Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[EmperorBatman999]

The matter about Russian security concerns had me thinking here.

Really, the attitude is a one-way street. Russia feels like the West is out to get it, out to destroy it, to bring down the entire country. But really, I don’t think the US gave a crap about Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is not in a hostile sense, just the attitude that Russia was another country, neither good nor bad, neither friend nor foe. And NATO wouldn’t give any care for Russia until it did something worth concern and consideration. As far as the US has been concerned, Mid-East terrorism and pivoting to the Pacific to counter China were the headline goals of US defense and diplomatic policy. The US was not going to endanger Russia because Russia wasn’t, before 2014 or maybe 2008, doing anything worth the West’s concern. The West was about to leave Russia where it was. As long as things were like this, Russian fears for its security against NATO were totally unfounded and irrational.

[antaeus]

Some voices within China are looking to take advantage of this situation to ease tensions with the US...

... Under current international circumstances, China can only proceed by safeguarding its own best interests, choosing the lesser of two evils, and unloading the burden of Russia as soon as possible. At present, it is estimated that there is still a window period of one or two weeks before China loses its wiggle room. China must act decisively...

...given that China has always advocated respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it can avoid further isolation only by standing with the majority of the countries in the world. This position is also conducive to the settlement of the Taiwan issue...

...Under such circumstances, China’s top priority is to make appropriate strategic adjustments accordingly, to change the hostile American attitudes towards China, and to save itself from isolation. The bottom line is to prevent the U.S. and the West from imposing joint sanctions on China....

...Putin’s departure from China’s support will most likely end the war, or at least not dare to escalate the war. As a result, China will surely win widespread international praise for maintaining world peace, which may help China prevent isolation but also find an opportunity to improve its relations with the United States and the West.

https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei...-china-choice/

[bitterhowl]

Some old news from Putin propaganda on Fox News

So it's definitely no more Reddit holywar.

[Laser101]

Some voices within China are looking to take advantage of this situation to ease tensions with the US...



https://uscnpm.org/2022/03/12/hu-wei...-china-choice/

China has every opportunity to profit from the current situation. Putin's blunder has torpedoed his relationship with the countries in Central Asia which can now easily fall under Beijing's sway. Further, Russia is looking at a dwindling population (emigration coupled with low birthrate) and a collapsed economy which means that it becomes easy for the Chinese to buy up exclusive control of Russia's resources.

[Janbāru]

@ bitterhowln you've been claiming for a while now that Ukraine was the only one guilty for the events in Donbas during the last 8 years.
So, explain to me how what is in this article is wrong?
Fact check: Russia falsely blames Ukraine for starting war | Europe | News and current affairs from around the continent | DW | 03.03.2022

Prove me that these numbers are wrong?

t is true that at least 13,000 people have been killed in the armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. According to the latest report by the United Nations, up to 13,200 people died in the conflict until early 2020. Of those, 3,350 were civilians and 5,650 insurgents, according to the UN. It says that 4,100 of those killed were members of the Ukrainian military.

I'd also suggest you to read these daily reports made by the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe): Daily and spot reports from the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine | OSCE
For your information, they have been monitoring the Donbass conflict since 2014 and have found no evidence of mass targeted killings of civilians in the Donbas region.
If you take the time to read these reports, you'll see that wrongs are on both sides and not only on the ukrainian one and in any case, they don't justify the current invasion of Ukraine by Putin.

Edit: I really hope that there will be more guys like those in Russia: Russians slam state TV pundits as 'traitors' after they DEFY Putin's propaganda campaign | Daily Mail Online
At least, they have balls to defy Putin and his minions. Respect.

[swabian]

The matter about Russian security concerns had me thinking here.

Really, the attitude is a one-way street. Russia feels like the West is out to get it, out to destroy it, to bring down the entire country. But really, I don’t think the US gave a crap about Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is not in a hostile sense, just the attitude that Russia was another country, neither good nor bad, neither friend nor foe. And NATO wouldn’t give any care for Russia until it did something worth concern and consideration. As far as the US has been concerned, Mid-East terrorism and pivoting to the Pacific to counter China were the headline goals of US defense and diplomatic policy. The US was not going to endanger Russia because Russia wasn’t, before 2014 or maybe 2008, doing anything worth the West’s concern. The West was about to leave Russia where it was. As long as things were like this, Russian fears for its security against NATO were totally unfounded and irrational.

