Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Beet]

RUSSIA is set to invade Ukraine at 1am tomorrow with a massive missile blitz and 200,000 troops, according to US intelligence.

Highly placed sources said preparations to defend the besieged nation would continue - despite reports Putin was withdrawing some troops from the border.

Senior sources said a Moscow attack would be “almost certainly from multiple points” over Ukraine’s southern, eastern and northern flanks.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4689995/russia-set-invade-ukraine-tomorrow/

[Beet]

Big if true….but trusting the Sun? That’s a gigantic leap of
faith.

Would you trust PBS? They reported four days ago they reported the following:

The United States believes Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine and has communicated those plans to the Russian military, Western and defense officials have told the PBS NewsHour.

Two additional administration officials tell the NewsHour that they expect the invasion to begin next week—reiterating what U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Feb. 10.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220211200039/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-to-invade-ukraine-next-week-according-to-u-s-officials

Interestingly enough however Sullivan was saying they didn't know yet. The headline was later changed, but not before it was widely reported.

[Beet]

Big if true….but trusting the Sun? That’s a gigantic leap of
faith.

Would you trust PBS? They reported four days ago they reported the following:

The United States believes Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine and has communicated those plans to the Russian military, Western and defense officials have told the PBS NewsHour.

Two additional administration officials tell the NewsHour that they expect the invasion to begin next week—reiterating what U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said on Feb. 10.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220211200039/https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-to-invade-ukraine-next-week-according-to-u-s-officials

Interestingly enough however Sullivan was saying they didn't know yet. The headline was later changed, but not before it was widely reported.

I’m not saying the Sun is definitely wrong. But British tabloids do not the greatest track record when it comes to accuracy in reporting. If UK intelligence was able to find out the date and time of invasion, you might as well leak that information to a publication like the Sun. It’s more likely to get printed/publicized faster there than somewhere like the BBC, which would want thoroughly verify such information before publishing it.

Yes but in the latter case, it is straight from senior administration officials to PBS. There is no Sun involved.

[Beet]

If this war doesn't go well for Russia, Putin is finished. Everything he has built up in the last 22-23 years will be gone. Ironically his career will have begun avenging one failed Russian intervention (Chechnya 1994-96) and ended with another one (Ukraine 2022-??).

The Russian armed forces have come a long way from the group that was beaten back from Grozny in 1996, but a country of 40 million people is not some podunk Caucasian wannabe republic.

[Beet]

Even if Russia resorts to negotiation, it will only be another temporary truce unless they are offered something serious - such as Ukraine abstaining from NATO and true Ukrainian neutrality, which is extremely unlikely now. The problem is that Putin needs to succeed for domestic political reasons so he'll throw everything into Ukraine. Western weapons going into the area and hoping it's even more bloody will just result in more people being killed on both sides. Of course, we don't have to deal with the consequences of that living here in the West.

[Beet]

It looks like the Russians really are withdrawing from the north as they announced a couple days ago (and have been telegraphing for longer than that). They are pulling out of Hostomel and even Chernobyl. Their attacks in the Kiev area now look like covering attacks for a withdrawal. We have been told by the Biden team in the past couple days that this was a fake or a feint, and that attacks are "increasing". I've also heard that from a prominent war-focused YouTuber. It looks like it was not a feint. I will give Biden credit for being right about the initial invasion, but between overestimating the Russians and this, our intelligence certainly does not have a spotless record in the past six weeks.

[Beet]

I’m very strongly anti-war, but seeing the pictures of civilians shot execution style with hands behind their backs and mass graves makes my blood boil. I can’t even imagine what Mariupol looks like. If they continue to find more and more scenes like this, then I would be in favor of sending NATO troops in to directly fight the Russians.

Would that escalate things immensely? Yes. Would it likely lead to a broader war with Russia? Yes. But I’m sorry, if more scenes like today come out as more towns are liberated, I think we have to acknowledge that Kremlin leadership needs to be eliminated from this earth. In the 21st century, having a nation such as Russia engage in acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing simply cannot be tolerated.

Posts like this are frightening.

The scenes that have come out in the last day or two are horrifying. When it comes to direct intervention on one side, this would be a mistake. The reality is that both sides are committing war crimes. There have been videos of Ukrainians tying civilians up to posts to be used as shields, horrible mistreatment of Russian POWs, and I'm sure more. It's a brutal, ugly war.

