxing Day

[BigSerg]

The new details about the Russian buildup underscore US officials' heightened alarm over the movements. The current levels of equipment stationed in the area could supply front-line forces for seven to 10 days and other support units for as long as a month, according to one source familiar with the matter.

Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN that he believes Russia is positioned to invade "when they want," adding that "Russia's capabilities would be equivalent to a modern-day blitzkrieg."

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1466781791717634049?t=dOFnGQK9EhDtOiXpGXHUdA&...

[StateBoiler]

Stoltenberg announced yesterday NATO/the West would effectively punt if the Russians did anything. All giving military material aid to the Ukrainians would accomplish is increase casualties on both sides and the Russians would still win. So what was the grand threat from Stoltenberg? Economic sanctions.

I think the Russians are still on economic sanctions from Crimea 7 years ago so these must be double serious economic sanctions! (How many times does it need to be proven sanctions do little?)

So right now the ball is in Russia's court. If they choose to invade, the West have acknowledged they'll do nothing of material value and the Russians will win the conflict accomplishing whatever their military arms are. No one thinks the Ukrainians will win a straight up fight, not even the Ukrainians. So the choice hinges on whatever gets offered diplomatically to the Russians and if they decide to accept or not.

Lavrov rebutted to everything surrounding Ukraine by saying there's NATO troops now in Poland and the Baltics, so they may be trying to frame this Cuban Missile Crisis-ish, minus the nukes, of "withdraw your troops in Poland and the Baltics and we'll withdraw our troops surrounding Ukraine". The problem with that frame of negotiation if that's the case is the Cuban Missile Crisis was a one-on-one negotiation. I don't see Poland and the Baltics agreeing to being sold out marginalizing their defense.

[StateBoiler]

CNN article:

The US and its allies in Europe and NATO have warned Russia of severe economic sanctions should it move to invade Ukraine.

But Western officials are reluctant to get drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, which Moscow understands, the senior Western intelligence official said.

"If you threaten force, and you keep your force in the field, and the interventions from the West, politically and militarily, are mild or nonexistent, that emboldens you," that official said. "Generally speaking, I think the aim here is to make clear, 'I'm willing to take this big risk and use force and I'm betting that you are unwilling to engage with me and have a loss of life.' "

Russians figured this out 10 to 15 years ago. Chinese look to have figured it in recent years as well and is why I fully expect some Chinese expeditionary conflict in the South Pacific to take over sea territory explicitly from other countries' EEZs and is why if I'm Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. I'm scared sh*tless in this current era of geopolitics. If you want to see the world become even more a real clusterf#ck let's wait for the Turks, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, some Arab states, etc. to figure it out and start doing actions, although the Syrian conflict showcased some of that was already going on. They know they'll suffer no real repercussions internationally, so go forth carrying out your geopolitical aims daring a weak West to do anything about it when they don't want to deploy their own troops and the rest of the world hates the West and their moralizing in international relations. It's hard realpolitik.

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1466806282879483907?t=Dhmw2AYDwY09riZ_j243HA&...

[CumbrianLefty]

CNN article:

The US and its allies in Europe and NATO have warned Russia of severe economic sanctions should it move to invade Ukraine.

But Western officials are reluctant to get drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, which Moscow understands, the senior Western intelligence official said.

"If you threaten force, and you keep your force in the field, and the interventions from the West, politically and militarily, are mild or nonexistent, that emboldens you," that official said. "Generally speaking, I think the aim here is to make clear, 'I'm willing to take this big risk and use force and I'm betting that you are unwilling to engage with me and have a loss of life.' "

Russians figured this out 10 to 15 years ago. Chinese look to have figured it in recent years as well and is why I fully expect some Chinese expeditionary conflict in the South Pacific to take over sea territory explicitly from other countries' EEZs and is why if I'm Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. I'm scared sh*tless in this current era of geopolitics. If you want to see the world become even more a real clusterf#ck let's wait for the Turks, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, some Arab states, etc. to figure it out and start doing actions, although the Syrian conflict showcased some of that was already going on. They know they'll suffer no real repercussions internationally, so go forth carrying out your geopolitical aims daring a weak West to do anything about it when they don't want to deploy their own troops and the rest of the world hates the West and their moralizing in international relations. It's hard realpolitik.