I think Putin's argumentation is partially justified. The West did make the mistake to ceaslessly expand its borders further towards Russia and Ukraine was clearly a country NATO has been flirting with since a long time. It was a mistake to give false hope to Ukraine, thinking Russia is not gonna do anything about it. It should have been developed as a neutral country and not as an object of competition between Western ambitions and Russia. On the other hand, the West was historically kind of drawn into it.

Now we have this conflict and we're still cheering for Ukraine, giving them hope. Make no mistake, I don't believe for a minute that Ukraine can really win this war. Of course they would surely deserve it andthe resistance is pretty brave and Szelensky is a good man, but in the end Russia will win this, no doubt about it. This looks clumsy and ill prepared, which it probably is with all the signs of failing equipment (probably a consequence of corruption of the Russian generals in charge), but this debacle with the miles long convoy doesn't convince me of total Russian failure at all. The material losses are mainly in light vehicles, especially transporters, but not in main battle tanks. They will gradually encircle the capital and shell it to ashes in the coming weeks, probably in a similar fashion as was the case during the Chechen war at the siege of Grosny.

My first reaction, like that of many others all over, was also that this is an irrational attempt of Putins' at recreating Greater Russia, but Putins' goals are probably overestimated and clearly misjudged. The Russian ambitions are pragmatic, rational and goal oriented. Ukraine (especially the east and the Black Sea coast) is of key importance for them and they will get it. There is no real inner resistance in Russia. The oligarchs and the whole corrupt system is rigged and adjusted for Putin being in power. They depend on him as much as he depends on them. Nothing is gonna change that for probably as long as Putin lives.

[Janbāru]

Unfortunately, I think you're right. If we compare the current war to the 2nd one in Chechnya in 1999, it took about 38 days to the Russians to conquer Grozny if I remember correctly. Here, we are at the 18th day.

[Cyclops]

The matter about Russian security concerns had me thinking here.

Really, the attitude is a one-way street. Russia feels like the West is out to get it, out to destroy it, to bring down the entire country. But really, I don’t think the US gave a crap about Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. This is not in a hostile sense, just the attitude that Russia was another country, neither good nor bad, neither friend nor foe....

I was working in London in 1997 (predictably for an Australian as a barman) and a regular at the pub was a London born son of Russian emigres. He was essentially a deal finder and would sit in the bar reading Russian magazines and all sorts of info picking over the corpse of Russian industry for easy meat to gobble up. It was all the same to the investors if they stripped a company out and relocated it to India, took the IP and ran or ran it for profit in Russia. The money was from all over (obviously a lot from the US) but mostly from the US.

The US does not do this as much in friendly states like Australia and it probably felt pretty aggressive to Russians unused to capitalism.

Not saying it was an invasion or attempt at destruction but when the US went into the Ukraine over tha last few years it was probably deja vu for the Russians used to having their own way there as well.

[swabian]

Unfortunately, I think you're right. If we compare the current war to the 2nd one in Chechnya in 1999, it took about 38 days to the Russians to conquer Grozny if I remember correctly. Here, we are at the 18th day.

Isn't it more like 11 days? It doesn't matter. The resistance is brave and admirable, sure and the press is catastrophic for Russia, but in the end, what counts is how long Kyiv can suffer. They are cut off from electricity and supplies and in the coming months, the Ukrainian troops as well as the armed civilians and foreign mercenaries stationed there will break eventually. If Putin can't have his way within a few months he will have it within a few years. Of course Russia will have to pay a high price, but in the long run, this invasion has a good chance to turn beneficial for Russia. It's also kind of doubtful, that the embargo can be upheld for long enough beyond the conflict itself. The ethical implactions would also probably be too grave, the Russians are just people as well in the end.

[swabian]

China has every opportunity to profit from the current situation. Putin's blunder has torpedoed his relationship with the countries in Central Asia which can now easily fall under Beijing's sway. Further, Russia is looking at a dwindling population (emigration coupled with low birthrate) and a collapsed economy which means that it becomes easy for the Chinese to buy up exclusive control of Russia's resources.

