Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Silent Hunter]

S-300 are apparently on the way
https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/1504104741705502727

That SAM family is basically why stuff like the F-35 exists; it's a massive threat to anything non-stealthy.

[The Dowager Mod]

I'm sure Pooty will honor any deal like he did the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances if Ukraine pledges neutrality. 

[nicholas.slaydon]

I'm sure Pooty will honor any deal like he did the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances if Ukraine pledges neutrality. 

Exactly why Ukraine should accept nothing short of victory against Russia.

[Middle-aged Europe]

NPR has an article on Russia's likely debt default and what it will mean:


https://www.npr.org/2022/03/16/1086633646/fears-are-growing-that-russia-will-default-on-its-debt-heres-what-you-need-to-kn

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Addendum: Congressman McCaul is being interviewed on CNN and made news: S-300 missiles are now "in country," meaning now in Ukraine and CNN said that comment "made news."

S-300 are apparently on the way
https://twitter.com/LisaDNews/status/1504104741705502727

McCaul misspoke, and judging by the way he phrased it, Meeks may have, too. McCaul was referring to the S-300s Ukraine already possessed, which had nothing to do with US or European support. That’s not going to concern him, Meeks or anyone else, because - as with the jets - they are now getting credit for aid that hasn’t actually arrived.

https://www.twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1504112785978019844

I’m increasingly skeptical of what is meant by “more on the way” given the issues we’ve seen so far.

[It’s so Joever]

I'm sure Pooty will honor any deal like he did the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances if Ukraine pledges neutrality. 

Exactly why Ukraine should accept nothing short of victory against Russia.

Hear me out, a deal in which Ukraine can receive back Donetsk and Luhansk in exchange for Crimea recognition and neutrality is not a bad thing. For one, it doesn’t reward Putin, in practice it gives Ukraine territory back and Crimea was a lost cause.
Secondly, the Ukrainian identity has been forged by this, Ukraine has had a problem for years but now it will truly be able to unite.
Thirdly, while Ukraine won’t officially be in NATO, we can and will arm Ukraine to the teeth to the point they can prevent any future invasion. What will Russia do, invade Ukraine again, except this time it’s more armed and prepared for defense?

I understand that it’s hard to emotionally accept any “deal” with Putin, but Ukraine can’t hold forever, and if we can get a deal like this, we can ensure Ukraine and it’s people remain an independent and self determining people for a long time. And yes a Marshall Plan is desperately needed for Ukraine, I’m guessing Europe, the US, and even China (hey they will want to buy some Ukrainian influence, that’s probably while they have been neutral) will be willing to invest in Ukraine, due to both public support and real opportunities in the country.

If Ukraine plays her cards right and the West truly is willing to back up their words, Ukraine can be a stronger and more prosperous nation with such a deal.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Apologies if someone already posted but some interesting results from the Russian poll published in WaPo last week:

"DO YOU SUPPORT OR DO NOT SUPPORT THE MILITARY OPERATION OF RUSSIA ON THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE?"
(age w/net support/oppose:)
18-24:29/39
25-30:37/30
31-35:45/24
36-40:52/29
41-55:63/22
56-65:71/14
66+:75/16

(locality)
city >1+M:48/31
city 500k-1M:56/31
city 100k-500k:56/24
city 50k-100k:63/23
city <50k/rural:65/16

(career stage)
studying:36/31
working:56/24
neither studying nor working:49/28
retired:69/17

(if working, for a federal, municipal, or private enterprise)
federal:61/19
municipal/local:77/12
private employee:49/29
private owner: 64/20

(financial situation in past year)
worsened:47/32
stayed the same:62/20
improved:67/15

> Russian polls

I guess FL Quinnipiac polls are more accurate.

tea leaves, tarot cards and chicken bones are more accurate

I don't actually think so: while we obviously can't take such a poll at face value, we can assume that anyone willing to say they're opposed is actually opposed and probably strongly so, and considering the current environment in Russia, people who say they don't know are probably opposed as well, even if only softly.

And this poll does show a trend that one would expect and is a big problem for Putin: support for the war is highest among the elderly (those who grew up in the Soviet Union and probably still wish to see it restored), and lowest among the younger generations, who would actually be fighting in the war.

