Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[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.

[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.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This is why European states are keen to avoid sanctions on Russia...

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1472553090024984580?s=20

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Posts on Russian social media of families saying goodbye to reservists being called up. Brings home to me the human element of the impending tragedy. If an invasion happens it's kids like this who are going to suffer and die.

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1482650878834266114

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1482673019646529541?s=20

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why would Russia attack Kiev directly? They definitely don’t have the manpower to take this large metro. If this is somehow true I suspect it is only meant to stretch Ukrainian forces thin

The idea is probably to encircle and cut off Kyiv from the rest of the country, then dictate terms.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Strikes me as a bluff. They didn't even go to Tbilisi in Georgia which is a far easier invasion than Ukraine would be. They may go to to the edges of Kiev and then start dictating terms.

Not much further: in 2008 they advanced 120km into Georgia; to reach Kyiv from the Belarusian border would be about 150 km. Not to mention the Russian army has undergone significant modernisation in the past decade plus and has far superior logistical capability now. Besides what is the bluff anyway? The Russian army hasn't announced any plans.

In any case, Russia needs the political acquiescence of Ukraine to make the results of military action stick. And for that they have to secure the capital. If they chop off territory in the Donbass or elsewhere with the government in Kyiv implacably hostile then it's simply not worth the effort. The Ukrainian government would be even more likely to join NATO and roll Russia back with western military aid 5, 10, 20 years down the line.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why though? Yeah, the ultimate coup d'grace is Zelenskiy is at a table and is forced to sign something, but once it's over and he's out of the room I expect diplomats and him to make the "agreements made under duress have no standing", which okay there buddy.

They'd either remove him and install another President, or make it clear that Zelensky would be removed if he goes back on agreements.

The rest of your reply is a non sequitur to what we were discussing. I'm not talking about "Westphalian statehood" or whatever, just Russia's interests. 2014 showed that lopping off Ukranian territory piecemeal solves none of Russia's strategic issues: it merely pushed the greater part of Ukraine into seeking NATO membership and into developing drones and ballistic missiles targeted at the heart of Russia. The only way Russia can solve that militarily is by coercing a change of the political situation in Kyiv. And that requires decapitation.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

That would be a called a coup by all of Ukraine's present allies and they would say it has no standing again.

Irrelevant if the new government would be in control of the Ukrainian state, which is what Russia wants for security.

It absolutely resolved an existential problem for the Russian Navy and the army somewhat of potentially losing their Sevastopol base that allowed them to project in the Black Sea and thererfore the Mediterranean and therefore partially in the Atlantic.

Again, irrelevant. It's Ukraine joining the western sphere that was the supposed threat in 2014 and is the same threat now. Lopping off more territory doesn't address that threat in any way. Russia wants recognition that Ukraine is in its sphere, more piecemeal actions like 2014 without changing the politics in Kyiv implicitly cedes most of the country to NATO.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I mean, would the US be justified in invading Cuba in 1980? Or tomorrow?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If this is anywhere near true it would mean the entire Russian military is being mobilised.  

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1485109839550423041https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1485112615382757379

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This is nonsense. The vast majority of Russian speakers in Ukraine do not support a Russian invasion.

I considered leaving it out because it had nothing to deal with military preparedness, but he was making the point that if the Ukrainians wanted to fight off the Russians, they could be preparing a lot better than what they're doing now. If the Ukrainians are not planning effectively for a defensive war, what is Zelensky's administration doing at home and why? Any Ukrainians care to offer?

I think a puppet state is a non-starter and is why Putin making a play for Kiev is not likely. Why would the Russians want that headache? Compare to 8 years ago, they took Crimea bloodlessly and the Ukrainians, Europeans, and Americans just stood by and watched like a bunch of eunuchs.

Because Crimea got Russia little. Almost a decade after 2014 and Russia is contemplating drastic action to compel a hostile Ukraine that is rearming and ever more closely aligning to NATO from slipping out of the Russian sphere. The only way to upset the current equilibrium is some sort of regime change in Kyiv.


As for why Ukraine is downplaying the threat of an invasion, there may be a few reasons. One is that mobilising on the borders could give Russia a casus belli. Another is to avoid panic in the general public. And the suspicion that western governments may be hyping a military threat from Russia in order to bounce Ukraine into making concessions on the Minsk process etc..

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As for why Ukraine is downplaying the threat of an invasion, there may be a few reasons. One is that mobilising on the borders could give Russia a casus belli.

Talk about your self-defeating prophecies.

"When the General was asked why he did not place forces near the Belarussian border when Russian forces gathered there that led to them being unopposed when they entered the country, he said it was at the suggestion of political leadership so as to not provoke Russia into an invasion."

