Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

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

Everything looks pretty much as you would expect if they were in fact going to invade.

This doesn't mean it is 100% certain that they will.

However, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it could in fact actually be a duck. With 80 years without a major duck in Europe, it is understandable that we have started to get to the point where a duck seems to many people to be almost unimaginable. But couldn't what looks like a duck actually be a duck?

If so, all we can do at this point is hope that the damage and destruction that will follow is not too severe.

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

The people of the former Yugoslavia would question the lack of presence of a major duck.

This is of course a fair point. It depends on the definition of major, yes. And also on the definition of duck.

In terms of its effect on the people directly involved, any duck is inherently "major."

However, there is a difference in scale, and you could call the Yugoslavian conflict mostly a "civil" or "domestic" conflict, as opposed to a full-on conflict between conventional militaries of large nation-states.

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

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSWalsh/status/1493688067361849349

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

So is Macron's allegedly successful diplomatic intervention BS or...?

Yes. Putin wants LePen to win the French elections. So he tells Macron he will do something for peace and withdraw troops, and then does the opposite. This has the effect of making Macron look like a fool.

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

RUB actually strengthened to above 80 at the end of the speech.  I guess some investors expected Putin to also order a military offensive against Ukraine which did not take place.

did no take place yet

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

So what does this mean? No invasion or what?

It means that the invasion will occur (quite a bit more certain than before the speech), and that the recognition of these 2 separatist regions will be involved in the pretext for it. It may be that Russian troops go into there for "peacekeeping" or something, and then say they are "being attacked by the Ukrainians," and you can see where things are headed. Or TBH they could just go directly in immediately, because I am not sure Putin really gives a **** at this point, and he already has enough of a pretext for his purposes.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1495851685142540293?cxt=HHwWisC5mdXLqsIpAAAA

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

What exactly are the borders of these “states” that Putin just recognized? It’s in contention, no?

Yes, it is in contention. The line of contact between Ukranian and Russian control is about halfway through those states.

So if and when the Russian troops go in to "protect" the separatist regions, the question is if they stop at the line of control (the current front line), or alternatively if they just blow right through it and keep going.

https://twitter.com/AmichaiStein1/status/1495859915952476173

And here we have the "peacekeeping" operation. How far will they go?

https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1495871597059706887?cxt=HHwWjsC4xdjSs8Ip...

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

It means that the invasion will occur (quite a bit more certain than before the speech), and that the recognition of these 2 separatist regions will be involved in the pretext for it. It may be that Russian troops go into there for "peacekeeping" or something, and then say they are "being attacked by the Ukrainians," and you can see where things are headed.

And here we have the "peacekeeping" operation.

https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1495871597059706887

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

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1495875803636187143

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

Russia’s Shock and Awe
Why Moscow Would Use Overwhelming Force Against Ukraine

The Russian military would likely open its campaign with airstrikes targeting command-and-control systems, logistical centers, airports, air defenses, and other critical infrastructure. To carry them out, Moscow could use hundreds of bombers as well as ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles. The Russian military has also deployed near Ukraine high-powered artillery and long-range rocket systems to support its ground forces with overwhelming firepower.

Airstrikes would not go entirely uncontested. Russia’s air force lacks experience in suppressing or destroying enemy air defenses, and it rarely uses missiles that are designed to destroy radar. As a result, Ukraine’s meager air defenses could still pose a challenge. But Ukrainian air defenses are in short supply, and they would be unlikely to provide effective cover for most of the country’s ground troops. They would be quickly overwhelmed.

The opening air campaign would probably be short. Unlike Western militaries, which concentrate firepower in their air forces, Russia puts the bulk of its firepower in its ground forces, so it would quickly proceed to a ground campaign. It would start by using helicopters to drop troops into Ukraine. Russia might also strategically drop paratroopers and airlift troops and armored vehicles well behind the frontline to seize bridges or other infrastructure. The main effort of Russia’s ground campaign would be to create a pincer movement from the north that encircled Kyiv and enveloped the bulk of Ukraine’s ground forces in the eastern part of the country. Russian formations would then cut off Ukrainian supply lines and fragment the Ukrainian military into isolated pockets surrounded by Russian troops. Drones and combat helicopters would offer Russian ground forces reconnaissance and cover.

