Ukraine

[zolotiyeruki]

For the last couple months, Russian forces have been digging miles of trenches with excavators and installing countless "dragon's teeth" anti-tank obstacles all across the front lines. This is what some of those obstacles look like after maybe two months:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130685/-Ukraine-Those-dragon-teeth-are-even-more-useless-than-I-thought

And if they fail to stop tanks, they double as Russian tombstones.

THAT is a BRILLIANT idea.

[Vashy]

Those damn smokers:

https://twitter.com/KyivPost/status/1601148421121134593

[Just Joe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnS5-0ZCw3E

Check out the explorsions...

[PeteD01]

Looking beyond the current situation in Ukraine, this article provides some insight into objectives western powers are likely pursuing in the Russo-Ukrainian war:

A ‘Morgenthau Plan’ for Russia: Avoiding Post-1991 Mistakes in Dealing With a Post-Putin Russia (Part One)
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 19 Issue: 179
By: Sergey Sukhankin
December 1, 2022 05:34 PM

Moscow’s all-out war of aggression against Ukraine, which commenced on February 24, has vividly demonstrated that Russia’s militarism and drive toward colonial expansion has not disappeared. This has, in turn, revealed that arguments supporting the notion that economic growth and inclusion in major international organizations would bring stability and normalization to Russia have largely failed. The war against Ukraine has also underscored the bitter reality that Russia is indeed the number-one threat to European security. Additionally, the conflict has revealed a staggering discrepancy between the pre-war image of Russia, which was skillfully crafted by Moscow`s own propaganda and the Kremlin`s open and tacit supporters in the West, and the woeful reality, that of a deeply corrupt, criminalized, economically weakened and militarily archaic country.


https://jamestown.org/program/a-morgenthau-plan-for-russia-avoiding-post-1991-mistakes-in-dealing-with-a-post-putin-russia-part-one/

A ‘Morgenthau Plan’ for Russia: Avoiding Post-1991 Mistakes in Dealing With a Post-Putin Russia (Part Two)
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 19 Issue: 183
By: Sergey Sukhankin
December 8, 2022 06:32 PM

First, for its own good and for the sake of its neighbors’ security, Russia must suffer a complete military defeat in its war of aggression against Ukraine. This might result in a collapse of the current political regime and the drastic reduction of Russia’s conventional military potential. For this, Ukrainian forces must be provided with all necessary equipment, including modern air defense systems, artillery systems, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems, battle tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, combat aircraft and anti-ship missiles in the demanded quantities (Twitter.com/oleksiireznikov, April 26). Additionally, Ukraine should be granted membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) right away without delay. Luckily, awareness is rising among Western leaders that any “diplomatic solution” aimed at “saving face” for Russia—initially backed by many European politicians (Delfi, June 4)—will not halt Russia`s militarism in the long run. This was recently underscored by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, among others (The Moscow Times, November 25).


https://jamestown.org/program/a-morgenthau-plan-for-russia-avoiding-post-1991-mistakes-in-dealing-with-a-post-putin-russia-part-two/

[Radagast]

The Russians seem to be masterful retreaters. In all the history I've read they should have taken devastating losses as they pulled back from Kyiv, much greater than they did. I chalked it up to Ukraine at the time and in the area being severely out gunned and outnumbered to the point it made no sense to pursue even slightly. But the same thing happened in Kherson: the Russians should have been demolished. They were on the wrong side of a large river, their enemy had good aerial reconnaissance and advanced artillery, and the Russians were outnumbered and out gunned. But again they got basically everyone and everything back across the river in relatively good order. Like, based on how well they do everything else, you would never guess how well the Russians retreat. If this were a computer game, their faction characteristic would be "+20 morale when retreating." This unfortunately does make it harder for Ukraine, because the Russians (if they were smart) are in their first moderately defensible position of the war.

[Radagast]

OK, so how and when does this end? It's been brought up before, but not recently. Militarily Russia will have lost when the Oryx list https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html totals somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 vehicles, simply because at that point Russia will have nothing left. Even if they mobilize more men they will have nothing to fight with. That will likely occur sometime between the 1 and 2 year anniversary of the war, and I have been predicting the 2nd quarter of 2023. Does anyone have a different time frame they think is more likely?

