Russia-Ukraine

[lizkat]

how could they not get this?

In retreating from Afghanistan, the former USSR leaders told themselves that Afghanistan was a bunch of squabbling tribes who finally became too troublesome (along with the "meddling" of international proxy war fighters from all over the world, east and west!) to bother uniting permanently under the Soviet banner.

But since 1991 in Moscow the leadership is not of the USSR but Russian Federation, and the whole idea of Ukraine is... well that turf was always just a part of the ancient homeland and these are our brothers wanting to rejoin us.

That's the myth Putin was peddling and apparently still thinks he can sell in.

He is sending unprepared unarmed conscripts to die in vain for his own delusions of restoring a Russian Empire. And his latest nod to any "difficulty" lately is the photo op of him talking about how there is ongoing need for "modernization" of Russian weapons.

How stupid can Russian mothers and wives pretend to be, while they wait at home for the coffins? Maybe the question is how long before all those Russian families stop pretending ignorance and join protests against the terrible costs.

Historically, Russians are clearly used to hardship, but historically they did not have as much potential access to information about the progress of any conflict as is likely now. There is nothing special about this so-called "special military operation" any more, except for the risks of accidentally igniting the war before the one Einstein said would be fought with sticks and stones. Even Putin must see that by now.

The question is whether Putin will choose to cut losses and save face and so say of Ukraine as the USSR did about Aghanistan "this has actually proved to be more trouble than it is worth to us for now" and just go home. However, if he truly believes he is meant to draw Ukrainian land and people back to a Russian "homeland" then he will likely mean to apply military force to that end, even if having to withdraw over winter.

So it may be up to Russians to dissuade him or make his desires moot, since it appears there is no level of suffering to which he's not willing to put his own troops never mind Ukraine's and their civilians.

 

[Macky-Mac]

...How does one dress that up as mission accomplished and so time to come home? ....

you're forgetting that the Russians are already "home" now after the annexations.....

Russia's still a long long long way from being forced out of the occupied territories by the Ukrainians, even though they're having some substantial successes.

You mentioned Afghanistan.....how long were the Russians there? Something like 9 years if I'm remembering correctly, and I don't recall that they were fighting with the goal of "retrieving lost lands of the motherland and reuniting the Russian people" as they're supposedly doing now.

I'd love it if your "mission accomplished,...time to come home" scenario actually played out, but I'm unhappily inclined to believe this will never end that way.

Putin seems to be settling in for a long "special military operation" instead of what he originally expected.

Clearly he's hoping to out last western support and supply for Ukraine. Unfortunately there's some evidence that he might indeed have a reasonable expectation for support to fade......we've recently seen both conservative Republicans and Progressive Democrats make statements suggesting open ended support should be reduced;

Vlad's houseboy Kevin pipes up

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1582433015908929537/

Liberal Democrats call on Biden to shift Ukraine strategy | CNN Politics

More than two dozen liberal House members are calling on President Joe Biden to shift course in his Ukraine strategy and pursue direct diplomacy with Russia to bring the months-long conflict to an end.

www.cnn.com

Progressive lawmakers call on Biden to seek a diplomatic end to the war, rather than further escalation.

Support for continued war aid to Ukraine is as low as 29% among Republicans.

Putin will be sending off poorly trained troops to the meat grinder for quite a while, unfortunately....maybe he's hoping his admirer Trump will return and help him out

 

[AG_PhamD]

Considering that Ukraine gained 3,800km2 in just one week back in September, it doesn't surprise me that the Russian's have advanced little since the initial invasion started. They've been hamstrung by many things, but the most obvious is the dependency upon rail supply. Once the three-pronged attack went beyond supply lines, and then later Ukraine's relentless attacks on Russian railways and trucking, the RU military advances stalled and never recovered.

At this point, Ukraine has shown no interest in bargaining any of their land or people away to satisfy Putin, and I don't see why they should. I remember Macron saying not to humiliate Putin. I disagree, that's exactly what needs to happen, and even if that wasn't the goal, it's way too late to prevent Putin's total humiliation; that shipped sailed months ago.

