“If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations charter, their influence for furthering these principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them,” Churchill remarked in his Iron Curtain speech. “If however they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.”
Interesting thought, this goes way beyond Europe and Russia.
Decades of the West spoonfeeding dictators, and other "our bastards" after the collapse of USSR came back to roost.
The War on Error has made the West completely oblivious to the number of very big elephants in the room while politicians were playing the War on Error as if it was some kind of CounterStrike game, and then wasted time on refugee crisis, Trump, Brexit, and various other piss contests.
Autocracies around the world now know our dirty secret: democracies are stupid. Just wait a while, and even the strongest democracy will chase its own tail to exhaustion. And you will have a free hand to remake the world to your liking.
(Of course, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is its own variety of stupid, but not quite the same one.)
When the herald had spoken thus, Cyrus is said to have asked those
of the Hellenes whom he had with him, what men the Lacedemonians were
and how many in number, that they made this proclamation to him; and
hearing their answer he said to the Spartan herald: "Never yet did I
fear men such as these, who have a place appointed in the midst of their
city where they gather together and deceive one another by false oaths:
and if I continue in good health, not the misfortunes of the Ionians
will be for them a subject of talk, but rather their own." These words
Cyrus threw out scornfully with reference to the Hellenes in general,
because they have got for themselves markets and practise buying and
selling there; for the Persians themselves are not wont to use markets
nor have they any market-place at all.
Hum... Democracies sure look stupid on the daily news, but those things didn't push any of them into exhaustion.
Instead, the enemy is what it always was, corruption and violent subpopulations. Every democracy that falls, goes through both of those.
On the autocracies side, it looks like they also are as they always were: blind by subservience. About every single time one of them is tested, the ruler doesn't know up from down and the population don't know (or don't want to know) what to follow.
> Instead, the enemy is what it always was, corruption and violent subpopulations. Every democracy that falls, goes through both of those.
Or external threats. Eastern Europe was battling with both the enemies you mentioned, but then the Soviets came and sealed the deal for almost 50 years.
I prefer to think of a democracy as an unstable fixed point and requires active support and maintenance by its citizens/leadership to remain close to that point.
> You can bully over and over again but at some point the most cowardly person will snap.
You could use this exact statement to justify what Russia is doing right now, if NATO is the bully. And if we look at recent history, we definitely know that NATO behaves as a bully when things don't go the way they planned.
You need to be more specific. To my knowledge there were no military operations by NATO forces that were not either sanctioned by the UN or just within the borders of NATO members.
If you refer to the fact that sovereign countries applied for NATO membership and got accepted, you have to tell how that is bullying.
If Ukraine were part of NATO, it's unlikely that it got attacked.
The forces of a NATO member are NATO forces. Or do you think if Russia would attack polish forces it wouldn't be considered as an attack on NATO forces?
NATO wasn't involved in the invasion of Iraq, though NATO did operations during the occupation supporting the Iraqi government.
NATO was involved in both the initial campaign against Afghanistan in response to an attack on a NATO member and later support operations in support of the new (and now defunct) Afghan government, but neither was inconsistent with its defensive character.
For future reference, the proper whataboutism here is Yugoslavia and Libya, nor Iraq and Afghanistan. If you are going to play the game, at least know what you are talking about.
That is semantics.
NATO does not have its own army, but the members form a common army from their national troops.
Iraqis and Afghans certainly did not notice the difference that they were not attacked by a joint NATO army of British, Italians, Americans etc. but only by an army of the willing made up of British, Italians and Americans.
If the US had been able to declare an alliance, it would have been under the NATO umbrella.
I doubt that during the Cold War a distinction would have been made between a Warsaw Pact army of Poles, Romanians and Russians and a coalition army of Poles, Romanians and Russians.
