Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/live-from-ukraine-poland-trip-trade-and-tech-council/

HAPPENING TODAY IN BRUSSELS: EU ambassadors meet at 9:30 a.m. in Brussels today to discuss sanctions. From 10 a.m., EU affairs ministers from around the bloc will meet for the General Affairs Council, where they will continue the discussion. Three diplomats told Playbook the EU is likely to impose limited sanctions — such as listing more individuals and cutting trade with the separatist “republics” — largely a symbolic move given those regions are already sanctioned.

Meanwhile, in Washington: The White House said on Monday that the U.S. plans “to announce new sanctions on Russia tomorrow in response to Moscow’s decisions and actions today. We are coordinating with Allies and partners on that announcement.” A senior U.S. administration official similarly said Washington would sanction the breakaway territories, but not impose sweeping sanctions against Russia yet.

EU and US keep powder dry: Officials said one reason to impose only limited sanctions was to grant Putin a face-saving way to avoid all-out war. Another was to keep the powder dry in case Russia invades more of Ukraine.

[Torie]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

There was precedent for stopping genocide in Kosovo, but not precedent for Kosovo being an entity effectively separate from Belgrade altogether. Vojvodina remains part of Serbia to this day, voting in Serbian elections and participating in the country's political scene as an autonomous unit.

[Velasco]

I don't think this conflict ends here so this is going to be more than Donbass so it's incorrect to act like that's all that's happening in 2022. But sanctions are not of material value. This has been proven time and time again in multiple countries.

What's the correct course of action in your view?

Well they're not going to be deploy troops inside Ukraine. They've made that perfectly clear.

Sanctions just don't accomplish what the people doing the sanctioning intend them to do. We know this from Iraq, Iran, Middle East en masse, Cuba, Russia, North Korea. If it's to punish the powerful, they'll find a way around in the incredibly opaque global financial system. If it's to punish the weak so they will challenge the powerful to upend the status quo, when has that worked? That Europe and the U.S. have settled on sanctions shows they're powerless to do anything that will directly challenge Russian control of Donbass. The Russians are still on sanctions from 7 years ago.

As far as what I would do, at Ukrainian request deploy NATO ships into the Black Sea close to the Ukrainian coastline and the Crimean peninsula (probably not smart to go into the Sea of Azov). I would put a boot in the ass of the Ukrainian government to get them to finally prepare defensively for an invasion, provide them intelligence and pointers to aid them in their defense (that should be done now). If they can't be bothered, if Ukraine doesn't care about getting invaded, why should the West? That's a very flippant take but defending the country is literally the military's raison d'etre, use them for that purpose.

I concur sanctions have proven ineffective in those cases you mention, but I'm a bit surprised to read "the powerful (...) will find a way around the incredibly opaque global financial system". I agree completely on  your assesment on the financial system,  I'd never expect that from a yellow avatar

More seriously, I think the West is already providing assistance to Ukraine in terms of material and information. Also, I heard from the news some troops have been deployed to Poland and Romania on the Black Sea. I don't know what can be done by putting a boot on the ass of the Ukrainian government. I doubt it's possible to counter Russian superiority without sending troops there (a non-starter): it's not the fault of Ukrainnians that Russia is stronger than them. The precedents of Afghanistan and Vietnam might show you there are no promising perspectives for western proxies in Ukraine. On the other hand, a massive deployment on the Black Sea could be seen as an act of aggression by the Russian government,  which is a nuclear power.

I mean, this conflict is nearly impossible to solve and it won't be solved by means different from diplomacy. Eventually the only way western countries can exert pressure on Russia is through sanctions, which effects are limited.  Meanwhile this conflict reveals to be a collective failure, but particularly a failure of the "liberal order" promoted by the western countries that Putin deems decadent. Increasing escalation will be very damaging for the economy, particularly in Western Europe.  The only international actor that will benefit from this scenario is China,  which adopts an attitude of prudent silence

[Sir Mohamed]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

That's also why Mr. Putin is telling the flat out lie that something similar is about to happen in Eastern Ukraine and done by Ukrainian forces. Russian state media pretty much claims that there's a fascist, American puppet govt in Kiev.

