Europe at War

[drogulus]

     Fun fact: Ukraine now has more tanks than they had when the war began.

     The notion is widespread that the US/NATO is using Ukraine to bleed Russia white by discouraging peace talks, ceasefire, whatever. I think it's likely that it's Zelensky that is bleeding Russia white and US/NATO is reluctant to get more involved than it is, so he's pissed. He's not pissed because the West is fighting to the last Ukrainian (the left luvvs that narrative), it's because they won't go as far as he wants to go.

[BasilValentine]

     Fun fact: Ukraine now has more tanks than they had when the war began.

     The notion is widespread that the US/NATO is using Ukraine to bleed Russia white by discouraging peace talks, ceasefire, whatever. I think it's likely that it's Zelensky that is bleeding Russia white and US/NATO is reluctant to get more involved than it is, so he's pissed. He's not pissed because the West is fighting to the last Ukrainian (the left luvvs that narrative), it's because they won't go as far as he wants to go.

I agree. But it does seem ridiculous that they can't get Ukrainian pilots into Poland (or Germany if one enjoys a pointless complication) to fly the fighters back. And supplying all the anti-ship and antiaircraft armaments available should be a no-brainer as well.

[drogulus]

I agree. But it does seem ridiculous that they can't get Ukrainian pilots into Poland (or Germany if one enjoys a pointless complication) to fly the fighters back. And supplying all the anti-ship and antiaircraft armaments available should be a no-brainer as well.

     Yes, that's how I see it. Zelensky wants victory then peace. Russia must never do this again. He appears to have wide support among the public, including the opposition in the parliament.

     Counterattack news: The Ukes are advancing near Sumy, Kharkiv and Mariupol.

[amw]

Tbf, if Ukraine could beat back Russian forces without being a member or official ally of NATO, that would demonstrate that there's limited need for NATO to exist in the first place, because the "Russian threat" is evidently not in fact much of a threat at all. So I doubt Western powers want that to happen either.

But as always I guess we'll see how things play out.

[JBS]

Tbf, if Ukraine could beat back Russian forces without being a member or official ally of NATO, that would demonstrate that there's limited need for NATO to exist in the first place, because the "Russian threat" is evidently not in fact much of a threat at all. So I doubt Western powers want that to happen either.

But as always I guess we'll see how things play out.

Some NATO nations do not have nukes. Russia does.  There will be a NATO for quite some time to come.

[milk]

Interesting interview with a purported military expert explaining in detail why the Russians aren't capable of controlling the skies over the Ukraine.
https://youtu.be/5-cxFQUkfac

[drogulus]

Tbf, if Ukraine could beat back Russian forces without being a member or official ally of NATO, that would demonstrate that there's limited need for NATO to exist in the first place, because the "Russian threat" is evidently not in fact much of a threat at all. So I doubt Western powers want that to happen either.

But as always I guess we'll see how things play out.

     Isn't it remarkable how every possible outcome proves with geometric logic how NATO is not needed!

     NATO won the war without firing a shot. I might complain about the drip feed to Ukraine, but its a pretty damn impressive result.

[BasilValentine]

It is intrinsically provocative.

Dictionaries are excellent reference tools.

It is modern siege warfare.

That's drama-queeneese for rough diplomacy. Modern siege warfare is what's happening in Mariupol. It's the kind where people die.

[Que]

     Yes, that's how I see it. Zelensky wants victory then peace. Russia must never do this again. He appears to have wide support among the public, including the opposition in the parliament.

I think he's right. Putin will only show up at the negotiating table when he realises that he is not just not winning, but losing. The way things are going, things can only get worse for Putin. It seems low morale is taken a toll on his troops, with reports of mutinies, surrenders and abandonment of equipment.

     

Counterattack news: The Ukes are advancing near Sumy, Kharkiv and Mariupol.

There was some news before of an assault to retake Kherson, haven't heard much about that.

[Todd]

Dictionaries are excellent reference tools.

Yes.

That's drama-queeneese for rough diplomacy. Modern siege warfare is what's happening in Mariupol. It's the kind where people die.