“ Weather: An invasion that begins in January or February would have the advantage of frozen ground to support the cross-country movement of a large mechanized force. It would also mean operating in conditions of freezing cold and limited visibility. January is usually the coldest and snowiest month of the year in Ukraine, averaging 8.5 hours of daylight during the month and increasing to 10 hours by February.8 This would put a premium on night fighting capabilities to keep an advance moving forward. Should fighting continue into March, mechanized forces would have to deal with the infamous Rasputitsa, or thaw.”
That "surprising detail" is a second nature consideration for anyone operating mechanized forces or even just dealing with heavy machinery in that part of the world. It's as "goes without saying" to them as planning work to avoid scorching temperatures is to someone in the tropics. Anyone seeking to predict actions in that part of the world will naturally account for it the same way someone making an investment in a Saudi construction project will base their timelines around an expectation that concrete pads can't be poured 24/7 in summer.
Russia knows it. Ukraine knows it. The Ottomans back in the 1400s knew it.
Just because some other profession is a black box relative to your knowledge base doesn't mean every detail is one that anyone who begins obtaining knowledge of the field will not instantly pick up. Remember this next time someone on the internet tries to pass themself off as a professional roofer because they know not to peel the plastic off the bottom of the shingle (it literally says not to on it).
Knowledge that comes as second nature can also be referred to as tacit knowledge, and is not usually written down for a variety of reasons.
The ‘surprising’ part in my end comes from being jaded with how shallow so much media is today. It was refreshing to see details like this written down because it’s simultaneously obvious and true, and it lends credence to their analysis.
A typical Western "military analyst" these days often comes with a law degree, MBA, or even a financial jobber, sometimes with few years of service, or a stint at Westpoint, trying for a claim of being "serious subject matter expert," and making money off that.
As I said few times over the week, a lot of them don't even know the difference in between a tank, and an APC, so bad it is really.
Or put more correctly, think tanks are collections of analysts who get paid to do research and generate reports on said research. This is often done to support an agenda on behalf of the one paying for it. But doesn't automatically make the research invalid.
Same. I wish I had thought to short Russian index funds or just buy put options or something. I bet a friend a 6-pack it would happen within two weeks which ended on February 4th because Russia needed to move as fast as possible if they were going to go for it. Every day they waited was a day for Ukraine to organize and another shipment of missiles and supplies to land.
Apply that argument to Iraq in 2003 then, the military really got that one right. It’s a black stain so large it’s amazing you think anyone will ever trust the military-industrial complex again.
The media will cook up a story so outrageous and angering, nobody will notice the MIC brewing underneath. I doubt many people learned from the middle-east.
Many people saw through the phony pretenses for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I'm not sure why so much of HN pretends otherwise. I guess they believe that if they were duped, and they're super smart, then surely everyone else must have been duped as well. This couldn't be further from the truth. There were many people calling these wars BS from the start.
The Iraq war protests were some of the largest in human history. The only takeaway really should be that the US Government can basically do whatever the hell they want whenever the hell they want to.
600 cities and millions of people come together to say "no" to the U.S. invading the middle-east. Bush then shed a tear, as he immediately pulled back our forces, realizing what a terrible mistake he'd made.
Of course, that didn't happen. The war continued for almost 20 more years. 10 million people still isn't a meaningful-enough protest size to kill the military-industrial complex. The funny thing that's even more to my point: it wasn't the U.S. that held the largest of the protests. The average U.S. citizen does not know, or does not care.
You continue to get called out, then shift the goalposts. We weren't discussing whether or not protesters were able to kill the military industrial complex, because we all know that didn't happen. That doesn't prove your point.
> Should fighting continue into March, mechanized forces would have to deal with the infamous Rasputitsa, or thaw.”
That's a key point. It does go to show that the Russians expected this to be a very short affair. I wonder if they have any real contingency plans for when that thaw sets in.
It would be almost ironic if, of all the armies in the world, the Russians would be caught unprepared by Rasputitsa. And quite embarrassing, to be honest.
