Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[CumbrianLefty]

Tbh an account called "EndGameWW3" strongly suggests crankery simply in its title.

[CumbrianLefty]

Good job Biden, you idiot.

what

Putin never did anything like this when Trump was president. They both had respect for each other.

You actually believe this don't you, god bless

[CumbrianLefty]

Not just Border sealed but also the main future migrant flows into Belarus cut off. And shows that if the EU and it's MS are united, we can actually apply real pressure. Problem countries is Syria and Iran, where applying pressure doesn't work if the relationship is non-existent/ed and no economic leverage is there thanks to US stupidity with nuclear deal.

Yes, another Trump "triumph".

[CumbrianLefty]

Yeah, still sceptical that much will come of it.

[CumbrianLefty]

That is indeed a reason for scepticism!

[CumbrianLefty]

CNN article:

The US and its allies in Europe and NATO have warned Russia of severe economic sanctions should it move to invade Ukraine.

But Western officials are reluctant to get drawn into a direct military conflict with Russia, which Moscow understands, the senior Western intelligence official said.

"If you threaten force, and you keep your force in the field, and the interventions from the West, politically and militarily, are mild or nonexistent, that emboldens you," that official said. "Generally speaking, I think the aim here is to make clear, 'I'm willing to take this big risk and use force and I'm betting that you are unwilling to engage with me and have a loss of life.' "

Russians figured this out 10 to 15 years ago. Chinese look to have figured it in recent years as well and is why I fully expect some Chinese expeditionary conflict in the South Pacific to take over sea territory explicitly from other countries' EEZs and is why if I'm Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, etc. I'm scared sh*tless in this current era of geopolitics. If you want to see the world become even more a real clusterf#ck let's wait for the Turks, Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, some Arab states, etc. to figure it out and start doing actions, although the Syrian conflict showcased some of that was already going on. They know they'll suffer no real repercussions internationally, so go forth carrying out your geopolitical aims daring a weak West to do anything about it when they don't want to deploy their own troops and the rest of the world hates the West and their moralizing in international relations. It's hard realpolitik.

But what is the alternative? The US eternally pursuing war with the rest of the world in pursuit of total hegemony - the neocon dream - is now widely despised (even there) and totally discredited.

[CumbrianLefty]

Stoltenberg announced yesterday NATO/the West would effectively punt if the Russians did anything. All giving military material aid to the Ukrainians would accomplish is increase casualties on both sides and the Russians would still win. So what was the grand threat from Stoltenberg? Economic sanctions.

I think the Russians are still on economic sanctions from Crimea 7 years ago so these must be double serious economic sanctions! (How many times does it need to be proven sanctions do little?)

So right now the ball is in Russia's court. If they choose to invade, the West have acknowledged they'll do nothing of material value and the Russians will win the conflict accomplishing whatever their military arms are. No one thinks the Ukrainians will win a straight up fight, not even the Ukrainians. So the choice hinges on whatever gets offered diplomatically to the Russians and if they decide to accept or not.

Lavrov rebutted to everything surrounding Ukraine by saying there's NATO troops now in Poland and the Baltics, so they may be trying to frame this Cuban Missile Crisis-ish, minus the nukes, of "withdraw your troops in Poland and the Baltics and we'll withdraw our troops surrounding Ukraine". The problem with that frame of negotiation if that's the case is the Cuban Missile Crisis was a one-on-one negotiation. I don't see Poland and the Baltics agreeing to being sold out marginalizing their defense.

Putting aside the cost of economic sanctions that I think we agree that Russia could weather if it chose to (the West could freeze the entire Russian financial system) then yes, an invasion that took a few weeks with all of Russia's military objectives achieved and the Ukrainian government accepting a dictated political settlement would indeed be a no-brainer. The risk is that is not the only possible outcome, nor perhaps even the most likely one. Let's say the Russian army rolls over eastern Ukraine up to the Dnieper. Great. What happens the day after? NATO countries rebuild the Ukrainian military with bottomless amounts of aid and equipment that at the least turns the conflict into a running sore of deaths and losses for Russia, and at worst threatens to roll back Russia's gains without the ongoing commitment of hundreds of thousands of troops. And in an continued war Russia has already played all of its escalation cards. Meanwhile Russia faces the problem of managing and integrating millions of unreconciled Ukrainian citizens. It's doubtful NATO and Ukraine would be brought to the table, and without a political solution Russia would face major and open-ended costs.

