[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)

[jcdenton08]

Wonder what the Russians must be thinking at this point, both at the top and the populace. They were meant to be in Kyiv within 3 days. Now years on, with hundreds of thousands of losses and repeated Ukraine attacks on Russian soil, it must be very, very real what their great leader has done.

Inflation at 19%, massive mushroom cloud explosions right next to their towns as drones fly overhead unchallenged.

That ammo dump explosion was glorious and could save thousands of lives. f***ing beautiful.

 

[jcdenton08]

Oh and shared and safe in Seaford hun xx

 

[raymondo]

Here's a big dose of potential positivity.

Wow that's quite a list . We need this positivity, and, if most true, shows again that much of the Russian action and rhetoric is a shell .
Note #15, I'll be expecting 000s of Russian men to be accused of crimes this week.

 

[raymondo]

cr4xl7xx394o

This is one company that I'm glad to see expand.

Yes, interesting company .
The flying time of such drones (c. 16 hours) always astounds me.
16 hours at say 40mph is a long way. Ok, that'll be surveillance, no payload I guess, but still...

 

[Titanic]

Yes, interesting company .
The flying time of such drones (c. 16 hours) always astounds me.
16 hours at say 40mph is a long way. Ok, that'll be surveillance, no payload I guess, but still...

About 640 miles.

 

[raymondo]

About 640 miles.

Excellent maths this time of the morning

 

[peterward]

Dr Timothy Snyder, spot on.

 

[raymondo]

Per Forbes...the attack on Toropets weapons storage was defo by multiple Ukrainian drones, rather than missiles.
Amazing

 

[raymondo]

Dr Timothy Snyder, spot on.

I've watched that properly now:
What a brilliant statement

 

[Eric the meek]

Dr Timothy Snyder, spot on.

I'm sorry to do this, but I fundamentally do not agree with this analysis. I think it is highly dangerous for Ukraine, Europe and world peace.

Why?

It taps into western - and Ukrainian - wishful thinking (that please God, can the war finish soon), but makes the basic mistake of failing to effect regime change in Moscow. Without the latter, Putin v2.0 will rise to power and bide his time....

1. It panders to what Russia believes. Any analysis should be based on what the west believes. NOT Russia.
2. It panders to what Russia wants to happen, given that they are losing. Don't give them what they want. Don't. How do you know Russia won't simply be focusing on their new axis of time. Time to re-arm, re-group, and go again in a few years' time. Believing/hoping is not enough. Russia needs to lose big. That means total loss. Territory. Power. Natural resources. Corruption. Patronage. All of it, gone. Sanctions should stay for decades and be enforced.
3. Ukraine can only be - and feel - truly secure, if it becomes a member of the EU, and NATO (exactly the things Lavrov has said are impossible), and there is the most fundamental change in Moscow. Within Russia, a century of Russian imperialism needs to be reversed.
4. We don't want them to think they are losing! We want them to think they are winning for as long as possible, so they can be further drained of troops, money, morale and a chance of rebuilding to go again.

Ukraine has to win big, or face another war in a few years.

 

[peterward]

I'm sorry to do this, but I fundamentally do not agree with this analysis. I think it is highly dangerous for Ukraine, Europe and world peace.

Why?

It taps into western - and Ukrainian - wishful thinking (that please God, can the war finish soon), but makes the basic mistake of failing to effect regime change in Moscow. Without the latter, Putin v2.0 will rise to power and bide his time....

1. It panders to what Russia believes. Any analysis should be based on what the west believes. NOT Russia.
2. It panders to what Russia wants to happen, given that they are losing. Don't give them what they want. Don't. How do you know Russia won't simply be focusing on their new axis of time. Time to re-arm, re-group, and go again in a few years' time. Believing/hoping is not enough. Russia needs to lose big. That means total loss. Territory. Power. Natural resources. Corruption. Patronage. All of it, gone. Sanctions should stay for decades and be enforced.
3. Ukraine can only be - and feel - truly secure, if it becomes a member of the EU, and NATO (exactly the things Lavrov has said are impossible), and there is the most fundamental change in Moscow. Within Russia, a century of Russian imperialism needs to be reversed.
4. We don't want them to think they are losing! We want them to think they are winning for as long as possible, so they can be further drained of troops, money, morale and a chance of rebuilding to go again.

Ukraine has to win big, or face another war in a few years.