[Torie]

RUB is now above 79.  Financial markets clearly take the view that escalation has peaked and, while there is a significant chance of a blowup, the trend is toward de-escalation.

Probably, because neither US or EU want to describe it as invasion. Yet, at least.

Well, Ukraine cannot describe it as an invasion because as per Ukraine Russia already invaded these lands in 2014 so they cannot re-invade the same area. 

It seems we are headed to these breakaway republics being annexed to Russia soon.  It will be a rerun of the 1810 West Florida Republic in slow motion. 

I think this is a mistake on Russia's part as it now limits their strategic space.  Ideally for Russia, they want a pro-Russia (or at least non-anti-Russia) Ukraine.  This move takes that option off the table.  While I do not think Russia will do anything soon this move pretty much locks Russia into the goal of eating up Eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper River in the coming decades and Western Ukraine will be anti-Russia for decades if not centuries.  These moves will be costly and risky for Russia and ensure at best a hostile Western Ukraine on its border.  Putin trades some short-term advtanages for long term costs.  My assessment of Putin as a sound strategist has diminished.

Well if what you are saying is true, Putin should just take the whole country.

Western Ukraine has
1) Very little if any Russian speakers
2) Influence by Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church

This means Ukrainian nationalism is very strong there making long-term Russian control very costly and not viable.

You may think it is not viable, but it appears to me that Putin going to all this fuss means he wants a regime change in Ukraine, and is going to use force to get it, and nobody is going to stop him, and Putin does not give a damn about sanctions and has planned for this. 

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

At least, West supports Ukraine with memes

https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081

[Astatine]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

There was precedent for stopping genocide in Kosovo, but not precedent for Kosovo being an entity effectively separate from Belgrade altogether. Vojvodina remains part of Serbia to this day, voting in Serbian elections and participating in the country's political scene as an autonomous unit.

1991 census of Vojvodina:
57 % Serbs
17 % Hungarians
8 % Yugoslavs
no other ethnicity above 5 %

1991 census of Kosovo:
82 % Albanians
10 % Serbs

When 82 % of the population of a region was targeted to be purged it is doubtful that they have much appetite to return to the country that wanted to genocide them. None of that applies to Vojvodina.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1495925054298894341
Wow! True, but WOW!

I wonder, if Biden will backtrack it, though, after the criticism of MSM.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1496131492912713729

[It’s so Joever]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

There was precedent for stopping genocide in Kosovo, but not precedent for Kosovo being an entity effectively separate from Belgrade altogether. Vojvodina remains part of Serbia to this day, voting in Serbian elections and participating in the country's political scene as an autonomous unit.

A literal Genocide against an ethnic minority who wants independence should be more than enough to justify it.

[WMS]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

There was precedent for stopping genocide in Kosovo, but not precedent for Kosovo being an entity effectively separate from Belgrade altogether. Vojvodina remains part of Serbia to this day, voting in Serbian elections and participating in the country's political scene as an autonomous unit.

1991 census of Vojvodina:
57 % Serbs
17 % Hungarians
8 % Yugoslavs
no other ethnicity above 5 %

1991 census of Kosovo:
82 % Albanians
10 % Serbs

When 82 % of the population of a region was targeted to be purged it is doubtful that they have much appetite to return to the country that wanted to genocide them. None of that applies to Vojvodina.

Let’s also remember that Russia pulled this crap in Moldova all the way back in 1990! Hardly a reaction to the precedent-setting in Kosovo!

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were Zelensky I'd be doing everything in my power to get my hands on nukes as quickly as possible.

As soon as he actively attempts this, Putin would possibly see this as invitation and invade Ukraine entirely. And without active military intervention from NATO forces (which wouldn't happen), Russia would have occupied the whole country in a matter of weeks and Zelensky would either be arrested or in exile.

More importantly, even if he had nukes, where exactly would he use them? In Donbass and occupied territory? He would conquer back territory that's no longer habitable from nuclear fallout. He would have to attack Russia directly, which would not only cause thousands of innocent deaths, it would be the starting point for WWIII.

Last but not least, arming Ukraine with nukes would embolden Russia, the PRC or other bad actors to arm other horrible regimes with nukes with whom they're allied because "the West has done the same."

