Exactly. In Chechnya the Russians continued to bomb Grozny until the whole city was a ruin and people surrendered. The UN called Grozny 'the most destroyed city on earth'. But there were almost no consequences for Russia, the world just stood by and did nothing.
That's how urban warfare goes. Either prolonged Sarajevo-style siege waiting for surrender, or brutal block by block demolition until there's no place where defenders can fire from. The logic of urban warfare hasn't really changed since Stalingrad or Berlin
It's also likely the reason the Russian advance stalled. Neither party really wants to go through that hell
Exactly. I don't buy the current narrative in the media that Putin had 'expected to take over Kiev in a matter of days'. Urban warfare is a nightmare, unless the defender surrenders voluntarily there is no other way to win than to completely destroy the city.
> I don't buy the current narrative in the media that Putin had 'expected to take over Kiev in a matter of days'. Urban warfare is a nightmare, unless the defender surrenders voluntarily there is no other way to win than to completely destroy the city.
Unless they expected a surrender ( which seems to be the case - they had advanced paratroop drops and logistics and rations drastically unprepared for a longer term battle,potentially with the help of special ops murdering Zelensky), why even go there then? Nobody sane starts a war with the idea of long term destructive urban fighting. Especially live streamed urban fighting. There's nothing for Russia to win there, so if that was really their plan, it's even stupider.
It’s reprehensible for sure, but I’m fairly confident it’s not all that uncommon in war.
It’s just the first time in history that the whole world sees the horrors of war streamed live.
Which is a good thing I guess, there’s a whole new generation now that might learn ‘never again’ without actually having to go through the experience.
Edit: Of course we always had the news, but a reporter showing the aftereffects from a safe distance are a bit different from the single soldier streaming the images of the Russian warship before telling them to go fuck themselves.
> Of course we always had the news, but a reporter showing the aftereffects from a safe distance are a bit different from the single soldier streaming the images of the Russian warship before telling them to go fuck themselves.
I’m not sure why that’s relevant to them getting ambushed but do you have a source for that? The Google results for “We are used to wars far away” are pretty barren, I suspect your comment might be the top search result when they get around to indexing it.
Well, more at our land borders. Europe didn't give a rats ass about the refugees at the actual shores before.
Ignoring my inner cynic, it is good that we, the European countries, help Ukraine and the Ukrainian refugees, very good. But yes, I think the West is very much used to start wars in far away countries where we can ignore the consequences in our daily lives. Now someone else started it, close to our homes, and all of a sudden we cannot ignore it anymore. Comes as quite a shock to some, it seems.
Which, long term, may bring benefits to mankind for generation or two, in form of stronger objections to any war. I agree, this war feels much closer and real than any other war in recent decades, and for me it actually is (coming from Slovakia).
Not happy about this myself, we are all equal humans and it shouldn't matter how people dress, speak or religion they have, this reaction should be present in all cases of war.
In Vietnam, Americans (a small minority) collected ears of those they killed. The Viet Cong held barrels with rats to stomachs and burned the other end, forcing rats to eat through stomachs.
In Rwanda, neighbors killed neighbors with their bare hands.
In World War 2, +150,000 civilians were wiped instantaneously.
In former Yugoslavia, neighbors lined neighbors up and executed them.
There is no war without war crimes. And as usual, it’s the citizens that suffer, rarely the elite.
If you analyze them, and back them up, sure. If you take them from an un-vetted source on the internet, not so much. Wouldn't be the first time pictures from different wars were used as "evidence" for crimes in another war.
Honestly, I stopped using Reddit, the amount of Ukranian propaganda has been through the roof. People are romanticizing the war. I log in to look at memes and cat videos and instead watch kids making molotoves.
I have no horse in this race, propoganda is propoganda.
It sure is. Ukraine is using that weapon masterfully so. Kudos for that, and I really mean it. The net result for me being that I ignore the news and only check once every couple of days if a major city has fallen or not. Everything else is just propaganda, including most media coverage, combined with the normal attention and click gathering reporting we se on any story.
That's why confirmation and vetting by orgs like, e.g., Human Rights Watch is so important.
I have had family abroad (not Russia) tell me that the media there is reporting that Ukrainian paramilitary forces, including released prisoners, forcibly prevented their own citizens leaving and collapsed the humanitarian corridors[1].
And the problem is, it's actually not completely outside the realms of possiblity, and I have no way to know. As far as I'm aware, the Ukrainians are fighting the good fight, but that's what I _would_ think. When the propaganda is flying this thick and this fast, maybe I'm as bamboozled as anyone else.
On the other hand shrugging and going "dunno, both sides lol" seems pretty ghoulish when the civilians are being killed and homes and cities bombed to nothing.
[1] I do not know where they got that from but it would have been TV. Trying to figure out where that comes from using only sources I can find leads me to a combination of the (apparently true) report that prisoners with military experience are released if they fight against Russia[2] and a TASS(!) report that Ukraine is responsible for collapsing the corridors[3].
> at the media there is reporting that Ukrainian paramilitary forces ... forcibly prevented their own citizens leaving and collapsed the humanitarian corridors
That's no secret, that's pretty much from official statements of Russian officials.
> That's no secret, that's pretty much from official statements of Russian officials.
As if the official statements of Russian officials are worth the toilet paper said officials use. Did you miss all the blatant bullshit they said up to and during the invasion? That it's only military exercises, that they're pulling back troops, that they're only on a small special operation, etc. Why would anyone trust them?
Photos of victims are not evidence of much in themselves.
Civilians can be hit in cross-fire. So you need evidence that civilians were targeted. Then, you need evidence of whom targeted them, which may or may not be that simple to find.
At the moment, all pictures and accounts in the media and online are purely emotional because the aim is to provoke emotional reactions, not cool-headed analysis.
See, Human Rights Watch doing witness interviews and picture analysis is what I call evidence. Some video or picture somewhere on social media not so much. I've seen to many of those, from wars years ago in different parts of the world than the one the claim to be from, to actually believe any of those anymore.
These videos aren't from early-mid 2000s middle east where westerners can't tell the difference. They're clearly Ukranian cities and very high def videos (which didn't exist in past Soviet/European wars).
One thing you should really take away from this ongoing propaganda / information war is to never blindly trust what seems to be "evidence". Especially if that evidence is confirming your own biases and preferences. Because that willingness to believe information is what makes propaganda so powerfull.
You're right, it's peaceful in Ukraine, no civilians are dying. The Russian 'special military operarion' is going off without a hitch and civilians are welcoming their saviors. My mistake.
One more comment and I stop, because it's getting pointless. I never doubted that Ukrainian civilians are dying, why would I? Nor did I ever defend Putin's actions or the Russian invasion, because again, why would I? I do try to provide some context so. Because propaganda, even if it is for the right cause (whatever that is in general so) and at least partially true still is, well, propaganda. And I don't like propaganda. Ukraine is using information to great effect, and they have every right to do so, because they need and deserve every help they can get. I truly believe this. This doesn't mean so that I believe everything that is published, even from reliable and vetted sources, right now. Because the fog of war, even if it's not outright disinformation, is way to thick to actually judge information in a reliable manner.
What can be said is that war in general is ugly. So a lot of shit and war crimes are being committed and will continue to be committed. All the more reason for political leaders world wide to find a quick, peaceful solution to this mess. One that doesn't give any stretch of land to Russia.
have you actually read what you have posted? i google translated:
> There were also some Ukrainian soldiers present at the intersection, but they were outnumbered, according to HRW. The Ukrainian soldiers who were at the crossroads helped the refugees with their luggage. A few hundred meters away, Russian and Ukrainian troops were fighting each other. According to HRW, the Russians may have deliberately fired projectiles at the intersection
To me it reads like there was an engagement between the ukranian and russian soldiers nearby and unfortunately some civilians were caught in a crossfire.
I don't like people suffering as much as you do but I cannot conclude from these videos that these people were deliberately attacked by Russians (I mean videos with the footage).
You are posting ukranian sources and as much as u sympathesize with their suffering it is wartime and information is propaganda.
Those are not Ukrainian sources, it's an independent channel in Russian.
If you don't believe testimonials of the people right there, the exact people who were attacked, then I see the only better source: go there yourself. What other evidence is better?
In any case, it's Russia who amassed a shit ton of military all around the Ukraine, and started the invasion.
> However looking at your other activity, I would have to present article from Russia Today
Mainstream western media now is heavily biased for the simple fact that it most of the time even don't report what the Russians are saying on the same matter.
I'm checking al jazeera which at least reports both sides.
Sorry, but even suggesting, that Ukrainians mined evacuation route for their own people is plainly disgusting. I and multiple of my friends, were on the border and helped fleeing people. They told me first hand how they escaped. There was ZERO critique of their officials or military.
I'm checking both sides - what they're saying is usually completely out of touch with reality and blunt, very poorly prepared propaganda.
And finally - Russians are invading independent country. There's nothing they can say to change that fact.
Unfortunately its not that uncommon, we did that too in Vietnam where 2 million civillians died.
Our government set up agenda to „bomb the back to stone age”.
We dropped 3 times more bombs than were dropped during whole ww2.
Its unimaginable how brutal that war was, no wonder why there was so much opposition back then, sadly nobody was tried for war crimes ugh.
Is it a war crime to detain prisoners at blacksites and torture them? It seems like war crimes and ignoring the Geneva Convention are pretty common unfortunately and if Western powers can refrain from doing them places like China or Russia will completely disregard them as well. It can't be a do as I say not as I do scenario.
>Ukrainian forces were engaged in clashes nearby, but not at the site where civilians were moving along the street. Outgoing mortar rounds could be heard from a Ukrainian position about 200 yards away.
>The shelling suggested either targeting of the evacuation routes from Irpin, something of which the Ukrainian authorities have accused the Russian army after a railroad track used for evacuations was hit on Saturday, or disregard for the risk of civilian casualties.
So the ukrainians were launching mortars from the area and civilians got caught in the crossfire ... it's not exactly russians blackmailing civilians. Still their fault I guess for invading in the first place but this is not exactly a war crime, the ukrainians knew they were also firing from a civilian position.
Edit: there's also evidence of Ukrainian soldiers being in the same street, because keep in mind all the videos of the aftermath don't match always the videos of the shooting either. In some of the videos in which we don't see any Ukrainian soldiers, the russians seem to be shooting warning shots in the air, while in those with confirmed casualties there seem to be Ukrainian soldiers in the same street (meaning there was probably a crossfire situation)
This seems likely, but I have a hard time thinking of what to do about it.
I’m long past the point where I’d be fine calling their bluff, but the same thing does not seem to be true for our elected leaders (probably why I’m not one of those).
The thing is defence spending in Europe has plummeted since the fall of the Soviet Union. The threat from the West was never a reasonable justification for invading Ukraine.
Only relevant red line is border of sovereign nation. No NATO member was forced to join - they actually asked to join in order to prevent invasion like the one which is in Ukraine now.
> expansion of the West
Isn't is cynical to call it expansion of the West while no-one except Russia expanded beyond borders of Russia? It is just expansion of Russia.
> Isn't is cynical to call it expansion of the West while no-one except Russia expanded beyond borders of Russia? It is just expansion of Russia.
Nope, no one is denying Russia's expansion, nor China or the next superpower.
The only hypocrisy would be recognizing Russia's expansion and not the West.
The conservative argument is that the world should be kept as is, and whoever makes the first move is to blame for breaking that balance. Putin thinks the West did it first, before this Ukrainian invasion. The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time
What "expansion of the west"? Estonia et al joined NATO of their own accord, and if sovereignty means anything then they had the right to. (You could certainly make a case about Iraq or Afghanistan, where the west did install a new government by force, but I don't think Russia has been talking about those)
> The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time
Hardly the first. What has "the west" done that's remotely comparable to Crimea or South Ossetia? This isn't a story of mutual escalation, it's Russia taking as much as it can get away with.
> What has "the west" done that's remotely comparable to Crimea or South Ossetia?
Lead the pro-NATO coup in the closest Russia's neighbourgs, armed these countries with heavy weapons, encouraged them to fight Russia and promised to support this fight, then leave and watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other at the expense of Europe.
It didn't started in 2022 or 2014, it escalated for the last 30 years.
If there was a coup it was an attempted coup by Russia to control Ukraine's government to go against the popular will. Even Yanokovych was open to EU until Putin turned him against. Putin's attempt to directly dictate Ukraine policy worked on the president but the rest of the country did not bend so the leadership fled.
> What has "the west" done that's remotely comparable to Crimea or South Ossetia?
by the way
West destroyed Iraq, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Lybia, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Afghanistan, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Serbia, ask Serbians, what do they think of NATO
There is peace in Crimea, there is a peace in South Ossetia. Nobody is shooting. The life is poor, mostly because of the west sanctions, but people are safe.
* The west didn't annex any of those (except for Kosovo).
* Libya was given a no fight zone at the request of the people. It was a mistake, but the intentions were noble.
* Afghanistan started as a fair war. They gave aid to people who attacked a NATO country. It was completely fair to invade. Trying to nation-build it was a mistake though. But again, noble.
* Intervening on the side of the muslim terrorists in Kosovo was a mistake and some people in NATO (like us Romanians) opposed it (although our government supported it).
* The Russian occupied areas are hell holes. Transnistria is literally soviet.
> West destroyed Serbia, ask Serbians, what do they think of NATO
Ask Croatians and Bosnians what they think about Serbs. Basically Serbia tried to do to them, exactly what Russia is doing now to Ukraine. Btw Serbia is starting to do pretty well comparing to when they were under USSR influence.
> There is peace in Crimea, there is a peace in South Ossetia. Nobody is shooting.
Nobody was shooting in entire Ukraine, before Russia decided to start stealing their country.
Yes but the logic you hear in the news now is that doing something like a no fly zone would be provoking ww3 because then Russians and Americans would be fighting directly.
So then if troops had been put there first it would be Putin starting it, and even he might not be crazy enough to do that.
By wavering the west has gotten into a position where Ukraine is being destroyed.
> Whoever puts troops there first stops the other side from doing it,
The problem is that is equivalent to setting up a flag.
The East views America as an imperialist, and this would be provocation of imperialist expansion.
As such, there haven't been any "pushing of boundaries" unless you presume Russia gets to decide what independent nations like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc. may or may not do.
Yes and Russia doesn't deny that either. The request was for NATO to stop allowing countries like Ukraine to volunteer. Is that unfair ? Yes, it is a bully move. But that was the bully's request, and the West's stance is, effectively, we don't negotiate with terrorists. It's the attitude of: whatever, we do whatever we want.
That's also fair, but don't be surprised why Russia proceeded, because they can have the same sentiment: whatever, we do whatever we want. The magnitude of recklessness is outsized, but the direction is the same.
You're not suggesting NATO saying "sure let's talk about membership" and Russia INVADING a country is the same but different "magnitude"?
It's up to Ukraine if they want to pursue NATO membership or any other agreement with any country or organization.
Russia has no say. It's not a negotiation between NATO and Russia. Russia isn't at the table. They can pine for old USSR glory all they want but nobody else wants that.
And the way Putin's been killing journalists and dissidents (in the UK no less), raiding the treasury, annexing Crimea, and other nonsense, I don't see them being invited to many negotiations in the future.
> Russia has no say. It's not a negotiation between NATO and Russia. Russia isn't at the table
Well that attitude brought us to that point.
Russia thinks that it should be at the table and it can prove it.
> And the way Putin's been killing journalists and dissidents (in the UK no less), raiding the treasury, annexing Crimea, and other nonsense, I don't see them being invited to many negotiations in the future.
Turkey is NATO member, do you know anything about Erdogan deeds? Or maybe that story when Saudi Prince DISMEMBERED that journalist in embassy and everyone were okay with it?
It's one of the most serious Bulgarian publications ( Financial Times level, somewhat focused on business etc. ( as the name, Capital, implies)), and it reflects the sentiment of many ( probably most) Eastern European people.
Trump very specifically pulled us out of this to my knowledge. Biden putting them back would not have been an amazing look, though in the grand scheme likely better than things are going to turn out.
It's so incredibly sad to see this playing out exactly as many predicted and being unable to stop it (due to the threat of nuclear war). It's like standing on a train track and seeing an oncoming train miles away and yet being unable to move. So many (more) Ukrainians are about to die or suffer horribly, and much of the physical history and cultural artifacts of that city will be destroyed.
> It's so incredibly sad to see this playing out exactly as many predicted
The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose.
Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.
There has been a lot of hopeful, and daresay wishful thinking so far, but even Boris Johnson was warning of this potentiality a couple of days into the invasion, and I doubt that thought had only just occurred.
> ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble]
Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational. Putin is clearly not objectively rational, at best subjectively rational within the realms of his ideology (unite the ethnically Russian people).
Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war.
Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China.
It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...
> This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"?
I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable.
This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions.
The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
Pretty good summary. Personally, I would have thought that Putin is smarter than this, I really did. Dangerous, deeply undemocratic for sure, but not stupid. He played the West, and NATO, for years as he pleased. He created opportunities for Russia and China that didn't even remotely exist before. And then he threw all that away for a pointless war, one he might very well be loosing, a war that will only drive even more of hos direct neighbors into the arms of NATO. A war that also creates the global climate that those countries can, without any big problems, actually join NATO. All that while isolating his country, destroying his legacy and utterly ruining Russia's economy, to a point where he might very well throw Russia back to the early 90s.
No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
Oh come on, there are plenty of people in history who are willing to sacrifice their family for fame or fortune.
You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”.
Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
You know what else is common, logical fallacies. You don't have to be one to know one, to know Putin's actions have brought poverty, misery, and death. Writing your name in history books 'just because' is not a well thought out motive, neither was the assault. Its irrational because it lacks rationality.
Generations of Russians will build golden statues of Putin if he successfully conquer and holds on to Ukraine. It's hard to understate the significance of Putin's revanchist ambitions in relation to Russian cultural and strategic interests.
I doubt his kids would be killed in Austria/Switzerland/New Zeeland.
Plus, the former head of Mi6 warned not to try and corner Putin, since if he were to be personally severely threatened, he wouldn't hesitate to turn to using nuclear weapons and take the whole world down with him if he were to ever be ousted form power by the west.
"Not cornering Putin" just means giving him what he wants. It is the opposite of what we need to do - show how weak he is and let his own people give him Gaddafi ending.
>show how weak he is and let his own people give him Gaddafi ending
Never gonna happen because:
1) The majority of the Russian population is still supportive of him, thinking they're fighting to liberate Ukraine from nazis and that the western sanctions are in place because the west hates them, rather than consequences for their leaders' war crimes
2) Like the former head of Mi6 said, Putin is so mad that if threatened, he's more likely to be ok with seeing the whole world get nuked, instead of going down like Gaddafi did, which is why the west is going so soft on him.
> 2) Like the former head of Mi6 said, Putin is so mad that if threatened, he's more likely to be ok with seeing the whole world get nuked, instead of going down like Gaddafi did, which is why the west is going so soft on him.
That's ok. Putin doesn't have a big red button, he actually needs a lot of people to be ok with committing a suicide, and it is likely they won't.
And nuked world might be better than world in which Russian can do what it wants.
Do you know what happened to Goebbels children at the end of the war? Killed by their own parents. There is a wikipedia article about that.
So we can't be certain what can parents do even when their decisions affect their own children. (sadly)
I don't think his behaviour was particularly irrational, as much as he has been acting on a few pieces of intelligence that ultimately proved to have been incorrect.
1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption.
So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.
You are probably very right, I agree with all of your points. However, this is what I meant by "rational within his ideology". He created this situation by surrounding himself with bootlickers and punishing any differing opinions. He effectively built an information bubble for himself and he may act rational within that bubble but totally irrational for anyone outside of it - even players like China who won't publicly state that. After all, their benefit is breathtaking.
> 1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression
Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest.
> 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week.
How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
> Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest.
Getting paid dollars for oil and gas doesn't do you much good when you can't spend those dollars on anything. Imports into Russia have stopped over the past week.
> How do you know this?
The propaganda leading up to the 'Minor peacekeeping action in the Donbass' certainly didn't sound like he was getting everyone ready for a forever-war.
> e.g. in Chechnya
To most Russians - even the warhawks, the war in Chechnya (much like the Winter War of 1939) was seen as a debacle and an utter embarrassment.
I mean, it's entirely possible that the war will end this week, and my second point is moot. But it's looking like it's quite possible that it won't.
> These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever [...]
They sort of ended up sanctioned. You're right, there's nothing official, but no unconstrained buyer wants to touch energy exports from Russia.
Russia is struggling to sell its oil to unconstrained buyers [1]. Sure, Europe, in winter, with no ready alternative, is still buying, but that's about it it seems.
Also, while it's true global oil prices are sky-high, the rise in Russian oil is far more muted. Basically, there are many kinds of oil sold around the world (Brent, WTI, and many more). They usually move largely in lock step, as to a reasonable extent you can substitute one for another. But recently Urals is sold at a massive discount - because no one wants to touch it.
> How do you know this?
There are plenty of soft indications. Troops only given rations for 72-odd hours. Attempts at airborne strikes that are very rapid, but doomed to fail terribly with any but minimal resistance. Reports of Russia looking to "source" new troops - from Russian reserves, and Syrian, hmm, volunteers? All suggests the current length of the war exceeds plan A and plan B.
Of course Russia might still win a long, hard slog of a war, by bombing everything that moves...
I am convinced the narrative of Putin acting irrational is intended by the man. We are supposed to be scared of a nuclear war. This we cannot accept. A much better way is to see this as a game of chess with a sane opponent.
This is genuinely not an attempt at flamewar but why can't civilians just leave? Russia is obviously going to win. It's the same with Palestenians, they obviously have not and will not win against Israel. The logical thing to do is to leave, suffer but be sure that your kids will have it better. But I reckon this isn't about logic?
Also, if you try to leave as military able men you’re in danger from both sides. One considering you a threat, the other a traitor and deserter, even if you’re just a civilian. Very bad place to be with no good options.
First off, I think saying "But I reckon this isn't about logic?" feels a tad incendiary and not particularly charitable to the people in these situations.
To the point you're making though, I don't think it's so straightforward in all cases. If you're not well off and your life is being completely uprooted either way, it's a much more complex calculus than just, say, going to Poland.
>That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians.
Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles.
Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, they're done for. When their cities are reduced to rubble from the shelling, there will be nothing left fighting for, as you can't live and raise kids in wasteland that's been reduced to rubble.
Guerillas, and partisans, were quite successful in places like Yugoslavia (WW2), Afghanistan (against the USSR and NATO), Ireland (against the British), Belarus (WW2), Poland (WW2), the Finish used some Guerilla style tactics (WW2 against the USSR). Ukraine was less a Guerilla hot bed in WW2 (it was early on, and then again after Stalingrad). None of those places were tribal societies (exception: Afghanistan to a degree) or desert. Nor was the Elephant in the room, Vietnam (they won twice, once against France and once against the US). The only desert based guerilla campaigns in recent history I can think of right now were Algeria (in the 60s) and Arabia (against the Ottomans in WW1).
Ukraine is a huge country, cities are a great environment for insurgents. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option Ukraine's planning. That they didn't have to resort to that kind of warfare yet is quite surprising if you ask me.
Partisans in WW2 Yugoslavia were successful in mountainous parts of country, where you can hide after guerilla actions. Flatlands and big cities were liberated only when Red Army came along on its way to Berlin.
We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
Ok, I assume that's why Bagdad was considered to be such a safe city outside the green zone then? Due to a lack of insurgents? Insurgents need a place to hide, whether that is the country side or among the population doesn't matter.
Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.
Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later.
Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them.
Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.
>Infrastructure can be rebuilt with a new Marshall plan later.
The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off.
Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.
>They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully.
I'd like Ukraine to win, but if you listen to the former head of Mi6 and US military experts, they don't give Ukraine much chance of actually winning, as they're severely outgunned and outnumbered vs Russia, despite aid from the west. Despite taking heavy losses, Russia's use of tried and tested WW2 style of encircle the big cities and slowly pummle them into submission with artilerie, and endless cannon fodder plus ruthless trained killers form Chechnya, seems to be working for them slowly but surely.
And the sanctions are mostly affecting the average Russian who can't buy iPhones, Ikea furniture anymore or use Paypal, but it has no effect on Putin's war machine or on his grasp of political power in Russia. Banned western goods will still come into Russia through Serbia and Kazakhstan anyway, as they're not sanctioned countries and have liberal trade policies with Russia.
I don't think they will win. Their morale is very low, OSINT is full of abandoned vehicles.
At this point, they are losing equipment much faster than they can produce new one, no one can churn out a dozen new military helicopters in 2 weeks. This alone will be a major source of attrition. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are getting very efficient weapons from the West and they are being replenished constantly. If Russia could have prevented the inflow, they would have done so.
Sieges of big cities are a messy, protracted affair that may take years (see: Sarajevo, Leningrad). They consume enormous resources - e.g. Leningrad was besieged by 750 000 Germans. Russia isn't capable of supplying a much smaller task force right now.
What makes you think that they could mobilize "endless cannon fodder" (e.g. five million men or so), equip them with something more efficient than AK-47s, throw them into the theater and supply them with fuel, ammo and food if they are struggling to supply a mere 180 000?
Depends to which sources you're listening to. Reddit and EU mainstream media are filled with constant propaganda that Ukraine is holding up and Russia is suffering from sanctions and loosing the war, but if you listen to actual military experts from the likes of Mi6 and USA agencies, they are skeptical of Ukraine being able to win this and western sanctions barely changing anything in favor of the Ukraine.
That same type of expert predicted that Ukraine will barely last a few days, and cities close to Russia ( Kyiv, Kharkiv) will fall quick. They, as well as the Russians, underestimated Ukrainian resolve, and just how terrible Russian logistics and morale are.
Some people say that Russians are spent and incapable of supplying themselves and their efforts will collapse due to lack of food and fuel.
Some people say that Russians are holding back and preparing winning push.
Some people say the Russians will just try to hold what they gained so far (which is few minor cities, despite maps colored red) and try to achieve their objectives in negotiations.
>I don't think you need experts to see how the Russian offensive has stalled everywhere. Even in the south they barely make any progress at all.
If you analyze the actual situation, they're stalling there for good reason, nor because they can't go further. They're setting up permanent bases there so they can resupply easier, setup a field hospital and a service center for vehicle repairs. It will make next offensive much more efective, in theory.
> ...that Ukraine is holding up and Russia is suffering from sanctions and loosing the war, but if you listen to actual military experts from the likes of Mi6 and USA agencies, they are skeptical of Ukraine being able to win this and western sanctions barely changing anything in favor of the Ukraine.
Both of those things can be true at the same time.
Russia bombarded the designated areas where civilians were supposed to be able to flee cities. There were also mines found in some of those.
And the humanitarian corridors Russia recently designated lead to Belarus and Russia, which is not where the people want to be. The Russian effort to "help the civilians" are just deeply cynical PR and misdirection.
There are videos of people getting blown up, eyewitness accounts, and Ukrainian official accounts. It's not something debatable.
> Have you maybe talked to people who didn't want to go there? Or it is the Ukranian government decided "their" people don't want to go there?
So you think that many people would want to be refugees in the country actually invading and trying to destroy their own ? That's ridiculous and everyone knows it. The fact that few, if any, Ukrainians seem to be taking this option, confirm this.
> There are videos of people getting blown up, eyewitness accounts, and Ukrainian official accounts. It's not something debatable.
Obviously people are getting hurt and it's sad and tragic. Russian forces targeting civilians is a different matter though which needs to be substantiated. We simple can't know right now.
> So you think that many people would want to be refugees in the country actually invading and trying to destroy their own ?
I think that people sitting in the shelters for days might be actually quite open to a possibility of getting to a safe place.
> The fact that few, if any, Ukrainians seem to be taking this option, confirm this.
Have you considered a possibility that Ukranian authorities are effectively preventing massive evacuations towards russia/belarus because it would look bad for them in press.
> Have you considered a possibility that Ukranian authorities are effectively preventing massive evacuations towards russia/belarus because it would look bad for them in press.
I talked with people who ran to my country. I lack the words to describe how delusional is the idea, they would like to move anywhere closer to Russia, even if Putin personally came in his jet to pick them up.
Lot of people left. People who stayed couldn’t leave or decided to defend their country, culture, and values. Also keep in mind that Russian are targeting citizens and refuse to keep paths open to let people flee safely.
Don't think the logic is the same. First the Palestinians aren't under attack, they can just stop firing rockets. Second I think there are a lot of people who profit from a cold/warm war, especially there.
The Palestinians are obviously under attack, let's not kid ourselves.
To this day I don't know where I stand in this conflict, since I understand many of the subtleties of the conflict.
But that part is clear, Palestine <<is>> under attack.
Israely is knowingly "salamy tactic-ing" Palestine. They're slowly chipping away at their regions. They're destroying Palestine through administrative abuse.
It's like slowly being crushed by one of those car compactors.
I have no idea what the correct reactions in this situation is.
So you deny that Hamas a terrorist organization send rockets at civilians? They got their territory. Why send rockets? The reason it is rational for them. They need to be in power and get the funding through destruction. By the way some more example where the hate comes from:
I'm just saying that if you were a member of a population that's being squeezed out of their land, day by day, in a country that at best, if you try to integrate, treats you like a second hand citizen, you can't say for sure what your reaction would be.
You could try to pretend it would be a peaceful reaction, but you can't say for sure. Nobody can.
I think you have to distinguish. First the Arab citizens aren't treated any differently that any other citizen. Maybe the personal feelings might be that they are treated differently but definitely not on the institutional level. They are a lot of Doctors and people in high positions there, so they enjoy kind of the best life standard they could have in the middle east.
"squeezed out of their land". The Hamas got untouched territory. They could have build a paradise there. Nobody wants this part of the land. So again why send rockets? There is simple no reason - only to stay in power and get the donations.
"expelling Palestinians" please provide facts. You may mean "Sheikh Jarrah", which got sued by the owners, since they don't pay the rent.
Just building settlements. So providing homes for people does't justify rockets and violence in my opinion. Settlements can be removed later if it is unacceptable for a Palestinian state to have some jew's
Building "settlements" on land that is not part of your country has a name. It's called "occupation".
And the Palestinian government like <<any>> sovereign state on this planet, is allowed to decide who builds what where.
Again, salami tactics. Brilliant strategy, but awful from a humanitarian point of view. How to strangle another country, kill it by a thousand paper cuts.
Oh that was a good deflection and a decent try at shifting the goalposts!
Sheikh Jarrah is only one of many cases.
> Just building settlements
That's a very weird way of putting it. Illegal settlements, in lands that don't belong to Israel, so it's not up to Israel to decide what to do with it. It's obviously a population displacement tactic - then there'd be Jews there, Israel can claim the lands, and if Palestine does decide to remove them, Israel will cry genocide and step in.
That's a bullshit whataboutism-adjacent answer and you should know that.
Hamas use terrorist tactics and are a terrorist organisation. That doesn't in any way change the apartheid-like regime Palestine is under, and the unfairness of all the terrible treatment Palestinians suffer at the hands of Israel. And Hamas' tactics are understandable ( but unsupportable) - what are they to do to fight against Israeli atrocities, expulsions, blockade, apartheid? Submit and accept living in ghettos ? You can't blame them for making a different choice.
> First the Palestinians aren't under attack, they can just stop firing rockets
No, they are simply under permanent military occupation, with no end in sight, no path to enfranchisement. At best, they are living in an apartheid state. At worst, they had a war declared on them, and they aren't even permitted to surrender.
If some third party invaded the United States, and kettled Americans to live in isolated enclaves and ghettos, with no freedom of movement, national sovereignty, or pathway to assimilation into the occupier's new nation, that occupier might be subject to the occasional rock and rocket attack, too.
Some arabs in Israel are permitted to vote, just like how some African Americans living in the north had the right to vote pre-CRA/VRA. Pre-CRA/VRA America was also an apartheid state.
Most do not have that right, despite being born there, and having no other home country.
That some of them are enfranchised is a fig leaf over an apartheid state.
The rhetorical sleight-of-hand that you are obscuring is that most Arabs living in Israel are not, and will never be allowed to become Israeli citizens. This is despite both being born, and living on a territory that is very clearly under the military control of the Knesset.
It's either an indeterminate military occupation, or its apartheid. I don't care what you want to call it, but you have to pick one or the other, because in 2022, Palestine simply does not exist as a free, sovereign nation. It's either a civil territory of Israel, or occupied by Israel.
I think about this too.. that if I was in their shoes I would get out of there ASAP.
But this is still a very impoverished part of the world. Income per capita is ~$2k / yr.
So, most simply don't have the means to leave. I think most are counting on being able to just stay out of the way and waiting for this to "blow over".
But the leafleting campaign has been going so well!
This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of defeating the enemy public opinion.
The only thing you can hope to do is counter-battery artillery or airstrikes, but both of those are vulnerable to shelling and airstrikes and one requires flying into enemy territory.
Well isn’t that exactly the game dynamic and prisoner’s dilemma?
What I don’t understand from the West was this arrogant attitude that it is unilaterally a losing hand for Putin, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma?
Even if he is acting to his detriment, it may be very well be the most optimal of moves he could make ( in his calculus ).
The idea of him being a madmen has been fluctuating in and out, but that’s only if you look at the outcome. If you consider all the outcomes, it might very well be rational ( morality is not necessarily part of the rationale ).
Sure, nuclear weapons exist in the context of the war, but what I mean is that the alternative to protracted standoff bombing of cities into rubble is a nuclear attack (which is basically the same thing but faster).
I suppose the other option is a good old medieval-style siege where you literally starve the cities out (add biowarfare for extra Hague points), but statically camping outside a city is not very safe unless it's the only enemy city.
I don’t understand all the history and nuance of the situation, but I feel incredibly guilty on behalf of the west for courting Ukraine for admission to NATO / EU, but leaving them in a very precarious and vulnerable position in the meantime.
NATO and by that we mean the United States has always been in ambiguous and uncommitted relationships with countries.
Their communication is very subtle and succinct.
It’s the same with Taiwan. They do not deny China’s claim to Taiwan, but that is logically not equivalent to saying they accept China’s claim to Taiwan. They use language that is convenient for the politicians of those countries to appease their constituents while maintaining the status quo and pushing the can down the road.
Biden said he agreed in principle to meet if Putin has not already invaded Ukraine. That’s a weirdly structured sentence if you think about it. In plain English, the sentence seem logically equivalent to “only if”, but if we are focused on pure logic, then Biden can still meet Russia despite Russia having invaded.
Is it subtle? Wikipedia says Ukraine was in the “Intensified Dialog” phase which apparently means they are engaged in ‘discussion of a "full range of political, military, financial and security issues relating to possible NATO membership“‘
Negotiations, but mostly one sided. Country bordering Russia such as Ukraine have been invaded in the past during USSR time and are in fear of being invaded again (for good reasons as we all know now). They want to be part of an alliance like NATO to protect themselves, thus start the negotiation process. But NATO is aware that would be seen by Russia as a red-line to not cross, Putin has been more than clear on this topic for a while, threatening to use nukes multiple time during the last 15years or so. Because of this NATO communicated quite clearly that Ukraine won’t be able to join any time soon, which means never, but keeps negotiations open.
I highly recommend looking into the history of Ukraine over the last 20-30 years in this case.
The West/EU/NATO doesn’t court. And they’re extremely careful about generating the impression or sending a message that they’re actively pulling countries into their “sphere of influence”.
For the process of inclusion to work there has to be undeniable proof that it is a democratic process that shows that the people of that country actively want membership. Poland managed to pull this off in the 90’s when Russian influence was weak and memories of Soviet influence were vivid. And even then the process was slow and difficult - the “West” is a demanding club to join.
I would suspect these two countries and their “low” standard may be the point. My comment emphasized high standards and these two aren’t the best examples.
> NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. [1]
This is completely out of context. In 2010 Yanukovych won the vote and flat out declared that he would be halting all efforts to join the EU/NATO etc. This is what eventually triggered the EuroMaidan protests.
It's also not so difficult to imagine that this was a response within a larger picture of two-way communication at the time. All the above says is 'welcoming aspirations' - basically 'we're happy that you want to join the club, you will be allowed in in the future if you stay on track'.
Hm, it's almost impossible to know how to properly contextualise the current story in Ukraine - the history is so complex. However, that's not my understanding of events - which I'm summarising below as neutrally as I can.
This position from Nato (linked above) set in motion a chain of events starting with the Georgia war a few months later. In order to join Nato, Georgia needed to regularise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia, and Saakashvili understood that this declaration indicated that if he were able to do so, then Georgia would be able to join Nato (some say this was told to him explicitly by US officials, but there's no hard evidence of this that I'm aware of).
In parallel, Russia understood the importance of maintaining the status quo in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to prevent Georgian accession to Nato.
Reports about the start of the war indicate South Ossetian separatists held a flame close to a powder keg, and Georgia exploded. Whether Russia was involved or not at this stage is unclear, but what happened next was a small Georgian armed force entered South Ossetia (and later Abkhazia) to impose Georgian control. Russia saw the potential implications of this, and fought back, ostensibly 'protecting Russian citizens', but in actuality, more likely to be trying to maintain the instability in these breakaway regions.
After just under 2 weeks of fighting, Russia rolled up to Tbilisi, and having achieved both their stated objective ('protecting Russian citizens') and the likely true reason for the invasion (stopping Georgia controlling South Ossetia and Abkhazia), agreed to a ceasefire, and eventually withdrew.
So, how does this impact on Ukraine, and what context does this add?
Ukraine leased a port in Sevastopol (Crimea) to the Russians, on which the contract was due to expire in 2017. As a result of the conflict in Georgia, Ukraine indicated that they would not want to renew this contract. Given Russia's size, it's quite surprising how little access they have to the seas, because most of their coastline is to the north, where only Murmansk is able to operate year round. As a result, Sevastopol is a critical strategic location for Russia, and so I suspect that this is when planning began in earnest for military intervention by Russia in Crimea. However, this also marked a turn away from Russia and towards the EU.
Now, a couple of years after the Georgia conflict, Ukraine elected a new president, Viktor Yanukovich. Yanukovich was not a new face in Ukrainian politics. He had previously won a presidential election in 2004, which was later annulled due to alleged fraud, and he lost in the re-run (the peaceful 'Orange Revolution').
Although there were fears about fraud in the 2010 election, it seems that these did not materialise, and Yanukovich was the legitimate winner of the election (although questions still remain about his funding and spending). Yulia Tymoshenko, his main rival, is quoted as saying that she and her party will never recognise Yanukovich as the legitimately elected president of Ukraine. In 2011, Tymoshenko was found guilty of embezzlement and sent to prison.
At this point, it's important to understand that more than 45% of the vote share went to Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko was seen as a left-leaning, euro-centric candidate, versus Yanukovich who wanted to dine at both tables. Almost half of the country felt as though the 'wrong side' had won the election, and their leader had been jailed (whether Tymoshenko was a political prisoner or not is a completely different essay).
In late 2012, the EU indicated that Ukraine needed to take several significant steps to improve various parts of their economy, judicial system, electoral system, and other items, which became an action plan in early 2013. Indications from the EU were that if Ukraine implemented these measures, they would be invited to sign an association agreement in late 2013, and Yanukovich was working actively to get these measures imple...
This is a very good summary. The only thing missing is a better back story of Crimea. Roughly, for the geographic reasons you noted it was an aspiration and then strategic territory of the Russian Empire for hundreds of years. It was transferred from Russia to Ukraine when they were both part of the USSR as a symbolic gesture and to ease administration.
That was in response to Ukraine's president seeking to join NATO.
You have the timing backwards.
> In April 2005, Viktor Yushchenko returned to Ukraine's military doctrine the mention of Ukraine's strategic goal - "full membership in NATO and the European Union." The new text read as follows: "Based on the fact that NATO and the EU are the guarantors of security and stability in Europe, Ukraine is preparing for full membership in these organizations."
Extremely difficult to judge those times through today’s lens because in the 1990’s the people running Ukraine were people like Leonid Kuchma - the same that ran Ukraine under the USSR. My understanding is that at that time everyone was confused, and the U.S. was mainly concerned over who exactly is to have the weapons that remained after the dissolution of the USSR (this was during the first war in Iraq which was fought against the U.S. with U.S. weapons and training). I don’t think anyone in power in Russia or Ukraine was really concerned about that aspect, and they were willing to trade all of those weapons for economic security, stability etc. A Russian-Ukrainian conflict would also have been absurd and unfathomable at the time.
NATO has been quite clear for a decade that Ukraine will not be able to join. The EU also cannot accept Ukraine as a member before a very long time. Neither NATO nor the EU are courting Ukraine, Ukrainians very actively want to be part of both institutions to get some level of protection.
So it’s the other way around. Of course that doesn’t make it less sad.
I really wish Putin would give a long and hard think over the letter[1] that Nikita Khrushchev sent to John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. An excerpt:
"If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, *we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied*. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose."
The difference back then appears to be that while there were different philosophies (e.g.capitalist vs socialist) neither saw the existence of the other as an existential threat other than through war.
Putin (And perhaps more Dugin or other Orthodox "influencers") now seem to think that the mere existence of a liberal ukraine (say, Gay parades in Kyiev) is an existential threat, regardless of whether it would ever spread to Russia proper.
That changes the balance between a "them" and "us". To Putin this means there can be no status Quo. The russian Empire can't be humiliated by having a liberal /"westernized" part that also happens to be a historical cradle of Russian culture.
If the premise of Russia(n leadership) is that it's better that there is no world at all than a world where Russia isn't an traditionalist empire including Ukraine, then the situation is MUCH harder to defuse than anything during the Cold War.
As a more naive armchair strategist, I used to think wars were about the best weapons and tactics.
The old saying is that real generals think about logistics, not tactics. The implication is that it is logistics for their troops that is the concern.
Now I see that the true strategic advantage for a nation under attack is not only to have a fighting force that is dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attribution, but to also have a population that are dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attrition.
Every man is given a rifle and a helmet.
Moreover, every citizen is given a water sanitizer, energy dense food, and a shelter.
I’m surprised there is no technical solution to shell-ing. Some kind of autonomous anti-shell gun that shoots them down mid flight? It seems like a fairly common problem.
This will only work for a very unbalanced exchange though where the attacker has way fewer resources. The cost of an iron dome intercept will be far higher than that of an artillery shell. In an exchange of equally resourced opponents the attacker will quickly overwhelm the defense capabilities.
Physics will always heavily favor the attacker here. It's like a difference between throwing a stone at a target vs. throwing a stone to hit a flying stone mid-air with enough momentum to meaningfully change the trajectory. The second task is orders of magnitude more difficult to carry out
There is anti artillery radar, i.e. radar that helps position artillery so you can counterattack with your own artillery, drones etc. But it requires your own offensive capability.
I can’t understand how Putin would be able to pay for the reconstruction costs of the immense damage he’s causing, leading me to assume he intends to dismember the country, take the southern and eastern parts that he wants, and hand the ruin over to the west for us to foot the bill.
I'm willing to bet $100 that if Russia only takes some regions from Ukraine and does not touch the rest in any way, by 2050 the remaining parts of Ukraine will be at least 2x as prosperous as the parts of Ukraine taken over by Russia and probably also at least 2x as prosperous as Russia itself.
Even if he succeeds in that, what is the end game?
You now have an immutable hard border on one side of your country, are knee deep in sanctions which will not evaporate and another giant nation ready to take advantage of your poor position on the other side because they’re the only people who will even touch you with a 20 foot long stick. On top of that you have to now commit resources to permanently securing a whole another country which doesn’t want you in it and is being supplied with superior weapons from just about everyone else on the planet.
Putin just sold the whole nation into poverty, slavery and decay.
This is what we generally call a galactic scale fuck up.
It makes sense why Zelensky is desperately asking for fighter jets. As long as Russia doesn’t control the skies it will be difficult to bomb Kiev into submission.
Well yes. Artillery bombardment is THE Russian military doctrine. Any uncertainty on the headline would mean assuming Russia had developed some unusual qualms on the subject. And why would they?
It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast
>According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine. However the government in Kiev sharply rejects the demand for neutral status.
There is an actual war. Russia wants something that the Ukrainian government sharply rejects. They are in range of multiple cities and gave evacuation notices days ago. What do you think will happen next? Why wouldnt the next step be Grozny? Because the western public is outraged and appalled? Because those things dont happen in todays day and age? There can be no NATO intervention without triggering WW3. Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach.
If Ukraine continues to resist the very likely result is that it will burn. Feelings and stories dont change any of that. Russian artillery will likely turn house after house, street after street and city after city into rubble. Not some individual shelters, not some tv stations. Everything.
Exactly, on /r/europe I suggested exactly this would happen and how Ukrainian government should sign the deal while they still have some leverage left. I got banned from it for life because of it.
Its a stupid suggestion to put it mildly, pardon my french. There is no deal to be signed. Unless you mean complete Ukrainian surrender, being dragged into being another Russian slave like Chechnya or Belarus. Putin doesn't accept anything less. Russia is now yet another horrible dictatorship, no reason to believe Ukraine would fare any better, in fact most probably much, much worse due to resistance to this invasion.
By now we all see that Russian words are less than farts in the wind, meaningless blabber with no face value.
This all was the reason why they resisted in the first place, they have good memories of brutal Russian oppression from all of 20th century. Why should they give up everything now? Doesn't make any sense.
So what else is the goal? How many dead Ukrainians to achieve which goal in which way? Please be specific
edit: I get that this sound snarky, but it will hopefully drive home the point. Unless you have a 3rd alternative to agreeing what ever the man with the nukes understands under "demilitarization and denazification" and joining a death cult with mandatory membership i dont really get what i can tell you.
> So what else is the goal? How many dead Ukrainians to achieve which goal in which way
For Russia to leave them alone, and however it takes. Russia's economy is falling apart, and their army is in brutally terrible shape. They couldn't possibly occupy the country, even if they manage to conquer it, which they don't seem to be able to do. So victory for Ukraine is certain, ultimately. It will take time and cost a lot of blood and destruction, but the alternative isn't great either - being subjugated by a brutal tyrant who has no qualms murdering those who oppose him isn't a walk in the park either.
Why are you denying the agency of the Ukrainian people?
They are the ones choosing to fight. Look at the polls. Look at the interviews. Look at all the people there voluntarily picking up arms to defend their country.
A prolonged insurgency needs Ukrainians there to fight. That is something Russia can fix.
What ever solution you propose will have a cost in Ukrainian lives and that cost is largely determined with what Russia is willing to do. With their ruthlessness reducing their casualties massively.
He is referring to the deal offered PRIOR to the invasion. The deal that Ukraine commit to never joining NATO and agree to recognize Crimea as Russian.
In retrospect, that was better than Ukrainian cities being absolutely destroyed.
The rest of us are very keyboard brave with Ukrainian lives - telling them to fight to the end. ...but you would not be so brave if you had to live through this yourself.
Kyiv should sign the agreement of not joining NATO, since it can now keep it's leadership and prevent decapitation occupation. Sign whatever makes Russia happy and have them leave. Then rebuild the city. Then pack the country completely full of millions of Western troops and material. Then join NATO. If Russia thinks the violation of the agreement is worth starting a global war over, let them shoot first.
Show russia what an agreement is worth, when they say "humanitarian corridors are opened" followed by bombing them.
Just because Russia has no qualms about committing war crimes and slaughtering civilians doesn't mean we can't be outraged by this. Outrage about killing civilians is entirely justified.
Sure but depending how it is framed it has very real consequences. Just see the other post below you, cynically, already downvoted. It rallies people up in some self-righteous parallel reality cheering on the conflict quelling any voice of reason. After all there is the archetypal underdog you know and love from movies, surely the eagles will come any moment now.
Ukrainians will die over the unwillingness to just take what ever demands Russia has now instead of in what ever time it takes to install a puppet regime in the rubble. And while some are forced to stay there due to conscription, quite a lot seem to be caught up in a nationalistic fever and delusional belief that "the West will stand with them".
The only thing the west will do is ship outdated weapon to give Russia their Vietnam. Which unfortunately for the Ukrainian people will be fought in their hometowns.
edit: Or answering it shorter,
Outrage doesnt justify loosing touch with reality. Which already was the initial statement
> Ukrainians will die over the unwillingness to just take what ever demands Russia has now instead of in what ever time it takes to install a puppet regime in the rubble. And while some are forced to stay there due to conscription, quite a lot seem to be caught up in a nationalistic fever and delusional belief that "the West will stand with them".
They don't want to submit to tyranny and they don't want to be ruled by Moscow, let alone Putin. I wouldn't either, and i don't get who would. Why would they submit to the invader actively slaughtering their neighbours, friends, countrymen?
Most of them are aware that Russia cannot win. They cannot hope to occupy and rule Ukraine if Ukrainians don't want them to. Why submit then?
Because you, your family and your neighbors will all die.
Russia not able to win would look like Syria. Syria is a failed state propped up by Russia and Iran carved up by superpowers with the local population at their whim.
We also dont live in 2000 anymore. As far as i am aware Ukraine didnt get any noteworthy anti air shipments. Stinger are useless for anything except passenger planes and some older helicopters. You wont shoot any jets down with it. And once doctrine switches back to standard artillery bombardment there isnt going to be much else to shoot at.
All of this not mentioning drone warfare and the ability to identify what they deem hostile elements.
Russia is only limited in how cruel they are going to get in this. Of course they can win, it could just become very very horrible.
If you think this conflict will look like Titos partisans if escalated further, think more Grozny combined with the treatment of the Uyghurs.
edit:
Think about that way, getting rid of everyone who still holds your opinion, that
>Most of them are aware that Russia cannot win. They cannot hope to occupy and rule Ukraine if Ukrainians don't want them to. Why submit then?
after a few months of classical bombardment is by now a trivial task. Same with the larger group who would do something about that. And even if you somehow could hide creating refugee waves is a very attractive geopolitical tool for Russia.
Even if that were the case it wouldnt change the result. And that is that NATO will not trigger WW3 and faced with further resistance Russia is very like to escalate further having exactly the result i described. Especially if this turns into a truly ethnic conflict. I dont mean it derogatory and i dont know how else to word that your feelings dont change that. And i dont know how you could think that when taking a moment to think rationally. Neither Putin nor Stoltenberg take your feelings into account.
>Sooner or later the civilized world will have to intervene.
Sooner would be much better though. What are they waiting for? Russia to bomb Ukraine into an unlivable wasteland and have ~40 million refugees move west?
Outrage feeds sanctions from non-government sources. It fuels citizen actions - such as donations and opening their homes. It pressures governments to do more.
> There can be no NATO intervention without triggering WW3. Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach.
I wonder how you picture NATO intervention without WW3, could you explain? IMO Nato intervention means a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces.
Also I don't agree with your second point. 'Any sanctions left' here means actually more than the entire packet of sanctions that the West has taken so far. The West spends hundreds of billions each year on Russion gas and oil. Sanctioning this would seriously hurt the Russian economy and Putin's war chest.
Yes, it would also hurt the European economy, but surely many magnitudes less than a WW3.
>I wonder how you picture NATO intervention without WW3, could you explain? IMO Nato intervention means a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces.
I meant its not possible. You cant have a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces in Ukraine without triggering ww3. So the hope that NATO might intervene is badly misplaced in my opinion.
>Yes, it would also hurt the European economy, but surely many magnitudes less than a WW3.
Yes, another bad wording, thank you. Add an "and any...". I think the oil sanctions are unlikely solely because the European economies wont be able to handle the impact.
And with no NATO intervention (due to ww3) and no sanctions on oil(due to economic impact), i dont see much margin for actions left. Am i missing something?
You're phrasing implies that outrage is somehow naive, or that outrage is somehow mutually exclusive with realistic expectations, but I'm not sure why.
Thanks for the heads up.
You are the second one who assumed that, its the missing "some" right?
>It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality.
I tried to convey that it seems to me that some people, some willfully some in an emotional tailspin some simply distracted, care more about the story then its implications in reality.
edit: Meaning that while it isnt mutually exclusive, it seems to be the reason some people do it. Which isnt surprising since its an emotional reaction that requires effort and the will to keep out of a rational consideration. Its a behavior i keep noticing but havent found a good description for yet. Sorry for the confusion.
I disagree. There can and should be a Nato intervention. Maybe Ww3 is what follows next but that doesnt mean it will be a nuclear desaster. If we can send stingers we can send jets. If we can send jets we can send pilots. Step be step we can increase pressure. Putin is a strategic player, he is cold blooded not red headed.
Appeasement politics during the nazi aera has brought suffering beyond words. I feel we ow to the victims of that time to never let this happen again- no matter what.
Putin is absolutely capable of tactical nuking military sites and airbases within Ukraine. He's probably willing to do that to bordering NATO countries if planes are flying out of them and Putin's back is against the wall. He'll take that next step that you can't fathom in order to stop you, since he figures you'll back down and won't escalate. Then, if we launch try to take out his nuclear capacity then he must launch all his missiles, and you've got WWIII and the end of the species more or less.
If you play the tit-for-tat ratcheting up escalation game with Putin then all of humanity is going to lose that one.
Right now its somewhat restrained since his generals won't want to launch nukes at NATO over the aid that has been given so far. When you cross a certain line so that Putin can argue that NATO bases in Europe are the proverbial dagger pointed at the heart of Russia and they must go so that Russia doesn't fall, then its much more likely that you've handed him the rationale for a tactical nuclear strike that his generals will follow.
> Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach.
Oh yes we would be able to stomach that. Better we start right now. Rig up production of solar/wind/thermal energy at a war-scale level, deploy faster than anything else. Heck if not when, this is the time to become independent from oil producing dictatorships.
The problem with the "if I can't conquer it, I'll just level it" offense, is that there is very little defense. Everyone is talking about how difficult it is to invade cities. But it's trivial to destroy cities if you have no regard for civilian casualties.
The problem now is that the world can't meaningfully intervene because we didn't say beforehand that we would. We should have set up the no-fly zone with western weapons before there was further invasion. Now it's off limit because it means open conflict with Russia. Russia would not have invaded underneath NATO air supremacy AND it would not have taken the first shot against a french plane over Ukraine.
If we had set up the nofly zone beforehand that would have been a welcome invitation for putin.
Now that he has broken every international law these playbook rules are meaningless.
This post is all over the place, sounds more like armchair general then anything else.
> There are rules of war.
Rules of war? What? Russians are breaking Geneva Conventions everyday, target civilians fleeing 'the wrong way', usage of mines cluster bombs, terror hit-squads attacking civ and press. They stopped playing by the rules the moment they invaded sovereign country - even US uses plausible excuses before invading a country to have some credibility.
> If you are arming civilians with hand weapons, you are just killing them.
Yes if you send them out to a frontline. This is urban combat, partisan attacks and quick retreat. Its completely different reality to open field fights.
> No militia can resist regular army.
Tell that to the Afghan villagers, they only fought US and Russia and won both times.
You can't post like this to HN. I realize feelings are strong right now. At the same time, you have a history of breaking the site guidelines and we've had to warn you about this repeatedly in the past, so it isn't just about this war.
Attacking another user like that is obviously a bannable offence, but I'm not going to ban you for it right now. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to HN's rules, though, or we will end up having to.
Russians shouldn't be there. They invaded independent country. Entire fault is on them. Period.
Trying to spin the fact that civilian population wants to defend their country and everything they have in life against Ukrainian government is honestly disgusting. It's hard to grasp like someone working in highly logical field such as software development could be so soaked with propaganda. Turn off the TV comrade.
> So they choose to remain in heavily bombed areas to protect their troops stationed there that's what you are suggesting?
Many of them - yes - obviously they don't have troops to win this war, and civilian population is joining. I was personally helping people on the border and while many of them flees, also many travels from the west into Ukraine to help. Not sure why it surprises you - this is quite common in such desperate situation - they are loosing their own country due to pure greed of Russia.
I don't need twitter. I can see results of last Russian visit in my country through the window. My parents and grandparents suffered a lot due to this fact. Nobody wanted Russia then and nobody wants it now in Ukraine. Go home. Stop killing innocent people.
286 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 262 ms ] threadThis is pure blackmail, and it won't stop here.
It's also likely the reason the Russian advance stalled. Neither party really wants to go through that hell
Unless they expected a surrender ( which seems to be the case - they had advanced paratroop drops and logistics and rations drastically unprepared for a longer term battle,potentially with the help of special ops murdering Zelensky), why even go there then? Nobody sane starts a war with the idea of long term destructive urban fighting. Especially live streamed urban fighting. There's nothing for Russia to win there, so if that was really their plan, it's even stupider.
Then the blame should be on who started the "warfare".
It’s just the first time in history that the whole world sees the horrors of war streamed live.
Which is a good thing I guess, there’s a whole new generation now that might learn ‘never again’ without actually having to go through the experience.
Edit: Of course we always had the news, but a reporter showing the aftereffects from a safe distance are a bit different from the single soldier streaming the images of the Russian warship before telling them to go fuck themselves.
All the other social media covered wars were, well, covered by the parties fighting the West. Which is a different story.
The reporting isn’t like that here either though. Here’s a video of the Sky News UK team getting ambushed: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/sky-news-teams-harrowing-acco...
Ignoring my inner cynic, it is good that we, the European countries, help Ukraine and the Ukrainian refugees, very good. But yes, I think the West is very much used to start wars in far away countries where we can ignore the consequences in our daily lives. Now someone else started it, close to our homes, and all of a sudden we cannot ignore it anymore. Comes as quite a shock to some, it seems.
Not happy about this myself, we are all equal humans and it shouldn't matter how people dress, speak or religion they have, this reaction should be present in all cases of war.
Europe took in millions of refugees from a different continent.
Syrian/Afghan refugees took a longer route to Europe instead of Saudi Arabia. That's what an economic migrant does.
In Vietnam, Americans (a small minority) collected ears of those they killed. The Viet Cong held barrels with rats to stomachs and burned the other end, forcing rats to eat through stomachs.
In Rwanda, neighbors killed neighbors with their bare hands.
In World War 2, +150,000 civilians were wiped instantaneously.
In former Yugoslavia, neighbors lined neighbors up and executed them.
There is no war without war crimes. And as usual, it’s the citizens that suffer, rarely the elite.
I have no horse in this race, propoganda is propoganda.
That's why confirmation and vetting by orgs like, e.g., Human Rights Watch is so important.
And the problem is, it's actually not completely outside the realms of possiblity, and I have no way to know. As far as I'm aware, the Ukrainians are fighting the good fight, but that's what I _would_ think. When the propaganda is flying this thick and this fast, maybe I'm as bamboozled as anyone else.
On the other hand shrugging and going "dunno, both sides lol" seems pretty ghoulish when the civilians are being killed and homes and cities bombed to nothing.
[1] I do not know where they got that from but it would have been TV. Trying to figure out where that comes from using only sources I can find leads me to a combination of the (apparently true) report that prisoners with military experience are released if they fight against Russia[2] and a TASS(!) report that Ukraine is responsible for collapsing the corridors[3].
[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-army... amongst others
[3] https://tass.com/politics/1417527
That's no secret, that's pretty much from official statements of Russian officials.
Al Jazeera reports what both sides are saying.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/7/russian-military-con...
As if the official statements of Russian officials are worth the toilet paper said officials use. Did you miss all the blatant bullshit they said up to and during the invasion? That it's only military exercises, that they're pulling back troops, that they're only on a small special operation, etc. Why would anyone trust them?
Civilians can be hit in cross-fire. So you need evidence that civilians were targeted. Then, you need evidence of whom targeted them, which may or may not be that simple to find.
At the moment, all pictures and accounts in the media and online are purely emotional because the aim is to provoke emotional reactions, not cool-headed analysis.
" Dat rapporteert mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch (HRW) op basis van ooggetuigen en beeldanalyses. "
According to a report by humanrights organization Human Rights Watch based on eye witness accounts and image analysis.
https://www.nu.nl/spanningen-oekraine/6185514/mensenrechteno...
What can be said is that war in general is ugly. So a lot of shit and war crimes are being committed and will continue to be committed. All the more reason for political leaders world wide to find a quick, peaceful solution to this mess. One that doesn't give any stretch of land to Russia.
> There were also some Ukrainian soldiers present at the intersection, but they were outnumbered, according to HRW. The Ukrainian soldiers who were at the crossroads helped the refugees with their luggage. A few hundred meters away, Russian and Ukrainian troops were fighting each other. According to HRW, the Russians may have deliberately fired projectiles at the intersection
To me it reads like there was an engagement between the ukranian and russian soldiers nearby and unfortunately some civilians were caught in a crossfire.
https://www.currenttime.tv/a/31739955.html
https://www.currenttime.tv/a/31740700.html
https://www.currenttime.tv/a/31737800.html
You are posting ukranian sources and as much as u sympathesize with their suffering it is wartime and information is propaganda.
If you don't believe testimonials of the people right there, the exact people who were attacked, then I see the only better source: go there yourself. What other evidence is better?
In any case, it's Russia who amassed a shit ton of military all around the Ukraine, and started the invasion.
However looking at your other activity, I would have to present article from Russia Today.
First and foremost Russians shouldn't be there. How evil they were exactly, can be assessed later, when they go back to their side of the border.
Mined by whom?
> However looking at your other activity, I would have to present article from Russia Today
Mainstream western media now is heavily biased for the simple fact that it most of the time even don't report what the Russians are saying on the same matter.
I'm checking al jazeera which at least reports both sides.
Sorry, but even suggesting, that Ukrainians mined evacuation route for their own people is plainly disgusting. I and multiple of my friends, were on the border and helped fleeing people. They told me first hand how they escaped. There was ZERO critique of their officials or military.
I'm checking both sides - what they're saying is usually completely out of touch with reality and blunt, very poorly prepared propaganda.
And finally - Russians are invading independent country. There's nothing they can say to change that fact.
Its unimaginable how brutal that war was, no wonder why there was so much opposition back then, sadly nobody was tried for war crimes ugh.
>Ukrainian forces were engaged in clashes nearby, but not at the site where civilians were moving along the street. Outgoing mortar rounds could be heard from a Ukrainian position about 200 yards away.
>The shelling suggested either targeting of the evacuation routes from Irpin, something of which the Ukrainian authorities have accused the Russian army after a railroad track used for evacuations was hit on Saturday, or disregard for the risk of civilian casualties.
So the ukrainians were launching mortars from the area and civilians got caught in the crossfire ... it's not exactly russians blackmailing civilians. Still their fault I guess for invading in the first place but this is not exactly a war crime, the ukrainians knew they were also firing from a civilian position.
Edit: there's also evidence of Ukrainian soldiers being in the same street, because keep in mind all the videos of the aftermath don't match always the videos of the shooting either. In some of the videos in which we don't see any Ukrainian soldiers, the russians seem to be shooting warning shots in the air, while in those with confirmed casualties there seem to be Ukrainian soldiers in the same street (meaning there was probably a crossfire situation)
I’m long past the point where I’d be fine calling their bluff, but the same thing does not seem to be true for our elected leaders (probably why I’m not one of those).
Whether that is true or not, it would have given more weight to Russia/Putin’s argument than stuff about Nazis.
Only relevant red line is border of sovereign nation. No NATO member was forced to join - they actually asked to join in order to prevent invasion like the one which is in Ukraine now.
> expansion of the West
Isn't is cynical to call it expansion of the West while no-one except Russia expanded beyond borders of Russia? It is just expansion of Russia.
Nope, no one is denying Russia's expansion, nor China or the next superpower.
The only hypocrisy would be recognizing Russia's expansion and not the West.
The conservative argument is that the world should be kept as is, and whoever makes the first move is to blame for breaking that balance. Putin thinks the West did it first, before this Ukrainian invasion. The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time
> The West thinks the Ukrainian invasion is the first move of any party, and its done nothing this whole time
Hardly the first. What has "the west" done that's remotely comparable to Crimea or South Ossetia? This isn't a story of mutual escalation, it's Russia taking as much as it can get away with.
Lead the pro-NATO coup in the closest Russia's neighbourgs, armed these countries with heavy weapons, encouraged them to fight Russia and promised to support this fight, then leave and watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other at the expense of Europe.
It didn't started in 2022 or 2014, it escalated for the last 30 years.
The Revolution of Dignity was about removing the Russian puppet. It was let by the people, who opposed orc control.
> armed these countries with heavy weapons
Friends help each other like that.
> encouraged them to fight Russia
As every sovereign nation should on their land.
> and promised to support this fight
Source.
> then leave
What NATO soldiers were there to leave?
> and watch Russians and Ukrainians kill each other at the expense of Europe.
Disgusting point of view. Russians attacked! What were the Ukrainians supposed to do? Surrender to people who want them killed?
by the way
West destroyed Iraq, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Lybia, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Afghanistan, there is a hell now.
West destroyed Serbia, ask Serbians, what do they think of NATO
There is peace in Crimea, there is a peace in South Ossetia. Nobody is shooting. The life is poor, mostly because of the west sanctions, but people are safe.
* Libya was given a no fight zone at the request of the people. It was a mistake, but the intentions were noble.
* Afghanistan started as a fair war. They gave aid to people who attacked a NATO country. It was completely fair to invade. Trying to nation-build it was a mistake though. But again, noble.
* Intervening on the side of the muslim terrorists in Kosovo was a mistake and some people in NATO (like us Romanians) opposed it (although our government supported it).
* The Russian occupied areas are hell holes. Transnistria is literally soviet.
Ask Croatians and Bosnians what they think about Serbs. Basically Serbia tried to do to them, exactly what Russia is doing now to Ukraine. Btw Serbia is starting to do pretty well comparing to when they were under USSR influence.
> There is peace in Crimea, there is a peace in South Ossetia. Nobody is shooting.
Nobody was shooting in entire Ukraine, before Russia decided to start stealing their country.
Especially with Putin gone and a more moderate leader.
So then if troops had been put there first it would be Putin starting it, and even he might not be crazy enough to do that.
By wavering the west has gotten into a position where Ukraine is being destroyed.
And this I agree. So now maybe the United States will stop wavering on Taiwan.
The problem is that is equivalent to setting up a flag. The East views America as an imperialist, and this would be provocation of imperialist expansion.
As such, there haven't been any "pushing of boundaries" unless you presume Russia gets to decide what independent nations like Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc. may or may not do.
Yes and Russia doesn't deny that either. The request was for NATO to stop allowing countries like Ukraine to volunteer. Is that unfair ? Yes, it is a bully move. But that was the bully's request, and the West's stance is, effectively, we don't negotiate with terrorists. It's the attitude of: whatever, we do whatever we want. That's also fair, but don't be surprised why Russia proceeded, because they can have the same sentiment: whatever, we do whatever we want. The magnitude of recklessness is outsized, but the direction is the same.
It's up to Ukraine if they want to pursue NATO membership or any other agreement with any country or organization.
Russia has no say. It's not a negotiation between NATO and Russia. Russia isn't at the table. They can pine for old USSR glory all they want but nobody else wants that.
And the way Putin's been killing journalists and dissidents (in the UK no less), raiding the treasury, annexing Crimea, and other nonsense, I don't see them being invited to many negotiations in the future.
Well that attitude brought us to that point. Russia thinks that it should be at the table and it can prove it.
> And the way Putin's been killing journalists and dissidents (in the UK no less), raiding the treasury, annexing Crimea, and other nonsense, I don't see them being invited to many negotiations in the future.
Turkey is NATO member, do you know anything about Erdogan deeds? Or maybe that story when Saudi Prince DISMEMBERED that journalist in embassy and everyone were okay with it?
And it will leave with a bloody face.
> Or maybe that story when Saudi Prince DISMEMBERED that journalist in embassy and everyone were okay with it?
What have you been smoking? That blew up in MBS's face and lost billions in investments.
[1]: https://www-capital-bg.translate.goog/politika_i_ikonomika/v...
What do you personally stand to lose if you call the bluff and it’s not a bluff?
As much as I’d like to hate on the politicians, this isn’t a repeatable game where the outcomes average out.
At least in this way other people who didn’t volunteer their life are spared.
The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose.
Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.
> ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-pol...
Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war.
Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China.
It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...
This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"?
> Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational.
Being rational as defined by your personal ideology is what economic models postulate when they assume rationality.
I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable.
This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions.
The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
You're assuming an occupation of all of Ukraine is the endgame.
Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”.
Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
> The seven characteristics of life include:
> responsiveness to the environment;
> growth and change;
> <<ability to reproduce;>>
> have a metabolism and breathe;
> maintain homeostasis;
> being made of cells; and.
> <<passing traits onto offspring.>>
Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder.
I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist.
There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
Plus, the former head of Mi6 warned not to try and corner Putin, since if he were to be personally severely threatened, he wouldn't hesitate to turn to using nuclear weapons and take the whole world down with him if he were to ever be ousted form power by the west.
Never gonna happen because:
1) The majority of the Russian population is still supportive of him, thinking they're fighting to liberate Ukraine from nazis and that the western sanctions are in place because the west hates them, rather than consequences for their leaders' war crimes
2) Like the former head of Mi6 said, Putin is so mad that if threatened, he's more likely to be ok with seeing the whole world get nuked, instead of going down like Gaddafi did, which is why the west is going so soft on him.
That's ok. Putin doesn't have a big red button, he actually needs a lot of people to be ok with committing a suicide, and it is likely they won't.
And nuked world might be better than world in which Russian can do what it wants.
1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption.
So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.
Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest.
> 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week.
How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
Getting paid dollars for oil and gas doesn't do you much good when you can't spend those dollars on anything. Imports into Russia have stopped over the past week.
> How do you know this?
The propaganda leading up to the 'Minor peacekeeping action in the Donbass' certainly didn't sound like he was getting everyone ready for a forever-war.
> e.g. in Chechnya
To most Russians - even the warhawks, the war in Chechnya (much like the Winter War of 1939) was seen as a debacle and an utter embarrassment.
I mean, it's entirely possible that the war will end this week, and my second point is moot. But it's looking like it's quite possible that it won't.
They sort of ended up sanctioned. You're right, there's nothing official, but no unconstrained buyer wants to touch energy exports from Russia.
Russia is struggling to sell its oil to unconstrained buyers [1]. Sure, Europe, in winter, with no ready alternative, is still buying, but that's about it it seems.
Also, while it's true global oil prices are sky-high, the rise in Russian oil is far more muted. Basically, there are many kinds of oil sold around the world (Brent, WTI, and many more). They usually move largely in lock step, as to a reasonable extent you can substitute one for another. But recently Urals is sold at a massive discount - because no one wants to touch it.
> How do you know this?
There are plenty of soft indications. Troops only given rations for 72-odd hours. Attempts at airborne strikes that are very rapid, but doomed to fail terribly with any but minimal resistance. Reports of Russia looking to "source" new troops - from Russian reserves, and Syrian, hmm, volunteers? All suggests the current length of the war exceeds plan A and plan B.
Of course Russia might still win a long, hard slog of a war, by bombing everything that moves...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-has-not-sanctione... [2] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/urals-brent-pric...
To the point you're making though, I don't think it's so straightforward in all cases. If you're not well off and your life is being completely uprooted either way, it's a much more complex calculus than just, say, going to Poland.
They are. I think the count is up to two million or something.
> Russia is obviously going to win.
That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians.
> The logical thing to do is to leave, suffer but be sure that your kids will have it better. But I reckon this isn't about logic?
Or it is about logic, but your "logic" is too shallow of an analysis.
Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles.
Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, they're done for. When their cities are reduced to rubble from the shelling, there will be nothing left fighting for, as you can't live and raise kids in wasteland that's been reduced to rubble.
Ukraine is a huge country, cities are a great environment for insurgents. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option Ukraine's planning. That they didn't have to resort to that kind of warfare yet is quite surprising if you ask me.
We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.
Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them.
Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.
The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off.
Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.
They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully.
I'd like Ukraine to win, but if you listen to the former head of Mi6 and US military experts, they don't give Ukraine much chance of actually winning, as they're severely outgunned and outnumbered vs Russia, despite aid from the west. Despite taking heavy losses, Russia's use of tried and tested WW2 style of encircle the big cities and slowly pummle them into submission with artilerie, and endless cannon fodder plus ruthless trained killers form Chechnya, seems to be working for them slowly but surely.
And the sanctions are mostly affecting the average Russian who can't buy iPhones, Ikea furniture anymore or use Paypal, but it has no effect on Putin's war machine or on his grasp of political power in Russia. Banned western goods will still come into Russia through Serbia and Kazakhstan anyway, as they're not sanctioned countries and have liberal trade policies with Russia.
At this point, they are losing equipment much faster than they can produce new one, no one can churn out a dozen new military helicopters in 2 weeks. This alone will be a major source of attrition. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are getting very efficient weapons from the West and they are being replenished constantly. If Russia could have prevented the inflow, they would have done so.
Sieges of big cities are a messy, protracted affair that may take years (see: Sarajevo, Leningrad). They consume enormous resources - e.g. Leningrad was besieged by 750 000 Germans. Russia isn't capable of supplying a much smaller task force right now.
What makes you think that they could mobilize "endless cannon fodder" (e.g. five million men or so), equip them with something more efficient than AK-47s, throw them into the theater and supply them with fuel, ammo and food if they are struggling to supply a mere 180 000?
Some people say that Russians are holding back and preparing winning push.
Some people say the Russians will just try to hold what they gained so far (which is few minor cities, despite maps colored red) and try to achieve their objectives in negotiations.
Hard to say what will happen.
If you analyze the actual situation, they're stalling there for good reason, nor because they can't go further. They're setting up permanent bases there so they can resupply easier, setup a field hospital and a service center for vehicle repairs. It will make next offensive much more efective, in theory.
Both of those things can be true at the same time.
> Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy.
A developed country is 1 bombing campaign away from becoming a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare...
In the case of Palestinians especially, finding easy citizenship elsewhere is not simple.
And the humanitarian corridors Russia recently designated lead to Belarus and Russia, which is not where the people want to be. The Russian effort to "help the civilians" are just deeply cynical PR and misdirection.
There are videos of people getting blown up, eyewitness accounts, and Ukrainian official accounts. It's not something debatable.
> Have you maybe talked to people who didn't want to go there? Or it is the Ukranian government decided "their" people don't want to go there?
So you think that many people would want to be refugees in the country actually invading and trying to destroy their own ? That's ridiculous and everyone knows it. The fact that few, if any, Ukrainians seem to be taking this option, confirm this.
Obviously people are getting hurt and it's sad and tragic. Russian forces targeting civilians is a different matter though which needs to be substantiated. We simple can't know right now.
> So you think that many people would want to be refugees in the country actually invading and trying to destroy their own ?
I think that people sitting in the shelters for days might be actually quite open to a possibility of getting to a safe place.
> The fact that few, if any, Ukrainians seem to be taking this option, confirm this.
Have you considered a possibility that Ukranian authorities are effectively preventing massive evacuations towards russia/belarus because it would look bad for them in press.
I talked with people who ran to my country. I lack the words to describe how delusional is the idea, they would like to move anywhere closer to Russia, even if Putin personally came in his jet to pick them up.
The men are staying and fighting. The men who were in our country have gone back to fight.
Fuck Putin
https://visitukraine.today/de/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man...
To this day I don't know where I stand in this conflict, since I understand many of the subtleties of the conflict.
But that part is clear, Palestine <<is>> under attack.
Israely is knowingly "salamy tactic-ing" Palestine. They're slowly chipping away at their regions. They're destroying Palestine through administrative abuse.
It's like slowly being crushed by one of those car compactors.
I have no idea what the correct reactions in this situation is.
https://www.jns.org/eu-unpublished-report-finds-palestinian-...
I'm just saying that if you were a member of a population that's being squeezed out of their land, day by day, in a country that at best, if you try to integrate, treats you like a second hand citizen, you can't say for sure what your reaction would be.
You could try to pretend it would be a peaceful reaction, but you can't say for sure. Nobody can.
"squeezed out of their land". The Hamas got untouched territory. They could have build a paradise there. Nobody wants this part of the land. So again why send rockets? There is simple no reason - only to stay in power and get the donations.
Just building settlements. So providing homes for people does't justify rockets and violence in my opinion. Settlements can be removed later if it is unacceptable for a Palestinian state to have some jew's
And the Palestinian government like <<any>> sovereign state on this planet, is allowed to decide who builds what where.
Again, salami tactics. Brilliant strategy, but awful from a humanitarian point of view. How to strangle another country, kill it by a thousand paper cuts.
Sheikh Jarrah is only one of many cases.
> Just building settlements
That's a very weird way of putting it. Illegal settlements, in lands that don't belong to Israel, so it's not up to Israel to decide what to do with it. It's obviously a population displacement tactic - then there'd be Jews there, Israel can claim the lands, and if Palestine does decide to remove them, Israel will cry genocide and step in.
Hamas use terrorist tactics and are a terrorist organisation. That doesn't in any way change the apartheid-like regime Palestine is under, and the unfairness of all the terrible treatment Palestinians suffer at the hands of Israel. And Hamas' tactics are understandable ( but unsupportable) - what are they to do to fight against Israeli atrocities, expulsions, blockade, apartheid? Submit and accept living in ghettos ? You can't blame them for making a different choice.
No, they are simply under permanent military occupation, with no end in sight, no path to enfranchisement. At best, they are living in an apartheid state. At worst, they had a war declared on them, and they aren't even permitted to surrender.
If some third party invaded the United States, and kettled Americans to live in isolated enclaves and ghettos, with no freedom of movement, national sovereignty, or pathway to assimilation into the occupier's new nation, that occupier might be subject to the occasional rock and rocket attack, too.
Most of them are living much much better than in any neighbor country.
Most do not have that right, despite being born there, and having no other home country.
That some of them are enfranchised is a fig leaf over an apartheid state.
The rhetorical sleight-of-hand that you are obscuring is that most Arabs living in Israel are not, and will never be allowed to become Israeli citizens. This is despite both being born, and living on a territory that is very clearly under the military control of the Knesset.
It's either an indeterminate military occupation, or its apartheid. I don't care what you want to call it, but you have to pick one or the other, because in 2022, Palestine simply does not exist as a free, sovereign nation. It's either a civil territory of Israel, or occupied by Israel.
But this is still a very impoverished part of the world. Income per capita is ~$2k / yr.
So, most simply don't have the means to leave. I think most are counting on being able to just stay out of the way and waiting for this to "blow over".
It's not. It's going to be a repeat of Afghanistan for them.
> The logical thing to do is to leave
That's logical only for a coward. Many people won't give in to a bully, especially when they're winning. (Independent sources are saying 5800 dead orcs on 3 March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... )
please, grow up, this is an actual human war we're trying to discuss. live in reality. there's no orcs and hobbits and wizards here.
i can only stomach about 30 seconds of reading the comments section on reddit before running into mindless stuff like this.
This is what modern non-nuclear war looks like: hammer on cities until there's nothing left in the hope of defeating the enemy public opinion.
The only thing you can hope to do is counter-battery artillery or airstrikes, but both of those are vulnerable to shelling and airstrikes and one requires flying into enemy territory.
What I don’t understand from the West was this arrogant attitude that it is unilaterally a losing hand for Putin, rather than a prisoner’s dilemma?
Even if he is acting to his detriment, it may be very well be the most optimal of moves he could make ( in his calculus ).
The idea of him being a madmen has been fluctuating in and out, but that’s only if you look at the outcome. If you consider all the outcomes, it might very well be rational ( morality is not necessarily part of the rationale ).
I suppose the other option is a good old medieval-style siege where you literally starve the cities out (add biowarfare for extra Hague points), but statically camping outside a city is not very safe unless it's the only enemy city.
If US + NATO open war on Russia it may cause hundreds of thousands of deaths (or more) even if nuclear weapons are not used.
It’s just an impossible and sad situation.
Their communication is very subtle and succinct.
It’s the same with Taiwan. They do not deny China’s claim to Taiwan, but that is logically not equivalent to saying they accept China’s claim to Taiwan. They use language that is convenient for the politicians of those countries to appease their constituents while maintaining the status quo and pushing the can down the road.
Biden said he agreed in principle to meet if Putin has not already invaded Ukraine. That’s a weirdly structured sentence if you think about it. In plain English, the sentence seem logically equivalent to “only if”, but if we are focused on pure logic, then Biden can still meet Russia despite Russia having invaded.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Intensif...
I'm sure there are many other issues as well.
The West/EU/NATO doesn’t court. And they’re extremely careful about generating the impression or sending a message that they’re actively pulling countries into their “sphere of influence”.
For the process of inclusion to work there has to be undeniable proof that it is a democratic process that shows that the people of that country actively want membership. Poland managed to pull this off in the 90’s when Russian influence was weak and memories of Soviet influence were vivid. And even then the process was slow and difficult - the “West” is a demanding club to join.
> NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. [1]
[1] Item 23: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
It's also not so difficult to imagine that this was a response within a larger picture of two-way communication at the time. All the above says is 'welcoming aspirations' - basically 'we're happy that you want to join the club, you will be allowed in in the future if you stay on track'.
This position from Nato (linked above) set in motion a chain of events starting with the Georgia war a few months later. In order to join Nato, Georgia needed to regularise Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of Georgia, and Saakashvili understood that this declaration indicated that if he were able to do so, then Georgia would be able to join Nato (some say this was told to him explicitly by US officials, but there's no hard evidence of this that I'm aware of).
In parallel, Russia understood the importance of maintaining the status quo in Abkhazia and South Ossetia to prevent Georgian accession to Nato.
Reports about the start of the war indicate South Ossetian separatists held a flame close to a powder keg, and Georgia exploded. Whether Russia was involved or not at this stage is unclear, but what happened next was a small Georgian armed force entered South Ossetia (and later Abkhazia) to impose Georgian control. Russia saw the potential implications of this, and fought back, ostensibly 'protecting Russian citizens', but in actuality, more likely to be trying to maintain the instability in these breakaway regions.
After just under 2 weeks of fighting, Russia rolled up to Tbilisi, and having achieved both their stated objective ('protecting Russian citizens') and the likely true reason for the invasion (stopping Georgia controlling South Ossetia and Abkhazia), agreed to a ceasefire, and eventually withdrew.
So, how does this impact on Ukraine, and what context does this add?
Ukraine leased a port in Sevastopol (Crimea) to the Russians, on which the contract was due to expire in 2017. As a result of the conflict in Georgia, Ukraine indicated that they would not want to renew this contract. Given Russia's size, it's quite surprising how little access they have to the seas, because most of their coastline is to the north, where only Murmansk is able to operate year round. As a result, Sevastopol is a critical strategic location for Russia, and so I suspect that this is when planning began in earnest for military intervention by Russia in Crimea. However, this also marked a turn away from Russia and towards the EU.
Now, a couple of years after the Georgia conflict, Ukraine elected a new president, Viktor Yanukovich. Yanukovich was not a new face in Ukrainian politics. He had previously won a presidential election in 2004, which was later annulled due to alleged fraud, and he lost in the re-run (the peaceful 'Orange Revolution').
Although there were fears about fraud in the 2010 election, it seems that these did not materialise, and Yanukovich was the legitimate winner of the election (although questions still remain about his funding and spending). Yulia Tymoshenko, his main rival, is quoted as saying that she and her party will never recognise Yanukovich as the legitimately elected president of Ukraine. In 2011, Tymoshenko was found guilty of embezzlement and sent to prison.
At this point, it's important to understand that more than 45% of the vote share went to Tymoshenko. Tymoshenko was seen as a left-leaning, euro-centric candidate, versus Yanukovich who wanted to dine at both tables. Almost half of the country felt as though the 'wrong side' had won the election, and their leader had been jailed (whether Tymoshenko was a political prisoner or not is a completely different essay).
In late 2012, the EU indicated that Ukraine needed to take several significant steps to improve various parts of their economy, judicial system, electoral system, and other items, which became an action plan in early 2013. Indications from the EU were that if Ukraine implemented these measures, they would be invited to sign an association agreement in late 2013, and Yanukovich was working actively to get these measures imple...
You have the timing backwards.
> In April 2005, Viktor Yushchenko returned to Ukraine's military doctrine the mention of Ukraine's strategic goal - "full membership in NATO and the European Union." The new text read as follows: "Based on the fact that NATO and the EU are the guarantors of security and stability in Europe, Ukraine is preparing for full membership in these organizations."
So it’s the other way around. Of course that doesn’t make it less sad.
"If, however, you have not lost your self-control and sensibly conceive what this might lead to, then, Mr. President, *we and you ought not now to pull on the ends of the rope in which you have tied the knot of war, because the more the two of us pull, the tighter that knot will be tied*. And a moment may come when that knot will be tied so tight that even he who tied it will not have the strength to untie it, and then it will be necessary to cut that knot, and what that would mean is not for me to explain to you, because you yourself understand perfectly of what terrible forces our countries dispose."
---
[1]: https://microsites.jfklibrary.org/cmc/oct26/doc4.html
Putin (And perhaps more Dugin or other Orthodox "influencers") now seem to think that the mere existence of a liberal ukraine (say, Gay parades in Kyiev) is an existential threat, regardless of whether it would ever spread to Russia proper.
That changes the balance between a "them" and "us". To Putin this means there can be no status Quo. The russian Empire can't be humiliated by having a liberal /"westernized" part that also happens to be a historical cradle of Russian culture.
If the premise of Russia(n leadership) is that it's better that there is no world at all than a world where Russia isn't an traditionalist empire including Ukraine, then the situation is MUCH harder to defuse than anything during the Cold War.
The old saying is that real generals think about logistics, not tactics. The implication is that it is logistics for their troops that is the concern.
Now I see that the true strategic advantage for a nation under attack is not only to have a fighting force that is dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attribution, but to also have a population that are dispersed, strong in numbers and resilient to attrition.
Every man is given a rifle and a helmet.
Moreover, every citizen is given a water sanitizer, energy dense food, and a shelter.
An Iron Dome was actually ordered by Ukraine but Israel blocked the transaction.
South Korea was poorer than North Korea in 1950.
I'm willing to bet $100 that if Russia only takes some regions from Ukraine and does not touch the rest in any way, by 2050 the remaining parts of Ukraine will be at least 2x as prosperous as the parts of Ukraine taken over by Russia and probably also at least 2x as prosperous as Russia itself.
You now have an immutable hard border on one side of your country, are knee deep in sanctions which will not evaporate and another giant nation ready to take advantage of your poor position on the other side because they’re the only people who will even touch you with a 20 foot long stick. On top of that you have to now commit resources to permanently securing a whole another country which doesn’t want you in it and is being supplied with superior weapons from just about everyone else on the planet.
Putin just sold the whole nation into poverty, slavery and decay.
This is what we generally call a galactic scale fuck up.
We imposed sanctions after the invasion of Crimea too, those eventually went away. In time these will too.
I don't expect the West to be so well behaved that it can go on very long without cheap oil and gas.
I hope the poles manage to get some jets to them.
It’s also not clear where they would be able to operate form since most airfields have been destroyed or damaged with long range missiles.
It would delay the inevitable at most.
It would also send a signal that it's far from over.
It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality. There is some basic facts, take it here from the German public broadcast
>According to its president, Russia is seeking the "denazification" and "demilitarization" of Ukraine. However the government in Kiev sharply rejects the demand for neutral status.
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-ukraine-ge...
There is an actual war. Russia wants something that the Ukrainian government sharply rejects. They are in range of multiple cities and gave evacuation notices days ago. What do you think will happen next? Why wouldnt the next step be Grozny? Because the western public is outraged and appalled? Because those things dont happen in todays day and age? There can be no NATO intervention without triggering WW3. Any sanctions left would be oil which the economy of most western countries likely cant stomach.
If Ukraine continues to resist the very likely result is that it will burn. Feelings and stories dont change any of that. Russian artillery will likely turn house after house, street after street and city after city into rubble. Not some individual shelters, not some tv stations. Everything.
By now we all see that Russian words are less than farts in the wind, meaningless blabber with no face value.
This all was the reason why they resisted in the first place, they have good memories of brutal Russian oppression from all of 20th century. Why should they give up everything now? Doesn't make any sense.
edit: I get that this sound snarky, but it will hopefully drive home the point. Unless you have a 3rd alternative to agreeing what ever the man with the nukes understands under "demilitarization and denazification" and joining a death cult with mandatory membership i dont really get what i can tell you.
For Russia to leave them alone, and however it takes. Russia's economy is falling apart, and their army is in brutally terrible shape. They couldn't possibly occupy the country, even if they manage to conquer it, which they don't seem to be able to do. So victory for Ukraine is certain, ultimately. It will take time and cost a lot of blood and destruction, but the alternative isn't great either - being subjugated by a brutal tyrant who has no qualms murdering those who oppose him isn't a walk in the park either.
They are the ones choosing to fight. Look at the polls. Look at the interviews. Look at all the people there voluntarily picking up arms to defend their country.
Russians, not Ukrainians.
Ukrainians will defend their country and the Russians won't have the stomach for a prolonged insurgency, just like in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan led to the fall of the USSR, and Ukraine will now lead to the fall and breakup of Russia.
What ever solution you propose will have a cost in Ukrainian lives and that cost is largely determined with what Russia is willing to do. With their ruthlessness reducing their casualties massively.
In retrospect, that was better than Ukrainian cities being absolutely destroyed.
The rest of us are very keyboard brave with Ukrainian lives - telling them to fight to the end. ...but you would not be so brave if you had to live through this yourself.
There is exactly one way of ending this, only difference is how much Ukraine is willing to pay in blood and resources before they sign.
And then they hurt you anyways.
Imagine yourself saying the same thing to Jews and WW2.
proof?
Show russia what an agreement is worth, when they say "humanitarian corridors are opened" followed by bombing them.
Ukrainians will die over the unwillingness to just take what ever demands Russia has now instead of in what ever time it takes to install a puppet regime in the rubble. And while some are forced to stay there due to conscription, quite a lot seem to be caught up in a nationalistic fever and delusional belief that "the West will stand with them".
The only thing the west will do is ship outdated weapon to give Russia their Vietnam. Which unfortunately for the Ukrainian people will be fought in their hometowns.
edit: Or answering it shorter, Outrage doesnt justify loosing touch with reality. Which already was the initial statement
They don't want to submit to tyranny and they don't want to be ruled by Moscow, let alone Putin. I wouldn't either, and i don't get who would. Why would they submit to the invader actively slaughtering their neighbours, friends, countrymen?
Most of them are aware that Russia cannot win. They cannot hope to occupy and rule Ukraine if Ukrainians don't want them to. Why submit then?
Russia not able to win would look like Syria. Syria is a failed state propped up by Russia and Iran carved up by superpowers with the local population at their whim.
We also dont live in 2000 anymore. As far as i am aware Ukraine didnt get any noteworthy anti air shipments. Stinger are useless for anything except passenger planes and some older helicopters. You wont shoot any jets down with it. And once doctrine switches back to standard artillery bombardment there isnt going to be much else to shoot at.
All of this not mentioning drone warfare and the ability to identify what they deem hostile elements. Russia is only limited in how cruel they are going to get in this. Of course they can win, it could just become very very horrible.
If you think this conflict will look like Titos partisans if escalated further, think more Grozny combined with the treatment of the Uyghurs.
edit: Think about that way, getting rid of everyone who still holds your opinion, that
>Most of them are aware that Russia cannot win. They cannot hope to occupy and rule Ukraine if Ukrainians don't want them to. Why submit then?
after a few months of classical bombardment is by now a trivial task. Same with the larger group who would do something about that. And even if you somehow could hide creating refugee waves is a very attractive geopolitical tool for Russia.
It is that bad.
No, because of the nazi orcs.
Sooner or later the civilized world will have to intervene.
Sooner would be much better though. What are they waiting for? Russia to bomb Ukraine into an unlivable wasteland and have ~40 million refugees move west?
Sanctions have material impact. Military supplies have material impact.
Twitter/Reddit/HN/Facebook outrage does not have material impact.
Outrage is a driver of change.
I wonder how you picture NATO intervention without WW3, could you explain? IMO Nato intervention means a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces.
Also I don't agree with your second point. 'Any sanctions left' here means actually more than the entire packet of sanctions that the West has taken so far. The West spends hundreds of billions each year on Russion gas and oil. Sanctioning this would seriously hurt the Russian economy and Putin's war chest. Yes, it would also hurt the European economy, but surely many magnitudes less than a WW3.
I meant its not possible. You cant have a military confrontation between NATO and Russian forces in Ukraine without triggering ww3. So the hope that NATO might intervene is badly misplaced in my opinion.
>Yes, it would also hurt the European economy, but surely many magnitudes less than a WW3.
Yes, another bad wording, thank you. Add an "and any...". I think the oil sanctions are unlikely solely because the European economies wont be able to handle the impact.
And with no NATO intervention (due to ww3) and no sanctions on oil(due to economic impact), i dont see much margin for actions left. Am i missing something?
>It seems to me that among the moral outrage people kind of lost touch with reality.
I tried to convey that it seems to me that some people, some willfully some in an emotional tailspin some simply distracted, care more about the story then its implications in reality.
edit: Meaning that while it isnt mutually exclusive, it seems to be the reason some people do it. Which isnt surprising since its an emotional reaction that requires effort and the will to keep out of a rational consideration. Its a behavior i keep noticing but havent found a good description for yet. Sorry for the confusion.
If you play the tit-for-tat ratcheting up escalation game with Putin then all of humanity is going to lose that one.
Right now its somewhat restrained since his generals won't want to launch nukes at NATO over the aid that has been given so far. When you cross a certain line so that Putin can argue that NATO bases in Europe are the proverbial dagger pointed at the heart of Russia and they must go so that Russia doesn't fall, then its much more likely that you've handed him the rationale for a tactical nuclear strike that his generals will follow.
I am sure the Kremlin has a working back channel to the Pentagon these days.
https://twitter.com/PentagonPresSec/status/15013364457299681...
Threats were made, I am sure.
Lets admit we have no clue what is going on behind the scene.
Oh yes we would be able to stomach that. Better we start right now. Rig up production of solar/wind/thermal energy at a war-scale level, deploy faster than anything else. Heck if not when, this is the time to become independent from oil producing dictatorships.
As for headlines like this one, what's the basis?
And the rest of the article doesn't mention Falluja. wts?
oh, i forgot...Kyiv is a _civilized_ city.
The problem now is that the world can't meaningfully intervene because we didn't say beforehand that we would. We should have set up the no-fly zone with western weapons before there was further invasion. Now it's off limit because it means open conflict with Russia. Russia would not have invaded underneath NATO air supremacy AND it would not have taken the first shot against a french plane over Ukraine.
Even a destroyed city can fight on - Stalingrad is a great example of that.
He did not need an invitation, after all, right?
> There are rules of war.
Rules of war? What? Russians are breaking Geneva Conventions everyday, target civilians fleeing 'the wrong way', usage of mines cluster bombs, terror hit-squads attacking civ and press. They stopped playing by the rules the moment they invaded sovereign country - even US uses plausible excuses before invading a country to have some credibility.
> If you are arming civilians with hand weapons, you are just killing them.
Yes if you send them out to a frontline. This is urban combat, partisan attacks and quick retreat. Its completely different reality to open field fights.
> No militia can resist regular army.
Tell that to the Afghan villagers, they only fought US and Russia and won both times.
Attacking another user like that is obviously a bannable offence, but I'm not going to ban you for it right now. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to HN's rules, though, or we will end up having to.
You claim this is unproved yet make unsubstantiated claims yourself:
>The tactics of Ukrainian Army now is to increase death toll as much as possible, so western media can use it in propaganda.
Trying to spin the fact that civilian population wants to defend their country and everything they have in life against Ukrainian government is honestly disgusting. It's hard to grasp like someone working in highly logical field such as software development could be so soaked with propaganda. Turn off the TV comrade.
Many of them - yes - obviously they don't have troops to win this war, and civilian population is joining. I was personally helping people on the border and while many of them flees, also many travels from the west into Ukraine to help. Not sure why it surprises you - this is quite common in such desperate situation - they are loosing their own country due to pure greed of Russia.
I don't need twitter. I can see results of last Russian visit in my country through the window. My parents and grandparents suffered a lot due to this fact. Nobody wanted Russia then and nobody wants it now in Ukraine. Go home. Stop killing innocent people.
I don't agree that this includes sending those civilians to Russia, as Russia is a trying to get them to do.
> The tactics of Ukrainian Army now is to increase death toll as much as possible, so western media can use it in propaganda.
Do you have some sources for this?