You dont have to be sorry for expressing your opinion Eric, yours is one I guess many will respect greatly. I centainly do!

I guess many on this side of the argument want to see Putin dragged through the streets, or at least in the Hague but that may also be wishful thinking, as might Putin 2, whatever that is. Nobody knows for sure what will happen in 3, 6, 12 months. In my ideal world, Ukraine will win big, Putin will be strung up and killed, Russia will pay for its crimes and then become a democratic country, that today is wishful thinking!

I think what Snyder is suggesting, is that there is no point in having any negotiations with Russia, who always act in bad faith, unless Russia thinks its losing, then and only then may it come to table and negotiate territorial issues in something sembling good faith......... the crimes it has committed and reparations due are a different issue entirely.

I dont think he suggests that you must negotiate with Russia or give them something of what they want, just that, until they think they're losing there is simply no point in engaging in any meanignful conversations, as Scholz in germany seems so keen to pursue, as the Russians will not act in good faith if they believe there is any chance they might win.

Getting Russia to the point they think they are or might lose, should be the wests objective and thus why we should endorse long range strikes and why its absurd that Russia can do it, and there is a ridiculous narrative, that to do the same to the aggressor could be deemed escalation. He seems to be making that point imho.

I dont think there is any appetite in Washington or Berlin for the uncertainty of a total Russian collapse and who might get its nukes etc or what may happen after re: instability, and who might then assume power, assuming that may likely come through violent disorder/murders to seize power.
US/Ukraine have always said that wars always end in negotiated deals, which kind of feeds the point..... getting Putin to point he knows he is losing or will lose is the only position by which those talks could occur, be good for Ukraine and he backs away.

A zero sum winner takes all isnt US policy under Biden, as much as I wish it would be or that Russia totally implodes in the meantime.

But what US can and should seek to control/influence is getting to point Putin realises the game is up ASAP and seeks to deal to save himself and that involves taking war deep into Russia.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm sorry to do this, but I fundamentally do not agree with this analysis.

No apology necessary. I disagree with your response. I think you've misread it as us simply wanting Russia to agree to peace, but without looking at the detail of what that peace would look like. The suggestion is simply to get Russia to a place where they're losing and want peace, but there is no onus on Ukraine to accept unfavourable peace terms.

I think it is highly dangerous for Ukraine, Europe and world peace.

Why?

It taps into western - and Ukrainian - wishful thinking (that please God, can the war finish soon), but makes the basic mistake of failing to effect regime change in Moscow. Without the latter, Putin v2.0 will rise to power and bide his time....

We want Ukraine to win. That would mean Ukraine doing better than they are/Russia doing worse, and as that shift occurs, Russia will start to feel they can't win. That's what we want. Ideally they would have to agree to withdraw from Ukraine. But Ukraine/The West can't demand regime change in Russia.

1. It panders to what Russia believes. Any analysis should be based on what the west believes. NOT Russia.
2. It panders to what Russia wants to happen, given that they are losing. Don't give them what they want. Don't. How do you know Russia won't simply be focusing on their new axis of time. Time to re-arm, re-group, and go again in a few years' time. Believing/hoping is not enough. Russia needs to lose big. That means total loss. Territory. Power. Natural resources. Corruption. Patronage. All of it, gone. Sanctions should stay for decades and be enforced.
3. Ukraine can only be - and feel - truly secure, if it becomes a member of the EU, and NATO (exactly the things Lavrov has said are impossible), and there is the most fundamental change in Moscow. Within Russia, a century of Russian imperialism needs to be reversed.
4. We don't want them to think they are losing! We want them to think they are winning for as long as possible, so they can be further drained of troops, money, morale and a chance of rebuilding to go again.

Ukraine has to win big, or face another war in a few years.

1. It's not pandering. We want Russia to withdraw and ask for peace. They're not doing that if they're winning.
2. If Russia had to agree to withdraw, and Ukraine then joined NATO, then Russia wouldn't be going again in a few years time. Talk of Russia losing their natural resources is mad.
3. Yes I agree they need to be in NATO. That's a lot easier to do than Russia's total loss.
4. That doesn't make sense to me. We want them to lose their troops and lose territory. They're not going to be doing that and think they're winning. As we've covered, the best way to stop them doing it again is for Ukraine to join NATO. Germany losing troops, money, and morale didn't stop them going again.

