Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Gusington]

^Good points on the nukes, I have not thought of a nuclear Poland or Germany.

[GDS_Starfury]

some things happened.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1656066969152507905

https://twitter.com/i/status/1656078138282061824

[MengJiao]

^Belarus is next. Unless you count them as part of Russia already.

Well, part of the West's motivation is trying to keep these things from running totally out of control.  It looks like
these assorted chunks of Eastern Europe are just not all that stable even in the best cases.  What if a chunk of Belarus started doing the
autonomous thing?  A nominally Russified Belarus is probably a more stable proposition than a fragmenting Belarus.  And of course, the potential fragmentation of Ukraine is something the Russians have been pushing and the same with Moldovia, chunks of Yougoslavia etc.  At least NATO can kind of keep a lid on that stuff and the Russians are playing the same game with only one terrible miscalculation so far.

[Gusington]

^While balancing between fending off Russia and the total collapse of Russia, too.

[MengJiao]

^While balancing between fending off Russia and the total collapse of Russia, too.

There have been articles focusing on Asia lately that suggest that from China's point of view, Russia has already imploded in terms of who controls the balance of power in central asia (yep the remains of the Mongol empire are now more or less Chinese)

[JasonPratt]

I'm sure part of the difference is the question of operational support capability compared to the likelihood of aggravating a nuclear exchange. Even in this war, that was faaaaaarrrr from an unimportant problem! -- and might still end up going omelet-shaped!

If Putin's Knock-on-all-doors strategy had worked to psyche Ukraine, or at least its functioning government, into collapse, would the US/NATO have risked nuclear war (and definite default on various supplies provided by Russia) to save it? -- because NATO, or at least the US, would have had to counter-invade by land and/or sea to retake and secure Ukrainian land area.

We now have a better idea why Ukraine's control is an existential crisis for Russia, at least for the overall government structure (whether Putin or any successor like him) -- not because of a threat of NATO using the Ukrainian border as a Fortified Sector (in Soviet-style doctrine, although that's what Putin promotes his invasion to prevent), much less a threat of Nazis in Ukraine, but due to Russia's coming demographic collapse combined with all the other logistic collapses that an unfocused kleptocracy will naturally tend toward generating in its controlled area. Putting it another way, a kleptocracy always needs more to steal in order to keep surviving as such. (This was true about the prior Soviet Union, too, but they had more organization than the post-Soviet Russian regime(s), at least potentially and often actually!)

[FarAway Sooner]

I agree 100% with what Jason said.  Central European borders have been a bit more unstable than Western European borders for the last 75 years.  I'm hopeful that the introduction of modern, democratic systems is starting to ease some of that pressure, but it'll take at least one more generation to be certain.

Gus, interesting point about how NATO is trying to thread the needle between fending Russia off without fomenting a total collapse of the worlds largest (?) nuclear arsenal.

Meng, my sense is that Putin's latest stunt has doomed Russia to little more than vassal-state status for China within 20 years.  The presence of nuclear weapons will make it unlikely that the Chinese could actually occupy much territory, but they won't have to if the Russians are exporting them their oil, their wheat, their vodka, and their people.

[Sir Slash]

Interesting. We know Putin's in bed with Ping, but do we know anything about how the other major players in Russia's future, Putin's cronies, the Wagner guy, the Army commanders, feel about the new alliance with China? Isn't there probably still a lot of anti-Chinese feelings in the Russian hierarchy? Or has Ping's open pocketbook enticed them to a more friendly attitude?

[Crossroads]

We now have a better idea why Ukraine's control is an existential crisis for Russia, at least for the overall government structure (whether Putin or any successor like him) -- not because of a threat of NATO using the Ukrainian border as a Fortified Sector (in Soviet-style doctrine, although that's what Putin promotes his invasion to prevent), much less a threat of Nazis in Ukraine, but due to Russia's coming demographic collapse combined with all the other logistic collapses that an unfocused kleptocracy will naturally tend toward generating in its controlled area. Putting it another way, a kleptocracy always needs more to steal in order to keep surviving as such. (This was true about the prior Soviet Union, too, but they had more organization than the post-Soviet Russian regime(s), at least potentially and often actually!)

As a sidenote, there's still a substantial number or articles and opinions who speculate as whether Putin's behaving rationally (no, they say), if he's gone mad (sure looks like it they say), or what motivates him (impossible to tell, they say).

Why they would still view Russia and Putin in particular through a prism of a Western point of view, I have no idea. Or, perhaps, maybe they have no idea.

To simplify everything onto one sentence, Western PoV could be a valid one if we roll back the clock some 100+ years?

"Everyone for King and Country, it is our Divine duty to expand the Empire, the pagans out there will benefit from being under our rule, and if any one objects or heaven's forbid fights back well they deserve to be crushed, so the rest of them could be liberated from the miseries of the life they currently live."

I would wage Putin truly sees him as the czar with Divine duty to fix the mess that was the fall of Soviet Union, the latest version of Russian Empire. A good czar expands the empire while a bad czar allows it to diminish in statue, let alone in size.

For all I've read Putin is a shrewd person and a tough negotiator, and he's also laid out all this plain to everyone to see, from the 2007 Munich speech. Anyone in doubt, he's also followed in action of what's he's said.

Alas...

And the Wagner chief is back to accusing the Russian Army of deserting his troops' flank and starving them of ammunition.  While this dissent is hardly a sign of a well-coordinated military machine, it is clearly a machine that is functioning smoothly to keep Putin in power.

Which seems to be the primary goal of this whole murderous escapade.

