Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I was wondering why the Polish government would have gone public with a plan to send their MiG-29s to Ukraine. Then I saw this video and remembered just how unpopular Russia is with the Polish people:

https://twitter.com/jelle_simons/status/1501260045505466368?s=20&t=ESyOukgGg...
Note: I also think there's at least some aspect of creating a distraction for the actual transfer of the planes. Poland announces they will send them via Ramstein Air Base in Germany, the news spreads all over. A few hours later the Pentagon declines the Polish offer, saying it "raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance". Now everybody's focused on the "failure" of that plan.

I can easily imagine that while all this public drama is occurring, the planes are being repainted and will be loaded on trucks tonight at 2am headed for the Ukrainian border. (Or at least preparations are being made for the transfer: arranging the replacement F-16s, finding heavy trucks carry the MiG-29s to Ukraine, etc.)

It’s easy to imagine, but unlikely to be the reality given how long and publicly this drama has gone on.

Use Occam’s razor.  If NATO was that organised, it would have been done before all of social media had spent two weeks speculating about it.

I am shocked that you don’t think the U.S. could be lying about this.

They could, but it’s unlikely. There wasn’t any mention of Bulgarian Su-25 planes, which suggests the US officials pushing for this are not on the ball. Also, there’d be a high chance of a Polish or Ukrainian leak in this case, as there has been with every other development in this story. The Ukrainians would have to know about it, since their pilots would have been sent to Germany.

Assuming Biden has a secret plan just reminds me of the early days when people thought Trump had a secret plan.

[pppolitics]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1501512022470635521

[CumbrianLefty]

Okay, we know how Atlas loves to deconstruct polls, especially polls involving US Elections, so take it for what it's worth (Although I believe they have their cross-tabs available if you follow the link on the WP article below)

Poll of Russian Public Opinion regarding the War in Ukraine:

58 percent of Russians support invasion of Ukraine, 23 percent oppose it, poll shows

About 58 percent of Russians approve of the invasion of Ukraine, while 23 percent oppose it, according to a poll conducted across Russia a week into Moscow’s full-scale assault.

Let's keep in mind that Russia is an authoritarian regime and that people are currently being arrested for peaceful assembly, so people may not feel comfortable saying they oppose the invasion even if they do.

I don't disagree, but even taking all the obvious caveats into account about polling in Russia (even more so in current circumstances) 58% is a clear drop from the 65-66% a few polls had last week.

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

https://mobile.twitter.com/Forbes/status/1501395379060973572

[jaichind]

AFP reports that President Volodymyr Zelensky said he is no longer pressing for NATO membership for Ukraine

This means a peace settlement is possible. Perhaps the Americans will not be so eager to give up their ambitions though and will try to strong-arm Zelensky into revoking this statement.

I still hope both Russia and Ukraine can come to their senses and work out a compromise where Ukraine has constitutional guarantees on being neutral while the two Donetsk Republics return to Ukraine as autonomous regions.  The Second condition is key especially now Russia is now much more dependent on PRC which would be very negative the the idea of independence.  The word independence is a big no no for PRC.  Autonomy yes, independence no.

The latest comments from the Ukraine side seem to indicate they are most likely good with the compromise peace plan above.  I hope I am wrong but I suspect Putin would have been fine with that before the fighting started but now will take the "that is no longer good enough" attitude.

[jaichind]

Ihor Zhovkva, deputy chief of staff for President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, says in Bloomberg TV interview that "Ukraine is ready for a diplomatic solution, but needs security guarantee" "
Ukraine won’t trade a “single inch” of its territory" "Ukraine seeks a clear response to its EU membership application"

[Torie]

Interesting article from The Wall Street Journal (3 Hrs ago) about why it has taken a bit longer to get certain types of military hardware to Ukraine.

Very long article and this is just a relatively small excerpt.

How Removing a Handful of Screws Allowed the Pentagon to Deliver Stingers to Ukraine

Taking out classified gear enabled the military to send the antiaircraft missiles after the Russian invasion

In the late fall of 2021, as Russian forces massed at the border of Ukraine, U.S. lawmakers pressed the Pentagon on why the Biden administration wasn’t sending Stinger antiaircraft missiles to help Kyiv. The option wasn’t available, they were told, because the weapons in the U.S. inventory contained classified equipment.

Months later, the Pentagon came up with a solution to the problem. By removing several screws, the military was able to withdraw a sensitive item from the missile’s hand-held launcher, opening the way to sending the weapons from U.S. stocks.