 

[Eric the meek]

@peterward and @Triggaaar thank you for your replies. They are food for thought. Perhaps I wrote that previous post without context. I will now attempt to give that context.

Would you negotiate with Putin? Do you trust him to keep to any agreement/armistice? Would you take the risk that he will stop after a negotiated settlement?
What has he done for two and a half years? Anything and everything to keep going. He isn't going to stop. If he stops, he's dead. So what good will it do to make him think he's going to lose? He is fighting for his life.

Don't catch a plane in Russia.

I hope and believe Russia is going to collapse and break up. I have hoped and believed this, ever since a tweet from Kamil Galeev in the summer of 2022. (Briefly, sanctions will prevent Russia from getting spare parts for trains and planes, so the whole country will eventually grind to a halt). The odd article makes it out into the news.

We never hear the truth, or anything approaching the truth, from the Kremlin. So what would you do to make it seem to Russia that it will lose? Independent analyses of Russia's war machine and economy give it only until next year, and then there's no money left. Ukrainian drones are likely to speed up that process. Yesterday brought the astonishing figure of 3 million drones this year, produced in Ukraine. How can Russia possibly defend itself against that?

Don't do half a job.

The very last thing we in the west should be doing, is downing weapons and giving Russia/Putin a lifeline of negotiation. To him, negotiation = time. And of course, in the event that a peace deal were ever agreed, we couldn't ever believe a word he says, or a document he signs.

I believe we should keep the pressure on. Keep reducing his ability to finance his war machine. As as aside, I have a suspicion we are doing that right now, delaying the decision about the missiles. I think the west are playing him like a fiddle. Russian propagandists, always a good bellwether, seem to have gone into a frenzy about those missiles.

By all means do what Prof. Snyder says, but do it as Putin would. Negotiation at gunpoint. Negotiate, but keep shooting Russia up.

Peace through strength.
But just in case Russia still attacks a NATO member,

Peace through Russian weakness.

 

[The Clamp]

I’m an old fashioned type and still subscribe to magazines.

This months’ Geographical (the magazine of The Royal Geographical Society) has a heartbreaking article of civilian life on the front line.

It makes me want to see Putin dragged through the streets.

 

[peterward]

@peterward and @Triggaaar thank you for your replies. They are food for thought. Perhaps I wrote that previous post without context. I will now attempt to give that context.

Would you negotiate with Putin? Do you trust him to keep to any agreement/armistice? Would you take the risk that he will stop after a negotiated settlement?
What has he done for two and a half years? Anything and everything to keep going. He isn't going to stop. If he stops, he's dead. So what good will it do to make him think he's going to lose? He is fighting for his life.

Don't catch a plane in Russia.

I hope and believe Russia is going to collapse and break up. I have hoped and believed this, ever since a tweet from Kamil Galeev in the summer of 2022. (Briefly, sanctions will prevent Russia from getting spare parts for trains and planes, so the whole country will eventually grind to a halt). The odd article makes it out into the news.

We never hear the truth, or anything approaching the truth, from the Kremlin. So what would you do to make it seem to Russia that it will lose? Independent analyses of Russia's war machine and economy give it only until next year, and then there's no money left. Ukrainian drones are likely to speed up that process. Yesterday brought the astonishing figure of 3 million drones this year, produced in Ukraine. How can Russia possibly defend itself against that?

Don't do half a job.

The very last thing we in the west should be doing, is downing weapons and giving Russia/Putin a lifeline of negotiation. To him, negotiation = time. And of course, in the event that a peace deal were ever agreed, we couldn't ever believe a word he says, or a document he signs.

I believe we should keep the pressure on. Keep reducing his ability to finance his war machine. As as aside, I have a suspicion we are doing that right now, delaying the decision about the missiles. I think the west are playing him like a fiddle. Russian propagandists, always a good bellwether, seem to have gone into a frenzy about those missiles.

By all means do what Prof. Snyder says, but do it as Putin would. Negotiation at gunpoint. Negotiate, but keep shooting Russia up.

Peace through strength.
But just in case Russia still attacks a NATO member,

Peace through Russian weakness.

Theyre all excellent points and totally agree when it comes to Putin, he simply cannot be trusted to keep his word. He only operates by what he can get away with, so must ensure he cannot get away with anything.

