Europe at War

[drogulus]

This is wrong. Russia had annexed territories from Poland and Romania, and Estonia as a whole, long before Communism made its entrance, let alone USSR.

    No, it's not wrong. The article made no claim about what Russians understood before Communism, only the difference between the Soviet era and Russians today.

[drogulus]

     I agree that Russian imperialism is supported by TuckPutinists whatever that means in the current political context. There doesn't seem to be anything Russia could do to end that support.

     TPers are not as clever as they think. The Russians did better when the campaign was run out of St. Petersburg in 2016. You'd think the US crankocracy would do better than that.

     

     I almost miss the Russo-trolls from back in the day. At least they didn't put up a pretense of sophistication.

[Herman]

Incorrect.

Why?

I seem to recall you had other plans?

[Madiel]

I seem to recall you had other plans?

Meaning?

I only read about 10% of Todd's posts on here, if that's what you're referring to. If that. And I know he never reads mine, so I'm not actually entering into discussion with him. I have other plans.

[Todd]

Hopefully everyone will be held to account for their war crimes, starting with one Vladimir Vladimirovich Fuckface Putin, the one person in the world who could stop the war right now.

Pro-war propaganda works.

[Madiel]

Pro-war propaganda works.

Incorrect.

[Todd]

Rereading Russian Classics in the Shadow of the Ukraine War: How to reckon with the ideology of "Anna Karenina," "Eugene Onegin," and other beloved books.

Intelligentsia navel gazing from The New Yorker. 

[Karl Henning]

Keep the New Russian Offensive in Perspective

The patience of Ukraine's Western allies may be a decisive factor in the outcome of the war.

The offensive now underway is the result of these efforts, but there is little sign of tactical innovation to be found; the slugfests around Bakhmut and Vuhledar are but smaller-scale replays of Passchendaele or Vimy Ridge in World War I. In addition to the human-wave attacks of Wagner criminals and poorly trained mobiks, the Russians have also committed reconstituted elite units, including several Marine infantry brigades, which were likewise eviscerated in short order as they struck at Ukrainian defenses. While the Russians have probed at multiple spots along the front line, there has been no sign of a major breakthrough. Bakhmut is hanging by a thread and while the town has some operational importance and its loss would complicate Ukrainian lines of communication, the cost in Russian blood exceeds its immediate military value.

Worth remembering, too, that Huggy Bear is on the side of troops continuing to commit war crimes.

[milk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/us-ukraine-war-critical-moment/
U.S. warns Ukraine it faces a pivotal moment in war
As first anniversary nears, White House fears flow of arms may be harder to come by

"...For months, Ukraine has expended significant resources and troops defending Bakhmut in the eastern Donbas region. American military analysts and planners have argued that it is unrealistic to simultaneously defend Bakhmut and launch a spring counteroffensive to retake what the United States views as more critical territory..."
"... Last month, Zelensky's top aide, Andriy Yermak, reiterated that victory against Russia means restoring Ukraine's internationally recognized borders, "including Donbas and Crimea." Anything less is "absolutely unacceptable," he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
U.S. intelligence officials have concluded, however, that retaking the heavily fortified peninsula is beyond the capability of Ukraine's army right now, according to officials familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues. That sobering assessment has been reiterated to multiple committees on Capitol Hill over the last several weeks..."

"... Western and Ukrainian intelligence officials estimate that Russia currently has over 300,000 forces in Ukraine, up from 150,000 initially, with plans to add hundreds of thousands more. The Russian campaign in the spring could see forces pouring over the Belarusian border and cutting off supply lines in western Ukraine that Kyiv has used to bolster its military.
Even seasoned military experts see a wide range of possible outcomes in coming months, underscoring how tenuous the situation is..."

[Que]

There seems to be some points of discussions amongst analists and between the US and Ukraine.

Defending Bakhmut would be a waste of resources by Ukraine. Others point out the Russians will attack somewhere anyway, do why not defend heavily fortified Bakhmut while bleeding the Russian army?

Some on the US side are signalling that Ukraine shouldn't expect to retrieve Crimea. I think this discussion is highly premature and is better left for the endgame. Ukraine might have to retake Crimea, or part of it, to create sufficient leverage at the negotiating table.

There are concerns about continued supply of weapons. This doesn't into account that Russian resources, other than the availability of unmotivated  and poorly trained mobilised recruits, are still dwindling and finally reaching critical levels. And there are still a lot of stored Leopard tanks that can be patched up over the coming months. Plus there is the issue of the F16 fighter planes - plenty of those and they are in the process of replacement anyway.