There are reports of Russian forces running out of fuel and food. It sounds like with the thaw if Ukraine's forces focus on shutting down major roads then the current "siege warfare" approach by Russia may backfire badly. If their supply lines are easily cut off, they siege themselves.
This is what I don't get. Isn't Kyiv a few hour's drive from the border? How can you run out of fuel and food? I guess the only way is if you expected to simply drive directly to a victory march, but surely it's worth being prepared?
The article describes supply line attacks as a crucial part to disrupt enemy convoys. I expect that this is what is happening behind the scenes. You need an enormous amount of fuel for this many tanks.
Military vehicles, especially the armored ones, consume a huge amount of fuel. Especially when getting delayed, some of those will be idling. And expecting a fast advance could mean limited supplies. Would be stupid, but this whole thing doesn't strike me as particularly smart.
Ukrainians have very cleverly focused on hitting the fuel trucks and there are plenty of Russian troops who wreck their own gear so they can stay out of battle.
Russia’s truck logistic support, which would be crucial in an invasion of Eastern Europe, is limited by the number of trucks and range of operations. It is possible to calculate how far trucks can operate using simple beer math. Assuming the existing road network can support 45 mph speeds, a single truck can make three trips a day at up to a 45-mile range: One hours to load, one hour to drive to the supported unit, one hours to unload, and another hour to return to base. Repeating this cycle three times equals 12 hours total. The rest of the day is dedicated to truck maintenance, meals, refueling, weapons cleaning, and sleeping. Increase the distance to 90 miles, and the truck can make two trips daily. At 180 miles, the same truck is down to one trip a day. These assumptions won’t work in rough terrain or where there is limited/damaged infrastructure. If an army has just enough trucks to sustain itself at a 45-mile distance, then at 90 miles, the throughput will be 33 percent lower. At 180 miles, it will be down by 66 percent. The further you push from supply dumps, the fewer supplies you can replace in a single day.
The resupply line from Belarus to the outskirts of Kyiv is more than 100 miles and over "back roads" - definitely not highway roads.
Ok but then what was the plan for driving to Paris during the cold war? Surely there's enough support vehicles to do that, and so there should be enough to get to your own back yard?
1) The point of the article is that the Russian logistics is primarily rail-based. Once they are forced to use trucks, they will struggle. Also, the plan was a 2-3 day assault which would not have required a resupply. Now the initial supplies have run out and they are struggling to resupply. A "40 mile convoy" that has not moved substantially in a couple of days is a massive logistics failure.
2) "Driving to Paris" during the cold war was a different time and a different place. And they never attempted it, so you cannot assume it would have been a success.
Their routes into Ukraine in the north and east do not appear to have rail lines for logistics. Note that they have had more success in the south where they likely have a better logistics supply line (more roads, probably better roads, closer to "friendly" territory).
A few hours drive in ideal conditions that don't involve going off the pavement and using pontoon bridges to get around blown up bridges, dodging craters, the potential for land mines, etc.
I've also seen rumblings that the Russian units weren't adequately supplied before setting out, they had been eating through their rations and burning fuel for heat as they sat along the border prior and weren't properly restocked before heading out.
How do you invade somewhere and not have contingencies for being denied the use of major roads? That's in the top three essential (and obvious!) things the defending force will do. For a Russian force you'd also think dealing with a post-winter thaw would be part of their general military strategy, it's not like Ukraine has a vastly different climate than Russia after all.
>I wonder if they have any real contingency plans for when that thaw sets in.
The plan is/was always to control the roads and the air by then.
Even when conditions are "good" moving an army overland is absurdly less efficient than using infrastructure hence why you only ever see it for initial attack thrusts.
I've already seen some photos of tanks stuck in mud. The good news for the Russians is that Ukraine has plenty of roads between the major objectives. It would be a totally different situation if the Russians had to cross a lot of wilderness.
