Europe at War

[Fëanor]

But there are a few problems with that {giving in to Russian demands}:

• Ukraine forfeits all its national sovereignty;
• Reduction of Ukraine to national serfdom won't be the end of Putin's aggression which would subsequently turn to Moldova, then the Baltics, then maybe Poland;
• It would set the president that nations with nuclear weapons could demand almost anything they want and get it with impunity.

That's highly unlikely.

No so unlikely; certainly not for Moldova in the short run following a "victory" in Ukraine.  (Moldova not being a NATO member and having as significant Russian minority.)

Bear in mind my last point above.  "Victory" in Ukraine would reinforce for Putin his belief in Russian impunity as a nuclear power.  There would be no particular limits to his ambitions.

[Todd]

There would be no particular limits to his ambitions.

There would be practical limits.

[Florestan]

No so unlikely; certainly not for Moldova in the short run following a "victory" in Ukraine.  (Moldova not being a NATO member and having as significant Russian minority.)

Moldova has no border with Russia. To invade Moldova the Russians will have to go through, well, Ukraine.

[drogulus]

   

Yes but we have to take into account the fact that, in Putin's view, Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk "popular republics" are Russian territory.

     We take bluffs into account for what they plainly are. Putin and his TV minions blow hot and cold on nukes like they know it's not working.

     This isn't hard to grok. When Plan A is to threaten the use of nukes, it's not plan B to use them.

     For the purpose of understanding the oddities of selective anti-imperialism, ponder this.

     It totally is/is not US responsibility for deciding who fights in Ukraine on either side. US power overwhelms the agency of all actors everywhere, which is inevitable/evil/none of US business.

     US power is beyond anything and shouldn't be beyond US borders, with a few minor exceptions that will be detailed in the early 22nd century.

     Enough of that. It makes you carsick if you stay with it too long.

     My view is different. The US imperial project has been shaped by many hands and not according to a master plan. What I find peculiar about it is the extraordinarily low amount of force applied to keep it going. Instead the US bribed much of the world to side with it, without fully comprehending that bribery dollars come back. The fallacy of Pure Cost was strong in the '40s. It's even strong today.

     I do place value on open societies cooperating while competing non-violently. Moral/ethical systems have a pragmatic and not metaphysical foundation. Dennett is correct that "being good in order to seem good" is how it works. Reputation goes all the way up from the personal to the imperial level.

     The US isn't well liked and is trusted. Russia is well hated and distrusted. Any agreement with Russia will be in the nature of "we'll stop shooting if you leave now". The Present Russian government has no ability to make agreements beyond what it does in a few days, if that. Substantive agreements that are expected to stick will be among the Europeans and their allies abroad.

   

[Florestan]

Could you please summarize your point in a single sentence, preferably an intelligible one? 

[drogulus]

    Poland will ask permission to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

    Germany will OK this if the US sends Abrams tanks.

    The US will not send Abrams tanks.

    Poland will send the tanks.

    Many nontank armored vehicles are being sent, some with guns as powerful as the ones on tanks. What's significant is that Russian tanks and other armored vehicles will be destroyed. Russian positions will be overrun. The Russian human wave tactics are only useful against an insufficiently armed opponent.

    I said before that Germany wants to be forced to send the tanks. I judge most of the reluctance is of this performative nature.

Could you please summarize your point in a single sentence, preferably an intelligible one? 

     Of course I can. I rendered nonsense in its native language, and you correctly identified it as such.

It totally is/is not US responsibility for deciding who fights in Ukraine on either side. US power overwhelms the agency of all actors everywhere, which is inevitable/evil/none of US business.
 

     The lack of sense or clarity is the point. It's what the sentence is about. OK, it's 2 sentences. I hope that's not too many.

     

[Que]

Poland will ask permission to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

    Germany will OK this if the US sends Abrams tanks.

    The US will not send Abrams tanks.

    Poland will send the tanks.

    Many nontank armored vehicles are being sent, some with guns as powerful as the ones on tanks. What's significant is that Russian tanks and other armored vehicles will be destroyed. Russian positions will be overrun. The Russian human wave tactics are only useful against an insufficiently armed opponent.

    I said before that Germany wants to be forced to send the tanks. I judge most of the reluctance is of this performative nature.

Yes.

As to the endgame... It's hard to predict...

For the forseeable future it is clear that Putin will not relent, will not negotiate. This will continue till Putin is out of options.

I think (speculate) what by then will be on the table for Russia will be Crimea, with resumed water supply but without a marinebasis in Sebastopol, and the lifting of Western sanctions. No forced neutrality of Ukraine, no Donbas...

[Todd]

For the forseeable future it is clear that Putin will not relent, will not negotiate. This will continue till Putin is out of options.

I think (speculate) what by then will be on the table for Russia will be Crimea, with resumed water supply but without a marinebasis in Sebastopol, and the lifting of Western sanctions. No forced neutrality of Ukraine, no Donbas...

How long will this take and how many Ukrainian civilians are you willing to sacrifice for these ends?  And yes, I ask you how many you are willing to sacrifice.  Not Putin.  Not Biden.  Not Zelensky.