The NATO bloc already tore down one precedent by separating Kosovo from Serbia, emboldening Russia and allowing it to support allied movements in Georgia and later Ukraine.
It'd be for the best if we didn't destroy another precedent for sake of short-term gain. No one should supply Ukraine any nukes. The knock-on effects would be disastrous.

Except there was an ethnic cleansing issue in Kosovo, so I don't think that is much of a precedent.

There was precedent for stopping genocide in Kosovo, but not precedent for Kosovo being an entity effectively separate from Belgrade altogether. Vojvodina remains part of Serbia to this day, voting in Serbian elections and participating in the country's political scene as an autonomous unit.

1991 census of Vojvodina:
57 % Serbs
17 % Hungarians
8 % Yugoslavs
no other ethnicity above 5 %

1991 census of Kosovo:
82 % Albanians
10 % Serbs

When 82 % of the population of a region is was targeted to be purged it is doubtful that they have much appetite to return to the country that wanted to genocide them. None of that applies to Vojvodina.

Under a strict reading of territorial integrity (a major part of Western government arguments in regards to Ukraine), Kosovo would have to go back to Serbia's umbrella.
Serbs voted out the genocidal government anyway in 1999 and forced them out through a color revolution, so it's not like there would have been some humanitarian impulse to Kosovo independence strong enough to override this.
Russia's effectively correct in recognizing territorial integrity as just another tool to keep it down - highlight when convenient for me, ignore when convenient to thee.
It was Western policies that created the Russia we have today. If we sought to integrate it into our coalition more rigorously when Yeltsin was president, or stopped moving NATO east when Putin was president the first time, or in general just gave the starving bear some room, we'd be in a better position against China now.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

It was Western policies that created the Russia we have today.

Putin literally said yesterday that the existence of Ukraine was an aberration and the former Soviet republics had no right to secede. If NATO hadn't expanded then Russia would have invaded and annexed the Baltic states and be Finlandising Poland.

[jaichind]

At least, West supports Ukraine with memes

https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081

Does not that argue for the fact that Ukraine is the real Russia and that Ukraine should invade Russia to achieve Russian reunification ?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was Western policies that created the Russia we have today.

Putin literally said yesterday that the existence of Ukraine was an aberration and the former Soviet republics had no right to secede. If NATO hadn't expanded then Russia would have invaded and annexed the Baltic states and be Finlandising Poland.

Yes, this isn't 'rational response to NATO enlargement', it's Your Brain On Post-Imperialism.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Biden to Address Ukraine Situation from White House (5:01 p.m.)

The U.S. president will address the situation in Ukraine Tuesday at 1 p.m. Washington time, with the U.S. expected to unveil new sanctions targeting Russia.

The president will speak a day after signing an executive order prohibiting U.S. investment, trade, and financing in the separatist-held regions in eastern Ukraine. The financial penalties announced Tuesday are expected to fall short of the sweeping sanctions Biden and other Western leaders have pledged if Russian forces push into Ukrainian territory that was not previously occupied.

[nicholas.slaydon]

At least, West supports Ukraine with memes

https://twitter.com/USEmbassyKyiv/status/1496115593149358081

Based USA

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It was Western policies that created the Russia we have today.

Putin literally said yesterday that the existence of Ukraine was an aberration and the former Soviet republics had no right to secede. If NATO hadn't expanded then Russia would have invaded and annexed the Baltic states and be Finlandising Poland.

It's a very close-minded thing to say, that the Russia of today was an inevitability. In general, you can't separate Putin's statements from yesterday with the climate of yesterday. Politicians say politician things in response to the political environment, and everyone ought to know this. And Russia's power receding gave NATO nations the deciding power in Eastern Europe to determine the political environment there, just as the Soviet Union had that same power in the five decades prior. In both cases, that power was quite evidently used.

In long-term geopolitics, Eastern Europe has become a borderlands, where Russia, among the strongest power centers in Europe going back centuries, has been dominant when it is strong, and barely notable when it is weak. We live in a time when Russia has recovered and is teamed up with strong allies that will cover its flanks so that it can focus on areas to its west (there's basically minimal Russian land military assets in the Far East at this point - no points for guessing where they were moved).

