Ukraine general discussion

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

I think, you agree, that US's way to talk about it was *very* public, which is *very* unusual. Ok, perhaps, it's fine, but it's not only that. They are pumping it on daily basis. Moreover, Anglosaxones moved their diplomats, but EU didn't, which means that their intelligence/probability assessment wasn't good enough for Europeans.

I'm pretty sure, that was some intelligence that would indicate that Taliban would invade and take whole Afghanistan in weeks/months. Obvs, not comparable to Ukraine, but US acts *very* public now. Might very well has tons of other explanations, but intentional or not consequence is (per Ukraine officials) that it destroy their economy and "pressures" them into more concessions.

Yes of course. Going public has been a very deliberate strategy by Five Eyes to smoke out Russian intentions, raise the stakes, inflict costs. It seems to have caught Russia on the hop and their diplomatic effort appears to me rushed and improvised.

I don't agree with everything in this article but Leonid Bershidsky had an interesting interpretation the other day:

https://twitter.com/Bershidsky/status/1486664366447542272?s=20&t=LcP8bb1YHigfxT9qZ0auEg
Russia may well be hoping for a Ukrainian mobilisation to use as a casual belli. All very murky.

• smoke out Russian intentions - to whom? To Western pubic? Perhaps? To Ukrainians? No, they already know. There is no Iron Curtain anymore. There are tons of video or Russian tanks, artillery and other equipment flooding to Russia made by and shared by Russian people in Twitter and Facebook. Ukrainian TV is full of it. They just doesn't believe that like Kiev is on danger or something.
• raise the stakes - what does it mean? And why couldn't be done in private?
• inflict costs - it hit Ukraine, too, and their economy is more fragile. US could have instead just passed a "Sanctions of the Hell" bill?

It seems to have caught Russia on the hop and their diplomatic effort appears to me rushed and improvised.

What diplomatic effort? Imo, there is only push from EU and somewhat from US, while Russia has not done much but dead-on-arrival demands.


My reading of Bershidsky's article, that he is mostly defending Ze's reaction?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

What diplomatic effort? Imo, there is only push from EU and somewhat from US, while Russia has not done much but dead-on-arrival demands.

Yes, this is what leads me to believe that Putin has decided on an invasion in principle. Russia's diplomacy seems improvised, which is the opposite of what one would expect in a "bluff to gain concessions" scenario.

[Storr]

What diplomatic effort? Imo, there is only push from EU and somewhat from US, while Russia has not done much but dead-on-arrival demands.

Yes, this is what leads me to believe that Putin has decided on an invasion in principle. Russia's diplomacy seems improvised, which is the opposite of what one would expect in a "bluff to gain concessions" scenario.

I agree. The Russian demands that NATO forces retreat to pre-1989 borders and "iron clad" commitments halting any future NATO expansion were clearly ludicrous and meant to be non-starters which the West wouldn't entertain much less accept. All Russian responses for calls for negotiation and diplomacy by the West have been along the lines of "there is nothing to discuss if our demands aren't addressed".

At this time none of the outcomes I imagine Putin wants (Donbass autonomy, a "neutral" Ukraine, etc.) can be accomplished without military intervention. Donbass autonomy was the most likely outcome not involving military action. Russia pursued the Minsk process, but Ukraine refused to accept any form of Donbass autonomy. Its leaders seeing it as accepting and institutionalizing Russian influence in the country. (I don't find that to be an unreasonable position, the breakaway regions were clearly not grassroots revolts organized by locals.) As time has passed, Ukraine has only gotten stronger militarily due to support, expertise, and training from NATO. This poses a threat to Russia's current sources of influence over Ukraine: the breakaway republics in the Donbass. A Ukranian takeover of the Donbass would end the key stategive Russian objective since 1991: having influence over post-Soviet states or as Russia calls it the "near abroad".

The tiny Baltic states joining NATO was frustrating to Russia, as it separated Kaliningrad (where much of the Baltic Fleet is stationed) from the motherland and brought NATO uncomfortably close to St. Petersburg. But it wasn't unacceptable to Russia. The same goes for a theoretical pro-Western EU or even reunified (with Romania) Moldova. A ding to Russian influence and prestige, but nothing major. But, a pro-Western NATO aligned Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia. A NATO Ukraine, even sans Crimea, severely limits Russian influence in the Black Sea (which was the whole reason why Crimea was annexed in the first place). The only way Russia will accept "losing" Ukraine would be through the specter international retaliation (and I don't mean just sanctions) or due to Russia's own weaknesses. That's exactly why since 2014, the Ukrainian government has been aggressively pursuing NATO membership. As long as Ukraine doesn't have a sufficiently subservient (or "neutral") government or the security guarantee of Article 5, Russia will continue to undermining it's authority and legitimacy. That includes the most extreme form of
undermining a government, military intervention.

[😥]

New poll data appeared today. Razumkov Center together with KIIS and Rating are one of the best sociological centers in Ukraine.

Parliament


Difference with their last poll (Dec 17-22, 2021)

European Solidarity 25.2% (+7,9)
Servant of the People 18.4% (-2)
Fatherland 12.6% (+2)
OPFL 9.0% (-0,9)
Smart Politics (Razumkov's party) 8.7% (-1,8)
Ours (Muraev) 5.3% (+0,1)

Within margin of error
Strength and Honor 4.8% (-1,9)

President
Volodymyr Zelensky 26% (+1,8)
Petro Poroshenko 24.2% (+8,1)
Yulia Tymoshenko 10.3% (+0,4)
Dmytro Razumkov 8.2% (-1,1)
Yuriy Boyko 7% (-2,2)
Evgeniy Muraev 7% (+0,7)
Ihor Smeshko 5.4% (-1)
Volodymyr Groysman 3.1% (-1,9)
Oleh Liashko 2% (+0,1)

[PSOL]

Zelenskiy is apparently cracking down hard. Pro-Russian politician Muraev and several Azov Front officials now have criminal charges. The interior minister responsible for funding of the various militias has also resigned recently according to this source.

Andriy, can you give us a corroboration on these statements and a current view into how the Zelenskiy administration is framing this, if at all, and the extent this goes to.