Driving Russia into the arms of China is still more of a potential mistake of Western long term geostrategy rather than an actual mistake that has manifested itself in a definitive way. There are tendencies towards this and of course strategic talks and considerations, but so far, this does not seem to come to fruition. My impression is that the Russians don't actually want this. They really don't see themselves as a major player that can get involved with China on equal footing, which is the reason they are very cautious and hesitant. I think it's actually possible that they would rather side with NATO, if Chinese imperial ambitions would be expressed one day in an openly aggressive way. As you hinted yourself, Russia and China are also competitors. As for selling resources to China: i don't think the Kremlin could be coerced into this. They are not stupid and their worries are of a fundamentally long term nature.

[Condottiere 40K]

1. I've been listening to a couple of Mearsheimer's lectures.

2. Undoubtedly, he has an agenda and rationalizes American isolationism.

3. One of the rationales he gives is that the Russians won't invade their neighbours, is because they will run up against nationalism, which will defeat them, eventually.

4. I guess he is correct.

5. Chechnya really didn't have a chance, not having access to to a neighbour who's willing to act as a safe haven and supply conduit, unless Russia actually disintegrated.

6. There are any number examples of this, from Afghanistan/Pakistan, Vietnam/China, North Korea/China/Soviet Union, Iraq/Iran/Saudi Arabia/Syria.

7. The issue with Afghanistan was, it's electorate should be able to safeguard their liberty themselves.

8. Despite forty years of conflict, they couldn't.

9. It's not that they weren't given the breathing space to reorganize themselves, and figure out exactly what was in their self interest.

A. So for the Ukrainians, their wake up moment came when the Russians annexed Crimea and supported separatists in their eastern regions.

B. Their breathing space came when a bunch of munchkins ed up and shot down the wrong plane, which brought extreme European scrutiny as to what exactly was happening there.

C. They seemed to have made excellent use of that time, training their army and building liaisons with other Western armies.

D. So that when crunch time came, they knew exactly what to do, draw the Russians sufficiently far enough from their supply depots, and then delay them.

E. This gave them enough time to rally the West, and build up sympathy to their cause.

F. Liaising with Western militaries gave the Western militaries confidence that they could hold, and effectively use any weapon systems they passed on to them.

G. Time is not on the Russians' side.

H. The attritional equation doesn't work for them.

I. The Russians cannot throw in Russian conscripts as human waves, because the ratio doesn't work out.

J. Like in the latter half of the Great Patriotic War, they have to rely on extensive softening up air close air support and masses of artillery.

K. Followed by massed armoured attacks.

L. The weather isn't currently cooperating.

M. The Russian air force hasn't shown up in strength.

N. Russian armour has no freedom of movement.

O. So far, they've outrun their supply lines.

P. The reason the Armenians lost is because they had no doctrine nor weapon systems to deal with drones.

Q. At some point, close in air support by the Russians will be guaranteed suicide.

P. At some point, there will be more anti armour weapon systems in Ukraine then the Russians have vehicles.

R. Time is not on Putin's side.

S. He could call up all the supposed allies from Central Asia, but assuming they were cowed enough to send cannon fodder, it would still take time to transfer them to the front, and equip them.

T. To the Chinese, their little emperors are even more precious to them, and likely about as competent as the Russians.

U. Assuming the Syrians finally manage to transit to Russia, the West would see that, a long way off, as an escalation, and likely accelerate the arms shipments.

V. There will be a final Kaiserschlacht, not that the Russians think they would win, but holding more real estate would allow them to negotiate from a position of strength.

[Laser101]

I think Putin's argumentation is partially justified. The West did make the mistake to ceaslessly expand its borders further towards Russia and Ukraine was clearly a country NATO has been flirting with since a long time. It was a mistake to give false hope to Ukraine, thinking Russia is not gonna do anything about it. It should have been developed as a neutral country and not as an object of competition between Western ambitions and Russia. On the other hand, the West was historically kind of drawn into it.

Now we have this conflict and we're still cheering for Ukraine, giving them hope. Make no mistake, I don't believe for a minute that Ukraine can really win this war. Of course they would surely deserve it andthe resistance is pretty brave and Szelensky is a good man, but in the end Russia will win this, no doubt about it. This looks clumsy and ill prepared, which it probably is with all the signs of failing equipment (probably a consequence of corruption of the Russian generals in charge), but this debacle with the miles long convoy doesn't convince me of total Russian failure at all. The material losses are mainly in light vehicles, especially transporters, but not in main battle tanks. They will gradually encircle the capital and shell it to ashes in the coming weeks, probably in a similar fashion as was the case during the Chechen war at the siege of Grosny.