As mentioned, nobody knows how this ends, and in the near future, the US election is pivotal and maybe Putins best chance of achieving something he can claim as a win (the thought shudders)...... but assuming Trump is defeated, which is essential for Ukraine imho, I can only see 4 broader ways in which this war can end favourably for Ukraine (and 3 of those will involve Russia stepping back and calling it off), and the west is also asking for some form of plan as to how this can end.

1. Ukraine beating Russia militarily on the battlefield to eject them from all territory
2. Russia collapsing Financially or reaching inflection point where it cannot fund its war any longer
3. Pressure from inside Russian society, elites, resulting in a coup or Putins ouster.
4. A Negotiated end where Ukraine gets a just settlement and return of its lands

I dont see 1 as acheiveable (on either side), there's tactical successes but still limited overall movement, I agree with you that 4 is a waste of time in the current environment and Putins word is worth nothing, he lies even more than Trump.
But taking the war to Russia, allowing long range strikes will improve the odds of both 2 or 3 becoming reality sooner, and when and if either get close for Putin and he thinks he might lose, then and only then could number 4 come into play.

I'm with you that he should get no lifeline, or in any way let off to fight another day (Ukraine in NATO should be part of that settlement) but still some sort of ordered ending would be deemed more preferable in western capitals than total Russia implosion, and the chaos and instability that would ensue.

I think its a house of cards tbh, and with enough pressure it will come down.

 

[Eric the meek]

Theyre all excellent points and totally agree when it comes to Putin, he simply cannot be trusted to keep his word. He only operates by what he can get away with, so must ensure he cannot get away with anything.

As mentioned, nobody knows how this ends, and in the near future, the US election is pivotal and maybe Putins best chance of achieving something he can claim as a win (the thought shudders)...... but assuming Trump is defeated, which is essential for Ukraine imho, I can only see 4 broader ways in which this war can end favourably for Ukraine (and 3 of those will involve Russia stepping back and calling it off), and the west is also asking for some form of plan as to how this can end.

1. Ukraine beating Russia militarily on the battlefield to eject them from all territory
2. Russia collapsing Financially or reaching inflection point where it cannot fund its war any longer
3. Pressure from inside Russian society, elites, resulting in a coup or Putins ouster.
4. A Negotiated end where Ukraine gets a just settlement and return of its lands

I dont see 1 as acheiveable (on either side), there's tactical successes but still limited overall movement, I agree with you that 4 is a waste of time in the current environment and Putins word is worth nothing, he lies even more than Trump.
But taking the war to Russia, allowing long range strikes will improve the odds of both 2 or 3 becoming reality sooner, and when and if either get close for Putin and he thinks he might lose, then and only then could number 4 come into play.

I'm with you that he should get no lifeline, or in any way let off to fight another day (Ukraine in NATO should be part of that settlement) but still some sort of ordered ending would be deemed more preferable in western capitals than total Russia implosion, and the chaos and instability that would ensue.

I think its a house of cards tbh, and with enough pressure it will come down.

I think that as well. What a difference a war makes.

There was a time when we were thinking that Putin must have an 'off-ramp'. Remember those days?
Well, now we are thinking the direct opposite - that he should not get a lifeline.

That itself is a measure of how far Ukraine has come.

Here's another. Remember the night of the invasion, when Zelensky took that now iconic night-time walk with his team on the streets of Kyiv?
His decision to stay and lead, saved Ukraine. That was worthy of Churchill. Now his nation is very much in the war, it is set to build 3 million drones this year, and in two weeks, he is due to present his 'Plan for victory' to Joe Biden.

Of your four points, I definitely think 2 is the most likely, followed by 3. But I wouldn't rule out I completely either, although it might necessitate a looser definition of battlefield. Or there might be a No. 5, something none of us have seen coming!

 

[raymondo]

I’m an old fashioned type and still subscribe to magazines.

This months’ Geographical (the magazine of The Royal Geographical Society) has a heartbreaking article of civilian life on the front line.

It makes me want to see Putin dragged through the streets.


View attachment 189106View attachment 189107

It's a brilliant magazine...always has been and great that it survives in this format.

 

[Triggaaar]

Would you negotiate with Putin?

Yes.

Do you trust him to keep to any agreement/armistice?

No I certainly don't. But if he offered to withdraw all his troops from Ukraine, I'd watch and see if it happened.

Would you take the risk that he will stop after a negotiated settlement?