But that doesn't end hostilities. Russia can continue lobbing all the missiles and drones it can get its hands on over the border essentially forever. Russia can send chumps with second rate rifles forever. Essentially it will be reduced to large scale state sponsored terrorism, doubly so if Ukraine is restrained from attacking back. If that happens eventually the hostilities may end in a manner favorable to Russia to some degree, unless Russia realizes there is a compelling reason to end hostilities on equal footing. Ukraine will need leverage, or at least a carrot, to avoid a territorial loss. Other issues Ukraine could want might include returning kidnapped Ukrainian citizens, turning over Russian war criminals, and reparations. I have some ideas for what Ukraine can do to end the war more favorably:
Possible Leverage:
Blockade of Russian Black Sea ports to get concessions
Destroy Russian militarily so badly Ukraine can start seizing parts of Russia and trade (which likely requires self sufficiency in weapons and ammo)

Possible Carrots:
End of Western sanctions
Return of Russian government funds held overseas
Russia gets land even if only the extreme eastern tip where there is an oddball rail line passing through on its way to Russia from Russia.

My guess is that the best case for Ukraine is getting back kidnapped citizens and taken territory, but no war criminals turned over and no reparations. I am not even sure I support reparations except seizure of existing Russian overseas funds. I don't think burdening future Russians with the bills of past Russians is a good way to build a better future, so I personally would not support ongoing reparations. I'd rather pay to rebuild Ukraine myself with like minded others and through my taxes, so that the future can be built on generosity.

Personally I see little chance of a Russian victory, I think the best they can do is hang onto a chunk of land in exchange for a host of other concessions.
A black swan is Russia collapsing, and everything goes out the window.
Another black swan is China suddenly turns it into a proxy war and supplies Russia with all the equipment it could ever need in endless quantities, fighting Ukraine and the West to the last Russian.

Thoughts?

[gooki]

It'll be interesting to know if Russia will continue the conflict if they're pushed out of Ukraine. Russia is out ranged in artillery, so their main weapon of war will have little effect. Well placed fortifications will prevent troop movements into Ukraine. So that basically means missiles and drones to terrorize Ukrainian civilians. But that goes both ways, Ukraine could continue to hit Russian military targets in Russia.

An internationally agreed duty on Russian oil and gas is the most likely way Ukraine will get reparations if they can't come to an agreement with Russia.

[Sibley]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

[Travis]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

This is what keeps Kazakhstan awake at night. They seem genuinely concerned that they'll be next whether Russia wins in Ukraine or not. 

[pecunia]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

This is what keeps Kazakhstan awake at night. They seem genuinely concerned that they'll be next whether Russia wins in Ukraine or not.

The Russians have troops in Moldova and Georgia.  I'll bet those countries are very worried about being invaded by Mordor.  This may not end until NATO troops ensure Russia does not expand.  It looks like all the European countries (& Japan) see it that way too as many are increasing their defense spending.  However this Ukraine war turns out, this war may have weakened the Russian empire for a generation.

[Travis]

New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html

[BicycleB]

New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html

Wow, fantastic article!

[dividendman]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

[nereo]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

[BNgarden]

New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html

Wow, fantastic article!

Note though, Phillips P. OBrien's quibble / concern with the by now disproved, continuing narrative about Russia's assumed military strength and Ukraine's supposed laxity/ lack thereof, in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1527719118438289409?s=20&t=NvL6077vWYMoh4g4QQdT8g

Sorry, no threadreader unroll available.

[dividendman]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

Yeah, I know. I'm just saying it's so crazy. People are dying. It's depressing.

I feel like... I don't know, it just seems absurd that people die for these things.

People die because of religion. People die because other people are sad or depressed. People die for associating with other people. People die for being the wrong color/sex/trait. People die because people want to expand borders.

People just love killing people I guess.

What's even more depressing is that we live in the least homicidal times of human history and it's still like this.

[LennStar]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

Ukraines East was the industrial center of the USSR. Like the steel factory that the defenders of Mariupol holded for weeks.
And that they have so much land is not of much use if nobody wants to live there. Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter. They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.

[RWD]

Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter.