The sanctions in place now are causing increasing harm to Russian citizens, more than to Putin or the so-called Oligarchs.  The sanctions are designed to harm the general population.  The sanctions in place also will impact the rest of the world, with the greatest impact to the poorest people, which has not escaped the President:

Ukraine invasion: Biden warns of significant food shortage risk following sanctions on Russia

As sanctions bite Russia, fertilizer shortage imperils world food supply

Various academics, ethicists, etc have been writing about economic sanctions and how they are the modern equivalent of siege warfare since at least the 90s.  Here's a recent article from Joy Gordon, who has been writing about the subject for decades:

Russia, Ukraine, and the Demise of Smart Sanctions

What is striking about the sanctions against Russia is the complete abandonment of any legitimate claim to being "smart."  Certainly, the language of "targeting" is used, and the sanctions on named individuals, such as Putin, convey the sense that the wrongdoer himself will suffer.  However, everything about the many-layered sanctions regimes against Russia operates to the contrary.  The old, "dumb," comprehensive sanctions, particularly the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, were castigated for the ways in which they resembled siege warfare: ineffective because as resources dry up, whatever remains will be captured by the wealthy and political and military leaders; and unethical because  those who are most vulnerable, such as infants and children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor, will have few options, and will struggle to survive. The damage is not indiscriminate. Rather, it is counter-discriminate. Those who suffer first, and worst, are those with the least responsibility for their state's policies; while those who suffer least and last are the powerful and the wealthy, the corrupt officials and black marketeers.

This is roughly what we have seen in the case of Russia.   The narrative being put forward by the sanctioning countries is that Putin and the oligarchs in his inner circle are the ones feeling the sting of sanctions: "Officials are moving to seize their houses, yachts and private jets around the world. French officials on Thursday snatched the superyacht of Igor Sechin, the chief executive of Rosneft, the Russian state oil giant."3  The UK imposed measures on "Putin's closest circle, and wealthy Russians who enjoy high-rolling London lifestyles."4 But there are carve-outs for Russian energy exports, in particular, to avoid a crisis in the EU, which is heavily dependent on Russian oil and gas, as well to avoid destabilizing global oil prices.  Income will continue to flow to some of the wealthiest Russians with controlling interests in the country's major energy companies.

In addition, the sanctions are constructed in such a way as to ensure Western entities get what they need in certain areas.  The ongoing sale of oil to multiple European countries is an obvious and well-known case, but the US Treasury has even seen fit to figure out a way to ensure that US financial institutions get repaid for a few more months:

In war times, there are myriad extra wrinkles. Due to the sanctions the West has placed against Russia, the country is isolated from most of the global banking system. The U.S. Treasury has offered Russia a loophole to pay its dollar-denominated debt until the end of May; it is unclear what happens after that.

The longer the sanctions regime carries on, the more regular and poor people around the world will suffer.  Perhaps part of the strategy is to impose additional international pressure on Russia, but that will still result in the obvious suffering of people who have nothing to do with the war.  But that is always the case with war.  What is intriguing, though not new, is how all manner of people now choose to deny this reality. 

[Florestan]

In the circles of the Romanian conservative Right (which is different from, and opposed to, the Romanian liberal Right) the prevalent notions are that (1) Zelensky is just as guilty as Putin for prolonging the war, because he (Zelenski, that is) leads an armed resistance against Russians thus causing civilians to die and cities to be destroyed and (2) this is not Romania's war and we should be absolutely neutral. Both are fallacies.

(1) is all the more untenable as it comes from people who miss no opportunity to trumpet their patriotism and love of fatherland. Why, Zelensky is precisely a patriot who loves his fatherland and fight for it in words and deeds. What should he have done? Surrender Ukraine to Russians without shooting one single bullet? Well, I guess that's exactly what these Romanian "patriots" would do in case that, God forbid!, Russia attacked us --- I mean, those who would have not left the country immediately.

I firmly believe that the only genuinely patriotic Romanian policy today is to hold fast to NATO and EU, to liberal democracy, free market and civil liberties.

(2) is equally wrong. We are not, cannot and should not be neutral. First, we are part and parcel of NATO and EU so we should and would stand by their common policies. Second, we cannot be neutral between an aggressive and militaristic dictatorship and an imperfectly democratic country; between an invader and the invaded; between war criminals and civilians trying to save their lives by fleeing or to repel the invaders by naked hands. We are not part of the military conflict (nor is any other NATO and EU country), but we are part and parcel of the ideological, cultural, political and economic conflict. Ever since 1848 we rejected the Ottoman and Russian yoke and cast our lot with the West, for better or worse; and now when we are part and parcel of the West, the self-proclaimed "patriots" would like us to stay neutral between the West and Russia. No way!

[Todd]

Ukraine ready to discuss adopting neutral status in Russia peace deal, Zelenskiy says

[drogulus]

     I checked in with Natasha, a Russian YTer I've followed for some time to learn about her life in the far east (Khabarovsk).

     https://www.youtube.com/v/jJplFVLQ85M&t

      Regarding sanctions on Russia, the decision has been made that Russians having nothing to do with the wars Putin starts has not been a positive thing and should be changed, preferably by Russians themselves, of course.

     It's about 70 miles from NATO to St. Petersburg, and about 75 miles from NATO to Minsk. Given the alternative, we should give sanctions a try.

[drogulus]

     Ukraine will never be neutral between the invader and its informal allies. That said, an agreement on paper neutrality might save face and lives.

[Mandryka]

Yes.


