Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Frodo]

Do we have any idea how many Russian troops are in Lyman? Like, if it’s a company or two then it’s not really a big deal, but if we are talking a few battalions or several divisions then that’s something to celebrate. But do we have like a solid number? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

They are very vague with the numbers, but we are talking about multiple battalions with thousands of men.  So it isn't insignificant, although compared with the ~20,000 Russian soldiers in the Kherson area west of the Dnieper it doesn't seem quite as large. 

[DINGO Joe]

Do we have any idea how many Russian troops are in Lyman? Like, if it’s a company or two then it’s not really a big deal, but if we are talking a few battalions or several divisions then that’s something to celebrate. But do we have like a solid number? 100? 1,000? 10,000?

Realistically 1000 to 3000

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/status/1575570319104184321?s=20&t=GOKanmGT...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anschluss... interesting choice of words by this German media outlet.

Doesn't that literally mean "annexation"? What other word would Germans use in this context?

Also frankly Russia deserves to be compared to Nazi Germany. I'm sick of pretending otherwise.

[Lord Halifax]

Anschluss... interesting choice of words by this German media outlet.

Doesn't that literally mean "annexation"? What other word would Germans use in this context?

https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/annektieren

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anschluss... interesting choice of words by this German media outlet.

Doesn't that literally mean "annexation"? What other word would Germans use in this context?

https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/annektieren

Ah, interesting. So I guess the noun form would be "Annektrierung" or something like that.

I still don't understand the outrage, though.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

It's hard for me to be excited about this. Every acre Ukraine takes back makes it more likely Vlad will go nuclear.

Ukrainian tanks could be rolling into Moscow and you would argue this lol.

[Good Habit]

Ah, interesting. So I guess the noun form would be "Annektrierung" or something like that.

Annexion or Annektierung -- but Anschluss usually is used in the sense of "Connection" (to infrastructure - like water supply, electricity, roads, railroads, pipelines or connection between trains) - so to say that some area is "angeschlossen" means it is now connected / part of the same network - and this could, of course - also refer to a country - a former "country" becoming part of a larger country... (So - formalistically, "Anschluss" would pretend (as Putin is claiming) a "voluntary" connection, therefore the "referendums" - and this, of couse, is identitcal with the  famous "Anschluss" of Austria...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ah, interesting. So I guess the noun form would be "Annektrierung" or something like that.

Annexion or Annektierung -- but Anschluss usually is used in the sense of "Connection" (to infrastructure - like water supply, electricity, roads, railroads, pipelines or connection between trains) - so to say that some area is "angeschlossen" means it is now connected / part of the same network - and this could, of course - also refer to a country - a former "country" becoming part of a larger country... (So - formalistically, "Anschluss" would pretend (as Putin is claiming) a "voluntary" connection, therefore the "referendums" - and this, of couse, is identitcal with the  famous "Anschluss" of Austria...

So "Anschluss" actually still has a more positive connotation than Annexion or Annektierung even today? I see, interesting.

Then yeah, the outrage against that news outlet is fully warranted.

[Good Habit]

So "Anschluss" actually still has a more positive connotation than Annexion or Annektierung even today? I see, interesting.

Well, while Annektion basically only has the political meaning as for a land-grab between states (or the annexation of tribal lands in the colonial area...) "Anschluss" is a everyday word for many kinds of (usually voluntary) connections - so the use in the case of Austria in 1938 is an unusal exception - but if someone in a German speaking outlet would use it for S-E Ukraine today, this would most likely be in the same sense (comparing Putin with Hitler) - because normally Anschluss is not used in a politcal context...

[Woody]

Putin soon to announce the annexations of these four oblasts as integral territories of the Russian Federation. All the four Russian-backed leaders have arrived to Moscow in time for Putin's speech, which is soon to be delivered in a few minutes.
https://twitter.com/AZmilitary1/status/1575802683717713922

[jaichind]

Putin soon to announce the annexations of these four oblasts as integral territories of the Russian Federation. All the four Russian-backed leaders have arrived to Moscow in time for Putin's speech, which is soon to be delivered in a few minutes.