I'm kind of skeptical. The Mir mine is over 1200 km away from Iruktsk (and it's the closest one I could find). It's the oldest diamond mine in the region which dates back to 1957. But Irkutsk was founded in 1661 and already had a population of around 350,000 people by 1957. I have a hard time believing half a million people would live there just because of the diamond trade.

They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.

You're not thinking of Yakutsk, are you? Irkutsk doesn't get quite that cold (about 20C difference in winter on average).
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329955-russia-cars-extreme-frosts

[Michael in ABQ]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

[zolotiyeruki]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

How much of that industrial capacity is left in the occupied areas?  There's not a whole lot left of Azovstal.  As for farmland, well, who's gonna farm it?  The Ukrainians have left those areas or been kidnapped into Russia.

This is an ego trip for Putin.  Nothing more, nothing less.

[LennStar]

Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter.

I'm kind of skeptical. The Mir mine is over 1200 km away from Iruktsk (and it's the closest one I could find). It's the oldest diamond mine in the region which dates back to 1957. But Irkutsk was founded in 1661 and already had a population of around 350,000 people by 1957. I have a hard time believing half a million people would live there just because of the diamond trade.

They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.

You're not thinking of Yakutsk, are you? Irkutsk doesn't get quite that cold (about 20C difference in winter on average).
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329955-russia-cars-extreme-frosts

Yeah, sorry, I mixed up the names. I am really bad with names. In Yakutsk it's currently -38°C.

[RWD]

Irkutsk only exists because of the worlds largest (imho) diamond mine. If that thing weren't there, nobody would want to live in a city so cold and full of smog in the winter.

I'm kind of skeptical. The Mir mine is over 1200 km away from Iruktsk (and it's the closest one I could find). It's the oldest diamond mine in the region which dates back to 1957. But Irkutsk was founded in 1661 and already had a population of around 350,000 people by 1957. I have a hard time believing half a million people would live there just because of the diamond trade.

They have to run their cars 24/7 in the winter or the fuel freezes. Five minutes unprotected can give you freeze burns.

You're not thinking of Yakutsk, are you? Irkutsk doesn't get quite that cold (about 20C difference in winter on average).
https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/329955-russia-cars-extreme-frosts

Yeah, sorry, I mixed up the names. I am really bad with names. In Yakutsk it's currently -38°C.

Almost as cold as some parts of Montana recently!
https://www.ktvh.com/weather/incredibly-dangerously-cold

[bwall]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

Don't forget the recent petroleum discoveries in UKR that, once developed, would make Russian oil uncompetitive in Europe. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo6w5R6Uo8Y

[Travis]

Zelensky in D.C. today, speaking to Congress tonight in person. He brought a Ukrainian flag signed by Bakhmut's defenders. He went down there to pick it up himself a few days ago.

[Michael in ABQ]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

How much of that industrial capacity is left in the occupied areas?  There's not a whole lot left of Azovstal.  As for farmland, well, who's gonna farm it?  The Ukrainians have left those areas or been kidnapped into Russia.

This is an ego trip for Putin.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree, capturing an empty city of rubble (Mariupol) doesn't make much sense - or fields that are now filled with unexploded ordnance, shell craters, land mines, and trenches. On the other hand, Russia basically captured Crimea with everything entirely intact. I think they clearly expected to achieve the same thing with a quick invasion and capture of Kyiv then replacing the government with a puppet (or outright annexation of the whole country). At this point anything they capture is more of a liability than an asset.

[pecunia]

Realistically, it won't end until Russia loses its territorial expansion desires. Sure Ukraine might not be involved after some point, but I think the world as a whole has to look at Russia and recognize that it wants to expand and until that changes, conflict is unavoidable. Its when and where, not if.

Russian territorial expansion desires... They have the most land and a declining population... What a crazy world.

Meh, population, territory and GDP aren’t closely correlated, and the desire to control Ukraine had little to do with needing “more space” for Russian citizens

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

How much of that industrial capacity is left in the occupied areas?  There's not a whole lot left of Azovstal.  As for farmland, well, who's gonna farm it?  The Ukrainians have left those areas or been kidnapped into Russia.