The sanctions in place now are causing increasing harm to Russian citizens, more than to Putin or the so-called Oligarchs.  The sanctions are designed to harm the general population.  The sanctions in place also will impact the rest of the world, with the greatest impact to the poorest people, which has not escaped the President:

Ukraine invasion: Biden warns of significant food shortage risk following sanctions on Russia

As sanctions bite Russia, fertilizer shortage imperils world food supply

Various academics, ethicists, etc have been writing about economic sanctions and how they are the modern equivalent of siege warfare since at least the 90s.  Here's a recent article from Joy Gordon, who has been writing about the subject for decades:

Russia, Ukraine, and the Demise of Smart Sanctions

In addition, the sanctions are constructed in such a way as to ensure Western entities get what they need in certain areas.  The ongoing sale of oil to multiple European countries is an obvious and well-known case, but the US Treasury has even seen fit to figure out a way to ensure that US financial institutions get repaid for a few more months:



The longer the sanctions regime carries on, the more regular and poor people around the world will suffer.  Perhaps part of the strategy is to impose additional international pressure on Russia, but that will still result in the obvious suffering of people who have nothing to do with the war.  But that is always the case with war.  What is intriguing, though not new, is how all manner of people now choose to deny this reality.

Thanks for these links.

[MusicTurner]

- Bellingcat seems to confirm earlier rumours: that Shoigu and possibly Putin, plus other Russian elite members, are currently staying in nuclear bunkers in the Ural. It has only been deduced via flight trackings though.

- Novaya Gazeta closing down after more warnings, at least during the current war.

- Carlsberg pulling out of Russia after nationalization rumours and public pressure in the West. They have 1/4 of the Russian beer market and will sell their business there (maybe almost 3 billion Euros value). Heineken pulling out as well.

- Russia introducing further entry restrictions for travellers from 'unfriendly nations' category.

- Abramovich and two Ukrainian peace talk members allegedly exposed of poisoning during talks in Kyiv (cf. Bellingcat). EDIT: US intelligence officially thinks that it was just indoor climate problems.

[drogulus]

     
     Colonel General Mizintsev, hero of Mariupol, turns on the charm.

     https://www.youtube.com/v/h7jfjGvxhvI&t

[Herman]

Somehow Carlsberg and Heineken pulling out of Russia does not hit me in the same way as reading that Putin and his buddies have moved to nuclear bunkers behind the Ural mts.

[MusicTurner]

Indeed, but the first rumours came already at the start of the invasion - if so, it had been prepared in advance. Maybe they'll stay there for years anyway, simply because of the level of paranoia, and be gradually forgotten ... ? That's one attractive option in such a scenario at least, though not very likely ...

Someone, seal the door!

[Karl Henning]

Jonathan V. Last:

2. Regime Change

These three things are simultaneously true:

(1) There is no way to re-normalize Russia's place in the world until Putin is gone.

(2) America's strategic choices should be designed to make it harder for him to hold power.

(3) No one in the American government should say this out loud because doing so makes is easier for Putin to rally internal Russian opinion by framing the conflict not as "Putin against the world," but as "Americanskis against Russia."

Thus it was unhelpful when Lindsey Graham talked about having Putin assassinated a few weeks ago and it was unhelpful when Biden said this weekend: "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power."

Not the end of the world. But unhelpful. It was good that the administration walked Biden's statement back. You and I can say that regime change is America's ultimate goal in Russia. Officials in the U.S. government should keep that talk behind closed doors.

Yet in toto, the administration's handling of this crisis remains solid. A month into the war:

>The NATO/EU alliance against Russia remains solid and unified.

>Sanctions on Russia are crushing its economy and inflicting tremendous pain on the country.

>The combined response has made the Chinese wary of holding hands too tightly with Putin and created the beginnings of a wedge between the two countries.

>The military aid pipeline has functioned well and given Ukrainians effective weaponry.

>The real-time intelligence pipeline from NATO to Ukraine is functioning well enough that Russian generals keep getting popped.

>Russian losses are staggering—far above what anyone predicted going into the conflict.

>Ukraine has held all major cities and even begun counter-offensives west of Kyiv.

>Putin's inner circle has lapsed into the dangerous realm of recriminations and disappearances.

>Belarus has thus far resisted involvement, contra Putin's wishes, because doing could destabilize Putin's sole in-theater ally.

>Despite threats, Putin has not escalated into the use of either chemical or nuclear weapons. He has not expanded the conflict to Moldova. And he has not struck into NATO, despite suggesting that he might do so.

>The Biden administration's handling of this crisis has not been perfect.

>But it is hard to see how Ukraine or the West could be in a better position than they are right now. And while most of the credit for this state goes to the Ukrainian people, a not-insignificant amount of credit should go to Biden's team, too.