But what is the alternative? The US eternally pursuing war with the rest of the world in pursuit of total hegemony - the neocon dream - is now widely despised (even there) and totally discredited.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1466044586774740992?s=21
Definitely happening now. I’ll put good money on a smash and grab before Boxing Day

So if Russia will place a nuclear missiles on Cuba, this guy will say to USA that  they "have no right to a "sphere of influence" to control their neighbors". What a clown.

[BigSerg]

As tensions mount between Washington and Moscow over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. intelligence has found the Kremlin is planning a multi-front offensive as soon as early next year involving up to 175,000 troops, according to U.S. officials and an intelligence document obtained by The Washington Post.

The unclassified U.S. intelligence document obtained by The Post, which includes satellite photos, shows Russian forces massing in four locations. Currently, 50 battlefield tactical groups are deployed, along with “newly arrived” tanks and artillery, according to the document.

“The Russian plans call for a military offensive against Ukraine as soon as early 2022 with a scale of forces twice what we saw this past spring during Russia’s snap exercise near Ukraine’s borders,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. “The plans involve extensive movement of 100 battalion tactical groups with an estimated 175,000 personnel, along with armor, artillery and equipment.”

https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1466932191636688899?s=20

[BigSerg]

Hyper red flag...
https://twitter.com/EndGameWW3/status/1466938807614418947?s=20

[BigSerg]

As tensions mount between Washington and Moscow over a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine, U.S. intelligence has found the Kremlin is planning a multi-front offensive as soon as early next year involving up to 175,000 troops, according to U.S. officials and an intelligence document obtained by The Washington Post.

The unclassified U.S. intelligence document obtained by The Post, which includes satellite photos, shows Russian forces massing in four locations. Currently, 50 battlefield tactical groups are deployed, along with “newly arrived” tanks and artillery, according to the document.

“The Russian plans call for a military offensive against Ukraine as soon as early 2022 with a scale of forces twice what we saw this past spring during Russia’s snap exercise near Ukraine’s borders,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. “The plans involve extensive movement of 100 battalion tactical groups with an estimated 175,000 personnel, along with armor, artillery and equipment.”

https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1466932191636688899?s=20

This seems to be a confirmation that there will be an invasion

[KaiserDave]

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Stoltenberg announced yesterday NATO/the West would effectively punt if the Russians did anything. All giving military material aid to the Ukrainians would accomplish is increase casualties on both sides and the Russians would still win. So what was the grand threat from Stoltenberg? Economic sanctions.

I think the Russians are still on economic sanctions from Crimea 7 years ago so these must be double serious economic sanctions! (How many times does it need to be proven sanctions do little?)

So right now the ball is in Russia's court. If they choose to invade, the West have acknowledged they'll do nothing of material value and the Russians will win the conflict accomplishing whatever their military arms are. No one thinks the Ukrainians will win a straight up fight, not even the Ukrainians. So the choice hinges on whatever gets offered diplomatically to the Russians and if they decide to accept or not.

Lavrov rebutted to everything surrounding Ukraine by saying there's NATO troops now in Poland and the Baltics, so they may be trying to frame this Cuban Missile Crisis-ish, minus the nukes, of "withdraw your troops in Poland and the Baltics and we'll withdraw our troops surrounding Ukraine". The problem with that frame of negotiation if that's the case is the Cuban Missile Crisis was a one-on-one negotiation. I don't see Poland and the Baltics agreeing to being sold out marginalizing their defense.

Putting aside the cost of economic sanctions that I think we agree that Russia could weather if it chose to (the West could freeze the entire Russian financial system) then yes, an invasion that took a few weeks with all of Russia's military objectives achieved and the Ukrainian government accepting a dictated political settlement would indeed be a no-brainer. The risk is that is not the only possible outcome, nor perhaps even the most likely one. Let's say the Russian army rolls over eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper. Great. What happens the day after? NATO countries rebuild the Ukrainian military with bottomless amounts of aid and equipment that at the least turns the conflict into a running sore of deaths and losses for Russia, and at worst threatens to roll back Russia's gains without the ongoing commitment of hundreds of thousands of troops. And in an continued war Russia has already played all of its escalation cards. Meanwhile Russia faces the problem of managing and integrating millions of unreconciled Ukrainian citizens. It's doubtful NATO and Ukraine would be brought to the table, and without a political solution Russia would face major and open-ended costs.

