Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Hindsight was 2020]

Another case in point about Putin being insane does this sound like demands of someone remotely rational

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1767883770709876792?s=20

I think Russia's negotiation position today is similar to the USA's position toward the end of 1863 vis-a-vis CSA with the adjustment that CSA is still able to get a lot of external military and economic aid.  Namely a CSA offensive to regain round is very likely and in a long attritional war the USA will win but with significant cost.  So can there be a compromise deal where the USA limits its gains to remove the need for attritional losses it will have to incur in a long bloody victory?  Likewise, can CSA give up some of its maximalist positions at the beginning of the conflict to avoid an increasingly likely attritional defeat?

     It's ultimately the same challenge that has existed from the start; Russia and Ukraine have very different ideas of what an acceptable outcome for the war looks like. Negotiations are possible in principle, but fruitless in practice unless someone walks their stance back (or is otherwise willing to give considerable concessions). I suspect that making noise about pushing far beyond the territory they have already staked a claim to as a means of intimidating Ukraine into making concessions, because it's obvious that Ukraine won't walk back unless they are faced with a catastrophic alternative. Putin's remarks are a dominance play, because being seen as wanting negotiations smacks of weakness.

Or maybe the guy who time and time again has said/demonstrated his motivation is to effectively wipe Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake might be aiming for wiping Ukraine off the map because he views their sovereignty and ethnicity as a historical mistake.

Certainly it's possible for both of these to be true in some way, simultaneously?

No because PIT presenting Putin as thing from a rational realpolitik position while I’m arguing he’s completely irrational at this point

Putin wanting Ukraine and thinking it would make Russia more important is arguably the most rational impulse he has in regards to his thought process regarding the war.
Why is it automatically "irrational" for a Russian leader to want a vassalized Ukraine? Apparently?

Because his motivation is blood and soil ahistorical revisionism

Putin is fundamentally a Tsarist with extra steps and that's what primarily motivates him. And let's be frank here, he's absolutely correct that a lot of the Ukrainian national identity was ultimately formed under Bolshevik watch. The bulk of the peasantry lacked a full sense of being a separate or distinct state. Putin's mistake wasn't blaming the Soviets for the Ukrainian identity talking its modern form, it was thinking it could be fully unwound so easily through military force. As such, he brute forced things and ultimately succeeded in actually strengthening the very thing he was seeking to destroy. Pretending that the feelings that existed now existed for all time is rather ahistorical anyway, these ideas are influenced by the events that happen. I would argue the prime beneficiary of Putin's mistakes is in fact Poland, who now have particular influence over it once again at levels not seen since the 1700s.

[Lord Halifax]

There's a lot of Arnold Toynbee watching Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in your comment.

my, my, my! we have an intellectual in our midst

[jaichind]

Pro-Russia sources say attacks from Ukraine continues in Belgorod region

[GoTfan]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

Human history has existed for a very long time. It's foolish and arrogant of people to think we're so enlightened that the last 80 years have changed how the last few thousand years operated. And right of conquest still exists in the modern world, it's just not done with bullets typically, it's done via economics and demographics and politics. The U.S. has quite the number of vassal states across the whole globe.

But that is still a highly significant difference, isn't it.

Your argument seems to be the "realist" one that people are all still basically and unalterably primitive savages, and any attempts to alter this are ultimately doomed to failure.

People are not primitive savages, but people will always be in conflict with one another, be it war, trade, resources, politics, philosophy, labor negotiations, or who gets to date the pretty blonde girl in school. Why do you argue with complete strangers on this message board other than you want to engage in a war of ideas?

There's a lot of Arnold Toynbee watching Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in your comment.

I don't even know what that sentence means, so it's entirely lost on me.

By your logic, we're free to invade New Zealand and it's ours if they can't fight us.

[Flyersfan232]

I wonder why they even discuss troops on the ground instead of air strikes. Wouldn't that be more effective? A lack of air superiority has always been a weakspot for Ukraine. If a NATO member ever got involved, I'd launch a series of massive air strikes against Russian positions. That would also greatly limit losses, especially by using drones. I'm not a military expert, that would just make more sense to me. Of course it's theoretical as NATO would de facto become a party in the war. At latest when Russia tries to attack the bases or ships from where the drones or fighter jets are launched.

eu elections its all 100% meaningless talk

[CumbrianLefty]

I don't even know what that sentence means, so it's entirely lost on me.

By your logic, we're free to invade New Zealand and it's ours if they can't fight us.

I just don't like waving away "the last 80 years" as if that was a mere detail tbh.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-11/russia-weighs-tax-hikes-to-fund-war-in-ukraine-after-election

"Russia Weighs Post-Election Tax Hikes to Fund War in Ukraine"

Putin likely to move to a progressive tax system after elections to help fund the war.   Once again this shows Putin's core base is the lower middle and working class and not the oligarchs and upper middle class.

