Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Torie]

Well this would be stupid on Russia's part.

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1502599092748365825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ct...

What does that mean. The arms will be destroyed on NATO real estate? If Ukraine real estate, of course they would be attacked one would think. Or does that mean taking out NATO planes delivery the items at airports in Ukraine?  Anyone know the state of play here?

[Torie]

Well this would be stupid on Russia's part.

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1502599092748365825?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ct...

What does that mean. The arms will be destroyed on NATO real estate? If Ukraine real estate, of course they would be attacked one would think. Or does that mean taking out NATO planes delivery the items at airports in Ukraine?  Anyone the state of play here?

No supplies are flown into Ukraine. They are flown into Poland and transported by truck into Ukraine (quite possibly by Ukranians?), where they are already military targets.

Yeah, it seems like nothing or if the attacks are on NATO soil, it is WWIII.

[Torie]

Update to Belarus' situation. Lukashenko is the physical embodiment of the megalomaniac post-Soviet dictator stereotype, but he's not stupid:

https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1502630211644534787?s=20&t=XaXvZul2p...

It's totally speculative on my part, but I wonder if a large contingent of the Belarusian forces would just surrender en masse once entering Ukraine. Some, I assume, would even be willing to start fighting for the Ukrainians.

Seems perfectly reasonable if 1) there is somebody to surrender to, and 2) it is not perceived that there is a substantial prospect of being picked up later and hung as traitors, and 3) they are willing to face the prospect of not being able to go home again until there is a regime change.  It is far easier to surrender when it is clear "your side" has lost, and a regime change on your side looks likely.

[Torie]

Putin tried to create a homegrown tech industry. His failure could be key to a Russian defeat, experts say

Kamil Galeev, a Russian historian, journalist and former Wilson Center fellow argued on Twitter and in a recent interview with economist Brad DeLong that a central failure of Russia’s sanction-proofing strategy was its effort at fostering domestic technological innovation.

Following Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the subsequent imposition of Western sanctions, Russian officials worked to inoculate their economy from such embargoes, first and foremost by a policy of “import substitution” or the fostering of domestic industry to produce products that avoid supply chains in the U.S. and Europe.

Galeev argues that the authoritarian nature of the Putin regime, which he and western diplomats say operates similarly to an organized crime syndicate, means it is unable to foster industries that require technical sophistication. He notes that President Putin cheered the decline in the value of the ruble following Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, because it made Russian oil cheaper on the global market and boosted ruble-denominated revenues.

What Putin appeared to ignore, Galeev said, was the damage this did to Russia’s domestic manufacturing base, which relies on imports of Western technology to produce the machines that both enable resource extraction and the construction of military equipment.

Though the Putin regime has pressured local governments and manufacturing firms to develop domestic technologies as substitutes, this “import substitution is 95% PR,” Galeev wrote.

Galeev’s theory is that a “mafia state” like Russia is unable to foster complex domestic manufacturing industries because such states select officials not for technical competence, but for the ability to inspire fear in opponents and for their loyalty to the leader.

The thing that is hard to believe is that somehow Putin's plotting to make Russia economically autarkic to wage a war the planet hates, missed a major Achilles heel that Russia was not in fact self sufficient in high tech hardware, and that in relatively short order its ability to wage a high tech war would grind to a halt. If true, no matter how great Putin's talent as an evil genius, and he does have talent, it does demonstrate how tough it is to do it all alone in your basement as it were. You are bound to miss something.

Perhaps in my naivete, if Putin's reign of terror comes to a bad end for him, I think it quite possible that it will be a game changer for Russia. Never again. Rule by thug must never happen again The culture will finally internalize deep down that there just has to be checks and balances of power and transparency, even in the post industrial information age, to avoid descending into hell.

One other thing seems apparent to me. Putin's "press" has become so bad now, that the West will never be able to do any business with him and Russia while he controls it. It will be a total freeze out, and the West's push to cut itself off from Russia energy will continue to be a top priority to effect as rapidly as is reasonably possible despite the high cost.

I don't see how Putin can last in such an environment, but then it is a mistake to underestimate him, so I don't know.