It seems for Kherson and Zaporozhye  it is Independence first, unification later where Russia will first accept both as independent states and then move to annex them into Russia.  I guess this is to avoid the legal issue of taking over Ukraine territories directly.  All nice and legal, from the Russian point of view.

[Woody]

Putin soon to announce the annexations of these four oblasts as integral territories of the Russian Federation. All the four Russian-backed leaders have arrived to Moscow in time for Putin's speech, which is soon to be delivered in a few minutes.

It seems for Kherson and Zaporozhye  it is Independence first, unification later where Russia will first accept both as independent states and then move to annex them into Russia.  I guess this is to avoid the legal issue of taking over Ukraine territories directly.  All nice and legal, from the Russian point of view.

Already happening, as Putin a few hours ago recognized their independence with his decrees (Kherson & Zaporozhye). All these four oblasts will be incorporated at the same time.

https://twitter.com/NewsEmpires/status/1575602017157857280

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hitler's desire to expand German territory - which he briefly did - ultimately lead to the permsnent loss of Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

[jaichind]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/why-germany-and-the-us-are-stalling-on-modern-tanks-for-ukraine#xj4y7vzkg

"Why Germany and the US Are Stalling on Modern Tanks for Ukraine"

Beyond what the article talks about which is about concerns over dwindling stockpiles and logistics there is also the issue of tank doctrine.  I mentioned this before.  Germany took over a large cache of French tanks in 1940 but it ended up being useless for the rest of the war because French tank doctrine was different from German tank doctrine. 

I think if a large of these NATO tanks (which are just bigger than the USSR-based tank models and might not do as well in the muddier terrine in Ukraine) do show up there might be a need for some NATO "volunteers" to operate them.  In fact, that might be another form of NATO escalation a-la Flying Tigers in the Sino-Japanese war before 1941.  Perhaps NATO can form a "Running Panthers" group to go into Ukraine to operate NATO tanks as their escalation to the recent Russian escalations.

[jaichind]

Hitler's desire to expand German territory - which he briefly did - ultimately lead to the permsnent loss of Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

This is clearly survivers bias but the desire for more territories worked out pretty well for a bunch of other countries.  USA, Russia, and China come to mind (just look at the map.)  So while such desires can lead to bad results they can also lead to derived results.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hitler's desire to expand German territory - which he briefly did - ultimately lead to the permsnent loss of Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

This is clearly survivers bias but the desire for more territories worked out pretty well for a bunch of other countries.  USA, Russia, and China come to mind (just look at the map.)  So while such desires can lead to bad results they can also lead to derived results.

False dichotomy.

These were gradual, slow, long-term "expansions" and not the result of the decision of s single, aggressive  president or leader who is considered an international pariah.

[jaichind]

Putin says he won’t negotiate with Kiev on the annexed territories, but that Ukraine should stop fighting and start talks. 

I guess the new Russian position is: Ukraine has to accept the loss of the 4 Oblasts (and Crimea of course) and once that takes place Russia will be willing to stop fighting.

[jaichind]

Hitler's desire to expand German territory - which he briefly did - ultimately lead to the permsnent loss of Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

This is clearly survivers bias but the desire for more territories worked out pretty well for a bunch of other countries.  USA, Russia, and China come to mind (just look at the map.)  So while such desires can lead to bad results they can also lead to derived results.

False dichotomy.

These were gradual, slow, long-term "expansions" and not the result of the decision of s single, aggressive  president or leader who is considered an international pariah.

1848 was pretty quick given the size of territories involved

[Torie]

Anschluss... interesting choice of words by this German media outlet.

Doesn't that literally mean "annexation"? What other word would Germans use in this context?

Also frankly Russia deserves to be compared to Nazi Germany. I'm sick of pretending otherwise.

In my perhaps unenlightened mind it connotes a union of one tribe, one people, that is celebratory, with the former division a sad artifact of history, e.g. the unification of east and west Germany. All roads lead to Germany on this one for some reason. Another I guess would be the twin Koreas, or perhaps Samoa and independent Samoa. In the context of Ukraine, It is a term more for Puin's propaganda machine than something emanating from an ally.