I truly believe that this is not what Putin or the Russian government wanted or expected. They were hoping for a 2014-style walk in the park. The reality is, even the more weapons like tanks and planes we provide to the Ukrainians, the more people will die and the more brutal it will be. But the worst thing we can do is allow an escalation spiral to happen. While that may be in the interests of Ukrainian fighters and the government there, the main effect would be to spread the pain being felt there much wider across Europe and potentially the U.S. People need to keep calm because frankly, in this situation everything is being done to manipulate people and push buttons.

Also, not everything is 1938-39. There are other dates important in history as well. Arguably 1914 was a bigger and more important year...

[Beet]

The "fall of Ukraine" looks nowhere within the sight of a high-powered telescope at this point.

Unfortunately the Ukrainians may also be committing war crimes:

https://twitter.com/Cyberspec1/status/1511230275077894146?s=20&t=ai95Wd1njyM...

[Beet]

A bit off topic, but the notion that TSMC is the only company that produces the most advanced chips is one of those conventional wisdom type myths that have become extremely pervasive in the last couple of years due to endorsement by politicos and news outlets.

First of all, the vast majority of chips used in the world are of larger nodes (10nm and above) that can be produced by all the major foundry players, and this includes most military technology. The main advantage of a smaller node is simply that it uses up less energy and is thus more efficient on the consumer market (for example, on your iPhone, you can have longer battery life if the processor uses less electricity). It doesn't mean that you can't physically do the same complicated calculations on a computer built on larger node circuits simply by stringing together multiple slightly larger processors. The only advantage of having the smallest nodes (5nm, 7nm and below) is a minor cost gain for the commercial market - the difference between an iPhone 12 or an iPhone 13. It doesn't necessarily have that much military significance.

Second, TSMC isn't the only company that produces chips at the smallest lithography nodes. Intel and Samsung both produce at the 7nm nodes, and Samsung produces at the 5nm node, the same as TSMC's current smallest production node. Yes, TSMC has the highest market share, but that doesn't mean that other companies cannot physically produce at the level they do. As far as future nodes at 3nm and below, Samsung is officially targeting the same release date as TSMC, so again TSMC isn't the only option.

Third, the notion that "TSMC makes" even the chips that come out of its foundries is extremely simplistic and misleading. No company or foundry in the world builds any chip from scratch. The chipmaking process is an extremely complex network of global suppliers and relationships, of which foundry fabrication is just one step of many. TSMC relies on thousands of suppliers, including American suppliers like Applied Materials and Lam Research for chemicals, Japanese suppliers for other chemicals, Dutch company ASML for its lithography equipment. And those companies in turn rely on other suppliers like Corning glass and 3M of the U.S. or German companies like Trumpf or Carl Zeiss. And those companies probably rely on other suppliers of their own. And so on and so on.

So the real truth is that the whole world produces chips together, and if you put TSMC by itself, would it be able to produce anything? No. On the other hand if you took TSMC out of the equation, would the U.S. and its allies still be able to produce the most advanced chips? Yes. So this company is neither necessary nor sufficient.

[Beet]

Unambiguous talk is essential when responding to belligerent nuclear powers. I would be concerned if the Biden Administration wasn't making it clear that Putin would be killed immediately if he uses any nuclear weapons.

One of the few good things Trump said in the White House was when he made clear that he would annihilate the Kim dynasty of North Korea if he started a nuclear war. Of course brain-rotted liberals were offended by that then and the hypocritical conservatives that supported Trump then will hate Biden for this now, but that's a reflection of American foolishness. In reality, both were correct to respond unambiguously.

Should Harry Truman have been killed? Let me guess, that was different.

Also, all Putin has to do to respond to this is to have a trigger that nukes will fire on the event of his assasination.

[Beet]

Unambiguous talk is essential when responding to belligerent nuclear powers. I would be concerned if the Biden Administration wasn't making it clear that Putin would be killed immediately if he uses any nuclear weapons.

One of the few good things Trump said in the White House was when he made clear that he would annihilate the Kim dynasty of North Korea if he started a nuclear war. Of course brain-rotted liberals were offended by that then and the hypocritical conservatives that supported Trump then will hate Biden for this now, but that's a reflection of American foolishness. In reality, both were correct to respond unambiguously.

Should Harry Truman have been killed? Let me guess, that was different.

Also, all Putin has to do to respond to this is to have a trigger that nukes will fire on the event of his assasination.

Yes... Yes it was. And if you are seriously arguing otherwise, you're not the kind of person worth seriously arguing with.

Disgusting.

And that assumes that others left in Russia will fulfill the dying wishes of their madman tyrannical ruler (Hitler's people sure didn't!), unless he has some magic device that fires nukes automatically if his heart stops.