I don't see a lot of reason for doom and gloom, only increasing political strain in the US over this war. Some Republicans rather waste billions and the lives of thousands of US soldiers on an illegal invasion and destabilising the Middle East than defending freedom and democracy in Europe.

[milk]

There seems to be some points of discussions amongst analists and between the US and Ukraine.

Defending Bakhmut would be a waste of resources by Ukraine. Others point out the Russians will attack somewhere anyway, do why not defend heavily fortified Bakhmut while bleeding the Russian army?

Some on the US side are signalling that Ukraine shouldn't expect to retrieve Crimea. I think this discussion is highly premature and is better left for the endgame. Ukraine might have to retake Crimea, or part of it, to create sufficient leverage at the negotiating table.

There are concerns about continued supply of weapons. This doesn't into account that Russian resources, other than the availability of unmotivated  and poorly trained mobilised recruits, are still dwindling and finally reaching critical levels. And there are still a lot of stored Leopard tanks that can be patched up over the coming months. Plus there is the issue of the F16 fighter planes - plenty of those and they are in the process of replacement anyway.

I don't see a lot of reason for doom and gloom, only increasing political strain in the US over this war. Some Republicans rather waste billions and the lives of thousands of US soldiers on an illegal invasion and destabilising the Middle East than defending freedom and democracy in Europe.

Hate trump as I do, it's ironic that he was willing to criticize the Iraq war (even though he was for it before he was against it, being the craven opportunist that he is). I look for him to criticize this war too. It'll be interesting to see where DeSantis lands.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-02-14/ukraine-seeks-warplanes-nato-talks-ammunition-shortage

"...According to some estimates, Ukraine is firing 6,000 to 7,000 artillery shells each day, around a third of the daily amount that Russia is using. Stoltenberg warned Monday that Ukraine is using up ammunition much faster than its allies can supply it...."

I guess it will be quite a spring and summer and I just wonder if there's really political will beyond then or if they will have to negotiate something after that point no matter what?

[Todd]

Some on the US side are signalling that Ukraine shouldn't expect to retrieve Crimea. I think this discussion is highly premature and is better left for the endgame. Ukraine might have to retake Crimea, or part of it, to create sufficient leverage at the negotiating table.

Russia annexed Crimea.  Whether Europeans or Americans view the annexation as legitimate does not matter.  Retaking Crimea would be seizing Russian sovereign territory.  Something similar may apply in the recently annexed territories.  Russian leaders have been clear that losing sovereign territory would cross a red line and it could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.  Ukraine is not worth that.  Different rules apply to nuclear armed great powers. 

Some Republicans rather waste billions and the lives of thousands of US soldiers on an illegal invasion and destabilising the Middle East than defending freedom and democracy in Europe.

Ukraine is not a treaty ally of the United States so the United States is not obliged to do anything.  It has done far too much already and should cease support and push for a settlement.

US misadventures in the Greater Middle East can properly be viewed as specific policy actions in pursuit of the Carter Doctrine.  Regional destabilization can establish the conditions that prevent the rise of a regional hegemon.  While the US wisely diversified oil import sources since the 70s oil shocks, the impact the region has on global markets warranted US intervention to some extent.  Given the current state of hydrocarbon extraction industries, the US should more rapidly remove itself from so much direct involvement in the region.

The Truman Doctrine no longer applies and was more ill-conceived than the Carter Doctrine, so established rationales to act do not apply.  The Russo-Ukrainian War is not about "freedom and democracy", it is about regional control.  If Europeans are so concerned about defending "freedom and democracy", then they should be responsible and do so.  That Europeans are not doing so and cannot do so is absolutely shameful. 

I don't see a lot of reason for doom and gloom

This statement is detached from reality; this is not an abstract discussion, an online game of Risk.  Hundreds of thousands of people have died.  The very real situation on the ground is hell on earth for people in Ukraine.

Hate trump as I do, it's ironic that he was willing to criticize the Iraq war (even though he was for it before he was against it, being the craven opportunist that he is). I look for him to criticize this war too. It'll be interesting to see where DeSantis lands.

Both parties are war parties.  All viable candidates other than Trump will continue a militaristic foreign policy.

Remember that Trump began arming Ukraine and withdrew from two nuclear arms treaties.  His decisions and actions contributed to this war. 

I guess it will be quite a spring and summer and I just wonder if there's really political will beyond then or if they will have to negotiate something after that point no matter what?