Now an invasion still might be worth it if 1) you think a West-aligned Ukraine is a truly existential threat to Russian security, and 2) you think you can get away with it à la Crimea, but the downsides are real and potentially tremendous for Russia and the Putin regime.

[CumbrianLefty]

Stoltenberg announced yesterday NATO/the West would effectively punt if the Russians did anything. All giving military material aid to the Ukrainians would accomplish is increase casualties on both sides and the Russians would still win. So what was the grand threat from Stoltenberg? Economic sanctions.

I think the Russians are still on economic sanctions from Crimea 7 years ago so these must be double serious economic sanctions! (How many times does it need to be proven sanctions do little?)

So right now the ball is in Russia's court. If they choose to invade, the West have acknowledged they'll do nothing of material value and the Russians will win the conflict accomplishing whatever their military arms are. No one thinks the Ukrainians will win a straight up fight, not even the Ukrainians. So the choice hinges on whatever gets offered diplomatically to the Russians and if they decide to accept or not.

Lavrov rebutted to everything surrounding Ukraine by saying there's NATO troops now in Poland and the Baltics, so they may be trying to frame this Cuban Missile Crisis-ish, minus the nukes, of "withdraw your troops in Poland and the Baltics and we'll withdraw our troops surrounding Ukraine". The problem with that frame of negotiation if that's the case is the Cuban Missile Crisis was a one-on-one negotiation. I don't see Poland and the Baltics agreeing to being sold out marginalizing their defense.

Putting aside the cost of economic sanctions that I think we agree that Russia could weather if it chose to (the West could freeze the entire Russian financial system) then yes, an invasion that took a few weeks with all of Russia's military objectives achieved and the Ukrainian government accepting a dictated political settlement would indeed be a no-brainer. The risk is that is not the only possible outcome, nor perhaps even the most likely one. Let's say the Russian army rolls over eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper. Great. What happens the day after? NATO countries rebuild the Ukrainian military with bottomless amounts of aid and equipment that at the least turns the conflict into a running sore of deaths and losses for Russia, and at worst threatens to roll back Russia's gains without the ongoing commitment of hundreds of thousands of troops. And in an continued war Russia has already played all of its escalation cards. Meanwhile Russia faces the problem of managing and integrating millions of unreconciled Ukrainian citizens. It's doubtful NATO and Ukraine would be brought to the table, and without a political solution Russia would face major and open-ended costs.

Now an invasion still might be worth it if 1) you think a West-aligned Ukraine is a truly existential threat to Russian security, and 2) you think you can get away with it à la Crimea, but the downsides are real and potentially tremendous for Russia and the Putin regime.

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

I don't think so either, but then again I'm not a Russian general. As for West-aligned or not, well, that's the entire point of Ukraine wanting to join NATO: to align with the West so Ukraine can remove itself from the Russian sphere.

[Crumpets]

I can't speak for Ukraine specifically, but one thing that's clear from watching Syria that might be applicable here is that Putin loves to create all the trappings of going to war ahead of leader-to-leader summits to maximize leverage in negotiations. Erdogan does this too. (A recent example of both) Sometimes it still results in offensives, but sometimes if the negotiations go well, the "crisis" he manufactured will just kind of go away overnight (funny thing). Biden should absolutely take this buildup seriously and do everything he can to both deter Putin from launching another invasion and gain leverage for himself in their meeting, but I'd hesitate away from pointing to Russia's preparations for war as a guarantee that war will in fact take place.

[CumbrianLefty]

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

I don't think so either, but then again I'm not a Russian general. As for West-aligned or not, well, that's the entire point of Ukraine wanting to join NATO: to align with the West so Ukraine can remove itself from the Russian sphere.

They may want to join NATO, but haven't done so and aren't doing so any time soon.

[Mr. Illini]

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

I don't think so either, but then again I'm not a Russian general. As for West-aligned or not, well, that's the entire point of Ukraine wanting to join NATO: to align with the West so Ukraine can remove itself from the Russian sphere.