Another is to avoid panic in the general public.

We're past that point don't you think?

And the suspicion that western governments may be hyping a military threat from Russia in order to bounce Ukraine into making concessions on the Minsk process etc..

How is intentionally placing yourself into a weaker defensive position aid that?

I don't think it makes sense, but those are reasons why Ukraine is downplaying. I think on some level the Ukrainian leadership knows that it couldn't effectively resist a full invasion, so is hoping against hope. I also think there's the fear that raising the stakes will make it harder for Putin to back down without losing face, and that not losing face at this point would require major Ukrainian concessions of their sovereignty.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Some Washington gossip at the end of this Julia Ioffe piece: https://puck.news/inside-the-biden-putin-chess-match/

Finally, some parting gossip from Washington. As strongly as the Biden administration has been backing Ukraine, the White House as well as its Democratic allies have just about had it with president Zelensky. According to three sources in the administration and on Capitol Hill whom I’ve spoken to in the last couple months, the Ukrainian president is by turns annoying, infuriating, and downright counterproductive. The White House, according to one source, was extremely displeased with Zelensky’s response to Biden’s press conference last week, during which Biden got some flak for suggesting that a “minor incursion” by Russia would be met proportionately. The view among these Democrats is that Biden’s commentary wasn’t wrong—there is a difference between, say, a cyber attack on Ukraine, and a ground invasion, and it’s kind of a no-brainer that there should be a difference in the response.

But Zelensky’s decision to publicly criticize the man whose help he most needs—tweeting that “there are no minor incursions and small nations”—was not looked upon kindly by the administration. Last week, Zelensky publicly praised Senator Ted Cruz and called for the passage of the Texas senator’s bill to impose sanctions on the Nord Stream II pipeline. Democrats on the Hill were furious: Cruz has been using that issue to hold up scores of Biden nominees to key posts, including to embassies abroad. Why would Zelensky cheer the man who has been such a massive thorn in the side of the one guy who can send him more lethal aid to fight the Russians?

Democrats also didn’t appreciate that, by cheering on Cruz’s bill, Zelensky could box in Germany, which has been quietly cooperating with the Biden administration in waiting to bring the pipeline online. The new German government has also let it be known that it may shut down Nord Stream altogether if Russia invades Ukraine. There’s a sense that Zelensky isn’t very good at navigating American politics and is stepping on all the wrong feet. Perhaps it’s because he is frantically trying to save his own country; perhaps it’s because the former TV star had no preparation for, or education in, geopolitics. It is also, unfortunately, the plight of a country that is caught between two behemoths fighting over its fate. Supplicating while maintaining your dignity is hard enough; doing so while not pissing off your geopolitical backer is harder still.

Zelensky really is a total clown. I feel terribly for the people of Ukraine that they stuck themselves with this imbecile.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russian-buildup-ukraine-border-includes-blood-wounded-us-officials-say-2022-01-28/?utm_source=reddit.com

Past few days we've seen the first signs of what we were told to expect closer to the invasion date: movement of medical supplies, logistics, Rosgvardia and VDV to the front. All in line with an invasion ~2 weeks or so away.

https://twitter.com/RedIntelPanda/status/1487517917252096001

https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1488246826729934849?s=20&t=AHlawUNC8...

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1486087760054296584?s=20&t=AHlawUNC8Zwhw8...

(Belarusian army welcoming Russian army with cake was too cute not to post)

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Don't look up!

[Statilius the Epicurean]

But your starting point is that the Russian build-up is proof of some sort of invasion.  I disagree.  I read the Russian buildup as a defensive measure.

The deployment of multiple Iskander missile brigades, amphibious landing ships sailing from the Baltic to the Black Sea, the movement of units from the Eastern Military District at other end of Eurasia, 30,000 troops in Belarus, the mobilisation of Rosgvardia (including in the past day Chechen regiments?), the full picture is not defensive. Russia is deploying its military on the Ukraine border in the exact manner it would do if it intended to launch an unprovoked full invasion of all of Ukraine's territory. That doesn't mean Russia necessarily intends to do so, but that is the manner of its buildup. It cannot be reasonably described as defensive.

I think Russia views  Nord Stream 2 coming online will mean Ukraine will get more desperate and try to start something with the breakaway the Republics to try to create a crisis.

Ukraine launching an offensive in Donbas would do nothing to address Nord Stream, and in fact only make it more likely that Germany would certify it, whereas Russia's current military buildup makes it less likely that Germany will certify. So this is backwards logic.

