Ukraine

[Radagast]

Ran across a Quora question on Bakhmut; liked the answer below from https://www.quora.com/profile/Toma%C5%BE-Vargazon, underneath the question link.

https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-are-attempting-to-encircle-Bakhmut-The-UK-Ministry-of-Defense-is-claiming-the-capture-of-Bakhmut-has-limited-operational-value-while-Ret-Gen-Wesley-Clarke-has-warned-Ukraine-to-hold-the-town-What-is

We may have been overthinking this battle of Bakhmut. There may be a simple, logical explanation for Russian fixation on Bakhmut, one that makes perfect sense, given Russian predicament.

Battle of Verdun, but it might as well be Bakhmut (photo of men in trenches)

The Russian predicament is quite precarious, Ukrainians are generating fresh forces much more rapidly than Russians, logistical situation of Russian army ranges from poor to attrocious, weapons stocks are dwindling, production is stalling, European resolve is unmoved. Russia needs breathing room, it needs a few months of peace to consolidate their forces, train fresh units and above all, to show Europeans the benefits of peace. So long as there is war, Ukraine will be supported come hell or high water. However if Russia manages to freeze the conflict aid to Ukraine is likely to take the backseat as Europe deals with their unenviable domestic situation. Therefore a cease fire and peace talks are what Kremlin wants, even if only as a temporary respite while they get their army in order.

To that end Russia must attack, to force Ukrainians to concessions, or at least prevent them from taking yet more ground. It doesn’t matter so much where it attacks, just that it does attack and fixes Ukrainian troops so they cannot be used for offensive purposes. Russian command structure is so poor they can’t effectively respond to Ukrainian attacks to launch their own counterattacks, so they need a position to launch attacks from.

It just so happens Bakhmut is where Russian ability to launch offensive operations is the highest, so that’s where they attack. Bakhmut is secondary to Russians, all they’re trying to do is have a front line where they aren’t losing ground and ties up a siezable number of Ukrainian troops and war materiel. The cost in blood is severe, but that’s a price the Kremlin is willing to pay.

Looking at Bakhmut from this perspective the whole thing begins to make sense. Russians aren’t really after Bakhmut, the battle is just the way they attempt to secure a cease fire and support defensive positions along more vulnerable areas of the front. It’s not a great plan, it’s not even a particularily good plan, but it might be the very best the depleted Russian army is still able to offer.

Perhaps the cost to the Russians is not so great.  They take convicts and force them to make suicide runs against the Ukrainians.  Dead convicts don't have to be housed and fed.  They don't even pay fro the bullet that kills the convicts.  UKrainians state that Russians don't even pick up the dead bodies from the battlefield.

Yeah it sorta makes sense. Ukraine is losing good people in Bakmut, while Russia loses convicts with no training, equipment, support, medical help, or body recovery, and even if the cost is 10:1 Russia may think they are getting the better end of that trade.

Similarly the Russian attacks on civilian infrastructure sorta make sense. Apart from the obvious affects, they drain air defense resources. Also when coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear are replaced by diesel generators it places a strain on the diesel supply system which is also part of the war effort. Further, at least in the western US, large generators and electrical equipment are the hardest things to get with 1 year lead times even before the invasion. I have no idea where generators going to Ukraine come from. Lead times here will soon be pushing 2 years, so this could also be their way to strike at the most sensitive part of the Western supply chain over the past 3 years.

I also think that there must be a Russian prerogative to show a massive capacity for cruelty in everything they do as a foundational strategy, including the examples above. I don't understand it, and it seems counterproductive outside of a Russian sandbox, but they seem to be intent on demonstrating it in everything they do. I would find it immensely satisfying to watch Moscow go the way of Grozny, Aleppo, and Mariupol.

[BicycleB]

Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.

This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.

What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.