I'm still wondering whether the invasion was delayed into late February for concerns about omikron covid-19 rendering the army even less effective. I haven't heard that discussed but it seems like a plausible concern.
There is some chance that US and other countries making a lot of noise about false flags set back the timetable, just enough to allow the thaw to come into play in an early thaw year. They could have had logistical difficulties just getting into formation, etc. There does not need to be just one reason, but yes covid could be one such reason.
I agree, not so much about stealing the thunder, but trying to limit the bad optics to reduce sanctions. They clearly underestimated the way other countries would react if that is the case. They could also have made some sort of agreement with China specifically to secure limited response in exchange for waiting.
Most likely it was the Olympic Truce asked by the Chinese, so Russia wont face sanctions from them. As of today, Russia is very dependent on China for its exportation, maybe China is the winner in this war.
As another pre-war take on the situation, I found this 2014 Chatham House panel discussion to have some really interesting perspectives: https://youtu.be/mxn_DdshwCc. Among the panelists are John Mearsheimer (arguing that NATO behaves irresponsibly by expanding in Eastern Europe) and Michael McFaul (arguing that Mearsheimer's cold war diplomacy does not fit the 21st century). A very interesting exchange.
> Every Kremlin ruler knows that one of the quickest ways to end a Russian dynasty or regime is to lose a war.
> In October, Rasputitsa turns firm ground into mud. In March, the frozen steppes thaw, and the land again becomes at best a bog, and at worst a sea of mud.
> The key to thwarting Russian ambitions is to prevent Moscow from having a quick victory and to raise the economic, political, and military costs by imposing economic sanctions, ensuring political isolation from the West, and raising the prospect of a prolonged insurgency that grinds away the Russian military. In this war, Russia might have the watches, but the West and Ukraine may have the time.
Well, General Winter is much more powerful if your equipment doesn't work in subzero temperatures and you have huge supply chain bottlenecks that make it hard to supply fuel and winter clothing.
The easiest direction to attack Moscow is from the south. Woods West of Moscow were intentionally left untouched for centuries to be a deathtrap for potential invasion.
groups like the mongols easily took rus lands and burned kiev because of their protection against the mentioned problems. Steppe horses and soldiers were good in the cold, their tools were working just fine, and their raiding of cities like kiev made it easy to just not need supply lines.
Mongol horses eat all the food in an area, they have to remain mobile.
They were easily defeated (2nd time around) with area and food denial methods like castles.
During WWII, the two rasputitsa/mud seasons generally were the only times the eastern front was slightly quieter and these seasons significantly impacted both sides.
Summer and even Winter generally saw numerous offensives by contrast.
During the first year, in October 41, Barbarossa and operation Typhoon (Battle of Moscow) stopped temporarily in part due to the rasputitsa, and only resumed when the ground froze in early November (incidentally giving time for the Soviets to reorganize the extremely weakened front protecting Moscow).
The soviet Winter offensives mostly stopped around the Spring rasputitsa, Case Blue and other initial battles only started only in late April 42. and after Stalingrad, the Soviet reconquest of the South during the 42/43 Winter stopped again around Spring 43, with offensive operation only restarting in July 43 (Battle of Kursk).
There are of course many other factors explaining these pauses (offensive strength exhausted, over-extended supply lines, etc), but rasputitsa was definitely a factor.
The claim is less that every loss (not every war) ends a dynasty than that many ends of dynasties can be traced to lost wars. The loss to the Japanese was a huge factor in the loss of respect at the end of the Romanov dynasty.
A number of analysts correctly predicted before the invasion that the mud thing is overblown. As we can see, most Russian armor movement happens on roads, not on land.
Then you haven't spent enough time on /r/ukrainewarvideoreport. There's tons of videos of tanks, artillery and anti-air stuck in the mud, abandoned. It pretty much forces the Russians to stick to the roads, which makes them very vulnerable (they're all lined up and can't escape anywhere because they would get stuck).