Russians are historically used to hardship, suffering, and being told what to do by a strongman. You'd think that, at some point, they'd had enough of that, but evidently they are willing to take on more suffering to further Putin's quixotic promise of a greater Russian empire, whether through fear, patriotism, or simply not knowing what else to do.

From what I gather, Putin's original goal was to create a new Russian empire, resurrecting the borders of Nicholas II. The president of Belarus, already a Russian puppet, had a map behind him that leaked invasion plans of Moldova. Finland was destined to fall after that, and so on. This didn't go according to plan. Putin can't extract himself from Ukraine because that would be admitting defeat, something that he can't do. Nor can Russia continue this war, because it is coming at great cost, which they may never recover from. It's quite the mess that Mr. Putin has gotten himself into.

What I am certain of is that nobody will take the conventional Russian military seriously ever again, not for another generation, at least. Nor will anyone underestimate the Ukrainian people or military. A lot of the news coverage has been about Russia's failures, while Ukraine's successes have often been ignored, especially in the early months. It's hard to quantify both Russia's complete, systematic failure at every level, compared to Ukraine's outstanding over-performance, equally at every level.

If I were to sit down and write a script for how this would unfold, this is the scenario I would have used for a complete and total Russian failure, with a near perfect record on the part of the Ukrainians. If I had released this script back in January, nobody would have believed it, including myself.

I heard a some interesting numbers today. 7M Ukrainians left the country due to the war. About 700,000 men left Russia due to mobilization plus another 500,000 when the “special military operation” began. That’s pretty incredible when you think about it.

 

[lizkat]

You mentioned Afghanistan.....how long were the Russians there? Something like 9 years if I'm remembering correctly, and I don't recall that they were fighting with the goal of "retrieving lost lands of the motherland and reuniting the Russian people" as they're supposedly doing now.

Eric's post, to which mine was a reply, had mentioned Afghanistan and was asking if Russia hadn't learned anything from its long engagement there.

I was pointing out that the former USSR's retreat from defending a puppet government in its then satellite state of Afghanistan was a really different (and simpler) kind of maneuver, compared to the domestic political issues Putin has created for himself and for the Russian Federation for finding the off ramp out of the conflict in Ukraine.

Afghanistan's puppet government was no more acceptable to tribal elders of Afghanistan than the Taliban would quickly become in 1991 and the Taliban 2.0 of 2022 will eventually become. The USSR had been in there since 1978 and all that had happened bottom-line-wise was that the west plus militant Islamists from the Middle East and Central Asia had been drawn into the conflict... and yet Moscow's puppet government in Kabul was no more ahead of the game ten years on than it had been when first installed. Somehow they were hanging on. The "somehow" was by some quick lessons in Afghanistan's hundreds of years' worth of teaching corrupt central governments how to survive, a day at a time: make promises, take the money.​

From Moscow's increasingly exasperated POV, 1) the Afghans were not even a Slavic people, and 2) a scorecard was required just to keep track of who the puppet government's friends were today. It finally did come down to realizing that the puppet was for sale. Every day. So it was like what had gone on in the former Indochina, only with more puzzle pieces.​

​

To the point of difference --for USSR then and now for Russia-- between Afghanistan and Ukraine in justifying withdrawal: neither Moscow nor citizens of geographic Russia viewed Afghanistan as a part of homeland. Afghanistan was proving to be more trouble than worth considering that other satellite states of far more value and "cousinship" were also getting uppity as the USSR's grip on its cobbled-together "turf" weakened from within.​

​

It was easy enough in the end to say a pox on it and just pull military forces out, letting the puppet government struggle on for a couple more years before the Taliban took control. One could eventually ask if the US had learned anything in their first Afghanistan tour before re-engaging in 2001, but that's another thread.​

Putin's problem in Ukraine is different. As leader of the post-USSR successor Russian Federation, he tried to dress up his illegal incursion into a sovereign Ukraine as a "special military operation" framing it as merely a necessary reinforcement or defense of a part of Russia proper. Nothing in the post Soviet Union history of eastern Europe could be further from the truth. But to Putin at least, since he put it that way, it's now more of a challenge to frame withdrawal as just a practical-tactical sort of thing. He saw himself reviving a dream of empire, a greater Russia from the time of the Tsars. He was selling that in.