[Torie]

OK, before hopping in a car to explore the universe, and after having listened to two guests on Fox News Sunday,  Senator Risch and deputy sec of state Sherman, both highly articulate, here are my thoughts, based on what they said and how my brain processed the info dump to form my own opinion:

1. No fly with planes is not the thing.

2. What is the thing, is giving Ukraine bigger missiles to create their own no fly zone than what they have. Risch gave a seminar on what missiles are not too big and not too small, but just right for Ukraine's needs as Goldilocks missiles.

3. That is particularly important for west Ukraine to protect its skies, the entry point for ordinance from NATO.

4. It is critical that Putin not be allowed to occupy all of Ukraine.  Why?

5. Because with there being some Ukraine real estate not occupied by Putin's special thug forces sent in after an area is occupied, Ukraine's status cannot be "normalized" over time. And that I think will hasten Putin's demise.

6. Putin's demise is the only way to end this now. Agreements involving him are worthless.
Keeping some of Ukraine free is a key part of making that happen sooner than otherwise. He cannot be allowed now to save face.

[Torie]

This plodding essay has another prognosis from the one above regarding China to the effect that it will not do what is in its best interest, and cut itself off from the Russian ball and chain anchor. Instead, due to its unimaginative and insular leadership,  it continue its an enemy of my enemy is my friend policy, so the more Russia can be a pain in the butt to the West the better. The essay is really not worth reading, but I thought I would link it as part of the background noise that is out there.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/opinions/china-russia-war-against-ukraine-johnson/index.html

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

[Torie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torie]

Suck it Solovyov!

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

Is there a text in English out there to share? When does Russia plan to annex the Hudson Valley?

[Torie]

Thank you Storr for the translation, and for being you as this tragedy unfolds, and day by day gets ever more horrific, and the odds of the unimaginable tick up.

[Torie]

China Signals Disinterest in Providing Weapons to Russia for Brutal Ukraine Campaign
Beijing appears eager to distance itself from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s bloody war in Ukraine despite months of warmer relations between the two powers.

That is a relief, but the headline writer does not know the difference between disinterest and uninterest. I hate when that happens. It bothers me even more than therefore and therefor being misused.

I guess maybe that "intense" 7 hour meeting might have done some good.

[Torie]

1. I don't anyone here is advocating that the US use nukes to the extent necessary to save Ukraine. The comments about some posters being war mongers or doomerist I think is unfair and misplaced and unhelpful. The risk of nukes being used arises from Putin doing it in desperation, not from the West. Nobody really knows what that man is capable of, particularly if he fails to get much out of his invasion which in turn makes his grip on power more problematical, and indeed his very life.

2. The worst news story was the one about China bailing Putin out, but the prospect of that seems to have abated, which is good news.

3. I have listened to many "experts" now say that getting to Ukraine more effective air defense missiles to take out the source of the incoming into Ukrainian cities is the most effective thing that can be done, along with whatever supplies are necessary to avert a humanitarian crises.

4. It is reasonable to ask whether any more red lines from the West are appropriate. That would be a productive discussion. Is the use of MAD (chemical, tactical nukes, biological) a red line? How about just the massive shelling of cities killing hundreds of thousands? Is that a red line where actions should be taken to stop it? Unpleasant things to think about sure, and hopefully they will not happen, and the odds that they will happen, remain low. But again, who knows what is in Putin's head, and what will trigger him? I don't. Below is a link to an article laying out red lines the author proposes. Some of them do not make much sense to me at first blush, but at least the article is a point of departure for discussion.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/598114-warning-stark-choices-ahead-for-the-us-and-nato

5. The odds of number 4 happening are reduced if Ukraine can more effectively protect its skies with effective missiles. And Zelenksy now says Putin sounds a bit less maximalist than before. Whether that is for show or real remains to be seen.

[Torie]

I don't understand the play of the Chernobyl card at all. What is Putin trying to accomplish here?

And a bit about the Ukraine counterattacks from the NYT:

The Ukrainian armed forces have launched counterattacks against Russian troops outside the capital, Kyiv, and in the Russian-occupied city of Kherson, according to a senior Ukrainian military official.