The Russian navy would play a supporting role. Moscow has worked hard to modernize its Black Sea Fleet, which now has platforms—from advanced conventional submarines to corvettes—that can launch precision-guided cruise missiles. With a range longer than 1,000 miles, these missiles can strike any part of Ukraine. Russia has also reinforced the Black Sea Fleet with landing ships from other fleets. It can now conduct a significant amphibious operation, using 1,000 to 2,000 troops, to help Russian forces attack across the narrow isthmus separating Crimea from Ukraine.

In addition to relying on traditional firepower, a Russian operation would be supported by electronic warfare. The Russian military has a panoply of digital capabilities that it can use to disrupt the Ukrainian forces’ navigation and communication systems. Ukrainian commanders could suddenly find it impossible to use established channels to coordinate their response to Russia’s invasion, forcing them to use less secure means of communication.

Achieving information dominance during a conflict is a cornerstone of Russian military strategy, and Moscow would also use its cyber-capabilities to engage in psychological warfare. Hoping to confuse and convince Ukraine’s citizens, leaders, and military personnel, it would spread disinformation online, deny access to online services, and impede communication. Cyberattacks could temporarily disable key infrastructure, such as electricity, but Ukraine is resilient and has withstood cyberattacks in the past. Traditional military strikes are likely to be far more effective at destroying critical nodes than are specialized cyber-operations.

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

But by framing this as a "peace-keeping operation" to protect the separatist republics, the farther Russian troops get from those republics, the less justification Putin has for Russians dying on their behalf.

If you watched Putin's speech, he made it pretty clear that all this was about much more than peacekeeping and Donetsk and Luhansk.

He also said much of the same things nearly a year ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians


For anyone that wants to understand the background and has not already done so, I would recommend watching Putin's speech from earlier and/or reading his essay from last year.

Ultimately this will be Putin's justification, the peacekeeping etc is just a small peace of the puzzle, one little step in his plan.


It would be a lot better if you are correct, however, so hopefully you are!

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

https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1495896613386133512

Sounds to me like US intel is expecting an all out invasion today/tonight, and that not even Lviv will be safe from that. Or at the very least, they are treating that possibility as credible enough to entirely evacuate all the American diplomats that they previously evacuated to Lviv. I bet that is what those US planes and helicopters that were spotted near the Poland-Ukraine border were doing.

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

We've found it, Biden's definition of a "minor incursion" that doesn't trigger sanctions.

https://twitter.com/DavidLawler10/status/1495891830239645697

I think the main possibility whereby we avoid all-out war is if Biden and Putin secretly made some sort of a deal that Putin would do this (but not go any further), as some sort of way for Putin to be able to climb down while saving some face.

I think this would be a surprising thing for Biden to agree to though, unless there is something more to come that makes it not be a free win for Putin and an effective abandonment of Ukraine.

I think the logic that Putin is going for an all out invasion fits the available evidence better though at this point.

For that to change something major new will need to come about soon, some sort of way in which recognition of DNR/LNR and Russian troops moving in there would not be so threatening to Ukraine. Which is hard to imagine at the moment.

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

Why is the USA doing this?  Even in an all-out Russian invasion leading to the capture of Kyiv, a Russian assault on the USA embassy is tantamount to a declaration of war.  When the Taliban took over Kabul the USA embassy was not attacked.  If the USA wants to move its embassy to Lviv if Kyiv is captured by the Russians and the Ukrainian government relocates to Lviv that would make sense.  And then if the Russians capture Lviv and the Ukrainian government moves to become a government in exile it makes sense for the USA to move with it.  But it does not make sense to move the USA embassy to Lviv now let alone outside Ukraine.