I wonder how much Ukraine was even on its own map. In 2010 I met a Ukrainian-American in Moscow who was having a great time visiting all the museums and getting in at the discount local rate because nobody could tell from his accent that he was not local. He definitely seemed to think that Ukraine and Russia were BFFs, and that strongly influenced my thinking on the topic until 2022. My impression is that Ukraine was very friendly to Russia after the USSR ended, and was merely trying to get rid of a corrupt government. That was when they learned that fighting corruption is akin to fighting Russia, and a threat to corruption anywhere is a threat to Russia everywhere.

Lol re corruption principle!

Re underlying attitudes, a Ukrainian family is friends of a dear friend of mine. Husband is highly Russophile by nature and background; in leadup to war and early phases of it, was adamant that "I do not want to kill my Russian brothers." Wife was much less so - she married him for himself, not because she or family felt Russian, which they did not.

I've told attitudes at some pre-2014 and to some extent 2015-2021 varied widely amongst the populace. Not sure how much shifts occurred at what time, or whether there are still Ukrainian Russophiles who keep their heads down due to war circumstances. Husband, I am told, shifted due to 2022 experience.

[pecunia]

Motive is much harder to prove, but I’m arguing the only reason why democratically led countries are able to send so much is because their citizens see Russia’s ruthless targeting of civilians, empathizes with the Ukrainians (they basically look and live(d) like we do) and overwhelmingly support Ukraine. Recall that in 2014 the general public response to Russia in Crimea was “meh” - precisely because they weren’t shelling elementary schools or shelling entire blocks of apartment buildings to rubble.

This. Also, I think, Ukraine in 2014 was - for most people - not really on the mental map - I know it wasn't for me (and I'm from the EU). The Euromaidan protests changed that a little, but even then Ukraine wasn't really on the map. If anything, I think many people regarded it as something closer to Belarus - a post-Soviet state kind of next to Russia much more than next to Europe, so Russia's annexation of Crimea didn't make huge waves, and I faintly remember reading in the media that the annexed regions (Donbas and Crimea) were "historically contested" and had "Russian speakers" etc, so I think many people brushed if off as essentially a border dispute between Russia and Ukraine. I know it was downplayed Germany, and clearly Merkel was mostly focused on the oil and gas supply.

What Ukraine has brilliantly done is "put itself on the map" and they've also made much bigger strides becoming a much more recognizably Western/European country (reforming the military doctrine, pro-EU attitudes, and fending off pro-Russian oligarch/politicians) that's easier to support in the West (Central and Western Europe plus US), and also shares the same traumas of Russian/Soviet occupation, purges and mass murder that all Eastern European states have endured. I've been very impressed and happy with the much more assertive voices of Eastern European countries when it comes to aid for Ukraine, which in no small part forced the Western/Southern parts of the EU to move/support/act. It feels like there's a real bloc forming inside the EU that gives these countries more "share of voice" when it comes to politics.

I wonder how much Ukraine was even on its own map. In 2010 I met a Ukrainian-American in Moscow who was having a great time visiting all the museums and getting in at the discount local rate because nobody could tell from his accent that he was not local. He definitely seemed to think that Ukraine and Russia were BFFs, and that strongly influenced my thinking on the topic until 2022. My impression is that Ukraine was very friendly to Russia after the USSR ended, and was merely trying to get rid of a corrupt government. That was when they learned that fighting corruption is akin to fighting Russia, and a threat to corruption anywhere is a threat to Russia everywhere.

Lol re corruption principle!

Re underlying attitudes, a Ukrainian family is friends of a dear friend of mine. Husband is highly Russophile by nature and background; in leadup to war and early phases of it, was adamant that "I do not want to kill my Russian brothers." Wife was much less so - she married him for himself, not because she or family felt Russian, which they did not.

I've told attitudes at some pre-2014 and to some extent 2015-2021 varied widely amongst the populace. Not sure how much shifts occurred at what time, or whether there are still Ukrainian Russophiles who keep their heads down due to war circumstances. Husband, I am told, shifted due to 2022 experience.