The goal of the operation, which began on Tuesday night and was continuing on Wednesday, was to inflict mass causalities on the Russian military, rather than to win back territory, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to reveal sensitive military information.

And Biden after Zelensky speaks to Congress will provide another 800 million in aid to Ukraine.

Anybody pick up anything regarding giving Ukraine better missiles yet?

[Torie]

I have trouble believing that Putin would agree to the West giving Ukraine ironclad security guarantees. That means he thinks he has lost. So my pessimistic instinct is that this is not being done in good faith. I hope I'm wrong.

And here is an extremely well written article that at once both inspires and depresses me, particularly the bit implying that if push comes to shove, the West if it comes to that, will do nothing to stop a mass genocide in Ukraine.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/16/politics/analysis-zelensky-appeal-to-americans-wednesday/index.html

[Torie]

Anybody pick up anything regarding giving Ukraine better missiles yet?

Big news, but to be taken with a grain of salt. The US probably has a very limited number of these systems they use for training/analysis, but beyond that, they'll need to arrange trades with European allies (I don't think any non-NATO/EU states have both the capability and the willingness to do this):

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1504067534684921862
Breaking this down, and bearing in mind MANPADS tend to have a maximum altitude of 4-7km:
- SA-7 = 9K32 Strela-2, older MANPADS (worse than Stingers). Meh.

- SA-14 = 9K34 Strela-3, newer MANPADS (although the most updated versions are only in Russia). These also don't change much.

- SA-8 = 9K33 Osa. "Short-range", but (depending on the variant) reaches 5 - 40km altitude and goes further horizontally than a MANPADS could. Lots active in Bulgaria, Greece, Poland and Romania.

- SA-12 = S-300, V variant. About 30km in altitude, but much longer horizontal range and generally a more formidable system. What is interesting here is that no European countries have these and the US only has one on the books, which is supposed to be missing a targeting radar. It is possible they have cut a secret deal with another country or have hidden stocks of this.

- SA-10 = S-300, P variant. 150km in altitude, even more range. One in Slovakia and some in Bulgaria and Greece.

FWIW, I just heard on CNN that SAM's are on their way to Ukraine. I suspect Biden will announce this, with perhaps more detail, in his 11:45 a.m.press conference.

Lots of missiles. I agree with Biden on no jets and no no fly zone I think, but the SAM's should have been delivered a week ago at least. Biden had a bad case of the slows there IMO. Perhaps there was a good reason for the delay. If so, I would like to know what it is.

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."

[Torie]

CNN says the NATO "deconfliction" line with Russia is not working.

[Torie]

CNN says the NATO "deconfliction" line with Russia is not working.

Sorry, what? Can you please expand on that Torie?

That is the text that I saw on the CNN screen. I have no further knowledge. It seems to be a different phone from the infamous red one.

Addendum: More about the phone line: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-04-22/h_b9af65dfcc767f7d5c70fb6e1ee440c6

[Torie]

Financial Times reports that Ukraine and Russia have made significant progress on a tentative 15-point peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces, according to three people involved in the talks.

Armed forces limits?!
That is a terrible idea. Why should Ukraine accept that?

 I generally agree,  But the devil is in the details. If it's a high threshold and there are more than adequate International security guarantees, it might serve Ukraine's needs in order to facilitate peace.

What are the odds that Putin would accept the US giving security guarantees to Ukraine? If Putin accepted that and withdrew, the war is over. I don't see it happening. And the US is not going to give such guarantees without Ukraine having adequate armament for its defense, because that means the US does most of the fighting. That ain't happening.

[Torie]

Financial Times reports that Ukraine and Russia have made significant progress on a tentative 15-point peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces, according to three people involved in the talks.

Armed forces limits?!
That is a terrible idea. Why should Ukraine accept that?

I agree on this point.  Ukraine should not give an inch on its ability to defend itself in the future.  

On the flip side, I think Ukraine's demand for Western security guarantees is a mistake.  It put Ukraine in a position vis-a-vis the West that it wishes to avoid with Russia.  If Ukraine wants the West to promise a military intervention in case of a future invasion from Russia, a nuclear power, then the West would then want to control Ukraine's domestic and foreign policy to make sure that Ukraine does nothing to provoke that conflict which could put the safety of the West at risk. It is unwise for Ukraine to cede that much power and control to anyone, Russia or the West.

