Russia's War Against Ukraine

[MengJiao]

I have a sinking feeling this the equal to Hitler's (and Stalin's) Invasion of Poland. Ukraine is putting up a fierce resistance against an invader who wants to erase their identity from the map.

The Munich moment was perhaps annexation of Crimea, and extending the hostilities to Donbass. Appeasement won. Before that, there were South Ossetia and Abkhazia effectively annexed from Georgia and Transnistria annexed from Moldova.

Is it global war, does China decide Russia can't lose the war? Or, if appeasement wins again, does Putin walk away as a self declared winner of this war, too.

Bad and worse choices. We seem to be heading towards a world where no longer there can be power vacuums, any weak spots will be filled by force if necessary.

On the other hand, maybe this war shows how useless massive military forces have become.  If your intention isn't total genocide, then they seem like more trouble than they are worth.  At this point, the West is holding off the Russians' most massive possible non-nuclear attack by dumping their excess stocks of semi-obsolescent stuff into Ukraine while devoting maybe 2.5% of their GDP to reducing Russia's already totally lame GDP to less than it was (which wasn't much).  For what it's worth (and I'm usually wrong), I think what will happen is:
1) Ukraine holds on, maybe takes some territory back
2) stalemate (to Ukraine's advantage I think)
3) Putin dies
4) we get some kind of eternal demilitarized zone, like a Gaza strip or Cyprus or Sinai the size of some big chunk of Ukraine
5) everybody hates it, but it more or less gets swept under the rug as a mess the UN (or some other ad hoc group has to deal with

[Gusington]

If Putin dies how deep/comprehensive is his succession plan?

[MengJiao]

If Putin dies how deep/comprehensive is his succession plan?

  Good question.  There's no reliable information on that that I have seen, however, I would think (and I'm usually
wrong) that his successors are likely to be some kind of power-sharing tribunal to spread the blame around and to make assassination relatively cost-ineffective.  Personal survival would be the main aim of the tribunal and reducing the strain of a massive and pointless war would seem like an area where they could manage things so obscurely as to get some kind of acquiescence from lots of people.  As a figure-head, Putin may already be fading from the scene and his nominal successor would be an equivalent obscurely fading person.

[GDS_Starfury]

someone wasnt paying attention to the front.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1634813673662300160

[JasonPratt]

I would tend to think Putin's "succession plan" amounts to "snorf!"

He has a LEGACY plan, no doubt; that's what he's working on in Ukraine (and failing at). I have a hard time even imagining he has a succession plan; and even if he does, it probably changes every week (so might as well be no plan); and even if it happens not to change this week, he'd be playing those cards verrrrrrry close to his chest.

[JasonPratt]

Re Ukraine as Poland: thank God and everyone else applicable, then, that so far there's no Stalin to flank Poland against Putler (and doesn't seem like there will be? Unless Turkey loses their minds and decides to invade across the Black Sea??) And Ukraine has so far gotten much more helpful support than Poland did. And Putin's military was an incompetent wreck even BEFORE he tried the opening full-court press. (Although in hindsight, his only hope at not exposing how bad off his military already was, was to score a quick technical knockout with an early full-court press, or mixed metaphors to that effect.)

On the other hand, Hitler (and Stalin) didn't have nukes to throw in a fit of pique, threatening to end human civilization along with more actual human persons than in any war ever so far. And his successors (per the prior topic) tend to be a lot more mouthy than even Putin about using those things pronto.

[JasonPratt]

Meanwhile, Peter Zeihan (lecturing at a university somewhere) explains rather well why, despite our eye-rolling at the rhetoric, this really is an existential crisis for Russia as a nation.

Filmed in December 2022, but still applicable in mid-March today (it may have been posted here back then, but worth recalling):

The highlight reel, with repeating epic music in the way and overproduced short-attention-span illustrative footage...  But otherwise helpful (even in some of the footage) as a summary:

[JasonPratt]

Somewhat updated version of the lecture from a month ago, in Louisiana (which is where German manfuacturing is currently packing up to relocate):

I should add that he thinks (as of a few weeks ago, Feb 28th), this is still Russia's war to lose, and that they can still pull out a win, albeit only a pyhrric one (or however that's spelled) at a strategic level because they'll have ruined what remains of their economy and military to do it. I don't think he thinks Russia's economy will tank fast enough to call off the war early, even though it's going to zero regardless right now; but I'm not sure he's taking enough problems with command and control into account. Throwing zerg rushes at Ukraine from several directions didn't work the first time (as he's well aware) for precisely those reasons, on the Russian side of the failure; and the C&C plus logistic situation for Russia has gotten worse, a LOT worse, since then. Putting it another way, zerg rushes work in Starcraft because C&C plus logistics aren't a factor! Russia didn't win her big fights in the past on manpower alone, and for all practical purposes Russia is about down now, almost literally, to 'manpower alone'.

[Gusington]

What would a Russian loss mean for the country? If Russia loses and then fails, that would also be no good for the entire world, with 1000s of loose nukes and probably more wars erupting as the whole state collapses into smaller pieces. Very similar to the USSR's collapse and subsequent wars for the last 30 years but perhaps worse.

[Skoop]

I'll take my chances with that rather than allowing Putin and the nationalists remain in control, cause we will just repeat this again in a decade or two.  They need to hit rock bottom this time so real change can happen.

[GDS_Starfury]

fuck russians

[JasonPratt]

I would rather have real progress than only real change, but admittedly the former can't come without the latter.

Which, ironically, is the provision, taken to its logical extreme, which got us all into this mess back in 1918.  (But it's change, real change, really! If it's change it must be progress, but you'll see the progress later, we promise DON'T TRY TO LEAVE OR STOP US, OR WE SHOOT YOU COMRADE, AS THE PEOPLE'S ENEMY OF PROGRESS AND HOPE AND CHANGE!  )

[GDS_Starfury]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1635272770681724928

[MengJiao]

If Putin dies how deep/comprehensive is his succession plan?

  ISW reported by CNN:

Russia's Ministry of Defense is likely using the assault on Bakhmut to degrade Wagner forces in order to weaken Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder of the private military company, according to the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

I guess this is one way to control power in Russia.  Kind of Machiavellian, but it just might work:  make your competitors in a power struggle throw away their forces in a pointless war.  Wait.  That might be a situational problem for more than just Yevgeny Prigozhin.  I mean pointless wars don't just grow on trees, so who else might be
wrecking their power in a pointless war?  Hmmm?  I wonder.  Maybe Russia needs this war so as to:
a) throw the right people out of windows all over town
b) strangle the right people with their own belts
c) wreck the economy
d) destroy any traces of any remaining prestige or credibility
e) blow up a lot of stuff
f) waste all your "high-tech" missiles blowing up apartment buildings
g) get your fleet destroyed
h) have people stop buying your weapons
i) buy re-engineered American stuff from Iran
J) let China and India run Asia
K) learn to develop better plans for a change?
 

[GDS_Starfury]

https://nypost.com/2023/03/12/russia-loses-1090-soldiers-in-reported-deadliest-day-of-war/