Except the Ukrainians didn't bomb them on the roads so how is it a disadvantage if you have the air superiority under control enough that your convoy isn't getting carpet bombed?
Again I invite you to check out the subreddit I mentioned. There's tons of videos of bombed out convoys on the roads. Easily hundreds if not thousands of destroyed vehicles over the last week.
The "mud" stood out to me as well, since it frames the timeline as having short term urgency. But I wonder if it cuts both ways.
For example, if Putin occupies and holds Donbas and Odessa, what's the likelihood of Ukrainian forces mounting a counter attack and reclaiming said territory? This puts the onus of invasion onto the Ukrainians, which are more configured for resistance in the first place.
The result could be another "soft annex" similar to Crimea.
> Once there is a casus belli, cyberattacks will likely follow to degrade Ukraine’s military command and control systems and public communications and electrical grids. Next, kinetic operations will likely begin with air and missile strikes against Ukraine’s air force and air defense systems. Once air superiority is established, Russian ground forces would move forward, slightly preceded by special operations to degrade further command and control capabilities and delay the mobilization of reserves by conducting bombings, assassinations, and sabotage operations.
The Russian commandants were so sure about their chances that they didn't wait for air superiority.
Or, they didn't want to be seen as an invader but a liberator and as we know that failed terribly.
Imagine how disconnected from the reality Putin must have been if in the modern world where you can get any information, to be so wrong about this. It looks like he really believed rusian army will be welcomed in Ukraine.
Possibly also assuming that the Ukrainian army would falter like it did in 2014.
Totally ignoring (or not even receiving) the intelligence reports about the buildup that happened since then.
In any case, it's a surprising display of incompetence on so many levels. Possibly enough that in the end Putin's regime will fall without making Ukraine or the world a wasteland.
I read that he's been isolating himself because of Covid, and that he has a very limited circle of people who are allowed to talk to him (see the images of him at the head on a comically long table). If this is true and those people are sycophants, then he's operating in a different reality.
It's helpful to remember that there is effectively no free/independent press in Russia (certainly not at these official meetings). Nobody snaps an embarrassing photo or takes a compromising video - all media is curated, censored, and crafted for release. If you're seeing it, it's because Kremlin wanted you to see it.
What's the message from that photo? That if Putin starts feeling unwell after the conference it wasn't due to one of those guys at the other end of the table?
In that photo, the message is "There is only one ruler". Putin represents the stern father figure, and in the moment of crisis, he does not debate, discuss, plead, or succumbs to the influence of the lesser court dwellers or foreigners.
Another example is this video of Putin's "heated exchange" with his chief spy [1]. The point of releasing that clip is to demonstrate that "The weak, meek, and confused oppose the ongoing liberation on independent nations". Viewers would not see themselves reflected in the speaker, and that distances them from his ideas. Yet there is a strong protagonist in that clip.
It happened to George W and Dick Cheney when they convinced themselves Saddam was building nukes but the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators. Same thing here.
Do you believe they actually believed this? Was Bush really just a pawn to the military industrial complex? Maybe, I don't think this is true of Dick Cheney though.
My guess at the time was that with the international coalition keeping Saddam contained faltering, they decided it was better to finish him sooner rather than later, after he'd managed to rebuild his military.
I think they really did. Especially with how they went in with basically no plans whatsoever for nation-building post-invasion. I mean, I think they wanted to invade Iraq for a lot of reasons, but then convinced themselves that the Iraqis wanted it too.
My theory is that he has a terminal illness. That would explain the intense fear of Covid, and would explain the rush to take all of Ukraine in one bite, rather than the methodical approach they've been taking over the last decade. Reconstituting the Russian empire is on his bucket list, and time is running out.
He's isolated like he's receiving chemotherapy. A few years back he pointed out that many leaders appeared to be dying of cancer. Add the US mortality statement last week and it's clear to me he's got terminal cancer.
Well, since we're theorizing: my theory is that he's f*in' goofy!