I still think the deal should be
a) Constitutional neutrality for Ukraine with a de facto understanding that Ukraine joining any alliance or having foreign troops on its solid without Russian permission would mean another Russian invasion
b) Russian as a second official language in Ukraine
c) Ukraine accept Crimea as part of Russia
d) The two Donetsk republics rejoin Ukraine as autonomous regions

As to the bolded bit, one could say that about any NATO member. I think that argument is make weight. And there is no excuse by Russia to invade Ukraine, none, unless it invades Russia first.

[Torie]

Financial Times reports that Ukraine and Russia have made significant progress on a tentative 15-point peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces, according to three people involved in the talks.

Armed forces limits?!
That is a terrible idea. Why should Ukraine accept that?

I agree on this point.  Ukraine should not give an inch on its ability to defend itself in the future.  

On the flip side, I think Ukraine's demand for Western security guarantees is a mistake.  It put Ukraine in a position vis-a-vis the West that it wishes to avoid with Russia.  If Ukraine wants the West to promise a military intervention in case of a future invasion from Russia, a nuclear power, then the West would then want to control Ukraine's domestic and foreign policy to make sure that Ukraine does nothing to provoke that conflict which could put the safety of the West at risk. It is unwise for Ukraine to cede that much power and control to anyone, Russia or the West.

I still think the deal should be
a) Constitutional neutrality for Ukraine with a de facto understanding that Ukraine joining any alliance or having foreign troops on its solid without Russian permission would mean another Russian invasion
b) Russian as a second official language in Ukraine
c) Ukraine accept Crimea as part of Russia
d) The two Donetsk republics rejoin Ukraine as autonomous regions

As to the bolded bit, one could say that about any NATO member. I think that argument is make weight. And there is no excuse by Russia to invade Ukraine, none, unless it invades Russia first.

But all current NATO members are not part of Russia's core interest states with the possible exception of the Baltic Republics which is why I also think Baltic Republics being in NATO is a bad idea and highly disablizing.

OK. I disagree. The Baltics in NATO are not destabalizing. Putin does not lay awake at night worrying about an attack from Estonia. What is destablizing has only one loci - the corpus of Putin.

[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?

[Torie]

Financial Times reports that Ukraine and Russia have made significant progress on a tentative 15-point peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces, according to three people involved in the talks.

Armed forces limits?!
That is a terrible idea. Why should Ukraine accept that?

I agree on this point.  Ukraine should not give an inch on its ability to defend itself in the future.  

On the flip side, I think Ukraine's demand for Western security guarantees is a mistake.  It put Ukraine in a position vis-a-vis the West that it wishes to avoid with Russia.  If Ukraine wants the West to promise a military intervention in case of a future invasion from Russia, a nuclear power, then the West would then want to control Ukraine's domestic and foreign policy to make sure that Ukraine does nothing to provoke that conflict which could put the safety of the West at risk. It is unwise for Ukraine to cede that much power and control to anyone, Russia or the West.

I still think the deal should be
a) Constitutional neutrality for Ukraine with a de facto understanding that Ukraine joining any alliance or having foreign troops on its solid without Russian permission would mean another Russian invasion
b) Russian as a second official language in Ukraine
c) Ukraine accept Crimea as part of Russia**
d) The two Donetsk republics rejoin Ukraine as autonomous regions

**Only after a free and fair referendum on the subject.

Russian as a primary language of the country is likely a non-starter politically (hell, I am seeing anecdotal stories about Russian speakers are switching to Ukrainian as a form of protest). If the Donbas is to be given autonomy, it should only be within the previous line of control. I don't think the areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts that remained under Ukrainian control should be subject to the crazies that have been in control of the "DPR" and "LPR" over the past eight years.

What would be really tough is that the residents on the real estate Putin is rewarded with from invasion don't want to live under Putin. That would make for bad press if there are huge demonstrations by said residents against the notion that they have become unwilling pawns for "peace."

[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.

[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.