As the Pentagon worked on the problem of whether it could deliver its Stingers, the Biden administration came up with a backstop: An export version of the American-made weapons that was already in the hands of Baltic nations began to be transferred to Ukraine in early February.

The Stinger systems from the U.S. military’s stocks didn’t arrive in Ukraine until late February shortly after the Russian invasion was under way.

“The armed services committee was briefed in November that the reason the U.S. was not providing Stingers was that there was a classified, non-export variant,” said Rep. Mike Waltz, a Florida Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. “They did not get there until after the invasion.”

The episode points to a problem that has bedeviled multiple U.S. administrations, current and former officials say. While the U.S. has spent billions of dollars helping Ukraine’s forces, the need for some military capabilities weren’t addressed until a massive Russian military buildup turned a foreign policy dispute into an increasingly urgent crisis.

“It is a lot easier to cut through bureaucratic and budgetary obstacles in wartime when there is a real urgency. And during peacetime it is not easy to predict where the next conflict is going to happen,” said William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “But we should have provided these weapons to Ukraine years ago.”

Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.

...

The version in the U.S. military’s inventory had been upgraded and contained a classified component. Removing it, military officials initially thought, would be a difficult and lengthy process.

In an effort to get the antiaircraft missiles to the Ukrainians, the Biden administration in January approved the transfer of U.S.-made Stingers from the Lithuanian and Latvian inventories, which started to arrive early the next month.


The Pentagon meanwhile continued to focus on the problem of converting the American Stingers to a version that could be exported. The Pentagon eventually determined the classified item could be removed in a matter of minutes by taking out a small number of screws in the missile’s hand-held launcher.

The first delivery from the Pentagon’s inventory arrived on Feb. 27, an administration official said, days after the Russian invasion was under way.

....

I guess the pentagon has learned that if in a crisis you want to arm other nations to defend themselves, you need two versions of a weapon, one of which is suitable for export.  It's kind of amazing that nobody thought about that issue before.

[Torie]

The good news (news that I never, ever expected to read in the NYT when Russia unleashed the dogs of war):




And in addition to Putin having no hesitancy to target civilians, the bad news:



“Brutal tactics.” Is there some point when the news and images of the slaughter of civilians deemed in the way or expendable pawns to Putin, becomes just too much to bear for the Western mind to stomach? Is there any red line out there at all as to that issue?

[Storr]

I guess Russia is hoping no one that can read Russian will fact check their English language government twitter accounts?

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1501525178051928065?s=20&t=T6jPPhrr...

https://twitter.com/kubek2k/status/1501528482374901763?s=20&t=T6jPPhrrPmmEqz...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Something I think people are missing with regards to the red line issue is that punitive sanctions at quite this scale are themselves unprecedented, especially against a country like Russia that both is very large and had a more or less "normal" role in the world economy right up until they were imposed. Even if they're not really working that we know of, yet, it isn't like the West has been sitting idle just because there are no Boots On The Ground or ICBMs in the air.

[Torie]

Something I think people are missing with regards to the red line issue is that punitive sanctions at quite this scale are themselves unprecedented, especially against a country like Russia that both is very large and had a more or less "normal" role in the world economy right up until they were imposed. Even if they're not really working that we know of, yet, it isn't like the West has been sitting idle just because there are no Boots On The Ground or ICBMs in the air.

Is there any rate of the death of civilians  from ordinance from the air that would compel that air ceasing to be a free fire zone for Russia? That is the question. The most extreme measure would involve using NATO pilots, and then you dial back from there to NATO planes flown by others, and so forth.

[Person Man]

The good news (news that I never, ever expected to read in the NYT when Russia unleashed the dogs of war):




And in addition to Putin having no hesitancy to target civilians, the bad news:



“Brutal tactics.” Is there some point when the news and images of the slaughter of civilians deemed in the way or expendable pawns to Putin, becomes just too much to bear for the Western mind to stomach? Is there any red line out there at all as to that issue?

Yeah. If we are all the sudden not seeing thousands of civil casualties but tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, the responsible thing to do would at least create a no-fly zone to protect evacuations.

[Silent Hunter]

Interesting article from The Wall Street Journal (3 Hrs ago) about why it has taken a bit longer to get certain types of military hardware to Ukraine.

Very long article and this is just a relatively small excerpt.

How Removing a Handful of Screws Allowed the Pentagon to Deliver Stingers to Ukraine

Taking out classified gear enabled the military to send the antiaircraft missiles after the Russian invasion

In the late fall of 2021, as Russian forces massed at the border of Ukraine, U.S. lawmakers pressed the Pentagon on why the Biden administration wasn’t sending Stinger antiaircraft missiles to help Kyiv. The option wasn’t available, they were told, because the weapons in the U.S. inventory contained classified equipment.