This war will not end in total victory for Ukraine because it cannot end in total victory for Ukraine.  There will be a negotiated settlement at some point this year, or next, or the one after.  When that time comes, it will be something to observe people as they pivot from being staunch war cheerleaders to dedicated settlement aficionados. 

[LKB]

This war will not end in total victory for Ukraine because it cannot end in total victory for Ukraine.  There will be a negotiated settlement at some point this year, or next, or the one after.  When that time comes, it will be something to observe people as they pivot from being staunch war cheerleaders to dedicated settlement aficionados. 

Laughably incorrect.

[Karl Henning]

I don't see a lot of reason for doom and gloom

No, just the need for constancy of resolve and support.

[Karl Henning]

dedicated settlement aficionados

There are few sounds on GMG as amusing as Huggy Bear preemptively patting himself on the back.

[milk]

Laughably incorrect.

I think it's not laughable to posit that there will be a negotiated settlement. It's one reasonable possibility. You think this will end in a total defeat of one side? I wonder if many people think so. I think there is either a stalemate and negotiation at some point or one of the two governments collapses leading to some kind of chaos. But the second scenario doesn't necessarily mean the war ends I guess. I asked this before, but what are the possible outcomes? Someone said that, historically, Russia has had bad first years in their wars and either went on to win or the government in power collapsed.

[Todd]

Laughably incorrect.

You still care despite prior protests to the contrary.  Carry on.

Someone said that, historically, Russia has had bad first years in their wars and either went on to win or the government in power collapsed.

Collapse of the Russian government is a not-so-secret hope of some warmongers.  It has happened before.  I guess the hope is that it's more 1991 than 1917.  Alas, hope is not a strategy.

[Fëanor]

Russia annexed Crimea.  Whether Europeans or Americans view the annexation as legitimate does not matter.  Retaking Crimea would be seizing Russian sovereign territory.  Something similar may apply in the recently annexed territories.  Russian leaders have been clear that losing sovereign territory would cross a red line and it could lead to the use of nuclear weapons.  Ukraine is not worth that.  Different rules apply to nuclear armed great powers. 

Russia more recently "annexed" Donbas regions mainly so it could claim they are Russian sovereign territories => and thereby hint they would be defended with nukes if invaded.  Let's not put the cart before the horse.

To look at it from the opposite point of view, Donbas, and Crimea come to that, aren't worth nuclear war to the powers in Russia, even Putin.  In other words, the threat to use nukes is a bluff except for one caveat:  Putin doesn't believe defending Donbas and Crimea are worth it BUT he might believe that  maintaining is personal power IS worth it.  (If ousted from power Putin wouldn't survive a day out of prison at best.)

Anyway, what is intolerable is that Putin is hoping nuke threat will give Russia impunity to do whatever it wants.  If successful, other nations will try the same strategy.

[Todd]

In other words, the threat to use nukes is a bluff except for one caveat:  Putin doesn't believe defending Donbas and Crimea are worth it BUT he might believe that  maintaining is personal power IS worth it.  (If ousted from power Putin wouldn't survive a day out of prison at best.)

This is sort of all over the place.  For instance, who has seriously discussed putting Putin in prison?  That's an inane aside.  You are still stuck in the great man theory of politics.  While clearly Putin has personal motives, more than personal motives are involved.  Wars always involve more than personal motives. 

You do not know if the threat to use nuclear weapons is a bluff.  You cannot know.  You can believe.  It is dangerous folly to formulate policy on the hopeful assumption that nuclear threats will not be carried out.  Fortunately, from an American perspective, nuclear weapon use would be limited to Ukraine since attacking the US would result in the end of humanity, and everyone knows it.

Anyway, what is intolerable is that Putin is hoping nuke threat will give Russia impunity to do whatever it wants.  If successful, other nations will try the same strategy.

The main purpose of maintaining nuclear weapon stockpiles is to act as a deterrent to other great powers.  In practical terms, they also allow all nuclear powers some freedom of action and the ability to use grotesque threats against other powers.  Russia does it.  The US does it.  Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Trump all threatened, either publicly or privately, to use nuclear weapons against various foes for various reasons.  The US has publicly made it a point to not adopt a no first use policy.  Nuclear blackmail is common and useful.  Even Kim Jong-un knows that.

[Madiel]

Look, I annexed Todd's house months ago. It's mine now. Laughably disappointed at how few of you are making purchase offers. I'm willing to negotiate on price.