[nicholas.slaydon]

I'm sure Pooty will honor any deal like he did the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances if Ukraine pledges neutrality. 

Exactly why Ukraine should accept nothing short of victory against Russia.

Hear me out, a deal in which Ukraine can receive back Donetsk and Luhansk in exchange for Crimea recognition and neutrality is not a bad thing. For one, it doesn’t reward Putin, in practice it gives Ukraine territory back and Crimea was a lost cause.
Secondly, the Ukrainian identity has been forged by this, Ukraine has had a problem for years but now it will truly be able to unite.
Thirdly, while Ukraine won’t officially be in NATO, we can and will arm Ukraine to the teeth to the point they can prevent any future invasion. What will Russia do, invade Ukraine again, except this time it’s more armed and prepared for defense?

I understand that it’s hard to emotionally accept any “deal” with Putin, but Ukraine can’t hold forever, and if we can get a deal like this, we can ensure Ukraine and it’s people remain an independent and self determining people for a long time. And yes a Marshall Plan is desperately needed for Ukraine, I’m guessing Europe, the US, and even China (hey they will want to buy some Ukrainian influence, that’s probably while they have been neutral) will be willing to invest in Ukraine, due to both public support and real opportunities in the country.

If Ukraine plays her cards right and the West truly is willing to back up their words, Ukraine can be a stronger and more prosperous nation with such a deal.

The crucial part of this hypothetical deal is "and the West is willing to back up their words". Maybe Europe and the US are willing to enact sanctions against Russia today and supply Ukraine weapons to adequately defend themselves, but what about thirty years down the line? What security guarantees other than NATO membership can Ukraine receive that they can trust, not just in the immediate future, but years and decades down the line? That's why if I were in the White House or in the position of Zelenskyy I would not find any deal that forces Ukrainian neutrality at all acceptable. The only way to deter Russia, and for the West to back up their words on how they support Ukrainian territorial sovereignty, is to have all of Ukraine returned to Ukraine, including Crimea. Which is why we should be providing Ukraine with as much support as would be required to not only repel the Russian invasion and return to the pre-envision stalemate, but to allow the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians and push them out of Ukraine in totality.

[It’s so Joever]

I'm sure Pooty will honor any deal like he did the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances if Ukraine pledges neutrality.  

Exactly why Ukraine should accept nothing short of victory against Russia.

Hear me out, a deal in which Ukraine can receive back Donetsk and Luhansk in exchange for Crimea recognition and neutrality is not a bad thing. For one, it doesn’t reward Putin, in practice it gives Ukraine territory back and Crimea was a lost cause.
Secondly, the Ukrainian identity has been forged by this, Ukraine has had a problem for years but now it will truly be able to unite.
Thirdly, while Ukraine won’t officially be in NATO, we can and will arm Ukraine to the teeth to the point they can prevent any future invasion. What will Russia do, invade Ukraine again, except this time it’s more armed and prepared for defense?

I understand that it’s hard to emotionally accept any “deal” with Putin, but Ukraine can’t hold forever, and if we can get a deal like this, we can ensure Ukraine and it’s people remain an independent and self determining people for a long time. And yes a Marshall Plan is desperately needed for Ukraine, I’m guessing Europe, the US, and even China (hey they will want to buy some Ukrainian influence, that’s probably while they have been neutral) will be willing to invest in Ukraine, due to both public support and real opportunities in the country.

If Ukraine plays her cards right and the West truly is willing to back up their words, Ukraine can be a stronger and more prosperous nation with such a deal.

The crucial part of this hypothetical deal is "and the West is willing to back up their words". Maybe Europe and the US are willing to enact sanctions against Russia today and supply Ukraine weapons to adequately defend themselves, but what about thirty years down the line? What security guarantees other than NATO membership can Ukraine receive that they can trust, not just in the immediate future, but years and decades down the line? That's why if I were in the White House or in the position of Zelenskyy I would not find any deal that forces Ukrainian neutrality at all acceptable. The only way to deter Russia, and for the West to back up their words on how they support Ukrainian territorial sovereignty, is to have all of Ukraine returned to Ukraine, including Crimea. Which is why we should be providing Ukraine with as much support as would be required to not only repel the Russian invasion and return to the pre-envision stalemate, but to allow the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians and push them out of Ukraine in totality.