Months later, the Pentagon came up with a solution to the problem. By removing several screws, the military was able to withdraw a sensitive item from the missile’s hand-held launcher, opening the way to sending the weapons from U.S. stocks.

As the Pentagon worked on the problem of whether it could deliver its Stingers, the Biden administration came up with a backstop: An export version of the American-made weapons that was already in the hands of Baltic nations began to be transferred to Ukraine in early February.

The Stinger systems from the U.S. military’s stocks didn’t arrive in Ukraine until late February shortly after the Russian invasion was under way.

“The armed services committee was briefed in November that the reason the U.S. was not providing Stingers was that there was a classified, non-export variant,” said Rep. Mike Waltz, a Florida Republican who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. “They did not get there until after the invasion.”

The episode points to a problem that has bedeviled multiple U.S. administrations, current and former officials say. While the U.S. has spent billions of dollars helping Ukraine’s forces, the need for some military capabilities weren’t addressed until a massive Russian military buildup turned a foreign policy dispute into an increasingly urgent crisis.

“It is a lot easier to cut through bureaucratic and budgetary obstacles in wartime when there is a real urgency. And during peacetime it is not easy to predict where the next conflict is going to happen,” said William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “But we should have provided these weapons to Ukraine years ago.”

Military aid to Ukraine has a long and complex history. After Russia seized Crimea in 2014 and intervened in the Donbas region in southeastern Ukraine, the Obama administration provided only limited defensive assistance, fearing offensive weapons could be seen as provocative in Moscow. For example, when the U.S. sent counter battery radars to help the Ukrainians pinpoint the source of enemy mortar fire, the systems were modified so they couldn’t identify targets on Russian territory.

...

The version in the U.S. military’s inventory had been upgraded and contained a classified component. Removing it, military officials initially thought, would be a difficult and lengthy process.

In an effort to get the antiaircraft missiles to the Ukrainians, the Biden administration in January approved the transfer of U.S.-made Stingers from the Lithuanian and Latvian inventories, which started to arrive early the next month.


The Pentagon meanwhile continued to focus on the problem of converting the American Stingers to a version that could be exported. The Pentagon eventually determined the classified item could be removed in a matter of minutes by taking out a small number of screws in the missile’s hand-held launcher.

The first delivery from the Pentagon’s inventory arrived on Feb. 27, an administration official said, days after the Russian invasion was under way.

....

I guess the pentagon has learned that if in a crisis you want to arm other nations to defend themselves, you need two versions of a weapon, one of which is suitable for export.  It's kind of amazing that nobody thought about that issue before.

They already had an export version, but they didn't have enough of them.

While Stinger/Javelin use is probably outstripping construction, the same is probably true of Russian aircraft ordnance.

[Storr]

In a surprise to no one:

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1501569900095094795?s=20&t=ul1sqEo...

Evidently Putin is now claiming he was "misled", sure Jan.

https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1501572950620786690?s=20&t=z8EQ8Yus...

[Sir Mohamed]

The good news (news that I never, ever expected to read in the NYT when Russia unleashed the dogs of war):




And in addition to Putin having no hesitancy to target civilians, the bad news:



“Brutal tactics.” Is there some point when the news and images of the slaughter of civilians deemed in the way or expendable pawns to Putin, becomes just too much to bear for the Western mind to stomach? Is there any red line out there at all as to that issue?

Yeah. If we are all the sudden not seeing thousands of civil casualties but tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, the responsible thing to do would at least create a no-fly zone to protect evacuations.

The question then is when the no-fly zone will actually happen, which I'm still skeptical of. I'm afraid we have to be prepared for another Grozny or Aleppo, where Putin just bombed the cities into the ground.

[Torie]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

[dead0man]

They already had an export version, but they didn't have enough of them.

While Stinger/Javelin use is probably outstripping construction, the same is probably true of Russian aircraft ordnance.

Forbes article related to the subject

They are made in SE Iowa, there was an explosion at the plant in 2018.  They've since made some improvements, but it's still an outdated facility.  Seems like maybe we should cancel the next couple of naval destroyers and build a new plant that does this apparently very unique thing called a "large caliber ammunition melt-pour facility".  Stingers and Javelins (and whatever cool toys of war the future will bring us) are extremely useful on the modern battlefield and we should maintain the ability to produce them in large numbers when needed (assuming they don't mothball well).

[dead0man]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

no, he shouldn't.  But since he is the human manifestation of the "lesser evil", he probably will.


