Russia's War Against Ukraine

[GDS_Starfury]

whats a honky to do!?   

[JasonPratt]

Is there anything really worth the impact of global nuclear war? I think this is germane to the discussion.

Is brinkmanship between nuclear powers in getting what they want, still a thing?

If we treat Putin's threats in terms of "is anything really worth Putin following through on his threats" (in effect), then yes not only are they still a thing -- because he's the one doing the brinksmanship -- but they're working. At the bare minimum, his threat has kept local NATO/EU members from sending direct action (aside from trainers/advisors more-or-less secretly on the ground) into Ukraine to stop an unstable invader on their own borders.

He's using nuclear threats already to get at least a little of what he wants. But getting that little hasn't helped him win. So we can expect him to escalate until the brinksmanship gets him something he's willing to accept (if only for now). And then he and other unstable nations with nukes will try that again, pushing the line over and over again until they don't meet mush -- or until they themselves trigger off a nuclear war for what they see to be the only remaining minimally acceptable results. Or until the leaders willing to hold nations hostage to nuclear blackmail are removed one way or another.

There's a reason why the biggest film this summer focused on stopping Iran from also becoming a nuclear-weapon power.

And in my view, as the father of two young children, virtually any settlement that averts nuclear war is a good one worth considering.

Then the nuclear brinksman nation(s) who want to take over the world, will take over the world. "Virtually any settlement" necessarily includes that settlement, which must be a good result worth considering.

[Windigo]

Is there anything really worth the impact of global nuclear war? I think this is germane to the discussion.

This is kind of the Six Million Dollar question that nobody who is in support of continuing the war seems to be asking or seriously considering. My answer is an emphatic, no. It's actually a HELL NO.

With respect to FarAway's post above, there are ways to make concessions without losing "face" or setting a negative precedent. How do you think the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved averting nuclear war? Both the Soviet Union and the United States made concessions.

FarAway is right...in order for their to be a diplomatic resolution, BOTH sides must make concessions. This usually means both sides will walk away unhappy about one thing or another...but in my business, this is what we call a good settlement. And in my view, as the father of two young children, virtually any settlement that averts nuclear war is a good one worth considering.

Yeah I agree with you there JH. Children really do alter your thinking regarding the long term. And when grandchildren enter the room... all fucking bets are off. Risks that you can personally tolerate (say living in a slightly shady neighbourhood), suddenly are too risky with children involved.

[Windigo]

ok JH, how does this war end with all Ukrainian territory returned, the complete exit of russian forces from said territory and putin being removed from office while at the same time avoiding a nuclear incident?

as for the Cuban crisis, we had the flexibility to remove missiles from Turkey.  wheres the flexibility here?

I personally think (up here in my safe haven country) there should be no negotiations until the Ukraine has retaken all of it's territory. Maybe naively, but I think the UAF will keep doing what its doing well into winter. There will be no pause as the Russian forces will be woefully equipped for winter war.

Will Putin throw a nuke/chemical weapons at the Ukraine? I doubt it. There is a real chance that after the Ukraine's retaliation at Belgorod today, the Russians have to think twice about the Ukraine's capabilities.

[GDS_Starfury]

I so enjoy not having kids.  <:-)

[GDS_Starfury]

its kind of funny that this is the first war where the enemy is doing the bomb damage assessments for you and doing them more accurately.

[Jarhead0331]

ok JH, how does this war end with all Ukrainian territory returned, the complete exit of russian forces from said territory and putin being removed from office while at the same time avoiding a nuclear incident?

It doesn't. You've listed a set of terms that will not result in a diplomatic resolution, particularly one involving regime change. That represents the very "existential threat" Putin highlights as granting him authority to release nuclear weapons. It is not our legal right, nor in our national interest to make such a demand.

[Sir Slash]

Star's list of things to end the war is called, "Ukraine Wins". It's no more realistic than Putin getting everything he wants in exchange for peace. The idea reaching a settlement begins with the notion that neither side gets everything they want. If either, or both, sides hold-out for every single item on it's list of, 'must haves', then this war will just continue until one side can no longer sustain it. Or exists.

[MengJiao]

Star's list of things to end the war is called, "Ukraine Wins". It's no more realistic than Putin getting everything he wants in exchange for peace. The idea reaching a settlement begins with the notion that neither side gets everything they want. If either, or both, sides hold-out for every single item on it's list of, 'must haves', then this war will just continue until one side can no longer sustain it. Or exists.