On the negotiation business, that will happen when somebody wants to make an offer. Who I wonder will be the first to make an offer that entails such concession of real estate? I don't think on this one, Ukraine wants to have talks just for show that have not much prospect of going anywhere. I wonder if Putin would be prepared to withdraw from everything other than the land bridge to Crimea in exchange for Ukraine in effect becoming a member of NATO, with all that portends. I tend to doubt it.

[CumbrianLefty]

Putin "annexing" these oblasts just as Ukraine are making significant advances into them?

If he had done this a few months ago, there might be at least a superficial rationale for it.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Hitler's desire to expand German territory - which he briefly did - ultimately lead to the permsnent loss of Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

This is clearly survivers bias but the desire for more territories worked out pretty well for a bunch of other countries.  USA, Russia, and China come to mind (just look at the map.)  So while such desires can lead to bad results they can also lead to derived results.

False dichotomy.

These were gradual, slow, long-term "expansions" and not the result of the decision of s single, aggressive  president or leader who is considered an international pariah.

1848 was pretty quick given the size of territories involved

False dichotomy no. 2.

I don't recall James K. Polk being considered an international pariah or being subject to international sanctions over it. And the reason why this was the case is because international relations were conducted under a different set of rules than they are post-WWII.

Do you understand the difference?

[Person Man]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-28/why-germany-and-the-us-are-stalling-on-modern-tanks-for-ukraine#xj4y7vzkg

"Why Germany and the US Are Stalling on Modern Tanks for Ukraine"

Beyond what the article talks about which is about concerns over dwindling stockpiles and logistics there is also the issue of tank doctrine.  I mentioned this before.  Germany took over a large cache of French tanks in 1940 but it ended up being useless for the rest of the war because French tank doctrine was different from German tank doctrine. 

I think if a large of these NATO tanks (which are just bigger than the USSR-based tank models and might not do as well in the muddier terrine in Ukraine) do show up there might be a need for some NATO "volunteers" to operate them.  In fact, that might be another form of NATO escalation a-la Flying Tigers in the Sino-Japanese war before 1941.  Perhaps NATO can form a "Running Panthers" group to go into Ukraine to operate NATO tanks as their escalation to the recent Russian escalations.

You mean NATO should send in “advisors”?

[Person Man]

Hitler's desire to expand German territory - which he briefly did - ultimately lead to the permsnent loss of Silesia, Pomerania, and East Prussia. Those who forget history are damned to repeat it.

This is clearly survivers bias but the desire for more territories worked out pretty well for a bunch of other countries.  USA, Russia, and China come to mind (just look at the map.)  So while such desires can lead to bad results they can also lead to derived results.

False dichotomy.

These were gradual, slow, long-term "expansions" and not the result of the decision of s single, aggressive  president or leader who is considered an international pariah.

1848 was pretty quick given the size of territories involved

False dichotomy no. 2.

I don't recall James K. Polk being considered an international pariah or being subject to international sanctions over it. And the reason why this was the case is because international relations were conducted under a different set of rules than they are post-WWII.

Do you understand the difference?

Sounds like a fun timeline.

[jaichind]

False dichotomy no. 2.

I don't recall James K. Polk being considered an international pariah or being subject to international sanctions over it. And the reason why this was the case is because international relations were conducted under a different set of rules than they are post-WWII.

Do you understand the difference?

I am not aware of any official "international pariah" title or how that would be assigned.  The latest UN vote on this seems to indicate that less than 1/3 of UN members voted against Russia.  Does not sound like an international pariah to me.

https://usun.usmission.gov/joint-statement-on-six-months-of-russias-full-scale-invasion-of-ukraine/

UN statement on the 6th month of the start of the Russia-Ukraine war.  58 UN members (which is less than 1/3 of UN members) signed up.  Pretty much the core collective West states and allies but nothing else.  The only "swing" votes this statement got is Türkiye and Singapore.