What is compelling NATO as an institution to stay alive other than commitments which could easily crumble if convenient to its members? This is a de facto way to keep Ukraine secure itself. As for Crimea, yes you could force them back into Ukraine, but that would likely create more problems than it’s even worth and would seriously hinder efforts to rebuild Ukraine in the long term. Donetsk and Luhansk are likely much more feasible to reintegrate, Crimea would require quite a lot of effort.
We will make Ukraine an impenetrable fortress, and that alone is enough.

And I don’t think you understand just how screwed Ukraine is long term if fighting keeps up. The West clearly isn’t willing to go further in support, and the attritional warfare will eventually break the spirit. Plus the Russians are learning from their mistakes, they can and will fully invade Ukraine if we hold the status quo. The sanctions are not doing enough at all and the people seem willing to stand behind Putin still.

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

Edit: If Ukraine is seriously considering any iteration of this deal then it means they know they are still in trouble and their nation has suffered from the war, and it's not all peaches and roses as their propaganda, cheerfully relayed on this thread, would have us believe.

Morally normal people in the Ukraine thread: Even if Ukraine doesn't "win", how hard they've fought and how much they've made Russia pay for this invasion is inspiring. Ukraine isn't a perfect country or a perfect culture, but their fight is democracy's fight unless we want a day of the jackboot on our own shores sooner or later.
compucomp in the Ukraine thread:

Can you taste the leather filling your body? Can you feel the pressure on your tongue as it gropes tirelessly on the tread, desperately seeking to clean even the small space afforded it? Can you feel my hand on the back of your skull, pushing your mouth even wider around it? It’s improbably large. Impossible. Insurmountable. Gargantuan. Nothing has made your face ache like this.

Tears are welling in your eyes. You can’t tell if you’re crying from shame or happiness. This isn’t even boot service anymore. It’s one person totally excavating the face of another with a boot. It’s madness.

[Logical]

Read this article. Very detailed story about how hostile locals helped destroy a Russian BTG and blunted the Russian thrust in the Southwest.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-russia-voznesensk-town-battle-11647444734

A Ukrainian Town Deals Russia One of the War’s Most Decisive Routs
VOZNESENSK, Ukraine—A Kalashnikov rifle slung over his shoulder, Voznesensk’s funeral director, Mykhailo Sokurenko, spent this Tuesday driving through fields and forests, picking up dead Russian soldiers and taking them to a freezer railway car piled with Russian bodies—the casualties of one of the most comprehensive routs President Vladimir Putin’s forces have suffered since he ordered the invasion of Ukraine.

A rapid Russian advance into the strategic southern town of 35,000 people, a gateway to a Ukrainian nuclear power station and pathway to attack Odessa from the back, would have showcased the Russian military’s abilities and severed Ukraine’s key communications lines.

Instead, the two-day battle of Voznesensk, details of which are only now emerging, turned decisively against the Russians. Judging from the destroyed and abandoned armor, Ukrainian forces, which comprised local volunteers and the professional military, eliminated most of a Russian battalion tactical group on March 2 and 3.

Russian survivors of the Voznesensk battle left behind nearly 30 of their 43 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, multiple-rocket launchers and trucks, as well as a downed Mi-24 attack helicopter, according to Ukrainian officials in the city. The helicopter’s remnants and some pieces of burned-out Russian armor were still scattered around Voznesensk on Tuesday.

Russian forces retreated more than 40 miles to the southeast, where other Ukrainian units have continued pounding them. Some dispersed in nearby forests, where local officials said 10 soldiers have been captured.

“We didn’t have a single tank against them, just rocket-propelled grenades, Javelin missiles and the help of artillery,” said Vadym Dombrovsky, commander of the Ukrainian special-forces reconnaissance group in the area and a Voznesensk resident. “The Russians didn’t expect us to be so strong. It was a surprise for them. If they had taken Voznesensk, they would have cut off the whole south of Ukraine.”