This is an ego trip for Putin.  Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree, capturing an empty city of rubble (Mariupol) doesn't make much sense - or fields that are now filled with unexploded ordnance, shell craters, land mines, and trenches. On the other hand, Russia basically captured Crimea with everything entirely intact. I think they clearly expected to achieve the same thing with a quick invasion and capture of Kyiv then replacing the government with a puppet (or outright annexation of the whole country). At this point anything they capture is more of a liability than an asset.

It's only a liability if you care about the people or the place.  I heard one announcer say that old man Putin doesn't care if he kills 300,000 Russians taking the place. the news reports that he places no financial limits on taking Ukraine.  He's obviously been willing to blow up anything or anyone in his path.  There's no logic to his actions.  He is causing long term harm to the Russian people with this war.  Its the actions of a 5 year old.  "If I can't have it, I'll make sure you can't either."  I wouldn't be too surprised if he begins to ruin the farmland in Ukraine as they did in ancient times. 

[nereo]

From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.

[BicycleB]

New York Times peels back some layers on Russia's war plans and the first months of the war. Long read, but worth your time.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/16/world/europe/russia-putin-war-failures-ukraine.html

Wow, fantastic article!

Note though, Phillips P. OBrien's quibble / concern with the by now disproved, continuing narrative about Russia's assumed military strength and Ukraine's supposed laxity/ lack thereof, in this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1527719118438289409?s=20&t=NvL6077vWYMoh4g4QQdT8g

Sorry, no threadreader unroll available.

When I follow that link, I get a Phillip O'Brien thread discussing evidence that Americans are interested in winnable wars and their opinion changes if they conclude a war is unwinnable. The original article discussed how weak the Russian military turned out to be, and how Putin was among the people who before the Ukraine war assumed the Russian military was strong.

How is O'brien quibbling with the original article? (I'm not arguing, just missing the connection.)

[pecunia]

From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.

Given that the Ukrainian culture is about the closest culture in the world to the Russian culture, his actions don't make a lot of sense.  Ukraine should have been the easiest country for him to befriend.   It is only Belarus that seems to be on his side and it is reported the folks there think he sucks too.  You would have to give Putin an F+ grade in foreign affairs.

[Travis]

From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.

Given that the Ukrainian culture is about the closest culture in the world to the Russian culture, his actions don't make a lot of sense.  Ukraine should have been the easiest country for him to befriend.   It is only Belarus that seems to be on his side and it is reported the folks there think he sucks too.  You would have to give Putin an F+ grade in foreign affairs.

View it from the lens of an abusive relationship. Lavrov and Peskov will say in the same breath "We're saving our Slavic brothers from Western Nazi influence. And we're bombing their cities to powder because they're not listening. We'll kill as many as we have to until they accept our benevolence."

[Just Joe]

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

The baffling part to me is that Russia could have had all the access they wanted IF they had approached Ukraine from a capitalist point of view. Business deals instead of bombs and bullets. And NATO was never going to invade Russia. Clearly Russia's ruling class is full of people who talk about how the world is going to do them wrong when in reality, its those same people who are the real threat to the rest of the world. Also see Trump/GOP projecting their biases onto others for the consumption of their voting base...

[bwall]

The baffling part to me is that Russia could have had all the access they wanted IF they had approached Ukraine from a capitalist point of view. Business deals instead of bombs and bullets. And NATO was never going to invade Russia. Clearly Russia's ruling class is full of people who talk about how the world is going to do them wrong when in reality, its those same people who are the real threat to the rest of the world. Also see Trump/GOP projecting their biases onto others for the consumption of their voting base...

Yes.
Add to that world class universities, infrastructure and rule of law and then the Ukrainians would have falling all over themselves to move to Russia to benefit. But, alas, Putin is trying 'to catch flies with vinegar instead of honey.'  Only the West has rule of law on offer. Until this changes, other countries will have a very hard time developing beyond a certain per capita GDP.

[Tyson]

Putin has a criminal's mentality.  Which means he feels, deep in his soul, that the world is crooked and the only way to survive is to beat the crooked world by being the most crooked and most clever about being crooked.

Thus any country that is trying to be honest and move toward the rule of law and away from coercion and violence becomes an affront and must either be taken over or destroyed.  And here we are.

[Travis]

Thus any country that is trying to be honest and move toward the rule of law and away from coercion and violence becomes an affront and must either be taken over or destroyed.  And here we are.

