Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[2952-0-0]

Key question is how much territory will Ukraine be able to recover, before there might be an eventual temporary peace agreement.

Even if Ukraine pushes Russia back to pre-2014 boundaries, Putin won't sign any formal peace agreement, since it would be official confirmation of his loss. Also, having the "SMO" continue indefinitely would give him domestic justification for his own power.

What's probably going to happen is some informal agreement establishing a ceasefire line close to the pre-2014 border, or maybe on the border itself. It would resemble the Korean DMZ, except with much more frequent skirmishes. If Ukraine joins NATO and the skirmishes continue, then NATO will be forced to send troops to the border, which would vindicate Putin's claim that he's defending Mother Russia from NATO troops. Putin can afford to sacrifice a few hundred cannon fodders per year indefinitely, and milk the propaganda for all it's worth. It would be exactly like how in 1984, the perpetual war is actually a steady stream of clashes, and is fought merely to rally the Party members around Big Brother. Putin has, rightly or wrongly, shown himself to be a political survivor, and he can definitely remain in power even despite objectively losing the war.

Not that, Ukraine's leadership also won't milk the simmering conflict for their benefit too, similar to Israel. But they will definitely invest much more in their actual military to minimize human losses.

[Frodo]

It is more important for Ukraine to prevent Russia from withdrawing the nearly 30,000 troops it has in and around Kherson through cutting off Russian access to the Dnieper than it is to recapture the city itself.  The loss of such a large contingent of (relatively) better trained and equipped troops through encirclement (and eventual mass surrender) would be a bigger blow to Russia than the loss of Kherson:

Ukraine poised for crucial blow to Putin in battle for Kherson

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It is more important for Ukraine to prevent Russia from withdrawing the nearly 30,000 troops it has in and around Kherson through cutting off Russian access to the Dnieper than it is to recapture the city itself.  The loss of such a large contingent of (relatively) better trained and equipped troops through encirclement (and eventual mass surrender) would be a bigger blow to Russia than the loss of Kherson:

Ukraine poised for crucial blow to Putin in battle for Kherson

It is not clear all of those troops are on the left bank of the Dnieper. More importantly, Ukraine faces a real dilemma here as it is trying to save its land and people, not simply own the Russians. If it continues to besiege, or outright assault, a city full of trapped Russians, it will gain the following:

- Better chance of neutralising the troops you mentioned
- Probably more opportunities to capture equipment
- Better chance of preventing kidnappings of civilians in Kherson

It will lose:

- Opportunities to take advantage of fleeing Russians with easier escape routes (the Kharkiv morale breakdown)
- The avoidance of urban warfare as an attacker

This latter disadvantage is huge. Urban warfare is a bloody slog which may not work, will kill more civilians, exacerbate rebuilding costs in the aftermath of a successful campaign, and potentially provide Russia with good PR (because the attacker in urban warfare is rarely able to cover themselves in glory).

As I said before - there are no easy answers for Ukraine here. If Russia tries to evacuate men, materiel, collaborators and kidnapped civilians, they’ll have to choose between hurting all of those groups and the city itself or securing the land in a less defiled state but with fewer people saved/stopped.

[Woody]

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1583212864520626177
https://twitter.com/solarwarden555/status/1583170791122010112
https://twitter.com/Espresotveng/status/1583316042495168513

[Torie]

Well I must say Putin has certainly managed to put Belarus on the map. So far, the press about it has been almost seamlessly uniformly bad.

Human interactions matter. Wear two ski suits at once. Whatever it takes. From the NYT:

"At the Roman market, not all were ready to abandon their commitment to Ukraine despite the costs.

'Anna Andolfi, 77, who loaded some bread and pastries into her canvas cart, said that she had noticed that many of her friends, even those more well off than she, had increasingly voiced their impatience with Italy’s support for Ukraine, given the high prices for food and heat and Ukraine’s seeming “a world away.” But she said that a young Ukrainian woman helped her out at home and that the girl fretted constantly for her mother in Lviv.