I've been wasting time watching TV.  I watch these TV shows from South America telling about Simon Bolivar and how all these countries rebelled against Spain.  They spoke Spanish, had much the same culture and the same religion.  Yet Spain treated them like dirt so they wanted to be independent.  I was kind of thinking that is the way it's been with Russia.  Ukraine has been treated as a colony.  Spain ruled the South American countries for hundreds of years before they broke free.  Russia ruled Ukraine for hundreds of years and now it is breaking free.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I think Ukraine should be given permission to target Moscow.  Russian attacks on Ukranian civilians haven't stopped, with thousands killed every month.  Those war crimes won't stop unless Russia pays a cost.  Missiles landing in Moscow is that cost, which will hopefully only kill dozens of Russian civilians.  Meanwhile, tens of thousands of unarmed Ukranians have been killed, and there's no sign Russia plans to stop.  I think the U.S. needs to give Russia a reason to stop by allowing Ukraine to hit the city of Moscow.

As satisfying as that might seem, it’s very bad strategy. Russia has been doing that and it has united Ukraine against Russia and the world behind Ukraine. If Ukraine reciprocates the world will start to fracture and turn away. Plus focusing strictly on military targets generally in Ukraine is a divide and conquer strategy. If Russians aren’t concerned for themselves and their families except when they are sent to the front they will be at best indifferent and may secretly oppose the war, which greatly reduces Russia’s effectiveness. If Ukraine attacks Russian civilians they will unite behind Putin and fight to the end.

No, Russia killing tens of thousands of civilians is not the same as strikes on a city that may cause dozens of civilian deaths.  I think people misunderstand how ugly war can be - remember veterans in your family talking about it?  No, they didn't - not to you.  They talk about it with other veterans.

???

Let's say Ukraine pushes Russia all the way back to the border.  Then what?  Russia will keep destroying Ukrainian cities.  They have no incentive to stop, unless Russians stop Putin.

Most older Russians are insanely brainwashed - their children can be in Ukraine getting shelled, and they think their own children are lying to them, rather than Putin.  There's no way that changes with a war over the border.

?

We're sitting far from the Ukrainian front line, and I'm saying we may need to remind ourselves that "war is hell".  To draw the line at zero Russian civilian deaths is nice, but may prolong the time Russia spends killing thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

Putin isn't interested in ending the war, and no oligarch will go against Putin without being grounded (my term for accidentally falling from a high story window).  The people who can stop the war are Russians.  But Russian propaganda tells Russians whatever it wants, as there's no evidence of the war to contradict them.  Shelling military targets inside Russia is one way to provide that evidence, and is what Ukraine has been doing recently.

The first implication is that Ukraine clearly now has ability to undertake targeting at very long distances. The Engels air base is 700km from Ukraine. The Dyagilevo base is about 600 kilometres from Ukraine. By comparison, Moscow is around 640 kilometres from the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv. This doesn’t mean at all that Ukraine is going to attack Moscow. But it will cause some sleepless nights in the capital.

https://mickryan.substack.com/p/russian-airfield-attacks-ukraine?utm_source=twitter&sd=pf

I think more than that is needed to convince Russians to end the war.  Deliberately killing civilans is a poor approach.  But a war is going to involve civilian deaths, like the air defense system in Ukraine that sent missiles past its target and into Poland, killing civilians there.  So my point isn't to target civilians, but that we need to understand dozens of Russian civilians who happen to be killed is very different from tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians who were killed deliberately.

[Tyson]

Ukraine can't win this war without Western support.  And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.

[nereo]

Ukraine can't win this war without Western support.  And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.

I agree. In addition, history has also shown that “bombing a population into submission” rarely works, and tends to have the opposite effect, as has been pointed out earlier. Ultimately using “war is hell” as a justification for making it hell for more people pushes this into a discussion of increasing war crimes.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

Ukraine can't win this war without Western support.  And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.