Do you really not understand that it is dangerous for US diplomas to be in a warzone, and that they can be in real danger even if they are not deliberately targeted???!!!

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

Hard to imagine this doesn't go at least to Odessa, which, uh, is not close to the Donbass.

Odessa is very close to Romania, so that pretty much would bring him up to the NATO border.

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

I imagine Syria, Nicaragua, and Venezuela will follow the Russians in short order on recognition of Luhansk and Donetsk.

I imagine so too! The interesting thing will be how many other governments will side with Russia either directly through said recognition or by other means. I expect vast, vast, hypocrisy and whataboutism in the days ahead!

Syria and Venezuela already did. I don't know about the others, didn't hear about them so far. But the list of countries recognizing DNR/LNR will be both short and predictable.

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

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1495919094608154625

https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1495919095975448584

Putin moves in eastern Ukraine could be opening phase of possible large-scale invasion, multiple US and western officials say

(CNN) Russian President Vladimir Putin's move to recognize breakaway eastern Ukrainian territories as independent could be the opening phase of a larger potential military operation targeting Ukraine, nearly a dozen US and western officials told CNN.

"This is Potemkin politics," a senior administration official told reporters on Monday. "President Putin is accelerating the very conflict that he's created."

The US and western officials said Putin's decision to sign the decrees, which proclaim that the Russia-backed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LNR) are independent territories, has given Putin the justification he wanted to send in Russian forces and potentially wage a broader assault on Ukraine in the name of protecting the separatist regions.

US Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield called the announcement a pretext to an invasion. "Russia's announcement is nothing more than theater, apparently designed to create a pretext for a further invasion of Ukraine," she said in a statement.

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

https://twitter.com/gerrydogma/status/1495919546301141002

“CNN: The US is seeing preparations for a potential broad invasion of Ukraine, including loading amphibious ships and loading equipment for airborne units.“

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

America is hardly the white knight it claims itself to be, and NATO moving east is a real threat to Russia (right at a time when geographic armor makes for less than it used to be, and the only geographic armor Russia has is flat land on the North European Plain).
I've said it before but I'll say it again: Russia is refreshingly honest about how the game is actually played.

I don't see any necessary contradiction between recognizing that America is not some white knight that can never do any wrong and recognizing that Putin's actions at the moment are not justified. No necessary contradiction between condemning Putins actions and e.g. this analysis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

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

I don't see any necessary contradiction between recognizing that America is not some white knight that can never do any wrong and recognizing that Putin's actions at the moment are not justified. No necessary contradiction between condemning Putins actions and e.g. this analysis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

And to further clarify, I think that similarly there is no contradiction between condemning Hitler's actions and also recognizing that the Versailles Treaty and problems with how the post-WW1 order was set up were major factors contributing to the rise of Hitler and consequently to WW2. Recognizing that the Versailles Treaty was bad does not imply that Hitler was good or that his "solution" to it was good.

I also don't mean to imply a lazy Putin = Hitler analogy in other respects (e.g. appeasementt/sudetenland analogies), just using that here to illustrate the point that one thing on one level of analysis does not necessarily imply anything at all about something else on another level of analysis.

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

Russia and America both engage in sphere of influence politics. Only Russia admits that publicly. Maintaining a larger sphere tends to make the country richer and more influential, and America's sphere has grown at the expense of Russia's.
NATO moving east is absolutely not a benign thing. It's a dagger held at the Russian heartland, and in fact we've disrespected Russia for decades now. Now Russia is running to China, and it's mainly our fault.

A crucial question here is, could Russia ever be a member of NATO? Putin himself mentioned this in his speech today (in his own particular way).

Personally I would say the question is clearly no while Russia is an autocratic dictatorship under Putin. But could it never, if it hypothetically became a democratic country similar to e.g. Latvia?

It is true that Russia may perceive NATO as a dagger held at the Russian heartland, and we should be willing to acknowledge that perception. But at the same time, need it necessarily be?