Now an invasion still might be worth it if 1) you think a West-aligned Ukraine is a truly existential threat to Russian security, and 2) you think you can get away with it à la Crimea, but the downsides are real and potentially tremendous for Russia and the Putin regime.

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

[CumbrianLefty]

That's the thing though, its not is it. And they're not really all that "West-aligned" in any event.

I don't think so either, but then again I'm not a Russian general. As for West-aligned or not, well, that's the entire point of Ukraine wanting to join NATO: to align with the West so Ukraine can remove itself from the Russian sphere.

They may want to join NATO, but haven't done so and aren't doing so any time soon.

[CumbrianLefty]

Lots of countries didn't exist at all in 1654, so what?

[CumbrianLefty]

Not at all the sort of thing your mate Trump would ever do, he was so fastidious about these things.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not at all the sort of thing your mate Trump would ever do, he was so fastidious about these things.

Wouldn't you agree that Whataboutism brings little to the conversation?

Yeah sorry about that, but given who the poster was I just couldn't resist

[CumbrianLefty]

So has the Atomic War started yet?

Its always just around the corner, don'tcha know?

[CumbrianLefty]

Strange how this thread has gone quiet lately, wasn't WW3 meant to have started by now?

[CumbrianLefty]

Hopefully, they are right - but I'm not holding my breath either way.

[CumbrianLefty]

The end result of this is nuclear war.

Nope, the West isn't going to all out war over Ukraine in any circumstances.

Putin knows this, of course.

[CumbrianLefty]

Yet again, do we need loads of threads on basically the same topic?

[CumbrianLefty]

We're barrelling headlong into World War 3 and potential nuclear war here and it's astonishing no one realises that.

Nobody "realises" it because it isn't true.

[CumbrianLefty]

Why would Russia attack Kiev directly? They definitely don’t have the manpower to take this large metro. If this is somehow true I suspect it is only meant to stretch Ukrainian forces thin

Yeah they may "want" to do it, but that's not the same as saying they actually will.

[CumbrianLefty]

So apart from actually starting WW3, what are our options?

Tough sounding rhetoric is all well and good, but apart from the real danger of things escalating out of control it doesn't take into account the immense war weariness throughout the democratic world.

(why else was Afghanistan abandoned?)

[CumbrianLefty]

"Stop The War" has long been a joke group tbf.

[CumbrianLefty]

I know, indeed it was a key reason some of us didn't vote for him in 2015.

"Victory To The Other Side Coalition" would of course be a more accurate descriptor.

[CumbrianLefty]

Not sure if it's the right place for this but this Lithuanian MP is spitting pure facts

https://mobile.twitter.com/MatasMaldeikis/status/1485569942023983109

Based

As I said earlier in the thread: it's Europe, what state is not a construct?

That's generally the case all over the world, so the "it's Europe" part is odd. All states in the Americas and nearly all in Africa (only three exceptions) are ahistorical constructs, while it's Asia and Europe that have nearly all of the states with old (in some cases very old) historical roots even if the modern borders are different.

Egypt, Ethiopia, and......?

[CumbrianLefty]

Though that they are doing that is, of course, entirely possible.

[CumbrianLefty]

https://twitter.com/MarquardtA/status/1487534551513587717

Maybe it's time for a coup in Ukraine that will be more aligned with USA goals.  Memories of  RVN Diem 1963.

Sounds like a great idea, can't see any possible drawbacks to it

[CumbrianLefty]

The problem is, of course, that whilst that principle was adopted for overwhelmingly just and obvious reasons there are times when rigidly sticking to it come what may causes problems.

It remains a total nonsense that almost no states will recognise Somaliland, for instance.