I agree. In addition, history has also shown that “bombing a population into submission” rarely works, and tends to have the opposite effect, as has been pointed out earlier. Ultimately using “war is hell” as a justification for making it hell for more people pushes this into a discussion of increasing war crimes.

When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"?  If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.

[LaineyAZ]

More fallout from the Ukraine/Russia war:  a supply chain issue for the semi-conductor industry.

https://min.news/en/world/b1ee2a2b1bfc57e3054dd342b8176891.html

[maizefolk]

When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"?  If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.

What you said was this:

But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.

When I called you on it previously your response was that you only wanted to kill "dozens" of russian civilians to show that the war was coming to them rather than thousands. I don't see what qualitative difference this makes in terms of what outcome it will produce but so be it.

You seem to be tripped up on the argument that was you are proposing is ethically wrong and avoiding multiple posters who are also pointing out that was you are proposing is logically wrong. The action you propose taking will not produce (and has not in the past produced) the outcome you are stating you want to achieve.

[ender]

When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"?  If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.

What you said was this:

But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.

When I called you on it previously your response was that you only wanted to kill "dozens" of russian civilians to show that the war was coming to them rather than thousands. I don't see what qualitative difference this makes in terms of what outcome it will produce but so be it.

You seem to be tripped up on the argument that was you are proposing is ethically wrong and avoiding multiple posters who are also pointing out that was you are proposing is logically wrong. The action you propose taking will not produce (and has not in the past produced) the outcome you are stating you want to achieve.

I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.

If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.

[LennStar]

I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.

If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.

Yes, Military targets. Maybe it has excaped your attention, but an airfield with nuclear bombers has a few less civilians than the capital city.

And even if you aren't convinced and even if it suprisingly would work - it would still be war crime.

[Dancin'Dog]

I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.

If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.

Yes, Military targets. Maybe it has excaped your attention, but an airfield with nuclear bombers has a few less civilians than the capital city.

And even if you aren't convinced and even if it suprisingly would work - it would still be war crime.

Are major transportation interchanges & energy production & distribution systems considered acceptable non-military targets? 

[ender]

Did either of you even read what I wrote or are you just looking to pick fights?

[maizefolk]

When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"?  If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.

What you said was this:

But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.

When I called you on it previously your response was that you only wanted to kill "dozens" of russian civilians to show that the war was coming to them rather than thousands. I don't see what qualitative difference this makes in terms of what outcome it will produce but so be it.

You seem to be tripped up on the argument that was you are proposing is ethically wrong and avoiding multiple posters who are also pointing out that was you are proposing is logically wrong. The action you propose taking will not produce (and has not in the past produced) the outcome you are stating you want to achieve.

I'm not actually convinced that Ukraine would lose support if they struck military targets in Moscow, though.

If they randomly bomb civilians like your hyperbolic interpretation? Sure. But they've hit military targets inside Russia numerous times already.

I think you're making a different point from Mustacheandahalf and one I also agree with. Yes, there may be military targets it makes sense for Ukraine to strike, even in Moscow itself. If it makes sense to do so, my guess is that they will do so. So this is not an argument that there is not context in which it would make sense for Ukraine to bomb targets in Moscow.

But it doesn't make sense for Ukraine to strike military targets in Moscow in order to "show the Russians the war is coming to them" because, based on history, showing the Russians the war is coming to them will make the Russian people more supportive of their leadership generally and the war specifically than they currently are.

[waltworks]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

[Tyson]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

And a war crime.

[Radagast]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

[pecunia]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

[maizefolk]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

This thinking falls into the logical trap of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."

I don't know the correct answer to your question. All I can honestly tell you is that doing this particular something will not accomplish the outcome you wish to achieve.

[pecunia]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

This thinking falls into the logical trap of "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done."

I don't know the correct answer to your question. All I can honestly tell you is that doing this particular something will not accomplish the outcome you wish to achieve.