Now what to say? "I made a mistake"... ?

Nah. What he has to say now is something that sounds open ended and practical-tactical and just get out and figure no one's going to stand up any time soon whining that "you promised us Ukraine when the cherry blossoms returned..." He might be the only guy on the planet still figuring he has to fight on in Ukraine.

How he frames an abandonment of mission may matter less to the average Russian now though than the fact that what was billed as a short term endeavor in eastern Ukraine has ground on for nearly a year. The bollixed aggression has left their own economy a shambles, amplified risky "best friends forever" alliances with China and Iran, annoyed their other frenemy Turkey, resulted in new international sanctions and worst of all, sent home thousands of coffins and thousands, tens of thousands of unwilling potential conscripts into exile. Oh, and bonus bollix: Putin's aggression has driven both Finland and Sweden to sign accession protocols with NATO.

Russians' concerns now aside from the practical --how to get along without a breadwinner in the family-- may run also to concerns about status of their social environment. Putin had managed to walk a line between exerting control over dissent and not wanting to instill too much fear in the population. Now he doesn't care about the latter. His willingness to tolerate public expression of opinion so long as it didn't get too political is gone, and he's made that clear by forceful suppression of protests against the Ukraine conflict.

The crackdown on dissent --and Putin resorting to conscription-- may have waked up a somnolent population that was more or less living though the "frog in saucepan on a simmer" experience in Russia while Putin tightened his control year after year, election after election. Now they look around and the whole landscape has changed. The biggest question is whether the Russian military thinks Putin can weather this period and whether he's even willing to take that question into consideration as he tries to overcome his miscalculations on Ukraine.

 

[lizkat]

So after Germany's Scholtz and China's Xi had a meeting, and apparently agreed that the prospect of Russia using nukes over the Ukraine situation would be a bridge too far, Xi was reported by Chinese state media to have "called on the international community to "reject the threat of nuclear weapons and advocate against a nuclear war to prevent a crisis on the Eurasian continent."

Of course no one has yet vouched for whether Putin has taken that on board as a useful suggestion.

Scholz and Xi agree Russia would cross a line with nuclear weapons in Ukraine

After a meeting with Xi in Beijing, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the two leaders agreed that with the use of nuclear weapons, Russia would cross a line drawn by the international community.

www.npr.org

 

[lizkat]

From Reuters, a report that contrary to initial expectations, the impact of Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing conflict have improved rather than worsened economic conditions in Georgia, not least because of so many Russians fleeing across the border with everything they own including cash.

From Russia with cash: Georgia booms as Russians flee Putin's war

As war chokes Europe, a small nation wedged beneath Russia is enjoying an unexpected economic boom.

www.reuters.com

 

[Macky-Mac]

So after Germany's Scholtz and China's Xi had a meeting, and apparently agreed that the prospect of Russia using nukes over the Ukraine situation would be a bridge too far, Xi was reported by Chinese state media to have "called on the international community to "reject the threat of nuclear weapons and advocate against a nuclear war to prevent a crisis on the Eurasian continent."

Of course no one has yet vouched for whether Putin has taken that on board as a useful suggestion.

Scholz and Xi agree Russia would cross a line with nuclear weapons in Ukraine

After a meeting with Xi in Beijing, Germany's Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the two leaders agreed that with the use of nuclear weapons, Russia would cross a line drawn by the international community.

www.npr.org

Clearly Putin must think he gets some advantage by keeping everyone guessing.

I suppose the fear that he might escalate to the use of nukes does cause the West to limit the extent and type of weapons given to Ukraine

 

[Scepticalscribe]

1,000 Russian soldiers killed in 24 hours as Ukraine strikes unequipped troops​

1,000 Russian soldiers killed in 24 hours as Ukraine strikes unequipped troops | 10 points

At least 1,000 Russian soldiers have been killed as Ukraine targeted unequipped Russian troops deployed on the frontlines of war. This is the largest number of casualties on the Russian side since the beginning of the war.

www.indiatoday.in

As long as Putin lives, people will keep dying by the thousands on both sides. Someone needs to snuff him out.