  Well, that's the problem: Ukraine has been winning for quite a while and this has just made the Russians more and more upset.  Moreover, the more the war goes on, the more the Russians will lose
eventually.  Sooner or later, the Russians have to accept reality and start negotiating realistically. Clearly, they can't have any of Ukraine, but they might be allowed to stay in the UN and possibly be
allowed to get back on their feet economically.  If they had stopped sooner, they could have saved a lot of their positions, but it seems to be far too late for them to expect to get any of their objectives or
even hold on to any of their earlier gains.  That's the problem with losing a war but not admitting it; you get less and less the longer you pretend you aren't losing.

[Jarhead0331]

That's the problem with losing a war but not admitting it; you get less and less the longer you pretend you aren't losing.

Unless, perhaps, you have the largest arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons on the planet. In which case, the strategic and political bargaining balance is not quite so straight forward. 

[MengJiao]

That's the problem with losing a war but not admitting it; you get less and less the longer you pretend you aren't losing.

Unless, perhaps, you have the largest arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons on the planet. In which case, the strategic and political bargaining balance is not quite so straight forward.

  It seems that the only function of the largest arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons on the planet is that it allows the Russians to overlook the fact that the sooner they start negotiating
realistically the better it will be for them.

[Jarhead0331]

That's the problem with losing a war but not admitting it; you get less and less the longer you pretend you aren't losing.

Unless, perhaps, you have the largest arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons on the planet. In which case, the strategic and political bargaining balance is not quite so straight forward.

  It seems that the only function of the largest arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons on the planet is that it allows the Russians to overlook the fact that the sooner they start negotiating
realistically the better it will be for them.

I disagree with your assessment of the only function.

[SirAndrewD]

The central issue is that Putin painted himself into a corner with the annexation votes, especially annexing Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

He effectively took them off the table as bargaining chips unless he wants to reverse his grand decrees and "will of the people". 

Want to talk about a way to endanger his regime?  Accepting any peace proposal where the five oblasts in question are in play to be ceded as Ukrainian territory.

And yes, as MengJiao said, it's resulted in a bizzare form of backwards diplomacy, largely predicated on the nuclear threat.  Putin answered military defeat not with a better offer at the negotiating table, but instead increasing his demands and putting in a red line that he can't back down from without endangering his regime.

I gave what I felt would be a good starting point for negotiations a few pages back where both sides would likely have to give and take, but I felt even when I said it that it was a pipe dream.   The two sides are so far apart in their demands that it's going to take some significant change in the calculus for them to start talking. 

My hope continues to hinge on what a few of the experts keep drumming on, and that Putin may now be a madman, but he isn't a suicidal madman, and despite their rhetoric the Russians still fully understand that NATO is more than capable of destroying Russia if the Russians embark on the path of Armageddon. 

Again, maybe a pipe dream.   I've been waiting to see cooler heads prevail and just see an endless cycle of doubling down.

[Windigo]

Star's list of things to end the war is called, "Ukraine Wins". It's no more realistic than Putin getting everything he wants in exchange for peace. The idea reaching a settlement begins with the notion that neither side gets everything they want. If either, or both, sides hold-out for every single item on it's list of, 'must haves', then this war will just continue until one side can no longer sustain it. Or exists.

So supposing Ukraine kicks Russia out of all parts of the Ukraine; then what? What's Russia's move then? It will be years before they can rebuild their forces to try and reclaim their supposed territories. Perpetual conflict? I think not.

[Windigo]

Star's list of things to end the war is called, "Ukraine Wins". It's no more realistic than Putin getting everything he wants in exchange for peace. The idea reaching a settlement begins with the notion that neither side gets everything they want. If either, or both, sides hold-out for every single item on it's list of, 'must haves', then this war will just continue until one side can no longer sustain it. Or exists.

  Well, that's the problem: Ukraine has been winning for quite a while and this has just made the Russians more and more upset.  Moreover, the more the war goes on, the more the Russians will lose
eventually.  Sooner or later, the Russians have to accept reality and start negotiating realistically. Clearly, they can't have any of Ukraine, but they might be allowed to stay in the UN and possibly be
allowed to get back on their feet economically.  If they had stopped sooner, they could have saved a lot of their positions, but it seems to be far too late for them to expect to get any of their objectives or
even hold on to any of their earlier gains.  That's the problem with losing a war but not admitting it; you get less and less the longer you pretend you aren't losing.

Cognitive Dissonance on a massive scale is real. When the unthinkable becomes real to Russia (losing all of Crimea) they'll double down on stupid. But JUST LIKE an explosively tantruming child, they'll exhaust themselves and create a new reality where it didn't really matter anyway if they kept the Crimea.