They might not, but they might. Or it might escalate in other ways. It's a roll of the dice and making that kind of gamble is a tad reckless, to put it mildly.

[Beet]

Unambiguous talk is essential when responding to belligerent nuclear powers. I would be concerned if the Biden Administration wasn't making it clear that Putin would be killed immediately if he uses any nuclear weapons.

One of the few good things Trump said in the White House was when he made clear that he would annihilate the Kim dynasty of North Korea if he started a nuclear war. Of course brain-rotted liberals were offended by that then and the hypocritical conservatives that supported Trump then will hate Biden for this now, but that's a reflection of American foolishness. In reality, both were correct to respond unambiguously.

Should Harry Truman have been killed? Let me guess, that was different.

Also, all Putin has to do to respond to this is to have a trigger that nukes will fire on the event of his assasination.

Yes... Yes it was. And if you are seriously arguing otherwise, you're not the kind of person worth seriously arguing with.

Disgusting.

And that assumes that others left in Russia will fulfill the dying wishes of their madman tyrannical ruler (Hitler's people sure didn't!), unless he has some magic device that fires nukes automatically if his heart stops.

They might not, but they might. Or it might escalate in other ways. It's a roll of the dice and making that kind of gamble is a tad reckless, to put it mildly.

Oh but it's not a "tad reckless" to invade a neighboring country for fascist reasons and then to deploy nukes first yourself?

What would you do, bend over and let Putin f--k you and everyone else on Earth he wanted to in the ass?

Thank GOD you're not in charge!

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. The risk is absolutely worth it.

Thank GOD in all caps the guy who's saying nuclear war might be a tad reckless isn't in charge? I assure you the people actually in charge are not looking for the thing you're emotionally braying for on an internet forum late on Friday night.

If you want to die on your feet go for it, but don't drag millions of innocent people who have nothing to do with this into it. Also I notice your avatar says Kentucky and not Ukraine.

[Beet]

The whole point in war is that the two sides disagree on who's evil and the bad guy, and they both call each other Hitler or Nazis.

And arguably, Truman had even less just cause to use nukes bc he could have won the war without them, whereas Russia may feel its back is against the wall and has no other choice. But I don't think they'll do it, and of course it's not justified. They still have plenty of other less extreme options right now. It's bluster.

[Beet]

Good god. Everyone is so convinced that they are right. This is what is the scariest thing above all else.

Also, you say you study history yet you're unironically citing the domino theory.

[Beet]

Unambiguous talk is essential when responding to belligerent nuclear powers. I would be concerned if the Biden Administration wasn't making it clear that Putin would be killed immediately if he uses any nuclear weapons.

One of the few good things Trump said in the White House was when he made clear that he would annihilate the Kim dynasty of North Korea if he started a nuclear war. Of course brain-rotted liberals were offended by that then and the hypocritical conservatives that supported Trump then will hate Biden for this now, but that's a reflection of American foolishness. In reality, both were correct to respond unambiguously.

Should Harry Truman have been killed? Let me guess, that was different.

Also, all Putin has to do to respond to this is to have a trigger that nukes will fire on the event of his assasination.

America was waging a defensive war in World War II so yes, that actually is very different.

Initially yes, but not by late 1945. We were on the offensive and looking for total victory, not just a return to prewar borders. Anyway if you ask the Russians they will give you some mental gymnastics about being the "defenders" of people in Donbas. Sure it's a load of crap, but the thing is they are earnest and actually believe it.

[Beet]

You guys are arguing with Beet? Don’t even bother. Contrarianism at its worst.

But sometimes the "contrarianism" happens to be right. People ganged up on me too over the 2016 election and the early stages of Covid. Assuredly, nuclear war would be worse than both, and it's my prediction it will happen in this century - at the cost of millions of innocents - thanks to the reckless, manichean mentality on display in this thread.

The whole point in war is that the two sides disagree on who's evil and the bad guy, and they both call each other Hitler or Nazis.

And arguably, Truman had even less just cause to use nukes bc he could have won the war without them, whereas Russia may feel its back is against the wall and has no other choice. But I don't think they'll do it, and of course it's not justified. They still have plenty of other less extreme options right now. It's bluster.

the russkies can literally decide to order their military pack up and leave Ukraine tonight if they want, there's nothing stopping them lmao

thier back isn't against the wall lol no one's even invaded their country

If only it was that easy. Putin likely wishes what you wrote were true, but the reality is that if he did, Ukraine would likely join NATO and thered be NATO missiles 5 minutes from Moscow. Worse (from his standpoint), Putin would be in grave danger of being overthrown. And if he were overthrown, he might end up like Ceausescu. That's the problem. You think the West would help him at that point if he pulled troops out and came crawling back begging for forgiveness on his hands and knees? The reality is, if you were in his shoes and valued your life, you wouldn't surrender either. The guy is a cornered animal who happens to have thousands of nukes at his disposal.