<see, I can use big words too sir!  Never mind that I got the red squiggly line underneath >

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. The Saudi-caused humanitarian crisis in Yemen is still way worse than the Russian-caused one in Ukraine and will probably continue to be so through several more rounds of potential escalation of the latter conflict.

[jojoju1998]

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. The Saudi-caused humanitarian crisis in Yemen is still way worse than the Russian-caused one in Ukraine and will probably continue to be so through several more rounds of potential escalation of the latter conflict.

But unironically, Guess who's buddies with Saudi Arabia ? Russia, people.


I wonder why we're still friends with Saudi Arabia, because it's obvious that they have dangerous ties with Russia and other hostile states. It's the oil isn't it ?

[Tintrlvr]

In addition to tough hypotheticals that are getting all too close to reality on no fly zones, we have another one lurking out there:

Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis
Persian Gulf monarchies have signaled they won’t help ease surging oil prices unless Washington supports them in Yemen, elsewhere

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. They'll increase production on their own as prices surge to maintain market share and cash in; political pressure is not relevant. They're not going to cut off their noses to spite Biden, so call their bluff.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. The Saudi-caused humanitarian crisis in Yemen is still way worse than the Russian-caused one in Ukraine and will probably continue to be so through several more rounds of potential escalation of the latter conflict.

But unironically, Guess who's buddies with Saudi Arabia ? Russia, people.


I wonder why we're still friends with Saudi Arabia, because it's obvious that they have dangerous ties with Russia and other hostile states. It's the oil isn't it ?

Of course it's the oil, plus sheer Cold War inertia from when the overall American Middle East policy was to prop up despotic monarchies against nominally-socialist authoritarian republics. What else would it be?

[jojoju1998]

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. The Saudi-caused humanitarian crisis in Yemen is still way worse than the Russian-caused one in Ukraine and will probably continue to be so through several more rounds of potential escalation of the latter conflict.

But unironically, Guess who's buddies with Saudi Arabia ? Russia, people.


I wonder why we're still friends with Saudi Arabia, because it's obvious that they have dangerous ties with Russia and other hostile states. It's the oil isn't it ?

Of course it's the oil, plus sheer Cold War inertia from when the overall American Middle East policy was to prop up despotic monarchies against nominally-socialist authoritarian republics. What else would it be?

But they're all the freaking same. Anti Democratic. No Freedoms.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. The Saudi-caused humanitarian crisis in Yemen is still way worse than the Russian-caused one in Ukraine and will probably continue to be so through several more rounds of potential escalation of the latter conflict.

But unironically, Guess who's buddies with Saudi Arabia ? Russia, people.


I wonder why we're still friends with Saudi Arabia, because it's obvious that they have dangerous ties with Russia and other hostile states. It's the oil isn't it ?

Of course it's the oil, plus sheer Cold War inertia from when the overall American Middle East policy was to prop up despotic monarchies against nominally-socialist authoritarian republics. What else would it be?

But they're all the freaking same. Anti Democratic. No Freedoms.

Not really : the Shah was way better than the Ayotallah , the King was better than whoever came next in Afghanistan and Suddam was a greater evil to the Saudis in the Gulf War(given he wanted to invade them too).

[Person Man]

Should Biden bend over on this one as the lesser evil?

No. The Saudi-caused humanitarian crisis in Yemen is still way worse than the Russian-caused one in Ukraine and will probably continue to be so through several more rounds of potential escalation of the latter conflict.

But unironically, Guess who's buddies with Saudi Arabia ? Russia, people.


I wonder why we're still friends with Saudi Arabia, because it's obvious that they have dangerous ties with Russia and other hostile states. It's the oil isn't it ?

Of course it's the oil, plus sheer Cold War inertia from when the overall American Middle East policy was to prop up despotic monarchies against nominally-socialist authoritarian republics. What else would it be?

But they're all the freaking same. Anti Democratic. No Freedoms.

Not really : the Shah was way better than the Ayotallah , the King was better than whoever came next in Afghanistan and Suddam was a greater evil to the Saudis in the Gulf War(given he wanted to invade them too).

There were others that would have gone better if we left them alone though. Sometimes it was better to intervene but other times it’s not. I hope that this crisis furthers the conditioning of globalization and economic relationships on human rights. Couched in those terms, I can almost tolerate a “drill baby drill” policy on energy… to a point. Regardless of this, there’s even odds of running out of oil in my lifetime (50-60 years with no cancer or early senility) and even prioritizing fossil fuels is basically a massive tax on our elder years and our children’s whole life. There needs to be an honest discussion about the de regulation and subsidization of the nuclear and next generation nuclear industry.