@Eric: If someone (anyone) argued for "snuffing out" an American president - even as an irresponsible owner of an online media platform (not as though this doesn't have form in the US: let us contemplate the dismal prior examples of Dr Arn on MR, the loathsome Mr Musk on Twitter, etc, etc...) - would you not be outraged?

"Snuffing out" is the language of the mob, the mafia, the schoolyard bully, the thugs of the world, a world without the rule of law, and, worse, it plays into the vision and version of the world that amoral bullies (such as Mr Trump, Mr Putin) want to see prosper and profit. And it is also grotesquely irresponsible, as it fails to uphold (legal and moral and ethical) standards.

Leaving aside mere morality, if Mr Putin is indeed "snuffed out", how can one expect that (or hope for) those who succeed him to abide by (or even wish or want to abide by) the rule of law in any administration they establish?

I have met - and spoken with - senior Romanians who regret (sotto voce) how they dealt with Nicolae Ceausescu, richly though he may have been thought to have deserved such a fate. Some of them have said to me (very quietly and very privately) that they are of the opinion that a proper (meticulous, methodical) trial would have been better, for them, for the state, and for the future of the state and the triumph of the rule of law.

You can do better and be better than that.

The rule of law matters, and, we must be better than "Them" and be seen to be better than Them. We must model - and live by, and be seen to live by and adhere to - the behavior and conduct - behavior and conduct governed by ethics and the rule of law - that we wish to see implemented, otherwise we are no better than those we condemn.

 

[Eric]

@Eric: If someone (anyone) argued for "snuffing out" an American president - even as an irresponsible owner of an online media platform (not as though this doesn't have form in the US: let us contemplate the dismal prior examples of Dr Arn on MR, the loathsome Mr Musk on Twitter, etc, etc...) - would you not be outraged?

"Snuffing out" is the language of the mob, the mafia, the schoolyard bully, the thugs of the world, a world without the rule of law, and, worse, it plays into the vision and version of the world that amoral bullies (such as Mr Trump, Mr Putin) want to see proper and profit. And it is also grotesquely irresponsible, as it fails to uphold standards.

Leaving aside mere morality, if Mr Putin is indeed "snuffed out", how can one expect that (or hope for) those who succeed him to abide by (or even wish or want to abide by) the rule of law in any administration they establish?

I have met - and spoken with - senior Romanians who regret (sotto voce) how they dealt with Nicolae Ceausescu, richly though he may have been thought to have deserved such a fate. Some of them have said to me (very quietly and very privately) that they are of the opinion that a proper (meticulous, methodical) trial would have been better, for them, for the state, and for the future of the state and the triumph of the rule of law.

You can do better and be better than that.

The rule of law matters, and, we must be better than "Them" and be seen to be better than Them. We must model - and live by, and be seen to live by and adhere to - the behavior and conduct - behavior and conduct governed by ethics and the rule of law - that we wish to see implemented, otherwise we are no better than those we condemn.

The fact that what Putin is doing does NOT outrage you is a bigger question. Maybe I was vague here when I said "snuffed out" so let me be crystal clear, someone should assassinate that maniac before he kills more innocent people.

The answer to your question is an unequivocal no, if any person is committing mass genocide, no matter who they are, they should be stopped at any cost.

 

[Cmaier]

@Eric: If someone (anyone) argued for "snuffing out" an American president - even as an irresponsible owner of an online media platform (not as though this doesn't have form in the US: let us contemplate the dismal prior examples of Dr Arn on MR, the loathsome Mr Musk on Twitter, etc, etc...) - would you not be outraged?

"Snuffing out" is the language of the mob, the mafia, the schoolyard bully, the thugs of the world, a world without the rule of law, and, worse, it plays into the vision and version of the world that amoral bullies (such as Mr Trump, Mr Putin) want to see proper and profit. And it is also grotesquely irresponsible, as it fails to uphold standards.

Leaving aside mere morality, if Mr Putin is indeed "snuffed out", how can one expect that (or hope for) those who succeed him to abide by (or even wish or want to abide by) the rule of law in any administration they establish?