I wonder why the West got so upset at Putin doing this to Ukraine, after we were so sanguine about what he did in Transnistria and Chechnya and even Syria? 

Is it the size of the land grab?  The ethnicity of whom he's doing it to?  If the Ukrainians hadn't put up such a brave fight, would we all be back to guzzling Russian energy and investing in Russia to maximize our economies?  Because, you know, sacrifice isn't very convenient...

And now Prigozhin has exactly what he wants, a seat on the military council and access to nearly unlimited supplies and supreme command of the Bakhmut effort. 

Prigozhin played a dangerous game but he had Shoigu and his staff in a bad position.  His threat to withdraw just before Victory Day was unacceptable and he essentially blackmailed his way into a stronger position politically. He's now a genuine player to succeed Putin. 

As for why the West is upset now and "not before"?  Well, there were voices quite upset before, but because of either self interest, fear or direct support for Putin western powers felt appeasement was the superior policy.  And yes, it was much easier to accept what the Russians were doing when they were taking slices of Georgia and Moldava rather than an entire nation that has enormous strategic value. 

There were voices in the US that warned about Putin after Georgia, they were largely silenced or made fun of by those in places of influence and told the "80's want their policy back".  But they said what we've seen to be true.  The Russians are, piece by piece restoring the Russian empire, and they have made it very clear what the extent of that restoration looks like. 

Anyone can read a map.  Ukraine unlocks the land bridge to Transnistria and then Moldava.  After that, where is he to go?  Some say he'll be appeased again, but others, that I agree with, point to the Baltic states, Finland, Poland.  Russia has claims there and it's getting close to time where the red line will be right up to the wall. 

Poland, the Czechs and Baltic States have been banging this drum for a while.  There's a reason Poland has the goal of being the largest and most advanced land army in Europe by 2030 and it's not because they trust NATO to defend it. 

And there's the practical.  Let's be real, there's no world where Georgia or Moldava can do what Ukraine has managed to do.  They have neither the population, infrastructure or geographic adjacency to fight Russia to a stand still.  Many didn't think Ukraine did either, but, check earlier in this thread, there were some that did feel it with the proper support. 

So, as red lines go I still think and agree that this is the only one that has a chance of actually stopping Russia before the wall is at the NATO borders.  The only other hope is that after a victory over Ukraine, Putin is satisfied and appeased as are the ultra nationalists that have his ear like Patrushev and Medvedev.

Very well put, Sir, what's there to add?

If I'd again wage my 0.02 and speculate annexing Belarus and Ukraine back to Russia Proper were his minimumm objectives. Not real countries, not real cultures, not real languages, akin to Russian propaganda since 16th century since when they've claimed all Eastern Slavic history as history of Russia.

There were the editorials that were published the day after invasion, that were quickly pulled off, but not before the internet archive had seen them. Congratulations to our Putin for the historical deed of unification of Russia after the shock of 1991.

What would have happened next is truly a terrible question. If the unprovoked and brutal invasion of Ukraine would have worked out, and as we can speculate if the US and EU would have been presented with fait accompli, and if their reaction would have been again in the mold of what they were after annexation of Crimea, who'd know?

I mean, if NATO is this paper tiger, why not moving in to save the Russian speakers in the other frontline states (used to read: neighbouring states). Transnistria, Moldova, first. Caucasus, perhaps then. Then back towards Baltic, Finland, Poland? Would have been a terrible world order at that stage.

Not a happy post on my behalf but enjoying this discussion on realities on the ground.

[Gusington]

Meanwhile, in Poland...Kaliningrad getting surrounded by barbed wire, troops, etc. And...renamed?

https://bit.ly/41t53Mf

[Sir Slash]

More drug-addicted Nazis' upsetting the Peace of Europe? Damn, don't those guys ever give-up? 

[GDS_Starfury]

whats a nazi to do in todays world?

oh right, rape Ukrainians.

[FarAway Sooner]

Duh, Fury.  The Russians are only raping Nazi women and children.  Can't you keep your sides straight in this conflict?

It looks like the Ukrainians have announced that there will be a delay to their counteroffensive.  I don't question the strategic soundness of the decision.  But it would be nice if the Russian Army imploded. 

I hope this doesn't start to affect the resolve of Western partners.  Those who thought resisting Russian aggression would be a 1 to 2 year effort haven't paid much attention to European history from 1945-1991.

Of course, in all fairness, the Western Europeans did invade Russia for a couple years immediately after WW1. 

More than a century ago.

[JasonPratt]

We got pretty far, too! -- I have a book somewhere on Kindle about the "Russian sideshow" expeditionary force sent waaaay east to try to help support the strongest faction resisting Lenin's takeover.

[JasonPratt]

On Putin as the new Red Tsar: that's all true, but the situation is worse than that because Russia's internal situation is falling apart and there's nothing that can be feasibly done about it except get new population and resources under their control. And that will only extend the problems caused by Russia's government (and its imposed cultural problems) another 20 years tops.

Demographically, this is the final generation capable of acquisitional war (so to speak) for another 50ish years; and their internal problems will be aggravated by the same demographic collapse. China has been keeping an eye on this and definitely plans to take advantage of it in several ways, by a mixture of direct and indirect control.

The 'good' news (for want of a better word), is that China is also imploding in much the same way demographically, with much the same internal problems cascading as a result (also as an effect of their government and cultural problems, not least being their insane loan-sharking strategy to seize logistic transport and resource territories across Asia and Africa into Europe. Access to the Black Sea was one part of that "Belt and Road Initiative" plan.)