NATO is a defensive alliance and doesn't recruit or absorb members. You have to ask to join. And over the years, every time a new state asks to join its because Russia was up to something.

[TomTX]

From what I’ve read, Putin sees an independent “Ukraine” as illegitimate, belonging rightfully as part of mother Russia. Staunchly anti-Russian citizens of ukraine are thereby enemies. Crimea was very pro-Russian in 2014. Since he can’t install a puppet pro Russian government in Kiev as was planned back in February the next best alternative in his eyes is to raze anything “Ukrainian” to the ground.

I'll note that in 1991, Crimea voted to be part of Ukraine by about a 10% margin.

[pecunia]

So right now Russia is trying to recruit even more guys for the military.  The thing is,......they haven't been able to train and supply their recent new recruits.  It's also a fact that these are mouths to feed and they have less and less money coming in for these new soldiers.  All these people are removed from their productive jobs in Russian society.  So - some are giving it good odds that Russia is going to somehow fall apart.

The world abhors a vacuum.  This is supposed to be as true in geopolitics as in anything else. 

The world needs the resources that Russia can supply.  The vast manufacturing capacity of mainland China sure would be happy to have those resources.

Russia should be quite broke after this war.  The rest of the world will be spending money on rebuilding Ukraine.

Who is gonna help Russia?  I'll just bet that the Chinese will work out a deal with the new government of Russia.  China will be the new investors in Russia.  It'll be a really good deal for China.  It just seems likely.

[Sibley]

So right now Russia is trying to recruit even more guys for the military.  The thing is,......they haven't been able to train and supply their recent new recruits.  It's also a fact that these are mouths to feed and they have less and less money coming in for these new soldiers.  All these people are removed from their productive jobs in Russian society.  So - some are giving it good odds that Russia is going to somehow fall apart.

The world abhors a vacuum.  This is supposed to be as true in geopolitics as in anything else. 

The world needs the resources that Russia can supply.  The vast manufacturing capacity of mainland China sure would be happy to have those resources.

Russia should be quite broke after this war.  The rest of the world will be spending money on rebuilding Ukraine.

Who is gonna help Russia?  I'll just bet that the Chinese will work out a deal with the new government of Russia.  China will be the new investors in Russia.  It'll be a really good deal for China.  It just seems likely.

And as much as Russia is going to Russia, so too is China going to China.

[Michael in ABQ]

It's buffer space. Russia has a long history of being invaded from Europe and with no natural boundaries (oceans, mountains, etc.) they can only rely on distance. Moscow is a ~10-hour drive from Kyiv or Kharkiv but from the closest point on the border with Ukraine it's only about 300 miles.

Russia only has one significant port on the Black Sea - Novorossiysk. Capturing Crimea gave them others like Sevastopol and if they could have captured Odessa, they would have basically controlled the Black Sea (at least in terms of shutting out Ukraine's access). Not to mention that industrial heartland in eastern Ukraine and all of the agriculture in southern Ukraine.

The baffling part to me is that Russia could have had all the access they wanted IF they had approached Ukraine from a capitalist point of view. Business deals instead of bombs and bullets. And NATO was never going to invade Russia. Clearly Russia's ruling class is full of people who talk about how the world is going to do them wrong when in reality, its those same people who are the real threat to the rest of the world. Also see Trump/GOP projecting their biases onto others for the consumption of their voting base...

Is NATO/the west going to invade Russia in the next 5-10 years? Of course not. In the next 20 years? Probably not. In the next 50 years .... it's hard to say. What if you had a wave of authoritarian governments come to power in Europe? What if some new resource replaces oil and natural gas? What if sea levels rise 10 feet and displace tens of millions of people? A lot can happen over multiple decades and historically Russia has been invaded multiple times by European powers.

I still think it was a terrible move to invade Ukraine when they probably could have just continued to use soft power (information warfare, economic warfare with oil/natural gas, etc.) to exert influence/control of Ukraine. Now that they've switched to hard power there's no going back.

[LennStar]

It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.

[gooki]

So right now Russia is trying to recruit even more guys for the military.  The thing is,......they haven't been able to train and supply their recent new recruits.  It's also a fact that these are mouths to feed and they have less and less money coming in for these new soldiers.  All these people are removed from their productive jobs in Russian society.  So - some are giving it good odds that Russia is going to somehow fall apart.