[Open Source Intelligence]

Dear people that claim to be pro-peace (like Orban), does this sound like someone ready to negotiate?

"Asked about peace talks with Ukraine, Putin indicated he won't discuss surrendering territory annexed from Ukraine and appeared confident Russia’s army could advance further. “Holding negotiations now only because they are running out of ammunition is absurd for us.”"

Well, whether you like it or not, it's a valid argument, and not much different from why Israel or the people backing them internationally are not automatically pro-ceasefire.

There's no reason for Putin to unilaterally surrender territory back to Ukraine. They've taken the land. This is war, it's the Ukrainians' job to come take it back if they want to control it.  It's been almost 10 years now and they still haven't taken back Crimea or the eastern regions of the Donbass. If the Russians give any land back, it'll be a bargaining chip for the Russians to get something else they more want because the Ukrainians have demonstrated so far they have not been able to take it back based on the evidence of the years preceding this conflict in Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass, and during the life of this conflict that the lines of control have hardly moved for 21 months now.

That's called right of conquest.

Human history has existed for a very long time. It's foolish and arrogant of people to think we're so enlightened that the last 80 years have changed how the last few thousand years operated. And right of conquest still exists in the modern world, it's just not done with bullets typically, it's done via economics and demographics and politics. The U.S. has quite the number of vassal states across the whole globe.

But that is still a highly significant difference, isn't it.

Your argument seems to be the "realist" one that people are all still basically and unalterably primitive savages, and any attempts to alter this are ultimately doomed to failure.

People are not primitive savages, but people will always be in conflict with one another, be it war, trade, resources, politics, philosophy, labor negotiations, or who gets to date the pretty blonde girl in school. Why do you argue with complete strangers on this message board other than you want to engage in a war of ideas?

There's a lot of Arnold Toynbee watching Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in your comment.

I don't even know what that sentence means, so it's entirely lost on me.

http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/cfr/world/20080503faessay_v87n3_zakaria.html

With the add-on of a link to a Fareed Zakaria long-winded take on the status of American global hegemony in 2008, comparing it to the British Empire. Good time capsule if nothing else.

On June 22, 1897, around 400 million people around the world - one-fourth of humanity - got the day off. It was the 60th anniversary of Queen Victoria's ascension to the British throne. The Diamond Jubilee stretched over five days on land and sea, but its high point was the parade and thanksgiving service on June 22. The 11 premiers of Britain's self-governing colonies were in attendance, along with princes, dukes, ambassadors, and envoys from the rest of the world. A military procession of 50,000 soldiers included hussars from Canada, cavalryment from New South Wales, carabineers from Naples, camel troops from Bikaner, and Gurkhas from Nepal. It was, as one historian wrote, "a Roman moment."

In London, eight-year-old Arnold Toynbee was perched on his uncle's shoulders, eagerly watching the parade. Toynbee, who grew up to become the most famous historian of his age, recalled that, watching the grandeur of the day, it felt as if the sun were "standing still in the midst of Heaven." "I remember the atmosphere," he wrote. "It was: 'Well, here we are on top of the world, and we have arrived at this peak to stay there forever. There is, of course, a thing called history, but history is something unpleasant that happens to other people. We are comfortably outside all of that I am sure."

[Beet]

Ukraine could simply offer a cease-fire at the current lines of control. They can say they do not require Russia to make any territorial concessions, and neither will they, but that they are willing to stop shooting to halt the bloodshed. Then, Putin only has two choices. He can (a) agree, which gives Ukraine more time to rebuild its defenses while preventing any further loss of territory or blood at least for a time, or (b) refuse, in which case Ukraine can say to the world, "Look, we are willing to stop this war at any time, but it's solely due to the madman Putin that it continues. All the bloodshed is on him." This would have an undermining effect on Russian propaganda at the margins, and it is at the margins that these things matter anyway, and there is no cost for such a course of action to Ukraine.

[Storr]

"Death toll from the Russian double-tap missile attack in Odesa today has risen to 16; number of wounded is 73, according to Ukraine’s state emergency service."

https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1768672943565901854?s=20

[jaichind]

Ukraine could simply offer a cease-fire at the current lines of control. They can say they do not require Russia to make any territorial concessions, and neither will they, but that they are willing to stop shooting to halt the bloodshed. Then, Putin only has two choices. He can (a) agree, which gives Ukraine more time to rebuild its defenses while preventing any further loss of territory or blood at least for a time, or (b) refuse, in which case Ukraine can say to the world, "Look, we are willing to stop this war at any time, but it's solely due to the madman Putin that it continues. All the bloodshed is on him." This would have an undermining effect on Russian propaganda at the margins, and it is at the margins that these things matter anyway, and there is no cost for such a course of action to Ukraine.