In the broader view, it would make even less sense for Ukraine to escalate militarily in 2022 when it is in the middle of a military reorganisation to meet NATO standards, is only just developing ballistic missiles to hit Russian cities and has only just purchased Turkish drones of the sort that were decisive in the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020. The military balance between Ukraine and Russia is improving for Ukraine year-on-year and this is a major reason why Russia is contemplating an invasion now. Conversely it makes no sense for Ukraine to escalate today when Russia proved in 2014-15 that it currently has escalation dominance (which forced Ukraine into the Minsk agreements).

The Russian buildup under stuck a framework could be read as a measure to deter possible aggressive moves from Ukraine and pressure Ukraine to open talks with the breakaway Republics as per Minsk Agreement.

There is no diplomatic pressure on Ukraine from Russia. In fact Russia depreciated the idea of negotiating with Ukraine (and European countries and NATO) and demanded direct talks with the US over the general security architecture in Europe. This indicates that Russia does not care about Minsk implementation and is only interested in something bigger: US and Western recognition that all of Ukraine is under Russia's exclusive "sphere of influence".

So under this way of looking at things Ukraine knows there is no invasion and when the invasion threat is pushed so high that their economy is impacted they get angry.

I'm not sure how much this is public relations and how much the downplaying of invasion last week matches Ukraine's objective assessment of Russia's actions. Zelensky did not seem to be acting as if there is no threat of invasion when he met with Boris yesterday.

https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1488572771412193285

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The mollify Russia to encircle China idea is a tempting one but I think has a couple of big problems:

1) There's very little evidence that the Russian leadership is interested in allying with the West against China. Their ideal situation would be to have their own sphere of influence encompassing the former USSR that allows them to remain an independent great power actor and play China and the US off against each other. Actually committing to an alliance against China would expose Russia to military conflict with its largest and most powerful neighbour for what benefit?

2) The US/West would have to offer the Russian leadership regime security, i.e. opposing peaceful protests and muzzling free press and NGOs in Russia, Russia's sphere and at home. I don't think that's compatible with US and European countries remaining liberal democracies, or at least upholding liberal and democratic values. This is a fundamental unbridgeable divide that is probably the major factor driving Russia and China together as a club of autocracies who feel their regimes and nations are under threat by the values of the Western-led liberal international order.

If the US was happy enough sacrificing independent democratic allies and free speech for geopolitical benefit, then it could just as easily surrender Taiwan to China, shut up about Xinjiang and Tibet and negotiate an evolution of the international order to accommodate a grand bargain with China. In fact, given China's greater power that would probably make more sense than sacrificing it for the sake of Russian neutrality.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If the US was happy enough sacrificing independent democratic allies and free speech for geopolitical benefit, then it could just as easily surrender Taiwan to China, shut up about Xinjiang and Tibet and negotiate an evolution of the international order to accommodate a grand bargain with China. In fact, given China's greater power that would probably make more sense than sacrificing it for the sake of Russian neutrality.

In 2022, China is way more an existential threat to the future and livelihood of the people of the United States than Russia is, it's not close. I'm not talking in military terms either. Russia even when it was Soviet never had as a goal manipulate all our multinational corporations to not offend Chinese political sensibilities and a policy to put mass numbers of people in this country out of work. That does not excuse Russia invading Ukraine, but our first geopolitical priority should be China, not Russia.

I agree. The problem is that if you concede to Russia its desire to remake the international order into one akin to the Concert of Europe, where great powers carve up the world into spheres of influence according to their strategic interest, abrogating smaller nations' right to democratic self-determination, with noninterference in domestic human rights issues as a fundamental principle, then you're already pretty much conceding what China's vision of the global order is also. What would there be to fight about?

2) The US/West would have to offer the Russian leadership regime security, i.e. opposing peaceful protests and muzzling free press and NGOs in Russia, Russia's sphere and at home. I don't think that's compatible with US and European countries remaining liberal democracies, or at least upholding liberal and democratic values. This is a fundamental unbridgeable divide that is probably the major factor driving Russia and China together as a club of autocracies who feel their regimes and nations are under threat by the values of the Western-led liberal international order.

The whole "ally with Russia against China" concept is essentially a white supremacist meme, essentially unite all white Christian peoples to fight against the great Yellow Peril. White supremacists, including dabblers like Trump, really couldn't care less about your point #2 so to them it's not an impediment at all, in fact they probably prefer their government behave that way as long as it is on their side.