No I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to agree to Russia keeping the stolen land, while they regroup and go again, but if they withdrew and Ukraine joined NATO, it wouldn't be a good idea for Russia to go again. I wouldn't put myself in a position where I'm relying on Putin keeping his word as it's worthless.

What has he done for two and a half years? Anything and everything to keep going. He isn't going to stop. If he stops, he's dead. So what good will it do to make him think he's going to lose? He is fighting for his life.

He's not stopped so far because he hasn't had to. If he loses it's certainly not good for him. I'd guess that he'd have a better chance of surviving if he told his people that they'd won and the Nazis were gone, and that the troops were returning home. If instead, he keeps fighting until he has no troops left (which seems along the lines of your suggested outcome) then it would be much harder for him to spin it as victory. I honestly can't understand the logic of what you're hoping for. You want Russia to lose everything, so convincingly lose the war - but somehow not notice they're losing?

I hope and believe Russia is going to collapse and break up. I have hoped and believed this, ever since a tweet from Kamil Galeev in the summer of 2022. (Briefly, sanctions will prevent Russia from getting spare parts for trains and planes, so the whole country will eventually grind to a halt). The odd article makes it out into the news.

Breaks up into what? It's not like they're a combination of different countries. If they collapse, the big concern will be what happens with the nuclear weapons dotted around the place?

We never hear the truth, or anything approaching the truth, from the Kremlin. So what would you do to make it seem to Russia that it will lose?

To be clear, I want Putin to realise that they can't win, so he needs to choose a way out. I wasn't meaning make the civilians think that, as they don't get a say in it anyway.

Independent analyses of Russia's war machine and economy give it only until next year, and then there's no money left.

I've missed those predictions, have you got links? Seems a bit fanciful to me. Ukraine aren't currently pushing forward in Ukraine, and Russia still have a sizeable amount of troops.

Ukrainian drones are likely to speed up that process. Yesterday brought the astonishing figure of 3 million drones this year, produced in Ukraine. How can Russia possibly defend itself against that?

Obviously I'd like you to be right.

The very last thing we in the west should be doing, is downing weapons and giving Russia/Putin a lifeline of negotiation. To him, negotiation = time.

I wouldn't want or expect Ukraine to down weapon to negotiate. Certainly keep fighting until Putin withdraws his troops. Once they're off Ukraine soil, a break in fighting would seem appropriate.

And of course, in the event that a peace deal were ever agreed, we couldn't ever believe a word he says, or a document he signs.

Absolutely, which is why Ukraine would have to join NATO.

I believe we should keep the pressure on. Keep reducing his ability to finance his war machine. As as aside, I have a suspicion we are doing that right now, delaying the decision about the missiles. I think the west are playing him like a fiddle.

I hope you're right.

 

[raymondo]

I think that as well. What a difference a war makes.

There was a time when we were thinking that Putin must have an 'off-ramp'. Remember those days?
Well, now we are thinking the direct opposite - that he should not get a lifeline.

That itself is a measure of how far Ukraine has come.

Here's another. Remember the night of the invasion, when Zelensky took that now iconic night-time walk with his team on the streets of Kyiv?
His decision to stay and lead, saved Ukraine. That was worthy of Churchill. Now his nation is very much in the war, it is set to build 3 million drones this year, and in two weeks, he is due to present his 'Plan for victory' to Joe Biden.

Of your four points, I definitely think 2 is the most likely, followed by 3. But I wouldn't rule out I completely either, although it might necessitate a looser definition of battlefield. Or there might be a No. 5, something none of us have seen coming!

I can't add anything to the excellent discussions you three have engaged in above .
For me, a combination of 2, 3 seems more likely but, as you say, there's always a 5 lurking out there.
Putin will keep buying weapons as needed so I can't see 1. happening, at least not for a few years.
I wonder if one million wives, mothers and grannies would get organized and take to the streets .

But, on a daily basis, I'm just delighted by every piece of damage Ukraine is doing to Russia.
International support is still critical to Ukraine, at least until their ballistic program reaches fruition. The possibility of Trump is the biggest unknown still.

 

[raymondo]

Very interesting table showing distribution of confirmed dead Russian soldiers.
BBC News - Russia’s war dead tops 70,000 as volunteers face 'meat grinder' - BBC News

Russia’s war dead tops 70,000 as volunteers face 'meat grinder'

More than 70,000 Russian soldiers have died in Ukraine - volunteers now make up the highest number of deaths.

www.bbc.co.uk