Yes, but the "else" requests a different something.  It asks for something other than the violence that has been decried.  Perhaps, a reversal in a minor sanction accompanied by the proper PR to remind the Russian populace of what their government is actually doing.  That may be a little difficult for their propaganda machine to cover up.

[waltworks]

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

You don't/can't. You have to win on the battlefield at this point.

-W

[Radagast]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.

[pecunia]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.

Will the battlefield defeat be enough? Will they simply pull back their claws for sharpening and return to their imperialistic battle at a later date?  I'm thinking what happened in Germany between the two world wars.  At any rate, this war apparently needs to be run to conclusion before that's a concern.  And,......if it takes a generation I won't be around to see it.

[former player]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.

Will the battlefield defeat be enough? Will they simply pull back their claws for sharpening and return to their imperialistic battle at a later date?  I'm thinking what happened in Germany between the two world wars.  At any rate, this war apparently needs to be run to conclusion before that's a concern.  And,......if it takes a generation I won't be around to see it.

There are basically only two ways to end a war: overwhelming defeat (WWII) or fight each other to a standstill (WWI).  Ukraine/Russia is heading for standstill, and if we're lucky it will be a standstill that sees Russia leaving as much of Ukraine as possible or, if we are even luckier, all of it.  Length of time to achieve standstill is at this minute undetermined.

There will be war somewhere in the world for the rest of my life, just as there has been war somewhere in the world for the whole of my life so far.  Welcome to the human race.

[nereo]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

-W

That was the first example that popped in my head too. This example seemed hyperbolic, but maybe it's not.
1983: US barracks in Beirut bombed killing over 200 soldiers. Response: within a year US withdraws because of waning support for operation.
2001: Twin towers in New York destroyed killing over 2000 civilians. Response: US spends 20 years stomping on the middle east.
Best to avoid symbolism and civilians if you want to win.

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

I don't think it's possible to persuade them on a morality play at this point, and probably never was. Russian propaganda has been extremely effective and Putin rules the rest by fear. They need to rationally realize that their collective costs of ending the war are lower than the continued cost of war with Ukraine. Otherwise their military needs to be destroyed to the point that it is simply not possible to continue the war.

Will the battlefield defeat be enough? Will they simply pull back their claws for sharpening and return to their imperialistic battle at a later date?  I'm thinking what happened in Germany between the two world wars.  At any rate, this war apparently needs to be run to conclusion before that's a concern.  And,......if it takes a generation I won't be around to see it.

Remember, it’s not just the battlefield losses. Broadly speaking, there is the military conflict, international trade (and sanctions) and immigration.
To me, Russia seems to be suffering greatly in all three areas. While battlefield losses has the most immediate impact, the damage to Russias economy is building and will continue to get worse, perhaps for the rest of the decade (if not longer). Global companies have left in droves and won’t come back for years. Targeted sanctions are and will continue to limit rebuilding their more advanced weapons. And their closest neighbors are no longer buying as much of their most valuable commodity, and have been pushed to rapidly divert away from fossil fuels by this very invasion. Then there’s the demographic impact - already a few hundred thousand 20 & 30 something men have been killed, wounded or fled. The Russian population has been declining for three decades, and roughly half is over the age of 40. Start subtracting young, working age adults and that’s going to echo through their economy for more than a decade.

Returning to the question of whether Russia will rationally realize that the costs of this war are not worth it - I’m not sure. On one hand the propaganda is incredibly effective. OTOH cracks are showing and there’s more dissent (but open and behind closed doors) of Putin than when have seen in twenty years. Support among oligarchs has fallen, as their interests no longer align. And of course the Russian citizens are hearing about the war from the stream of injured and poorly trained conscripts returning from Ukraine.

[bwall]

How else can you wake the Russian populace to the evil their government does?  To be honest with you, I think most should have figured it out by now.