It's not cowsboys and Indians like you played when you were five years old, and it's not some Hollywood movie where the orcs aren't even human. Russians are human too, Putin is human, and they all want the same thing normal people do. It's a delicate situation that must be handled. Hopefully resolved without nuclear war. If we can't recognize our common humanity as people then yes, we are headed for big trouble. Maybe bigger than humanity has ever committed on itself.

[Beet]

You guys are arguing with Beet? Don’t even bother. Contrarianism at its worst.

But sometimes the "contrarianism" happens to be right. People ganged up on me too over the 2016 election and the early stages of Covid. Assuredly, nuclear war would be worse than both, and it's my prediction it will happen in this century - at the cost of millions of innocents - thanks to the reckless, manichean mentality on display in this thread.

The whole point in war is that the two sides disagree on who's evil and the bad guy, and they both call each other Hitler or Nazis.

And arguably, Truman had even less just cause to use nukes bc he could have won the war without them, whereas Russia may feel its back is against the wall and has no other choice. But I don't think they'll do it, and of course it's not justified. They still have plenty of other less extreme options right now. It's bluster.

the russkies can literally decide to order their military pack up and leave Ukraine tonight if they want, there's nothing stopping them lmao

thier back isn't against the wall lol no one's even invaded their country

If only it was that easy. Putin likely wishes what you wrote were true, but the reality is that if he did, Ukraine would likely join NATO and thered be NATO missiles 5 minutes from Moscow. Worse (from his standpoint), Putin would be in grave danger of being overthrown. And if he were overthrown, he might end up like Ceausescu. That's the problem. You think the West would help him at that point if he pulled troops out and came crawling back begging for forgiveness on his hands and knees? The reality is, if you were in his shoes and valued your life, you wouldn't surrender either. The guy is a cornered animal who happens to have thousands of nukes at his disposal.

It's not cowsboys and Indians like you played when you were five years old, and it's not some Hollywood movie where the orcs aren't even human. Russians are human too, Putin is human, and they all want the same thing normal people do. It's a delicate situation that must be handled. Hopefully resolved around nuclear war. If we can't recognize our common humanity as people then yes, we are headed for big trouble. Maybe bigger than humanity has ever committed on itself.

ok but Putin isn't a human he is a demon from another dimension just like Hitler and Saddam, he needs to be sent back to hell.

And I rest my case. That is the point. You have become the very thing you claim to hate.

[Beet]

jaichind is right that attacks on the enemy's electricity infrastructure is not exactly unexpected in a war. As has been pointed out, we did the same thing in Serbia 1999. I believe NATO airstrikes caused the power to go out in Tripoli in 2011 as well. Frankly, there are much worse things being done by both sides here.

[Beet]

jaichind is right that attacks on the enemy's electricity infrastructure is not exactly unexpected in a war. As has been pointed out, we did the same thing in Serbia 1999. I believe NATO airstrikes caused the power to go out in Tripoli in 2011 as well. Frankly, there are much worse things being done by both sides here.

War is ugly. The only main way we can help stem war, long-term, is by preserving post-WWII norms, and that is through careful management of our foreign policy relations and coalition building with various partners and other states, no matter how evil you think they are...what matters most is a stable global picture. Ukraine is just one piece in the puzzle.

I think Biden has handled it exceptionally well. Russia is being humiliated without the cost of a single American solider, and without escalating into direct conflict. However, it has taken an economic toll on the world which I fear the Republicans will benefit from in November. If they ride the economic turmoil all the way to 2024, especially if Trump returns, it could end up seriously degrading our democracy. War also generates high emotions that distorts thinking.

jaichind, for example, is probably one of the top contributors (if not the top) on this forum on elections in Asia, such as India, Japan, and Taiwan, which as a psephology forum forum is theoretically our main purpose... but look at the way he is attacked in the most hysterical manner. All in all though, this war is pretty tame compared to what it would be if the U.S. and Russia went to war directly.

[Beet]

So NATO has to declare war on Ukraine now?

[Beet]

China's economy isn't even vastly wealthier than Russia's it just has 9-10x the population.  Its nominal GDP pc is just under 90% of Russia's and its PPP GDP pc is at about 65%.