Right. I think this misses that the current Russian leadership doesn't conceive of Russians as part of a universal brotherhood of white Christian people or whatever, but as a nation historically situated between East and West in a way that marks Russians off from the West culturally. Michael McFaul had a funny anecdote about this:
 

In March 2011, I was in the room during a meeting between then-Vice President Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin (who was then serving as Russia’s prime minister until he returned to the presidency not long thereafter). At one point, Putin told Biden (and I’m paraphrasing from memory), “You look at us and you see our skin and then assume we think like you. But we don’t.” To emphasize his point, Putin slid his index finger down his white cheek.

But sure. Josh Hawley would probably approve if the US government shut down Amnesty International to appease the Kremlin. It's possible such a view could eventually become mainstreamed in the Republican party post-Trump. But as above it conflicts with democracy promotion as a strategic weapon against China and opens the door to similar corporate self-censorship that US conservatives hate. It's just difficult for me to see such a vision cohere.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

allying with the West - enough with not allying with China. Just 10 years ago, there Russia was extremely suspicious of China and economically/technically totally independent. Still quite suspicious, but doesn't really has a choice.

The US/West would have to offer the Russian leadership regime security, i.e. opposing peaceful protests and muzzling free press and NGOs in Russia, Russia's sphere and at home. nuh, non-NATO/EU is enough. Denouncing "coup" against Yanukovych (after he already agreed on snap elections) would be enough. Moreover, it's basically what US does to Saudi, Paquies or whatnot.

I think we just disagree on what it would take to detach Russia from China. If it was just no Ukraine in NATO/EU, well that's far too simple. Even today Russia is demanding bilateral US-Russia negotiations to overhaul the security architecture of all of Europe. And even if an agreement there were possible, it's doubtful to me that Russia is negotiating in good faith. It is making ad hoc demands that would take months if not years to fully negotiate and finalise, to only one of the parties, and only presenting them in response to US entrees to negotiate, well after the military buildup on Ukraine's border had begun and after it was called out by the US. So it doesn't seem like Russia believes a deal is really possible. I don't think there is enough trust on both sides for any grand bargin to happen, and that seems to be why Russia hasn't taken the diplomatic track very seriously. If one were to be possible, it appears Putin would rather grab Ukraine now and negotiate from a position of strength rather than deescalate and hope the West sticks to any agreement they sign.

But more generally, like I said above, I think Russia and the West have unbridgeable views on how great power politics should be conducted in the 21st century.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Looks like Russia has more or less finished its buildup of equipment and has begun large scale personnel movements to the front and is conducting its first readiness exercises. Continues to be in line with the predicted timetable of an invasion in ~1-2 weeks.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1489269948279107590

https://twitter.com/ELINTNews/status/1489732150823989248

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1489759897885495298

https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1489756520418095108

[Statilius the Epicurean]

This is what happens when you constantly stoke the Kremlin's paranoia.

If the US and its NATO allies aren't prepared to send their own citizens over to defend Ukraine, then they should just shut up about "serious consequences" for Russia (more sanctions won't work). I'm tired of this chicken hawkery from geopolitical chess playing Blob suits who have never had to face anything remotely approaching war.

Sanctions are mere virtue signalling that make it harder for people across boundaries to interact as part of one global world order. Much like what the Cuba sanctions did.
The only real winner from round no. 3,532 of sanctions is China. That, and media aiming to use culture war against Russia for clicks and ratings.

Strange logic. Sanctions are to raise the costs for Russia deciding to invade a neighbouring country. Ukraine, Georgia, Finland and other third countries would be the winners. Of course sanctions lack the ability to deter on their own, economic pressure is supposed to be cumulative with arms shipments, troop deployments and diplomacy in order to ensure that Russia loses more than it gains from invading Ukraine.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Take all of these reports with a grain of salt, but it eerily comports with my read of Putin as an increasingly detached figure who is being overly optimistic in assessing the military and political consequences of a Ukraine invasion.

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1490688185621528579

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I don't think it's a coincidence Scholz was in Washington the same day. The trip to Moscow was obviously choreographed with allies. That said it was always a desperate gamble by Macron considering the Russian line throughout the crisis has been that they only think direct negotiations with the United States is at all worthwhile (and even then). All it did was give a leg up for Putin in the narrative war with his relentless trolling to a foreign audience about NATO expansion.

But yeah the diplomatic lines have been drawn for weeks now. The US and NATO have agreed not to concede anything meaningful to Russia under military threat. So the ball's in Putin's court: drawdown or military action.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Good thread on invasion timing. 20th-21st of this month is the highest risk date but before or after that can't be ruled out. At this point Russia has the ability to start military action at very short notice.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1491521222437445633?s=20&t=6Dni_tsl2m3B33...

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Full invasion like this one?

Yes although I read that Kyiv falling in 72 hours is US intelligence's worst case assessment. I think that number was given to Congress because of the criticism they received over Afghanistan.