The war will continue as long as Putin is in power. Losing the war means for Putin loss of power, as this has historically been the case in Russia:

Withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989; two years later USSR dissolves and Gorbachov is out of power.
Backing down from Cuban Missle Crisis: two years later Khrushchev was removed from power.
The Korean War didn't end until Stalin died.
In 1917 the Russian Empire sued for peace to stop the fighting in WWI. Shortly thereafter the revolution breaks out and the Czar & family are shot.

So there is strong correlation between poor results in wartime and loss of political power for Russian leaders. Putin will only end the war on his terms.

For Russians to stop the war means removing Putin from power. The only way for this to happen is via a coup in the Kremlin.

A popular uprising won't achieve very much as Putin has control over all the levers of power. Besides, the Russian population is pretty apolitical at this point since the most politically attuned citizens have already left the country, so those remaining are not very likely to start protesting.

[PeteD01]

Kyrylo Oleksiyovych Budanov is Chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and Major General and this picture just popped up on Twitter and is supposed to show him in his office with a map of Moscow on the screen.

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1609160165265227779/photo/1

[waltworks]

I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.

The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.

-W

[lemanfan]

A little over a week ago, ukrainian authorities posted a clip from the search of what claimed to be a troll factory in Ukraine, manned by russians. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpqHCrn-f-8

The description says this according to Google translate:

During the searches, more than 100,000 SIM cards were seized, which were used to register fake accounts. In total, bot networks had more than one and a half million accounts in various social networks, mail services and messengers. Bots were registered for spreading fakes and propaganda, pro-Russian narratives, justifying the actions of the occupiers, and spreading illegal content.
Comment: Yevhenii Doroganov, deputy head of the department - head of the department for countering crimes in the field of computer systems of the Cyber Police Department of the NPU

I can confirm that two of the stashes of SIMs are Swedish, first from Comviq at 0:56 and then Lycamobile at 2:15 in the video.  The orange plastic carrying bag is from the Swedish sporting goods store Stadium.

Fascinating.

[nereo]

I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.

The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.

-W

I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle.  For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain  and are accustomed to a  mostly middle-class type lifestyle.  Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.

[ender]

I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.

The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.

-W

I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle.  For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain  and are accustomed to a  mostly middle-class type lifestyle.  Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.

I think the more interesting question is what the impact of the brain drain that Russia has/will experience is going to be - it's possible many/most of those middle-class lifestyle folks will just leave.

[pecunia]

I said it at some point upthread, but there's no offramp at this point. Russia is on track to be a bigger, scarier North Korea.

The best we can do is win the war and stage lots of troops nearby, it's the Cold War all over again.

-W

I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle.  For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain  and are accustomed to a  mostly middle-class type lifestyle.  Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.

I think the more interesting question is what the impact of the brain drain that Russia has/will experience is going to be - it's possible many/most of those middle-class lifestyle folks will just leave.

The world is supposed to be heading into a recession this coming new year.  How much harder will it be on the Russian citizens?  Can they still sell plywood to Europe?  I guess they can still sell food.  I think they will have a high unemployment rate.  In addition the economy will suffer due to the folks that have left the country and left for the military.  The missing people will stifle civilian production.  The petroleum golden goose will be laying far fewer eggs.  The economy will be geared to produce for the "special military operation" rather than for the civilian populace.  Their economy is heading towards the command economy thing which they had in Soviet times.  It didn't work so well for consumer goods.  Unlike North Korea which has had generations kept poor since the 1950s, I think these folks will notice and be rather perturbed at their government.

On the other hand, Russians seem to be a different type of people.

Hopefully, this war will end and we'll all have a happy new year.

[waltworks]

I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle.  For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain  and are accustomed to a  mostly middle-class type lifestyle.  Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.

I know some Russian expats and have asked them about this. The answer is: yes.

It is a literal cult of personality at this point and there will be no uprising. Putin is the new Kim.

-W

[TomTX]

Then there’s the demographic impact - already a few hundred thousand 20 & 30 something men have been killed, wounded or fled. The Russian population has been declining for three decades, and roughly half is over the age of 40. Start subtracting young, working age adults and that’s going to echo through their economy for more than a decade.