I have met - and spoken with - senior Romanians who regret (sotto voce) how they dealt with Nicolae Ceausescu, richly though he may have been thought to have deserved such a fate. Some of them have said to me (very quietly and very privately) that they are of the opinion that a proper (meticulous, methodical) trial would have been better, for them, for the state, and for the future of the state and the triumph of the rule of law.

You can do better and be better than that.

The rule of law matters, and, we must be better than "Them" and be seen to be better than Them. We must model - and live by, and be seen to live by and adhere to - the behavior and conduct - behavior and conduct governed by ethics and the rule of law - that we wish to see implemented, otherwise we are no better than those we condemn.

LOL. What rule of law applies to a dictator who violates international law and starts an unnecessary war, abducts children and forcibly removes them from their parents and their country, targets civilians and civilian infrastructure, uses rape as an instrument of war, and commits other war crimes? You think he‘s going to voluntarily show up at The Hague for a trial?

Kill the fucker.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The fact that what Putin is doing does NOT outrage you is a bigger question. Maybe I was vague here when I said "snuffed out" so let me be crystal clear, someone should assassinate that maniac before he kills more innocent people.

The answer to your question is an unequivocal no, if any person is committing mass genocide, no matter who they are, they should be stopped at any cost.

Oh, dear.

No, I'm afraid that you were not vague at all; you were a perfect reflection of your trigger-happy society in your immature and irresponsible - and yes, politically illiterate - post.

And yes, you should be better and do better.

Advocating assassination is disgraceful, and you (and others here) would be the first to howl with outraged venom were others to advocate such an approach to dealing with an American president who was impervious to the rule of law and invaded other countries committing war crimes with abandon.

Does a preference for standards - such as the adhering to, or abiding by, the rule of law - somehow exclude that one can also be outraged by how Mr Putin and his forces conduct their "special military operation"?

Or, is the mental landscape of some US posters incapable of admitting that one can hold a complex thought, one that (simultaneously) insists on upholding the rule of law while admitting that what is happening in Ukraine is appalling?

And no: "Snuffing out" - as a preferred policy - is unacceptable, even if Russians do it. (And anyone else doing it - leaving aside the morality which is unacceptable - will never be accepted in - or by - Russia). And - to be candid - assassination - even if the intended target is a moral monster - rarely achieves anything.

Far better - to my mind - to put the man on trial, (in an internationally recognized court), calmly, coolly, rationally, legally, admit evidence, witnesses, and let facts and law and (accepted) principles determine how we deal with this.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Kill the fucker.

No.

 

[Cmaier]

Oh, dear.

No, I'm afraid that you were not vague at all; you were a perfect reflection of your trigger-happy society in your immature and irresponsible - and yes, politically illiterate - post.

And yes, you should be better and do better.

Advocating assassination is disgraceful, and you (and others here) would be the first to howl with outraged venom were others to advocate such an approach to dealing with an American president who was impervious to the rule of law and invaded other countries committing war crimes with abandon.

Does a preference for standards - such as the adhering to, or abiding by, the rule of law - somehow exclude that one can also be outraged by how Mr Putin and his forces conduct their "special military operation"?

Or, is the mental landscape of some US posters incapable of admitting that one can hold a complex thought, one that insists on upholding the rule of law while admitting that what is happening in Ukraine is appalling?

And no: "Snuffing out" - as a preferred policy - is unacceptable, even if Russians do it. (And anyone else doing it - leaving aside the morality which is unacceptable - will never be accepted in - or by - Russia). And - to be candid - assassination - even if the intended target is a moral monster - rarely achieves anything.

Far better - to my mind - to put the man on trial, (in an internationally recognized court), calmly, coolly, rationally, legally, admit evidence, witnesses, and let facts and law and (accepted) principles determine how we deal with this.

I guess you must really like russian cheese.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You think he‘s going to voluntarily show up at The Hague for a trial?

No.

Of course not.

But, he could be handed over.

But - after a defeat, in which (using carrots, currencies, such as time and money) his successors may arrive at uncomfortable conclusions that surrendering him (if they haven't already murdered him, or persuaded him that death is preferable to a future without power and prestige) he may be handed over to The Hague to stand trial.