My first reaction, like that of many others all over, was also that this is an irrational attempt of Putins' at recreating Greater Russia, but Putins' goals are probably overestimated and clearly misjudged. The Russian ambitions are pragmatic, rational and goal oriented. Ukraine (especially the east and the Black Sea coast) is of key importance for them and they will get it. There is no real inner resistance in Russia. The oligarchs and the whole corrupt system is rigged and adjusted for Putin being in power. They depend on him as much as he depends on them. Nothing is gonna change that for probably as long as Putin lives.

This leaves three questions:

• If, as you say, "the Russian ambitions are pragmatic, rational and goal oriented", then would it be reasonable to assume that any notion that Putin plans to go after the Baltic states or Poland are extremely unlikely? Even if you leave the nuclear element out, I'm pretty sure Putin can do the maths as well as anyone regarding the gross force disparity between Russia and NATO (ironically, numbers are definitively not in Russia's favour), especially given the Russian army's lackluster performance against Ukraine.
• What does Putin plan to do with Kiev and Ukraine if he can take it? Occupying the entire country would be extremely costly, so he'd probably be more likely to try and install some sort of puppet government.
• How does Putin plan to deal with Russia's long term problems? Increasing repression and sanctions are already driving younger people to emigrate, which is very bad for a country which already has an aging population and low birthrate. He may simply plan to wait out the clock on sanctions, but it's not as if time is favourable for him either. Additionally, most of the people around him are around his age and support from the younger population is weak at best, so it's not entirely impossible that the situation once Putin dies could wind up resembling Spain post-Franco- although whoever takes over at that point will have a distinctly unenviable situation on their hands. However, the nature of the regime as it stands means that 'Putinism' will probably not outlive Putin himself.

[bitterhowl]

Ok, let's listen to a man who knows something about Ukraine

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Comparison between Ukraine and Chechynia doesn't make sense, as Ukraine has 40 Million people and Chechynia has 1 million people.

The Russian Federation has high losses and the sanctions hit the russian economy hard. If the West replenishs Ukraine with weapons the RF will sooner or later give up. Like in Afghanistan.

Even if the West would stop, there would be a partisan war, the RF has killed too much ukrainian civilians right now.

And if we would Putin let win, the same would happen with Moldavia and russian Transnistria there and then Rumania, a Nato member, would forced to intervene as Moldavians are basically ethnical Rumanians.

Eventually Putin would believe a second time his own propaganda and attack the Baltic States, because the West is weak and rotten, ruled by Gays and weak women.

[Papay]

Russia bombed a military base close to Lviv that had also NATO advisors. More than 35 dead, there are rumors that foreigners are among them

[swabian]

@Condottiere 40K

G. Time is not on the Russians' side.

R. Time is not on Putin's side.

H. The attritional equation doesn't work for them.

Of course Russia has to suffer because of their own expenses and because of the embargo, but i'm pretty sure they have calculated for this. Putin cannot be replaced, except if there is a strong and death defying civilian movement for democracy in Russia, which is really simply not the case. This is basically an oligarchic mafia-like state that cannot function without the very person of Putin. He is the fulcrum for the system and also partially for the people.

There is simply no way Kyiv can hold out longer than Moscow. An actual siege is far more brutal than any embargo can ever be.

I. The Russians cannot throw in Russian conscripts as human waves, because the ratio doesn't work out.

Like they have to. They are so far using only about a third of their total forces and only a minimum of their air force. Russian soldiers are overall extremely patriotic. There have been times under Putin when they would rather commit suicide because of the misreable lives they lead rather than to desert. They are by and large not going to dare and be a failure in the eyes of the Fatherland.

M. The Russian air force hasn't shown up in strength.

It's logical that they limit use of air force to a minimum, because it's expensive (they can't afford to lose good pilots) and also unnecessary. The Ukrainians practically have no native airforce themselves and the effect of months long shelling will get the results much cheaper regarding material costs - and they are willing to pay the increased human losses in their army that are implied. They don't want to destroy the city they want to occupy it and make the rules, so they try to destroy as much as is needed to demoralize the defending force and the citizens over a prolonged time, not in a few single extremely violent events.