Demographically it's even worse than the first pass would suggest - a fair percentage of the young men who fled have been joined by their families. In my neighborhood there are multiple young(or youngish) Russian families (with kids!)  who fled Russia due to the conscription. Husbands left immediately, the families followed. They're all working on getting SSNs and asylum/long term residency.

Additionally, the "few hundred thousand" is likely low. It's pretty well agreed that just during the first week after the conscription announcement, ~260k left Russia. However, it's looking like at least 900k have left Russia between the start of the war and 1 week after the conscription announcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_emigration_following_the_2022_invasion_of_Ukraine Plus however many have left in the October-December timeframe.

Of course the 900k number isn't just the young men, it would include the families. Add in the 100k war deaths and we're looking at Russia losing about a million young people (so far!) due to the war.

[rocketpj]

I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle.  For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain  and are accustomed to a  mostly middle-class type lifestyle.  Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.

I know some Russian expats and have asked them about this. The answer is: yes.

It is a literal cult of personality at this point and there will be no uprising. Putin is the new Kim.

-W

North Korea is a tiny country that borders another dictatorship on one side and a highly guarded DMZ on the other.  Even still, some small number of North Koreans manage to escape each year.

Russia is an utterly immense country that cannot possibly guard all its borders.  It has endemic corruption, which includes border guards.  If you shoot a few corrupt border guards, the rest will just show up at work and keep walking.

Putin will hold onto power for awhile, but nobody lives forever.  Sadly, even if he is replaced by a kindly kindergarten teacher their country will take decades to attain any kind of equilibrium.  Economic collapse and famine are not out of the question. 

[pecunia]

I wonder if the Kremlin can put the genie back into its bottle.  For over two decades they opened themselves up to western trade and ideas. About 40% of their total population was born after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many have traveled and worked beyond the iron curtain  and are accustomed to a  mostly middle-class type lifestyle.  Can they really shut it all back down? I honestly don’t know.

I know some Russian expats and have asked them about this. The answer is: yes.

It is a literal cult of personality at this point and there will be no uprising. Putin is the new Kim.

-W

North Korea is a tiny country that borders another dictatorship on one side and a highly guarded DMZ on the other.  Even still, some small number of North Koreans manage to escape each year.

Russia is an utterly immense country that cannot possibly guard all its borders.  It has endemic corruption, which includes border guards.  If you shoot a few corrupt border guards, the rest will just show up at work and keep walking.

Putin will hold onto power for awhile, but nobody lives forever.  Sadly, even if he is replaced by a kindly kindergarten teacher their country will take decades to attain any kind of equilibrium.  Economic collapse and famine are not out of the question.

How much chance of it breaking up?  That sparsely populated East has a lot of resources.  Some of the people who live there may realize that outside capital could really bring prosperity to that land.

[PeteD01]

Happy New Year!

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1609797488411828224

[rocketpj]

How much chance of it breaking up?  That sparsely populated East has a lot of resources.  Some of the people who live there may realize that outside capital could really bring prosperity to that land.

Probably not much without a total collapse of the civil power, and then who knows what comes next?  Hopefully some sane people will at least get a grip on whatever nukes there are in place.

Much as I want Russia to stop invading Ukraine, I can't bring myself to wish famine or collapse on Russia.  They may bring it on themselves.

[LennStar]

Happy New Year!

https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1609797488411828224

Damn, the Ukrainians really made an art out of trolling.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

When did anyone suggest "bombing a population into submission"?  If you're claiming I said that, quote where I said it.

What you said was this:

But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

The two statements describe the same action and the same intended outcome.

Earlier you put words in my mouth by quoting something I didn't say, and now you're putting words in my mouth by twisting a meaning - and leaving out a key sentence that clarifies exactly what I meant:

Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

What part of "put a hole in the spire of the Kremlin" means "bombing into submission"?  It doesn't, and if you quoted me in context you'd have to admit you were wrong.