[drogulus]

    What can Putin negotiate? What's his word worth to anyone outside Russia, or even inside Russia for that matter?

    By all means Europeans should explore negotiations the way they traditionally do with parties unable or unwilling to negotiate. The shape of the table is where to start.

    We can't hurry negotiations by cutting off Ukraine. I gave my reasons.

[Que]

How long will this take and how many Ukrainian civilians are you willing to sacrifice for these ends?  And yes, I ask you how many you are willing to sacrifice.  Not Putin.  Not Biden.  Not Zelensky.

Wrong question. My opinion is that Ukraine needs to be supported in its decision to defend itself and resist Russian usurpation.

Public support in Ukraine is still overwhelming in favour of fighting to resist Russia. How many lives would the US be willing to sacrifice for its territorial integrity and independence. How many lives would you be willing to sacrifice?

[Karl Henning]

We can't hurry negotiations by cutting off Ukraine.

No, we cannot.

[Todd]

Wrong question.

No, it is the right question, and you did not answer it.  So is the number one million civilians?  Two million civilians?  If you don't want to answer, that's fine. 

Here's another question: do you believe Ukraine is winning?

Public support in Ukraine is still overwhelming in favour of fighting to resist Russia.

How do you know?  Polling data?  Did that include the millions who fled?

How many lives would the US be willing to sacrifice for its territorial integrity and independence. How many lives would you be willing to sacrifice?

This is an irrelevant question.  The US could literally destroy the world to defend itself.  Like Russia.

[drogulus]

    Deutsche Welle is reporting that Germany has given permission for Poland to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

    What a shock, right?

[Que]

No, it is the right question, and you did not answer it.

It's not for me to answer. It's not my sacrifice, nor that of my country, nor that of any other country that supports Ukraine. It's up to the Ukrainians and their government to make this decision.

Here's another question: do you believe Ukraine is winning?

It depends how you define winning. Sofar it has successfully avoided being overrun by Russian troops and defended its independence.

How do you know?  Polling data?  Did that include the millions who fled?

There have indeed been polls.

This is an irrelevant question.  The US could literally destroy the world to defend itself.  Like Russia.

Incorrect. The question might be hypothetical but is relevant.

[drogulus]

    I don't think even GMG Big Brains have the authority to tell the Ukrainians to surrender.

[Todd]

It's not for me to answer.

Actually, it very much is.  I am not asking how many civilians that Ukrainians are willing to sacrifice.  I am explicitly asking you how many you are willing to sacrifice.  The answer relies solely on your judgment. 

So far it has successfully avoided being overrun by Russian troops and defended its independence.

Last I read, Ukraine had lost territory in the east.  Cities across the country have been bombarded, and some all but demolished.  The economy is in shambles.  Millions have fled.  More than 40,000 civilians have died and there have been at least 100,000 military casualties.  The Germans have expressed concerns at Ukrainian losses.  The rosiest outlook has them barely hanging on.  Without total support from the West, meaning overwhelmingly the US, the country would collapse.  That is not winning.

There have indeed been polls.

Yes, and I have seen some of them, and I question both the methodology and samples.  I don't place faith in polls for something like an election, much less for something where potentially millions of lives are on the line.

Incorrect. The question might be hypothetical but is relevant.

No, it is irrelevant.  No country will attack the US precisely because of the American nuclear deterrent.  The US does not have to face choices lesser countries have to face.

[Madiel]

I guess you in Australia can be so "heroic" (still wearing face masks?) to take that risk. I am not. I would have been turned to radioactive dust from "friendly nuclear missiles" if the Cold War had become hot in the 1980s (living between the Rhine and the Fulda gap) and I don't care for the prospect.

No, I'm simply raising it because I seem to remember stories raising doubts about Russia's capacity to keep its nuclear arsenal functioning.

[drogulus]

    The CIA director recently visited the Ukes to tell them what Russia is going to do, and what the US will do as well. Russia is going to try to launch a spring offensive, which will amount to a half a million man march from the north, south and east. The US is going to provide detailed info on the location of Russian forces so Ukraine can respond effectively with the better weapons it's getting.

    There's some doubt about how big the Russian buildup will be. It may fall well short of the headline number.

    The Wagner Group has about 10,000 fighters left from its recruitment drive. Tens of thousands are dead, missing or captured.

[Madiel]

Yes but we have to take into account the fact that, in Putin's view, Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk "popular republics" are Russian territory.

In Putin's view, Ukraine is not a real country or nationality and the Ukrainian language is just Russian with a strange accent.

As previously mentioned, he is the kind of Russian who blames Ukrainian nationalism on the Austrians in the 19th century putting silly ideas in the heads of the folk in Lviv, and who claims Kyiv as the homeland of the Rus. Which it is, he just skips the part where the Russians are not actually descended from the Rus.

[Que]

Ukraine expects to get 100 Leopard 2 tanks from 12 countries, once Germany approves: Senior Ukrainian official

Interesting news. Ukraine had asked for 300 Western tanks,  but according to military experts a hundred could make a decisive difference in addition to the armored fight vehicles already promised.