That would be a good tactical move from Ukraine.  I do not think it will move Russian public opinion if Putin turns it down but I agree it will move the needle in terms of international context.  The main problem is that Zelensky could be overthrown for making such an offer. 

I think in reality for any real Russia-Ukraine talks to take place Zelensky will have to be overthrown first and the new regime can say to the Ukraine public "Zelensky really messed up but we cannot do anything about it now but to deal with the consequences.  Part of dealing with that is to give some ground to the Russians to try to stop this war."

[Hindsight was 2020]

Ukraine could simply offer a cease-fire at the current lines of control. They can say they do not require Russia to make any territorial concessions, and neither will they, but that they are willing to stop shooting to halt the bloodshed. Then, Putin only has two choices. He can (a) agree, which gives Ukraine more time to rebuild its defenses while preventing any further loss of territory or blood at least for a time, or (b) refuse, in which case Ukraine can say to the world, "Look, we are willing to stop this war at any time, but it's solely due to the madman Putin that it continues. All the bloodshed is on him." This would have an undermining effect on Russian propaganda at the margins, and it is at the margins that these things matter anyway, and there is no cost for such a course of action to Ukraine.

I don’t see any margins option b sways practically everyone in the Russian camp are bad faith trolls who just ignore this stuff. Case in point the current rhetoric that is pushing Ukraine to go the negotiating table like their being the unreasonable ones all while Russia is saying their demands for peace is the surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty

[jaichind]

https://twitter.com/Trollstoy88/status/1768725571444342915

[All Along The Watchtower]

I think in reality for any real Russia-Ukraine talks to take place Putin will have to be overthrown first and the new regime can say to the Russian public "Putin really messed up but we cannot do anything about it now but to deal with the consequences.  Part of dealing with that is to give some ground to the Ukrainians to try to stop this war."

[PSOL]

Ukraine could simply offer a cease-fire at the current lines of control. They can say they do not require Russia to make any territorial concessions, and neither will they, but that they are willing to stop shooting to halt the bloodshed. Then, Putin only has two choices. He can (a) agree, which gives Ukraine more time to rebuild its defenses while preventing any further loss of territory or blood at least for a time, or (b) refuse, in which case Ukraine can say to the world, "Look, we are willing to stop this war at any time, but it's solely due to the madman Putin that it continues. All the bloodshed is on him." This would have an undermining effect on Russian propaganda at the margins, and it is at the margins that these things matter anyway, and there is no cost for such a course of action to Ukraine.

I don’t see any margins option b sways practically everyone in the Russian camp are bad faith trolls who just ignore this stuff. Case in point the current rhetoric that is pushing Ukraine to go the negotiating table like their being the unreasonable ones all while Russia is saying their demands for peace is the surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty

Outside of the second-and-third-to-last demands, which are obviously not official and worth debating, everything else is perfectly acceptable if Ukrainians wants to keep existing with their own nation. Ending this war with a humanitarian ceasefire and having Ukraine be a neutral zone would still be a win to the West as any source of Russian soft power and proxy states have all but dried up.

[Storr]

Ukraine could simply offer a cease-fire at the current lines of control. They can say they do not require Russia to make any territorial concessions, and neither will they, but that they are willing to stop shooting to halt the bloodshed. Then, Putin only has two choices. He can (a) agree, which gives Ukraine more time to rebuild its defenses while preventing any further loss of territory or blood at least for a time, or (b) refuse, in which case Ukraine can say to the world, "Look, we are willing to stop this war at any time, but it's solely due to the madman Putin that it continues. All the bloodshed is on him." This would have an undermining effect on Russian propaganda at the margins, and it is at the margins that these things matter anyway, and there is no cost for such a course of action to Ukraine.

I don’t see any margins option b sways practically everyone in the Russian camp are bad faith trolls who just ignore this stuff. Case in point the current rhetoric that is pushing Ukraine to go the negotiating table like their being the unreasonable ones all while Russia is saying their demands for peace is the surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty

Outside of the second-and-third-to-last demands, which are obviously not official and worth debating, everything else is perfectly acceptable if Ukrainians wants to keep existing with their own nation. Ending this war with a humanitarian ceasefire and having Ukraine be a neutral zone would still be a win to the West as any source of Russian soft power and proxy states have all but dried up.

The problem is neither side wants a ceasefire. Russia thinks it finally has the advantage with wavering Western support and resulting Ukrainian ammunition shortage. Ukraine doesn’t want a ceasefire because it would allow Russia to rebuild its military and simply conduct another surprise invasion in a few years.