I agree. In addition, history has also shown that “bombing a population into submission” rarely works, and tends to have the opposite effect, as has been pointed out earlier. Ultimately using “war is hell” as a justification for making it hell for more people pushes this into a discussion of increasing war crimes.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it.  So here is what I said:

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

[maizefolk]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it.  So here is what I said:

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

You can't have it both ways. If you aren't in favor of killing civilians to send a message then don't turn around and argue that it's okay because Russia did it first.

[blue_green_sparks]

In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for states like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.

[Travis]

A couple nights ago Ukraine hit a university building in Makiivka the Russians were using as a barracks. Allegedly it was full of recently mobilized Russians undergoing artillery training. It was also a storage site for artillery ammunition.  Russia admits to 89 dead and at least 150 wounded to include a deputy regimental commander. Ukrainian and US sources think the casualties are in the mid-hundreds.

https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1610402710062235648?s=20&t=GmPP-hDE6VmFB2KBHuY0Yw

[TomTX]

You can't have it both ways. If you aren't in favor of killing civilians to send a message then don't turn around and argue that it's okay because Russia did it first.

Are you claiming that the Kremlin (which contains the military barracks and training grounds of the Presidential Regiment) and a bridge (presumably with military logistics value) could not be legitimate military targets and are equivalent to deliberately targeting civilians?

Because that's the only way I can interpret your apparent position, and it's puzzling me.

[Tyson]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it.  So here is what I said:

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

I understand what you are saying.  It's a terrible idea.

[gooki]

In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for countries like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.

I wouldn't be worried about India. They'll buy all the discount oil they can. But they won't send weapons or physically support Russia in any way. Much the same with China. Both countries value their economic progress  to risk it on sanctions.

[former player]

In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for countries like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.

I wouldn't be worried about India. They'll buy all the discount oil they can. But they won't send weapons or physically support Russia in any way. Much the same with China. Both countries value their economic progress  to risk it on sanctions.

What has surprised me is Israel's attitude to Russia over Ukraine: lots of equivocation there and an unreliable ally to the west.

[maizefolk]

You can't have it both ways. If you aren't in favor of killing civilians to send a message then don't turn around and argue that it's okay because Russia did it first.

Are you claiming that the Kremlin (which contains the military barracks and training grounds of the Presidential Regiment) and a bridge (presumably with military logistics value) could not be legitimate military targets and are equivalent to deliberately targeting civilians?

Because that's the only way I can interpret your apparent position, and it's puzzling me.

My main position is that history shows us that "showing Russians that the war is coming to them" is actively counterproductive to the goal of getting Russia to stop fighting and end the war.

If there are sufficient tactical and strategic benefits to bombing a bridge that it is worth the negative consequence of the increase in public support for the war associated with making the war more real for the local russian population around the bridge, then bomb the bridge. But don't bomb the bridge in order to make the war more real for the local population and hence increase their support for the war. Because putting aside ethical arguments that would just be a really really stupid thing to do.

People arguing for actions which will prolong the war and enhance the support of the Russian populace for both the Kremlin and the war effort because of how bad the war is and how many people have already been killed* really bothers me and is prompting me to respond more emotionally than I otherwise would.

*And to be clear I don't include you among the people I see making this really unfortunate argument.

[nereo]

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it.  So here is what I said:

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

Thank you for clarifying your position and quoting what you have previously said on the matter. I still believe it is a terribly idea, from a pragmatic standpoint (“will it help end the fighting”), from a logistical standpoint (“going on the offensive”), from an international support position, and on the ethics alone.

Maizefolk did a pretty decent job summarizing my viewpoints on the non-ethical reasons, but in brief attacking even select targets within the capitol city would hold a huge cost for Ukraine in terms of support, both from their allies (who have backed them in unprecedented ways thusfar) and from Russians in general (resulting in much broader support for this conflict)