In the late 1990s, - and yes, I worked in Bosnia at that time - nobody thought that Mr Milosevic or Dr Karadic - among others - would ever be arraigned; yet, they were.

This process took time, the careful and meticulous amassing of evidence, the persuasion of his successors that the political (and economic cost) of protecting such people would be too high a price to pay, and so on. This couldn't have happened in 1997, but, by a decade later, things were different.

If we don't model (and adhere to, abide by) the rule of law, we are no better than those we condemn.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I guess you must really like russian cheese.

Spare me.

Pathetic and puerile.

Worse, an uninformed and unintelligent and uninteresting post.

If you were ever in Russia - and I have worked there, monitoring rather flawed elections - so, yes, I do know the country - you know perfectly well that their cheese is dire, and falls far of meeting European standards.

So, no, I don't care for Russian cheese.

However, advocating assassination is disgusting and disgraceful.

 

[Cmaier]

No.

Of course not.

But, he could be handled over.

But - after a defeat, in which (using carrots, currencies, such as time and money) his successors may arrive at uncomfortable conclusions that surrendering him (if they haven't already murdered him, or persuaded him that death is preferable to a future without power and prestige) he may be handed over to The Hague to stand trial.

In the late 1990s, - and yes, I worked in Bosnia at that time - nobody thought that Mr Milosevic or Dr Karadic - among others - would ever be arraigned; yet, they were.

This process took time, the careful and meticulous amassing of evidence, the persuasion of his successors that the political (and economic cost) of protecting such people would be too high a price to pay, and so on. This couldn't have happened in 1997, but, by a decade later, things were different.

If we don't model (and adhere to, abide by) the rule of law, we are no better than those we condemn.

Who‘s going to hand him over? Nobody is going to invade Russia, so the best that‘s going to happen is that Putin stops raping and destroying Ukraine. He‘ll continue to rig elections, throw gay people in jail, and commit various crimes from the comforts of his own mansions.

He needs to die.

 

[Cmaier]

Spare me.

Pathetic and puerile.

Worse, an uninformed and unintelligent and uninteresting post.

If you were ever in Russia - and I have worked there, monitoring rather flawed elections - so, yes, I do know the country - you know perfectly well that their cheese is dire, and falls far of meeting European standards.

So, no, I don't care for Russian cheese.

However, advocating assassination is disgusting and disgraceful.

So now we know you‘re a russian troll. That explains your terrible posts.

 

[Eric]

Oh, dear.

No, I'm afraid that you were not vague at all; you were a perfect reflection of your trigger-happy society in your immature and irresponsible - and yes, politically illiterate - post.

And yes, you should be better and do better.

I see I've outraged you more than Putin has after killing thousands of innocent people, thank you for making my point.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

So now we know you‘re a russian troll. That explains your terrible posts.

Personal - and puerile - insults in lieu of any intelligent thought, or analysis?

Seriously, this is pathetic, puerile, and imbecilic, and so idiotically juvenile. But, unfortunately, all too predictable.

I will confess that I fail to see how an argument - and, a plea - for upholding - and modeling, and abiding by - the rule of law (instead of a moronic rush to justify brute force, and assassination) is considered to be a position akin to that of "a Russian troll".

But, your binary culture will admit of no nuance that excludes blowing brains out as a choice, as political preference, political culture, and mere discourse.

So be it: I'm still for the rule of law.

You know, putting someone on trial rather than hanging them from a lamppost.

But, that is me.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I see I've outraged you more than Putin has after killing thousands of innocent people, thank you for making my point.

@Eric: With those sort of posts, regrettably, I simply see you as yet another trigger happy (unthinking) American. Shoot first and ask questions (when you have to clean up the mess, political, social, cultural., economic, nuclear - while the Russians (outrageously) threaten the use of nuclear weapons, it remains an incontrovertible fact that only the US has ever - disgracefully - used them) afterwards.

No nuance, limited understanding of concepts such as the rule of law.

Seriously: From a site owner (Musk, Arn, - granted, the role models leave a lot to be desired) this is pathetic.

You cannot stand in - sit in - judgment on others if you do not uphold, abide by, adhere to, the standards you proclaim.