 “I don’t care how much the prices go up,” she said. “I’ll turn the heat off and wear two ski suits if I have to so that we can keep supporting Ukraine.”

[The Dowager Mod]

When you have Luke Skywalker against you it's over.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is more important for Ukraine to prevent Russia from withdrawing the nearly 30,000 troops it has in and around Kherson through cutting off Russian access to the Dnieper than it is to recapture the city itself.  The loss of such a large contingent of (relatively) better trained and equipped troops through encirclement (and eventual mass surrender) would be a bigger blow to Russia than the loss of Kherson:

Ukraine poised for crucial blow to Putin in battle for Kherson

It is not clear all of those troops are on the left bank of the Dnieper. More importantly, Ukraine faces a real dilemma here as it is trying to save its land and people, not simply own the Russians. If it continues to besiege, or outright assault, a city full of trapped Russians, it will gain the following:

- Better chance of neutralising the troops you mentioned
- Probably more opportunities to capture equipment
- Better chance of preventing kidnappings of civilians in Kherson

It will lose:

- Opportunities to take advantage of fleeing Russians with easier escape routes (the Kharkiv morale breakdown)
- The avoidance of urban warfare as an attacker

This latter disadvantage is huge. Urban warfare is a bloody slog which may not work, will kill more civilians, exacerbate rebuilding costs in the aftermath of a successful campaign, and potentially provide Russia with good PR (because the attacker in urban warfare is rarely able to cover themselves in glory).

As I said before - there are no easy answers for Ukraine here. If Russia tries to evacuate men, materiel, collaborators and kidnapped civilians, they’ll have to choose between hurting all of those groups and the city itself or securing the land in a less defiled state but with fewer people saved/stopped.

At the end of the day, Ukraine needs to take as much territory as it can before things start settling down for the Winter. If this is going to be a long war (and it's pretty clear now that it will be at least a medium-length one), actual control over territory becomes paramount. Any territory Russia is able to hold onto for months and years is an area where the tentacles of its authoritarian dystopia can reach and refashion in its own image. Continued administrative control from Russia will go hand in hand with the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians and the establishment of mechanisms of social control. Yes, civilians will die if Ukraine attacks, but if Ukraine doesn't take back those places, the entire communities living there will die.

[Person Man]

It is more important for Ukraine to prevent Russia from withdrawing the nearly 30,000 troops it has in and around Kherson through cutting off Russian access to the Dnieper than it is to recapture the city itself.  The loss of such a large contingent of (relatively) better trained and equipped troops through encirclement (and eventual mass surrender) would be a bigger blow to Russia than the loss of Kherson:

Ukraine poised for crucial blow to Putin in battle for Kherson

It is not clear all of those troops are on the left bank of the Dnieper. More importantly, Ukraine faces a real dilemma here as it is trying to save its land and people, not simply own the Russians. If it continues to besiege, or outright assault, a city full of trapped Russians, it will gain the following:

- Better chance of neutralising the troops you mentioned
- Probably more opportunities to capture equipment
- Better chance of preventing kidnappings of civilians in Kherson

It will lose:

- Opportunities to take advantage of fleeing Russians with easier escape routes (the Kharkiv morale breakdown)
- The avoidance of urban warfare as an attacker

This latter disadvantage is huge. Urban warfare is a bloody slog which may not work, will kill more civilians, exacerbate rebuilding costs in the aftermath of a successful campaign, and potentially provide Russia with good PR (because the attacker in urban warfare is rarely able to cover themselves in glory).

As I said before - there are no easy answers for Ukraine here. If Russia tries to evacuate men, materiel, collaborators and kidnapped civilians, they’ll have to choose between hurting all of those groups and the city itself or securing the land in a less defiled state but with fewer people saved/stopped.

At the end of the day, Ukraine needs to take as much territory as it can before things start settling down for the Winter. If this is going to be a long war (and it's pretty clear now that it will be at least a medium-length one), actual control over territory becomes paramount. Any territory Russia is able to hold onto for months and years is an area where the tentacles of its authoritarian dystopia can reach and refashion in its own image. Continued administrative control from Russia will go hand in hand with the ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians and the establishment of mechanisms of social control. Yes, civilians will die if Ukraine attacks, but if Ukraine doesn't take back those places, the entire communities living there will die.

This is literally a Life or Death struggle. What would we be saying in 1942?

[Storr]

lmao

https://twitter.com/jaredbkeller/status/1583441491938009088?s=20&t=l7EJ-RhSP...

[Woody]

Once again Russia has escalated the war they illegally started, and done so by inflicting massive damage on civilians.  But when Ukraine defends himself, a bunch of idiots will say that Ukraine is the warmongering country keeping the war going.  And when Putin once again saber-rattles with nuclear weapons, they'll say it's America and Ukraine's fault for not surrendering (a.k.a. "accepting Putin's peace terms").

Well, when you're going for the high road deploying suicide bombers isn't probably the brightest idea to court public opinion.

The Ukrainians don't need to court public opinion because every thinking person is already on their side.

Maybe in the latte-sipping west. But don't forget that vast majority of the third world still supports Russia or has a neutral stance, unfortunately.

Never been pro-Russia on this, just call out what I see.

lmao yeah sure bro, one google search to find an Open Society Foundations poll conducted in July-August which showed 65% of respondents across the globe agreed that the russia is a threat to world security.

cope harder ruski

Speak of the devil. Recent polarization divides the West and the third-world:

Among the 1.2 billion people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75%) now hold a negative view of China, and 87% a negative view of Russia, according to the report, published today by the University’s Centre for the Future of Democracy (CFD).

Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.

The analysis includes significant public opinion data from emerging economies and the Global South, and suggests this divide is not just economic or strategic but based in personal and political ideology.

Researchers say that some comparisons to the Cold War era still hold, as this latter group is broadly united in a rejection of “western modernity” and liberal values.

Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/worlddivided

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Once again Russia has escalated the war they illegally started, and done so by inflicting massive damage on civilians.  But when Ukraine defends himself, a bunch of idiots will say that Ukraine is the warmongering country keeping the war going.  And when Putin once again saber-rattles with nuclear weapons, they'll say it's America and Ukraine's fault for not surrendering (a.k.a. "accepting Putin's peace terms").

Well, when you're going for the high road deploying suicide bombers isn't probably the brightest idea to court public opinion.

The Ukrainians don't need to court public opinion because every thinking person is already on their side.

Maybe in the latte-sipping west. But don't forget that vast majority of the third world still supports Russia or has a neutral stance, unfortunately.

Never been pro-Russia on this, just call out what I see.

lmao yeah sure bro, one google search to find an Open Society Foundations poll conducted in July-August which showed 65% of respondents across the globe agreed that the russia is a threat to world security.

cope harder ruski

Speak of the devil. Recent polarization divides the West and the third-world:

Among the 1.2 billion people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75%) now hold a negative view of China, and 87% a negative view of Russia, according to the report, published today by the University’s Centre for the Future of Democracy (CFD).

Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.

The analysis includes significant public opinion data from emerging economies and the Global South, and suggests this divide is not just economic or strategic but based in personal and political ideology.

Researchers say that some comparisons to the Cold War era still hold, as this latter group is broadly united in a rejection of “western modernity” and liberal values.

Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/worlddivided

Ouch. Those numbers are awful. Russia's likely getting too much soft power in the Third World.

[Red Velvet]

With Saudi Arabia economically drifting away from the West (which takes away their “good” dictatorship status in the western eyes), it’s perfect opportunity for the third world citizens to take a lesson on everything that is being done to Russia as it can easily be applied onto them if it succeeds and unite under minimal south-south solidarity.

Full alignment against western forces is impossible because of the lack of cohesion that naturally exists in Global South but at the very minimum they should be concerned about protecting their economic sovereignty and bond over this.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

With Saudi Arabia economically drifting away from the West (which takes away their “good” dictatorship status in the western eyes), it’s perfect opportunity for the third world citizens to take a lesson on everything that is being done to Russia as it can easily be applied onto them if it succeeds and unite under minimal south-south solidarity.

Full alignment against western forces is impossible because of the lack of cohesion that naturally exists in Global South but at the very minimum they should be concerned about protecting their economic sovereignty and bond over this.

I'm sure leaders around the globe will be more alarmed by piecemeal sanctions (which are actually weaker than sanctions imposed and maintained on Iran for fundamentally weaker reasons) than the invasion. It's not as if "the Global South" has any dictatorships with irredentist/nationalist tendencies.

[Red Velvet]

With Saudi Arabia economically drifting away from the West (which takes away their “good” dictatorship status in the western eyes), it’s perfect opportunity for the third world citizens to take a lesson on everything that is being done to Russia as it can easily be applied onto them if it succeeds and unite under minimal south-south solidarity.

Full alignment against western forces is impossible because of the lack of cohesion that naturally exists in Global South but at the very minimum they should be concerned about protecting their economic sovereignty and bond over this.

I'm sure leaders around the globe will be more alarmed by piecemeal sanctions (which are actually weaker than sanctions imposed and maintained on Iran for fundamentally weaker reasons) than the invasion. It's not as if "the Global South" has any dictatorships with irredentist/nationalist tendencies.

Of course they will. They don’t border Russia and therefore they know Russia not a military threat to them. And at the same time, they know the “punishment” is selective and the West doesn’t apply it under uniform moral standards, making it extremely unlikely those punishments would ever be used to their benefit as it is the case with a white European country like Ukraine. It would be against them if anything.

Thing is, even if the survival moral instinct is to be pushed towards not canceling Russia (which is different than supporting any invasion), the conditions throughout the global south are very scattered with often interests in conflict depending on which place we’re talking about. Which makes that kind of potential alliance be at best economically driven only.

[jaichind]

Speak of the devil. Recent polarization divides the West and the third-world:

Among the 1.2 billion people who inhabit the world’s liberal democracies, three-quarters (75%) now hold a negative view of China, and 87% a negative view of Russia, according to the report, published today by the University’s Centre for the Future of Democracy (CFD).

Yet among the 6.3 billion who live in the world’s remaining 136 countries, the opposite is the case – with 70% of people feeling positively towards China and 66% towards Russia.

The analysis includes significant public opinion data from emerging economies and the Global South, and suggests this divide is not just economic or strategic but based in personal and political ideology.

Researchers say that some comparisons to the Cold War era still hold, as this latter group is broadly united in a rejection of “western modernity” and liberal values.

Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/worlddivided

My reading of India media as the war developed was that at the beginning the Indian media and political active population were neutral or even slightly pro-Ukraine.  Once the collective West got involved and started to demand that India fall in line the sentiment shifted quickly to a strong pro-Russia position.  So this relative support for Russia and PRC  in the non-West world is not a positive vote for them but more of a negative vote on the collective West.

[jaichind]

Of course they will. They don’t border Russia and therefore they know Russia not a military threat to them. And at the same time, they know the “punishment” is selective and the West doesn’t apply it under uniform moral standards, making it extremely unlikely those punishments would ever be used to their benefit as it is the case with a white European country like Ukraine. It would be against them if anything.

Thing is, even if the survival moral instinct is to be pushed towards not canceling Russia (which is different than supporting any invasion), the conditions throughout the global south are very scattered with often interests in conflict depending on which place we’re talking about. Which makes that kind of potential alliance be at best economically driven only.

It is clear that whatever Russia is up to it is not interested in poking their nose in other countries' business beyond their own sphere of influence.  The ideology of the collective West is Universalist which transcends geography which will for sure produce conflict with any regional power that does not fall in line with the collective West.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

With Saudi Arabia economically drifting away from the West (which takes away their “good” dictatorship status in the western eyes), it’s perfect opportunity for the third world citizens to take a lesson on everything that is being done to Russia as it can easily be applied onto them if it succeeds and unite under minimal south-south solidarity.

Full alignment against western forces is impossible because of the lack of cohesion that naturally exists in Global South but at the very minimum they should be concerned about protecting their economic sovereignty and bond over this.

I'm sure leaders around the globe will be more alarmed by piecemeal sanctions (which are actually weaker than sanctions imposed and maintained on Iran for fundamentally weaker reasons) than the invasion. It's not as if "the Global South" has any dictatorships with irredentist/nationalist tendencies.

Of course they will. They don’t border Russia and therefore they know Russia not a military threat to them. And at the same time, they know the “punishment” is selective and the West doesn’t apply it under uniform moral standards, making it extremely unlikely those punishments would ever be used to their benefit as it is the case with a white European country like Ukraine.

A number of developing countries which can be lumped into the nebulous grouping which is "the Global South" (it is inconsistently defined in economic and geographic terms) border Russia or Russian-occupied territory. It's a big country, but that's not the point.

A far larger number of developing are smaller than Ukraine and border regional military powers with which they may have fractured histories. Saudi Arabia, Eritrea etc. aren't as strong as Russia, but they don't need to be to threaten their neighbours. Most of these countries are likely to be more concerned with invasions than being sanctioned for invasions, because only a minority of them are regional powers.

The countries which aren't in a position to invade their neighbours (most of them) may doubt that they'll receive the kind of international support Ukraine has in the event that they are invaded, but they have a stake in seeing the Russian invasion fail so that any of their own aggressive neighbours think twice before starting a war of conquest.

Those which are preoccupied by concerns about sanctions would not have seen their concerns increase much due to the Russian sanctions, if at all. Even if we assume they'd care more about being sanctioned for invasion than being invaded, other countries have experienced worse sanctions for far less than what Russia did. It doesn't break any new ground, and actually waters down sanctions precedent considering how weak the sanctions regime is compared to ones employed against Iran, NK, etc.

[PSOL]

Alright, I have to say it. Russia’s military blunders and the fact they are relying on Iranian drones now has basically decimated any credibility of it being a major power. The fact of the matter is that it can barely be called a regional power anywhere either. The current government will not recover from this militarily or even stability-wise.

I say this because 1. This indicates that Iran’s advancements in diplomacy in the Caucuses and Central Asia makes them a more relevant power if Russia didn’t have nukes or have a permanent seat in the UN, especially militarily. This also puts Russia in an immensely weak position to negotiate with the usual neutral nations in its midst. Finland and Turkey’s bargaining power, if they do choose to go for it, is immensely high.

2. Russian losses in having control over in Ukraine, Caucuses, or Central Asia means that Russian proxies and allies are going to bounce off. We’ve seen Kazakhstan just drop off in being a total pushover to Russia and Armenia having to balance the interests of the NATO nations (bar Turkey) and Iran. Belarus, which has been unfairly labeled into being a Russian proxy since major protests way back when, is in an immensely strenuous position with total Russian failure in Ukraine offering no assurances of Putin being able to save Belarus if things escalate into a civil war or if NATO strikes. I honestly don’t think they’ll go back to balancing east v west once things die down, they honestly might bail to being a EU ally if Russia’s geopolitical position gets any worse. The real question is, wtf does Serbia do?

3. Yeah, I’m calling it. Russia is at it’s most vulnerable since the latter Perestroika period. Regime collapse is very likely this decade. Only question is if they tire NATO enough to prevent real expansion into Russia’s pre-2014 European borders entirely? If a regime collapse occurs, where it’s going to be a bloody mess overall, on the European front we could see consolidation with minimal losses or loss of positioning. The Central Asian and Far East, like in 1917, will be in flux

[jaichind]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-least-half-ukraines-thermal-power-capacity-hit-by-russian-attacks-2022-10-21/

"EXCLUSIVE At least half Ukraine's thermal power capacity hit by Russian attacks - minister"

The good news for Ukraine is that Ukraine actually has a significant power surplus.  Ukraine has de-industrialized since the USSR days but the power system capacity is still from the USSR days.  Also, Russia has taken over some of the most industrialized parts of Ukraine.  This means Ukraine can lose a lot of its power capacity and still not do a lot of damage to its economy.  Russia has some way to go to be able to hit Ukraine's economy based on cutting off power.

[Storr]

nice

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1583404163870097410?s=20&t=l7EJ-R...

[Person Man]

nice

https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1583404163870097410?s=20&t=l7EJ-R...

A mass surrender would be kind of funny. They are just lucky this isn’t a war against Hannibal.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Of course they will. They don’t border Russia and therefore they know Russia not a military threat to them. And at the same time, they know the “punishment” is selective and the West doesn’t apply it under uniform moral standards, making it extremely unlikely those punishments would ever be used to their benefit as it is the case with a white European country like Ukraine. It would be against them if anything.

Thing is, even if the survival moral instinct is to be pushed towards not canceling Russia (which is different than supporting any invasion), the conditions throughout the global south are very scattered with often interests in conflict depending on which place we’re talking about. Which makes that kind of potential alliance be at best economically driven only.

It is clear that whatever Russia is up to it is not interested in poking their nose in other countries' business beyond their own sphere of influence.  The ideology of the collective West is Universalist which transcends geography which will for sure produce conflict with any regional power that does not fall in line with the collective West.

Glad to know that America is within Russia's "sphere of influence".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections

[Badger]

Russian Government is now blocking Anti-Corruption websites:

Roskomnadzor, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office, blocked the website of the anti-corruption project Metla

The Metla anti-corruption project reported that Roskomnadzor, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office, blocked its website in Russia.

The reason for the blocking was "repeated placement of information disseminated in violation of the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation."

The project intends to continue its work in Telegram.

Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov said that from February 24 to early August, about 138,000 websites and pages were blocked in Russia. According to him, after the start of the war with Ukraine, the department tightened control over the “spread of calls for extremism and fake news.”

https://zona.media/news/2022/10/19/metla

"Fake news". Now where have I heard that before?

[Badger]

If Trump was president there wouldn't have been a war in the first place. Him and them had respect for each other.

You seriously think Putin cared about Trump in the context of Ukraine? Is your opinion of the world really that Trump-centric? Putin's interests in Ukraine had nothing to do with Trump and if anything, he would have seen Trump as an ideal leader to give the least resistance to his plans given how permissive Trump was to Putin compared to other American presidents.

This idea that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine because of Trump is one of the dumbest things said yet about this war.

Lib brain emotional fantasy.

How do you know? [...]

Oh, and how would you know? You just think everything would be better with Trump and you're blatantly projecting that onto the war in Ukraine.

Because there was never such a danger before Biden? Did you forget Trump was president?

SILENCE TROLL!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IYP_MgWF8hw&t=16s#searching

An oath breaker like yourself has no right to address Queen Empress Virginia at all, you whose boots she is not worthy to clean with your lying Worm tongue! Be gone! Be gone from her presence and begin your long overdue 1 year absence from atlas! Leave at once you Craven poltroon, and never come back!

[Badger]

Because there was never such a danger before Biden? Did you forget Trump was president?

So what? How do you know Putin just was ready to actually invade at that point? Or hadn't even fully made up his mind? You are making extremely simple connections based almost purely on your belief that everything would be better if only your guy had won the election. You don't even have a reason for it. It literally just boils down to "Trump good, so Ukraine would be fine, because Trump, somehow." I mean how can anyone argue with that logic? Biden won, and Putin invaded, ergo it was all Biden.

I can't wait to hear more from Woodbury how Trump - merely through the virtue of him being in existence - would have prevented the invasion of Ukraine.

I for one can't wait not to hear from Sir Woodbury on the subject, or any other, ever.