Putin is a profoundly disillusioned figure who knows what the long-term policy of America is - more well-read about it than he was in 2000, in all probability. He's a good opponent. He knows how the game is played, and so do we. America had decided the cadence of the Eastern Europe, and so Putin is taking a stand in a place where he's got his best chances.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/Nordic_News/status/1496152649904930821

Let's burn Earth down to own Russians 

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Putin wrote his entire speech from yesterday entirely by himself.

He is 69 years old.

He is effectively dictator for life.

He has been sitting around isolated for the last 2 years due to COVID, with plenty of time to think and reflect about the world, Russia, his place in history etc.

He is in this for his historical "legacy."

So this (along with the fact that he has systematically amassed the military means) makes it clear that this is just the beginning, and it won't be small. He wants to create new facts on the ground, and that won't just mean messing around with tweaking things on the edges.

[WMS]

For maximum irony we have Syria supporting Russia over the “peacekeeping into newly recognized states”. Let’s see, a country using the rhetoric of “national sovereignty” to justify atrocities up to and including the use of chemical weapons on civilians - with Russia’s wholehearted support for those of you keeping track of violations of international law - and out and out genocide is now supporting the most flagrant violation of international sovereignty imaginable, one that is even being justified under the BS claims of Russians being oppressed!

But blah blah America blah blah Iraq blah blah whataboutism blah blah Russia is morally equivalent to the West blah blah <insert useful idiots’ comments as needed>

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/Nordic_News/status/1496152649904930821
Let's burn Earth down to own Russians 

This is dumb, but protecting the interests of Finland (in this case, moving to do something that harms on the climate change front) is the job of the political class of Finland. The political class is allowed to make dumb decisions. They are human and make mistakes all the time, just like the rest of us.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1496167823755915269

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/1496164151009423362
https://twitter.com/OstapYarysh/status/1496163360592871424
Though, he added, that all border disputes should be done by means of "negotiations" between Ukraine and the Republics.

[GALeftist]

Russia's effectively correct in recognizing territorial integrity as just another tool to keep it down - highlight when convenient for me, ignore when convenient to thee.

This is basically correct, but not all separatist movements are created equal. The Very Fair Crimean Referendum was conducted without a status quo option and with a bunch of Russian soldiers milling about, so I think it's hardly indicative of the popular will in Crimea. Donetsk and Luhansk never even got a referendum of any kind. I don't think even an actor who was genuinely committed to the absolute self-determination of peoples would necessarily be compelled by their own logic to support these regions' joining Russia.

Further, I don't think it's unreasonable to support independence movements in some regions but not in others due to external factors. For example, although I'm generally sympathetic to declarations of independence, I am extremely unsympathetic to the independence of the American South for obvious reasons. It's a different situation, but revanchist sentiments in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea have pretty clearly been drummed up by the Kremlin in service of cynical geopolitical goals. It's possible that the world's interest in preventing Russian imperial expansion might outweigh the interests of Ukrainian Russians wanting to join Russia.

It was Western policies that created the Russia we have today. If we sought to integrate it into our coalition more rigorously when Yeltsin was president, or stopped moving NATO east when Putin was president the first time, or in general just gave the starving bear some room, we'd be in a better position against China now.

You might be right with respect to adding Russia to our sphere – we'll never know now – but I think you're off base with the point against NATO expansion. There's no reason to believe that Russia wouldn't simply be throwing its weight around in the Baltics like it is in Ukraine. If anything, the events of today seem to suggest that the optimal strategy was to rush NATO's borders east as quickly as possible; Russia doesn't seem willing to provoke direct confrontation with NATO. The fact that Russian expansion is limited by NATO is also a benefit to the United States broadly, beyond its being the right thing to do. Under NATO's aegis, the Baltics have grown to about 75% of Ukraine's GDP with like 15% of its population. Friendly nations with large markets like that are exactly what China is working so hard to establish. If we forfeit Eastern Europe to Russia, beyond subjecting millions to unjust despotic rule, we're leaving allies and markets on the table.