P. At some point, there will be more anti armour weapon systems in Ukraine then the Russians have vehicles.

Well, there are weapons deliveries that go through Poland to my knowledge, there could be other routes that will play a role later on.

All of this is extremely dangerous, not only for Ukraine. Russia may have only the GDP of Italy or Spain, but their military spending in comparison is very high, not least because of their nuclear armament, which is nominally the largest in the world (but not effectiovely, i know).

NATO is not an organization that is there to defend the pride of Northern Americans. To start even a little bit of direct fighting with the Russians is inviting apocalypse. If anything, NATO has to use her position of (seemingly) overwhelming power now to act confidently and responsibly to ensure no escalation is taking place. Smuggling weapons into Ukraine from Poland is playing with fire. I really don't think Ukraine is worth the risk of WW3 now. At some point, the Russians might very well feel provoked enough to bomb the respective facilities at the Polish border, by the way.

Remember that the worst outcome of this could mean mass death and the death of the very you and the very me. Yeah, it sucks...

There will be a final Kaiserschlacht, not that the Russians think they would win, but holding more real estate would allow them to negotiate from a position of strength.

You mean NATO intervention when the Russians are worn out enough? No fly zone above Ukraine? That de facto means WW3. No thanks, also see above.

[bitterhowl]

Looks like Iranians today's answer to Mr President about "hearts and souls of Iranians". Waiting for an answer from "Glorious Uhan' " and Mr Kevensky. Putin is probably maniac but definitely not senile.

[Laser101]

All of this is extremely dangerous, not only for Ukraine. Russia may have only the GDP of Italy or Spain, but their military spending in comparison is very high, not least because of their nuclear armament, which is nominally the largest in the world (but not effectiovely, i know).

NATO is not an organization that is there to defend the pride of Northern Americans. To start even a little bit of direct fighting with the Russians is inviting apocalypse. If anything, NATO has to use her position of (seemingly) overwhelming power now to act confidently and responsibly to ensure no escalation is taking place. Smuggling weapons into Ukraine from Poland is playing with fire. I really don't think Ukraine is worth the risk of WW3 now. At some point, the Russians might very well feel provoked enough to bomb the respective facilities at the Polish border, by the way.

Remember that the worst outcome of this could mean mass death and the death of the very you and the very me. Yeah, it sucks...



You mean NATO intervention when the Russians are worn out enough? No fly zone above Ukraine? That de facto means WW3. No thanks, also see above.

Isn't the converse argument also true, though (i.e. Russia can't risk direct fighting with the Americans/NATO), for the same reason?

[Janbāru]

Comparison between Ukraine and Chechynia doesn't make sense, as Ukraine has 40 Million people and Chechynia has 1 million people.

The Russian Federation has high losses and the sanctions hit the russian economy hard. If the West replenishs Ukraine with weapons the RF will sooner or later give up. Like in Afghanistan.

Even if the West would stop, there would be a partisan war, the RF has killed too much ukrainian civilians right now.

And if we would Putin let win, the same would happen with Moldavia and russian Transnistria there and then Rumania, a Nato member, would forced to intervene as Moldavians are basically ethnical Rumanians.

Eventually Putin would believe a second time his own propaganda and attack the Baltic States, because the West is weak and rotten, ruled by Gays and weak women.

My point was not to compare both conflicts but rather to demonstrate that it is by far too early to see a russian defeat or victory (militarily speaking)

[Ludicus]

From the news,Ukraine should destroy 'high-threat' pathogens, WHO says

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that Ukrainian public health labs that handle infectious agents destroy any "high-threat pathogens"

Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Ukraine operates a little over a dozen biolabs for biodefense. Victoria Nuland: "Ukraine has biological research facilities which, in fact, we’re now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of, so we are working with the Ukrainians on how we can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach".
----

They will gradually encircle the capital and shell it to ashes in the coming weeks, probably in a similar fashion as was the case during the Chechen war at the siege of Grosny.

Grozny was flattened totally. Who knows, but Col. McGregor disagrees. McGregor is a well known American "Putinist", a Trump appointee with a racist past.But it seems that this man is also a military genius "senior military officers quietly admit that in terms of sheer intellect, no one quite matches Mcgregor...the best thinker they have, living or dead" Col. Douglas Macgregor - Responsible Statecraft

He says - the Russian army will not destroy Kiev. From a military perspective, he adds,"absolutely not".

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: