Europe at War

[JBS]

However, the misconception may be that Pute cares about these numbers; or even about them getting limited whispering circulation in Russia.

If you look at the regular mortality numbers, the median age of death for Russian men, it's not like anyone in the Kremlin leadership gives a d*mn.

All the men around Pute are hugely rich thanks to him, so they are not going to do away with him. They want to get richer yet.

These stories that Pute's days are numbered are (perhaps) just wishful thinking in the West, and, in a way, our form of propaganda.

Part of the point of individualized sanctions is to impede the ability of the elite to access/increase their riches, and get them into a frame of mind that sees Putin's continued control as a danger to their riches--and getting rid of Putin as a necessary measure for accessing/increasing their riches.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Part of the point of individualized sanctions is to impede the ability of the elite to access/increase their riches, and get them into a frame of mind that sees Putin's continued control as a danger to their riches--and getting rid of Putin as a necessary measure for accessing/increasing their riches.

Agreed.

Earlier today I was reading an article on CNN's website questioning what the likelihood is that Belorussia will get involved in the fight (further than their current abetting).  Has anyone here heard much more about the likelihood of this?

PD

[MusicTurner]

Agreed.

Earlier today I was reading an article on CNN's website questioning what the likelihood is that Belorussia will get involved in the fight (further than their current abetting).  Has anyone here heard much more about the likelihood of this?

PD

It has been going back and forth all the time with the probability. But there's agreement that the morale among Belarus soldiers would be very low.

There are quite a lot of stories about the Russians not being able to use any railroads from Belarus into Ukraine, because Belarus railroad staff are discreetly sabotaging the systems.

[drogulus]

Both sides are loosing.

     Both sides are losing a great deal, but one side is losing the war. Russia can't adequately reinforce or resupply its troops, so they are being ground down. Time favors Ukraine, as it is continually being resupplied with everything it needs to fight successfully, even if it's not being supplied with everything it wants.

[Mandryka]

     Both sides are losing a great deal, but one side is losing the war. Russia can't adequately reinforce or resupply its troops, so they are being ground down. Time favors Ukraine, as it is continually being resupplied with everything it needs to fight successfully, even if it's not being supplied with everything it wants.

Wishful thinking

[Herman]

Wishful thinking

That's what I'm thinking. We're reading the desired outcome in the little info we get.

It's true Pute's losing the ground war, but he'll just up the bombing ante till there's nothing left.

He knows he's toast if Ukraine can claim to have beaten him. So it's all of nothing for Pute.

[drogulus]

Wishful thinking

     It doesn't matter what I wish. There are conflicting estimates for how long Russia can continue to fight. Russia could be catastrophically depleted quickly or slowly, depending on a number of factors. If Russia just wants to maintain its front lines they can hold on longer than if they commit to large scale offensive operations to take more territory. The Ukrainian counterattack is proceeding slowly because Ukraine doesn't have a large enough army to take advantage of the defensive success, and the civilian forces are not offensive in nature. So, the tide slowly turns, until perhaps at some point it quickly turns.

It's true Pute's losing the ground war, but he'll just up the bombing ante till there's nothing left.

     He will, and it won't work. The entire west of Ukraine is a sanctuary for the Uke armed forces from which to stage attacks on the dwindling Russian forces. But I don't think it will come to that, because the Russians haven't even managed to take Kharkiv, which is right next to Russia itself.

     

[Herman]

Hopefully you're right.

[amw]

The Russians haven't really tried to take any cities outside the southeast fronts. Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Chernihiv, etc, have been besieged and they fire enough missiles/artillery shells to keep the defenders' heads down, but there's been no evidence of Russian forces actually entering any of those cities except for the odd special forces brigade. Mariupol is an example of them actually trying to take a city and they've turned it into Groznyy: half the city has been bombed into pieces, the other half is on fire, and Russian forces have supposedly "evacuated" 60,000 civilians to Rostov and Donetsk (whether they had any choice in the matter is of course highly unclear). They evidently have the capacity to do the same to any other city in the country, and this will probably also happen to the remaining major Donbas towns (Severodonetsk, Lysychansk, Kramatorsk, Slavyansk, etc). But obviously if they keep destroying cities they lose any potential leverage in peace talks: hard to say "give us a military base in Odessa [or whatever] or we'll destroy the city" when you've already destroyed the city.

I do think the territorial encroachment phase of the war is almost entirely over and what's left now is jockeying for positions. I don't foresee significant Russian advances and don't expect any major Ukrainian reversals; they're aware Russia's weak point is its supply lines and logistics, and are presumably focusing on cutting those rather than trying to hit the Russians on the front lines where they're strongest.

I don't really think it makes sense to talk about losing or winning a war in this context. In an offensive war the invader doesn't have win or loss conditions so much as objectives, and the question is how many of those objectives can be achieved—and since Russia has already achieved some of its objectives, it hasn't "lost"; it just hasn't gained quite as much as it was hoping to. But in almost every aggressive war the invader will have at least one objective that they achieved, and can therefore treat as a "victory", unless the defender can keep them from crossing the border in the first place.

[Spotted Horses]

     Both sides are losing a great deal, but one side is losing the war. Russia can't adequately reinforce or resupply its troops, so they are being ground down. Time favors Ukraine, as it is continually being resupplied with everything it needs to fight successfully, even if it's not being supplied with everything it wants.

It is not being resupplied with replacements for destroyed apartment blocks, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, airports, universities, and slaughtered human beings.

[amw]

It is not being resupplied with replacements for destroyed apartment blocks, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, airports, universities, and slaughtered human beings.

Also this. I doubt any of the Western countries selflessly donating Javelins and Bayraktars right now are, in a few weeks, going to be supplying Ukraine with new infrastructure and healthcare workers for the injured/traumatised and so on. At best they'll have the IMF offer some low-interest loans with only a few minor preconditions, and at worst Joe Biden will retweet Zelensky's gofundme with a "please donate" caption.

[drogulus]

     

It is not being resupplied with replacements for destroyed apartment blocks, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, airports, universities, and slaughtered human beings.

      I didn't talk about that.

Also this. I doubt any of the Western countries selflessly donating Javelins and Bayraktars right now are, in a few weeks, going to be supplying Ukraine with new infrastructure and healthcare workers for the injured/traumatised and so on. At best they'll have the IMF offer some low-interest loans with only a few minor preconditions, and at worst Joe Biden will retweet Zelensky's gofundme with a "please donate" caption.

     Whatever help is rendered won't be enough.

     I don't think anything I said about the Russian defeat is altered by these other considerations.

[Madiel]

One missile??  Nope.  And with any attack using old Soviet era weapons, some went astray and hit the city/civilian areas.

Statements like this are just random speculative assertions.

[MusicTurner]

The exact helping measures are impossible to know now, given the uncertainess after ongoing events. If a part of Ukraine survives as 'Western', with EU prospects, and the situation otherwise remains relatively 'normal', the EU can't afford it being a frustrated wasteland. One of the problems with donations is the amount of corruption in Ukraine; not many years ago it was estimated as 50% of the economy, but things have gotten better (also witnessed by Danish companies working there). However there would have to be some sort of very strict control system. I imagine that in some hidden corners of the EU offices, people are working on possible scenarios right now.

[Mandryka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmXKNzIYHtk&t=856s&ab_channel=UnHerd

Maybe worth hearing.

[BasilValentine]

The Russians haven't really tried to take any cities outside the southeast fronts. Kharkiv, Mykolaiv, Chernihiv, etc, have been besieged and they fire enough missiles/artillery shells to keep the defenders' heads down, but there's been no evidence of Russian forces actually entering any of those cities except for the odd special forces brigade. Mariupol is an example of them actually trying to take a city and they've turned it into Groznyy: half the city has been bombed into pieces, the other half is on fire, and Russian forces have supposedly "evacuated" 60,000 civilians to Rostov and Donetsk (whether they had any choice in the matter is of course highly unclear). They evidently have the capacity to do the same to any other city in the country, and this will probably also happen to the remaining major Donbas towns (Severodonetsk, Lysychansk, Kramatorsk, Slavyansk, etc). But obviously if they keep destroying cities they lose any potential leverage in peace talks: hard to say "give us a military base in Odessa [or whatever] or we'll destroy the city" when you've already destroyed the city.

I do think the territorial encroachment phase of the war is almost entirely over and what's left now is jockeying for positions. I don't foresee significant Russian advances and don't expect any major Ukrainian reversals; they're aware Russia's weak point is its supply lines and logistics, and are presumably focusing on cutting those rather than trying to hit the Russians on the front lines where they're strongest.

I don't really think it makes sense to talk about losing or winning a war in this context. In an offensive war the invader doesn't have win or loss conditions so much as objectives, and the question is how many of those objectives can be achieved—and since Russia has already achieved some of its objectives, it hasn't "lost"; it just hasn't gained quite as much as it was hoping to. But in almost every aggressive war the invader will have at least one objective that they achieved, and can therefore treat as a "victory", unless the defender can keep them from crossing the border in the first place.

The Russians have tried to take Kyiv since the beginning of the invasion and expected to do it in a matter of a few days. The prime objective was to depose the government in its seat. It's ridiculous to say they haven't tried just because they have as yet so spectacularly failed to achieve their objectives.

They've been hitting Russia's main armored forces for weeks. What war are you following?

"Hasn't gained quite as much as it was hoping to?" Oh please! What an absurd understatement. They've been humiliated. 

[Madiel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmXKNzIYHtk&t=856s&ab_channel=UnHerd

Maybe worth hearing.

Or maybe not. I went looking for information about this channel that you're fond of. The funniest description was " the kind of people who are generally "unheard" because people edge away from them at parties."

A quick look at the front page of their website threw up several articles about what's wrong with "The Left" and some favourite targets about university education and trans people. The origins as a site privately funded by a conservative backer are pretty apparent.

[JBS]

Mr Roggio is part of an outfit called the Long War Journal, which apparently qualifies as a "neo-con" outlet for some people.

His own credentials are [per Wikipedia]

Roggio served in the United States Army and the New Jersey National Guard as a signalman and infantryman. He uses his military experience to add strategic, operational, and tactical level context to the journal's reports.

[Todd]

The Toll of Economic War

How Sanctions on Russia Will Upend the Global Order

A well written, concise, thoughtful explanation of the impacts - actual and potential - of current and potential new sanctions.  The impact to developing countries cannot be dismissed and the self-harming outcomes in high income countries cannot be ignored.  The brief summary of sanctions of the 30s also implies that the US and its allies may have ended up severely limiting options that can be used with China in the event the Chinese government does anything The West finds unsavory in the near term future. 

[amw]

The Russians have tried to take Kyiv since the beginning of the invasion and expected to do it in a matter of a few days. The prime objective was to depose the government in its seat. It's ridiculous to say they haven't tried just because they have as yet so spectacularly failed to achieve their objectives.

They brought one massive armoured column from Belarus into the Kiev suburbs in the first three days of the war. That column has pretty much held position along an axis stretching roughly from Borodyanka to Brovary—it hasn't advanced, and it hasn't withdrawn. It hasn't attacked Kiev itself (all Russian attacks on the city seem to have been aerial or cruise missile based). From that I do think it's possible to deduce that the entire Kiev-area front line is a feint and Russian forces do not actually intend to attack from that axis, at least not at present. Similarly, I would categorise Russia's claim that it is enacting regime change in Ukraine as, well, Russian propaganda. I doubt it was ever capable of doing that. (Even the USA would find it hard to depose a foreign leader with a 73 percent approval rating.)

They've been hitting Russia's main armored forces for weeks. What war are you following?

The one where Ukrainian citizens on social media frequently and independently post about their experiences, e.g., "hiding in a shelter right now in Ivankiv because about a hundred Russian tanks just came through here", which generally acts as a more trustworthy source than either the Ukrainian MFA/allied news outlets ("The Ukrainian military just retook Ivankiv for the seventh time this week! Incidentally, NATO, how's that no-fly zone coming along") or the Russian MFA/allied news outlets ("We have never heard of Ivankiv and there are definitely no Russian troops anywhere near it. Incidentally, if chemical weapons happen to be used later today, we didn't do it")

Objectives the Russians have (objectively) fulfilled include reopening the water pipeline from the Dnipro to Crimea, establishing a land corridor from Crimea to Donetsk and gaining total control of the Sea of Azov. Perhaps they have many more goals as well, but those are the ones that were quickly and efficiently achieved within the first week or so of the war. I don't think one can start saying that they're losing until those achievements are reversed.