It hasn't yet even achieved the Soviet Union's peak estimated GDP per capita relative to the US of about 35% in the early 70's.  Still pretty far from that even on a PPP basis.

Yes, true. But, China's economy is far more industrialized, complex, and globalized than Russia's. And that conversely makes it more vulnerable to Western sanctions, because these would immediately cause a mass unemployment crisis, and cripple large parts of its advanced industrial sector which depend on inputs from now-enemy countries. That didn't happen in Russia, because Russia's economy is dominated by state-owned natural resources, and it's easier for the Kremlin to guarantee jobs that provide just enough for sustenance.

Yes, true. But the question is whether Xi even cares about the economy anymore. If he really cared about the economy that much, his behavior would have been very different for the past 5 years, since many of this actions damaged the economy. He can always ramp up Keynesian military spending and conscript the previously unemployed people who worked in the export sector into the army, while suppressing dissent with calls to patriotism and other anti-Western rhetoric. What he cares about is his own place in history and the notion that he is some sort of messiah that is going to bring an end to Western hegemony. In my view, he could be charging headlong into a suicide march taking China with him, and if so the economy won't figure very importantly in all his plans. The common unifying factor of Putin, Biden, Trump, and Xi is that all of them prioritized geopolitical confrontation over economics.

[Beet]

The PRC will definitely benefit from the cumulative subsidence of the economies of the West and the former USSR. This will allow the PRC to dictate its terms to the West and finally subjugate the Commonwealth of Independent States. And in the long run to bargain for the takeover of Taiwan.

Cui prodest in full height.

PRC gains economically mostly by having its industrial competitors in the EU saddled with higher energy costs and it also can penetrate the Russian market much more easily.  I guess PRC makes minor geopolitical gains.  Geopolitically the big winner clearly is India.

So far, I see that India has egg on its face, since it has always depended on Russian weapons, and now the reputation of these weapons is lost, and the reputation of India itself will be lost if these purchases continue.

We can see one of the things China won right in the photo above, but what do you think India wins?

Now everyone, the PRC-Russia super bloc, and the collective West, now wants India on their side and be their friend.  A great geopolitical coup for India.

No, the PRC would rather go to war with India over some uninhabited barren ice caps in a place where no one can even breathe than have India on its side. India for its part now has one hostile neighbor to the north and another humiliated ally to the north, forcing it to become a vassal to the West. China is isolated and has no real allies except.... Russia. Russia is humiliated and is currently celebrating the "liberation" of a bunch of charred out ruins no one had ever heard of a year ago. Ukraine joins Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in the dubious "my country was destroyed in the 21st century" hall of fame. Europe suffered an energy crisis and has lost a major trading partner. As far as I can see, everyone is a loser.

The only real winner here is the U.S. For the cost of a relative pittance in military aid and no U.S. troops, it is achieving a major strategic victory over Russia. If you look at the U.S. economy in recent years, and it's continual generation of new innovations like SpaceX, ChatGPT, and so on, it's clear it's pulling further away from the rest of the world. In the future, political, economic and military power will increasingly be concentrated here; unipolarity is rising.

[Beet]

At this point, the front line has been essentially stalemated for over a year, with no end in sight, and horrendously massive casualties. The West should frankly seek a cease-fire at the LOAC, similiar to the one negotiated on the Korean peninsula in 1953.

Neither side has to recognize the other's claims. This would have certain advantages for Ukraine. For one, it successfully defended the vast majority of its territory. It did far better than anyone expected and humiliated Russia. For two, it gives it more time to build up its defenses, rebuild its economy, and further integrate into Europe. It gives society a break from the constant death and destruction. Endless WW1-style trench warfare is just destroying an entire generation of kids for no gain, it's heartbreaking, and no one should wish this on anyone.

[Beet]

No matter if it ended by a ceasefire, Russia will just keep on going with escalations little by little till they conquer the whole country.

Russia's fear would be if they agree to a ceasefire and the conflict comes to a "close" the very next day a NATO fleet will show up in Odessa to create a fait accompli.  So a ceasefire will have to address such fears om both sides.  I just do not see how there can be such conditions being considered on both sides to get to such a ceasefire with guarantees against the worst fears on both sides.  The net result would be a protracted conflict going well into the future.

What's to stop a NATO fleet from showing up today if they wanted to? Nothing. Nor does one have to show up tomorrow if there's a cease-fire.

Russia may continue to poke, but the point is a significant reduction in the tempo of fighting would benefit Ukraine.

[Beet]

It's sad that with Biden's defeat, Putin's chances of successfully annexing (more) Ukrainian territory go up significantly.