The world abhors a vacuum.  This is supposed to be as true in geopolitics as in anything else. 

The world needs the resources that Russia can supply.  The vast manufacturing capacity of mainland China sure would be happy to have those resources.

Russia should be quite broke after this war.  The rest of the world will be spending money on rebuilding Ukraine.

Who is gonna help Russia?  I'll just bet that the Chinese will work out a deal with the new government of Russia.  China will be the new investors in Russia.  It'll be a really good deal for China.  It just seems likely.

And in a decades time China will learn never do businesses with Russia, after they default on debts and nationalize China's investments.

[bwall]

It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.

How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?

[LennStar]

It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.

How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?

NATO did not fight in Libya. UN member nations did, resolution 1973.

And Serbia, that topic is quackmire of quicksand and I will not try to discuss if it was right to fight against the genocide or not. (btw, 1999)
But it was indeed, very strictly speaking, a non-contractual use of the NATO capabilities. For that they used the break of the Dayton contract (which was not with NATO, "only" with US and EU) and ignoring of the peace talk ultimatum.

For me "definding Germany at the Hindukush" just because a terrorist flew a plane into a building (and making that into a defense case) was a way bigger violation of conduct.

[bwall]

It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.

How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?

NATO did not fight in Libya. UN member nations did, resolution 1973.

According to Wikipedia, NATO did fight in Libya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

The point I'm trying to make is that for NATO members, NATO is a strictly defensive organization. However, for non-NATO authoritarians/dictators/strongmen, etc, it can be a source of unease.

[sixwings]

It would still not be NATO but several states that happen to be members of NATO. Like the US invasion of Iraq. A few countries followed, but it was not an attack by NATO. Technically NATO can't attack.

How was NATO defending in Libya (2011) and Serbia (1998)?

NATO did not fight in Libya. UN member nations did, resolution 1973.

According to Wikipedia, NATO did fight in Libya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

The point I'm trying to make is that for NATO members, NATO is a strictly defensive organization. However, for non-NATO authoritarians/dictators/strongmen, etc, it can be a source of unease.

I'm not an expert about it so maybe someone can chime in but i believe it was that NATO members chose to conduct operations/fight in Libya together, whereas NATO is an obligation to fight together if one is attacked. They could have opted out of Libya if they had wanted, but there's a lot of political pressure for NATO members to engage together so they tend to do that although I think turkey is a bit of a wild card.

And lets be serious here, a lot of NATO nations in Libya were not substantively engaging in fighting/operations.

[blue_green_sparks]

I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?

[Taran Wanderer]

We have no interest to defend in Ukraine… he’d probably say the same about Estonia. And Latvia. And Lithuania. Perhaps he would have said the same about the Holocaust. He’d have us huddle scared of the Russian bear while they invade country after country, building strength for the inevitable time when we have to stand up to them.  Peace is easy to achieve in Ukraine. The Russians just need to go home.

Gosar has consistently shown he’s an idiot. He’s still an idiot.

[ATtiny85]

It’s a complex situation. I don’t like cutting checks and sending equipment to a war we aren’t fighting. But man, we waste many many billions on totally worthless stuff.

We have a long history of not knowing what we are doing, especially with Russia, so who cares.

[Tyson]

I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?

A Neville Chamberlain for our age.

[RWD]

The U.S. budget allocated to defending Ukraine is some of the most efficient military spending we've ever done:
https://twitter.com/BretDevereaux/status/1605681082048946187

[Glenstache]

I hear the GOP far right complaining about the cost of these arms shipped to Ukraine (most of which might end up as unused scrap) but I am also thinking about the trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on the cold war and proxy wars and with the USSR and/or Russia as the West's primary opponent. I also recall how the far right were the biggest defense hawks. So, all of their objection is just because Trump and his buddy Putin share an anti-democratic view?

A Neville Chamberlain for our age.

More like a reincarnation of the America First movement of the 1930s and 1940s in the United States. It was full of Nazi sympathizers, had a plan for a coup and the whole shebang. It included both wingnuts, religious extermists and members of congress.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(1943)
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/american-nazism-and-madison-square-garden
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Lundeen