Ukrainian officers estimated that some 100 Russian troops died in Voznesensk, including those whose bodies were taken by retreating Russian troops or burned inside carbonized vehicles. As of Tuesday, 11 dead Russian soldiers were in the railway car turned morgue, with search parties looking for other bodies in nearby forests. Villagers buried some others.

About 55 miles north of Mykolaiv, Voznesensk offered an alternative bridge over the Southern Bug river and access to the main highway linking Odessa with the rest of Ukraine. Russian forces raced toward the town at the same time as they made a successful push northeast to seize the city of Enerhodar, where another major Ukrainian nuclear power plant is located. Voznesensk’s fall would have made defending the nuclear plant to the north of here nearly impossible, military officials said.

Mayor Velichko worked with local businessmen to dig up the shores of the Mertvovod river that cuts through town so armored personnel vehicles couldn’t ford it. He got other businessmen who owned a quarry and a construction company to block off most streets to channel the Russian column into areas that would be easier to hit with artillery.

Ahead of the Russian advance, military engineers blew up the bridge over the Mertvovod and a railroad bridge on the town’s edge. Waiting for the Russians in and around Voznesensk were Ukrainian regular army troops and members of the Territorial Defense force, which Ukraine established in January, recruiting and arming volunteers to help protect local communities. Local witnesses, officials and Ukrainian combat participants recounted what happened next.

Downhill from Rakove, Russian forces set up base at a gas station at Voznesensk’s entrance. A Russian BTR infantry fighting vehicle drove up to the blown-up bridge over the Mertvovod, opening fire on the Territorial Defense base to the left. Five tanks, supported by a BTR, drove to a wheat field overlooking Voznesensk.

As darkness fell March 2, Mr. Rudenko, who owns a company transporting gravel and sand, took cover in a grove on the wheat field’s edge under pouring rain. The Russian tanks there would fire into Voznesensk and immediately drive a few hundred yards away to escape return fire, he said.

Mr. Rudenko was on the phone with a Ukrainian artillery unit. Sending coordinates via the Viber social-messaging app, he directed artillery fire at the Russians. So did other local Territorial Defense volunteers around the city. “Everyone helped,” he said. “Everyone shared the information.”

Ukrainian shelling blew craters in the field, and some Russian vehicles sustained direct hits. Other Ukrainian regular troops and Territorial Defense forces moved toward Russian positions on foot, hitting vehicles with U.S.-supplied Javelin missiles. As Russian armor caught fire—including three of the five tanks in the wheat field—soldiers abandoned functioning vehicles and escaped on foot or sped off in the BTRs that still had fuel. They left crates of ammunition.

[It’s so Joever]

Apologies if someone already posted but some interesting results from the Russian poll published in WaPo last week:

"DO YOU SUPPORT OR DO NOT SUPPORT THE MILITARY OPERATION OF RUSSIA ON THE TERRITORY OF UKRAINE?"
(age w/net support/oppose:)
18-24:29/39
25-30:37/30
31-35:45/24
36-40:52/29
41-55:63/22
56-65:71/14
66+:75/16

(locality)
city >1+M:48/31
city 500k-1M:56/31
city 100k-500k:56/24
city 50k-100k:63/23
city <50k/rural:65/16

(career stage)
studying:36/31
working:56/24
neither studying nor working:49/28
retired:69/17

(if working, for a federal, municipal, or private enterprise)
federal:61/19
municipal/local:77/12
private employee:49/29
private owner: 64/20

(financial situation in past year)
worsened:47/32
stayed the same:62/20
improved:67/15

> Russian polls

I guess FL Quinnipiac polls are more accurate.

tea leaves, tarot cards and chicken bones are more accurate

I don't actually think so: while we obviously can't take such a poll at face value, we can assume that anyone willing to say they're opposed is actually opposed and probably strongly so, and considering the current environment in Russia, people who say they don't know are probably opposed as well, even if only softly.

And this poll does show a trend that one would expect and is a big problem for Putin: support for the war is highest among the elderly (those who grew up in the Soviet Union and probably still wish to see it restored), and lowest among the younger generations, who would actually be fighting in the war.

Babushka got sent over to the Dnieper!
She’s marching with a rifle up to Kiev,
You may say the elderly shouldn’t get drafted,
But Shoygu and Putin would disagree!