On the one hand, we should not be surprised that some people in Russia would have the perception of threat, but at the same time we should also be willing to acknowledge that this can be a manifestation of their own attitudes and paranoia.

It can be a chicken-and-the-egg issue, which is how I would think about it at any rate.

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

https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1495927139522252808

https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1495932442682839042

Here comes the "oh no, the wicked Ukranians are attacking our peacekeepers, who could have foreseen such aggression by the aggressive Ukranians attacking our peaceful Russian soldiers" part.

To be followed thereafter by the "oh no, now we are forced to invade the rest of Ukraine (in self-defense, of course) with our 200,000 troops that we just happened to have, by sheer random chance, gathering at the borders of Ukraine for months for peaceful military exercises" part.

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

Russia being able to join NATO would instantly alter the nature of NATO overnight, turning it into a de facto anti-Chinese alliance.

That is certainly one way to think about it, and if hypothetically Russia did join NATO in 20 years, we shouldn't be surprised that China might express that sort of perspective, and we should be prepared for that.

However, another possible perspective is to look at the actual text of the NATO charter. The NATO charter's text does not, literally, make it an anti-anyone alliance. Rather, it makes it a defensive alliance, that commits members to mutual defense against anyone who attacks.

Hence, in those terms NATO is an anti-aggressor alliance. Which would only make it "anti-Chinese" if China had some reason to be an aggressor.

Of course, the same is true currently vis a vis Russia. While we should understand that Russia (in particular an autocratic Russia led by Putin) may not quite see it this way, NATO is not literally, in terms of its own charter, an anti-Russia alliance, it is an anti-aggressor alliance. And thus it is only "anti-Russia" insofar as Russia chooses to be an aggressor.

If Russia was allowed to make a home for itself inside NATO, then that would change so many things about it. Probably the biggest hurdle for Russia becoming a NATO member though is that any of NATO's current members have a veto, which gives the Baltic states a veto on any arrangement. If anyone would be opposed to the very idea of Russian NATO membership, it would probably be them.

Up to this point, NATO has functioned as a defensive alliance against any Russian resurgence. I don't know what to think about it being anything else because like most people, I've never imagined it as anything else. But the time might someday come that it perhaps would be the better if it did.

And yet, despite the fact that (obviously) NATO was historically formed in response to the threat posed to the west by the Soviet Union, the only time the alliance has actually been invoked was in response to 9/11, against Al Qaida/Taleban/Afghanistan.

This was not an "anti-Russian" response of the alliance, at least not unless you want to come up with some sort of convoluted/indirect interpretation making that case (which probably one could come up with with sufficient geopolitical interpretive creativity, e.g. arguing that it was all part of the New Great Game to establish a NATO presence in central Asia to threaten Russia or something).

Also it is worth noting that when NATO was originally formed, Stalin inquired about joining NATO, and was informed that the Soviet Union would not be welcome in NATO... But was this really an anti-Soviet response per se from USA/NATO, or was it an anti-Soviet policy/ideology response? I think it is not hard to make the case that NATO was formed in response to the Soviet Union's policies and ideology, rather than per se in response to the Soviet Union as such. If the Soviet Union had been a liberal democracy rather than a totalitarian dictatorship, then things might have been different.

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

https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1495930767209373696

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

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

This is perhaps the worst thing about all of this, is that it puts one more nail in the coffin of nuclear non-proliferation as an actual thing.

It is clear that any state that is capable of making nuclear weapons but does not do so is an idiot-state. Nuclear weapons are the only reliable means of deterrence and self-defense against other nuclear powers.

This will accelerate the spread of nuclear weapons, and sooner or later nukes are going to end up being actually used again in some form or another as a result. It might be some accidental nuclear detonation/launch. It might be a deliberate small or "tactical" use of nukes. It might be nuclear terrorism. Or it might be a larger scale nuclear conflict that could kill hundreds of millions or billions or potentially end civilization. But either way, it is just a matter of time, and that time keeps becoming shorter.