In order for a ceasefire, both sides would need to feel like they cannot win total victory (like Korea). Ukraine might agree to a ceasefire if it received serious security guarantees, not ones the West can choose to ignore if/when Russia invades again. But I’m not sure what would convince Putin to agree to a ceasefire. He’s staked his regime on this war after annexation and mobilization. After all, the reason Putin keeps threatening the use of nuclear weapons if the
NATO intervenes is because that would immediately end any prospect/illusion of total victory.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Ukraine could simply offer a cease-fire at the current lines of control. They can say they do not require Russia to make any territorial concessions, and neither will they, but that they are willing to stop shooting to halt the bloodshed. Then, Putin only has two choices. He can (a) agree, which gives Ukraine more time to rebuild its defenses while preventing any further loss of territory or blood at least for a time, or (b) refuse, in which case Ukraine can say to the world, "Look, we are willing to stop this war at any time, but it's solely due to the madman Putin that it continues. All the bloodshed is on him." This would have an undermining effect on Russian propaganda at the margins, and it is at the margins that these things matter anyway, and there is no cost for such a course of action to Ukraine.

I don’t see any margins option b sways practically everyone in the Russian camp are bad faith trolls who just ignore this stuff. Case in point the current rhetoric that is pushing Ukraine to go the negotiating table like their being the unreasonable ones all while Russia is saying their demands for peace is the surrender of Ukrainian sovereignty

Outside of the second-and-third-to-last demands, which are obviously not official and worth debating, everything else is perfectly acceptable if Ukrainians wants to keep existing with their own nation. Ending this war with a humanitarian ceasefire and having Ukraine be a neutral zone would still be a win to the West as any source of Russian soft power and proxy states have all but dried up.

The mass resignation of the Ukrainian government and a hard cap on its military is not acceptable in any way

[GeneralMacArthur]

You should never take someone who likes Russia at their word.  If they pretend they care about humanitarianism or preventing bloodshed, and then you give them what they want, they'll just decide they care about something else.  Making even rhetorical concessions to appease them is just you being their dancing monkey.  At best they are brainless dogs who drool whenever Putin rings his bell and are incapable of independent thought (ironically, while believing themselves to be the most independent of thinkers).  At worst they are aspiring mini-Putins of their own, effortlessly lying and gaslighting to try and obtain respectability in polite company by spewing out a noxious cloud of rhetorical BS that obscures their actual position, which is just that they want Russia to win no matter what.

Whether they're actively doing Putin's bidding or just too stupid to realize that they're sock puppet NPCs, the ultimate goal is just to antagonize you and waste your time.  To even bother engaging in conversation with them is a complete waste because you are basically just talking to yourself, or talking to ChatGPT -- there is no persuadable party and their convictions are all fake.  To actually make concessions based on these totally fake positions they're pretending to hold?  That's just a surrender.  That just makes you a loser.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yes but the question remains - *why* do they so fervently support Russia?

Some are doubtless just paid to do so, but there must be genuine believers.

[Woody]

meltdown thread, Andrew Perpetua(lly wrong):

https://twitter.com/AndrewPerpetua/status/1768917346008146428

[jaichind]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/15/belgorod-presidential-election-putin-russia/

"In Belgorod, Russian City Hit Hardest By War, Putin Is Still Running Strong"

For four days this week, the city's air defenses struggled to intercept barrages of rockets and explosive drones, while east and south of Belgorod, the Russian army battled anti-Kremlin militias, which mounted assaults along the border aiming to portray Putin as unable to protect his country as he prepares to claim a fifth term in office.
But there is little sign that effort is succeeding, and for many residents, such attacks only deepen their support for Putin and drive home the Kremlin's false narrative that Russians are the victims in the war, not its perpetrators. Cities across Ukraine are bombarded far more often than Belgorod, with Russian weapons that are far more powerful, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles. The resulting civilian casualties are far higher, too.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I think in reality for any real Russia-Ukraine talks to take place Putin will have to be overthrown first and the new regime can say to the Russian public "Putin really messed up but we cannot do anything about it now but to deal with the consequences.  Part of dealing with that is to give some ground to the Ukrainians to try to stop this war."

For Ukraine's wishes to be given such weight then they have to be, you know, working with the upper hand.

[jaichind]

https://focus.ua/uk/eksklyuzivy/633424-komandiri-platyat-tck-za-dosvidchenih-biyciv-golovni-problemi-rekrutingu-v-zsu

""Commanders pay TCC for experienced fighters." The main problems of recruiting in the Armed Forces"

Ukraine media reports that commanders at the front has to pay bribes to get qualified personnel in their units

“There is such a market. Relatively speaking, schools for training UAV operators receive money for their graduates. And TCC also receive money for experienced fighters,”

[jaichind]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/15/ukraine-no-us-aid/

"U.S. Anticipates Grim Course for Ukraine If Aid Bill Dies in Congress"

"This doesn't go well for Ukraine over time without a supplemental, and it could lead to potential collapse," a senior U.S. official said. "But here's the bottom line: Even if Ukraine holds on, what we really are saying is that we are going to leverage countless lives in order to do that."