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Kinzinger repeats the previous Congressional call for non-existent NFZ technology. It's one thing for Representatives to know nothing, but it's another for their aides to fail them this badly.

https://twitter.com/MZanona/status/1504103572367101956

This thread sums up my thoughts on it:

https://twitter.com/feline_cannon/status/1501010512888295425

[Torie]

When Putin stops blasting Ukraine cities, that will be a signal that a real deal is out there. Until then, I suspect its deflective noise. I still have trouble believing that Putin will sign a piece of paper wherein his forces leave, and Ukraine gets armed to the teeth on a subsidized basis, and some kind of security guarantee. Sure the security guarantee might not be honored, but in the interim it is a far better place than now, and Putin is not going to be around forever. But I don't see Putin accepting that until he gets pretty desperate.

I wonder if there is some kind of wind down where Russian troops stay in place, how sustainable that is for Russia.

[Badger]

When Putin stops blasting Ukraine cities, that will be a signal that a real deal is out there. Until then, I suspect its deflective noise. I still have trouble believing that Putin will sign a piece of paper wherein his forces leave, and Ukraine gets armed to the teeth on a subsidized basis, and some kind of security guarantee. Sure the security guarantee might not be honored, but in the interim it is a far better place than now, and Putin is not going to be around forever. But I don't see Putin accepting that until he gets pretty desperate.

I wonder if there is some kind of wind down where Russian troops stay in place, how sustainable that is for Russia.

The blasting won't stop until the second a deal is made. He wants maximum leverage and pressure on Ukraine.

However,  the positive messages from Ukrainian negotiators are quite heartened.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1504142139101483025

[Torie]

One thing I don't get about Putin's strategy in the past few days is the firing of missiles with apartment buildings being the deliberate target with the whole world watching. That makes it next to impossible for the West to appear to be rewarding Putin for doing that, and that is not going to intimidate the Ukrainians per se, and it will not kill enough Ukrainians so that their mindset becomes irrelevant.

Is Putin nuts, or are the missiles meant to hit something else, and Russia's guidance systems need work?

I think he wants to "break" civilians here and show them who has the military might. He's just doing the same appalling stuff as he did in Grozny 1999 and Aleppo post-2015.

The West has sanctioned him to the stone age anyway, so he doesn't really care about that. He also feels certain enough NATO won't intervene directly because nobody in DC or Brussels wants to risk WWIII.

The thing is though, that the more atrocious the war crimes Putin commits, the more Putin is going to have to give up for the sanctions to be lifted. Public opinion if nothing else will demand that. And how long can Putin just keep doing what he is doing? Indefinitely? When does his war machine run out of gas as it were? Anyone have an educated opinion? I heard or read early on, that Putin had only a month to win the war or lose, but I did not take that very seriously. It seemed more like talking blow dried head stuff.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1504148492389912583?

[Stranger in a strange land]

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.

That's why it was a "partnership" rather than a formal alliance.

[ugabug]

Britain will be sending anti aircraft missiles.

https://twitter.com/bealejonathan/status/1504108160931426305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw...

Though a quick google search says it's a short range missile.

[Oryxslayer]

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1504157074372108300?s=20&t=Zf2RGNOBURt...

Also, I am not the 'Oryx' who is nicely posting military updates on twitter btw.

[President Johnson]

Just another "military target":

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504141027879313412

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

Just another "military target":

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504141027879313412

But consider: the rosy Ukrainian propaganda we're parroting doesn't account for how leaving this theater standing would have affected Russia's national interests.

[It’s so Joever]

Just another "military target":

https://twitter.com/DmytroKuleba/status/1504141027879313412

But consider: the rosy Ukrainian propaganda we're parroting doesn't account for how leaving this theater standing would have affected Russia's national interests.

The theater was hiding a bunch of ISIS members, WOMDs, Nazis, and Hillary Clinton.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The thing about war crimes is that sometimes they're hard to define exactly and there are grey areas and complications and technicalities... and sometimes they're incredibly clear-cut. Bombing a theatre sheltering maybe thousands of people would be an example of the latter. Anyway, the grim and ghastly thing is that none of this is necessarily contradictory with the suggestion that Putin is looking for a way out of this mess. Not remotely.