They may want to join NATO, but haven't done so and aren't doing so any time soon.

You don't have to be in NATO to be western-aligned. The current Zelensky government is largely western-aligned (compared to its predecessor government before the 2014 revolt), and that's why Ukraine is considering an attack and why NATO is preparing a harsh response.

[BigSerg]

https://twitter.com/L_Team10/status/1467600441873731597?s=20

[StateBoiler]

CNN article:

The US and its allies in Europe and NATO have warned Russia of severe economic sanctions should it move to invade Ukraine.

But Western officials are reluctant to get drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, which Moscow understands, the senior Western intelligence official said.

"If you threaten force, and you keep your force in the field, and the interventions from the West, politically and militarily, are mild or nonexistent, that emboldens you," that official said. "Generally speaking, I think the aim here is to make clear, 'I'm willing to take this big risk and use force and I'm betting that you are unwilling to engage with me and have a loss of life.' "

Russians figured this out 10 to 15 years ago. Chinese look to have figured it in recent years as well and is why I fully expect some Chinese expeditionary conflict in the South Pacific to take over sea territory explicitly from other countries' EEZs and is why if I'm Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. I'm scared sh*tless in this current era of geopolitics. If you want to see the world become even more a real clusterf#ck let's wait for the Turks, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, some Arab states, etc. to figure it out and start doing actions, although the Syrian conflict showcased some of that was already going on. They know they'll suffer no real repercussions internationally, so go forth carrying out your geopolitical aims daring a weak West to do anything about it when they don't want to deploy their own troops and the rest of the world hates the West and their moralizing in international relations. It's hard realpolitik.

But what is the alternative? The US eternally pursuing war with the rest of the world in pursuit of total hegemony - the neocon dream - is now widely despised (even there) and totally discredited.

There is no alternative. This is the tragedy of classical liberalism: everyone believes in it but no one is going to fight for it. If the West is not going to lift a finger to do anything, that's the world we're heading for is a more authoritarian and "might makes right" one where human rights are irrelevant, military conflicts will occur more frequently, the post-World War II order of "conflicts for territory are not okay" completely disintegrates, and the UN might as well dissolve.

The effect of Crimea 2014 on where the world is at from a geopolitical mindset and how much it pushed the world away from the post-World War II mindset cannot be understated.

Soft power is indeed strong if used effectively, but hard power will beat soft power most every time. So if you have states unwilling to use hard power, regardless of their size or finances, every state in not guns shooting conflict with them just knows if they go to hard power or risk hard power, it helps them in negotiations win against the states unwilling to use hard power.

[StateBoiler]

Now an invasion still might be worth it if 1) you think a West-aligned Ukraine is a truly existential threat to Russian security,...

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

You have to look at this from the point of view of the Kremlin leadership and whatever their goals are if you wish to understand Russian decisionmaking. You can't look at it from your own personal point of view and hope to understand what is going to happen, even if you think the Russians are wrongheaded.

Russians post-Soviet era have the impression of once they were defeated, NATO is yet still trying to practice encirclement. Yeltsin even complained about NATO moving eastward. NATO is from the viewpoint of the Russians an existential threat because NATO is first and foremost an anti-Russian defense conglomeration. There's no civilian purpose to NATO's existence. So if Ukraine joins NATO, then that's another border point Russia has to defend against. It's why North Korea will probably never just be allowed to join with South Korea and maybe even why the state continues to exist: the Chinese are not going to accept a border with a U.S. ally, North Korea's a buffer. Right now in Donbass the Russians have a de facto buffer.

[Hnv1]

January 18 could be a historic date for an invasion...January 18 1654

[bilaps]

Russia won't "invade" in a sense that they will cross into Ukraine with 200k soldiers and occupy land. They will make perfectly clear what their red lines are and one of those is Ukraine using TB2 drones on separatist positions for example. If they don't get reaction from the west and Ukraine they desire and Ukraine continues escalating they will anihilate Ukraine's army with missiles, they won't need to invade.

[BigSerg]

Hahahaha
https://twitter.com/Global_Mil_Info/status/1467938939902246915?s=20