Which reminds me of an old joke:
The judge opened the courtroom proceedings: "Mr. Mouse, as I understand it, you're petitioning the court for a divorce from your wife because she is insane. Is that correct?
Mickey sighed: "No, your Honor, what I'm saying is that she's f*in' Goofy!"
If we assume that we should probably all be really alarmed that a man that disconnected from reality has their finger on the nuclear trigger. I find the idea that they are ruthless and calculating and trying to force something that no one wants to somehow be the much less frightening option.
The narrative that "the native population will be happy, and they are suppressed by Nazis" is propaganda aimed at the Russian people and the army.
Putin knows very well what's happening, he has been planning this war for a very long time. He made sure the EU received less gas than agreed last summer, so their reserves are insufficient. Leaked plans show he is aiming to attack Moldova next.
The Russian military seems to be extremely unmotivated, and rightly so. This is Putin's war. Nobody else wanted it. There is evidence that lower ranks in the Russian military don't want to kill their neighbors who mostly speak the same language. Morale is very low, as many cases of abandoned vehicles and surrender illustrate. Unfortunately, the longer a war goes on, the more both sides harden and the more brutal the war becomes.
I wonder if it wouldn't help for the West to guarantee political asylum for Russian deserters, maybe even with a new identity for them. But I don't know if this is practically achievable, at least not without extensive vetting and not as long as they are PoWs. Has this ever been attempted?
+1 to a witness-protection-type program for Russian soldiers. How can we expect them to want to stop without it? The choice is: carry out your questionable orders, or be court-martialed and be sentenced to treason by a stone-cold regime.
They have been constantly battling Russian/Russian backed forces in Donbass as well. That's going to have given them valuable experience over the last 8 years.
Anyone who has worked in public leadership will recognize that Zelensky has been putting on a diplomacy/PR/propaganda masterclass. His decisions and actions will be studied for a long time to come as an example of how to gain and exert soft power, and how to translate soft power to material power.
Yup, and the reason it’s working is Zelenskyy is putting himself at huge risk as part of it. Risk like that cannot be faked, and people know it. People know that some of the stuff is flashy PR stunts and exaggerations, but it doesn’t matter because Zelenskyy is clearly willing to risk his life for this. Like, an enormous, enormous risk. He has maybe a 50% chance of surviving this. Absolute legend. And we can see the whole country is cut from the same cloth.
That will to fight matters more than the sophistication of their weapons. Weapons without the will to fight just go right into the enemy’s hands as you surrender. In a sense, soft power then is the vastly more important power.
If Kyiv falls that is 0%. The risk is a lot higher to him, he can't just walk out of this or be evac'd. The Russians have a price on his head and want him dead because they believe that that will break the Ukrainian spirit, which I highly doubt will be the effect, if anything it will spur them on.
Zelensky has broad cultural appeal in Ukraine (or you could frame it as "he's not polarizing and isn't hated by a large fraction of the country" which I think is the better way to look at it). How else would someone become president with such a limited political background? Killing him would be a textbook way to make a martyr.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Russians to read the ideological room. The details of this operation seems predicated on Russian misunderstanding of who they were dealing with. An entire generation has grown up living with the background threat of Russian aggression and this point has really been driven home sine 2014. Expecting the people and leaders of Ukraine to not be mentally prepared for that comes across like the nation state version of the feds showing up on the doorstep of a bunch of apocalypse preaching crazies expecting an easy win and then being baffled that their victims prefer to die together.
Or something might happen and Ukraine might just roll over. Nobody knows yet. Time will tell.
I think that is the collected western view of it. Everyone is baffled of the ignorance and ... well, mostly not finding words to describe the enormous disconnect from reality that russian leaders are showing.
The first wave of soldiers from Russia was kids with normal walkie talkies unencrypted communication thinking they are doing a normal manouver and suddenly realising they are at war.
There are a few steps between sneaking away from your unit and securing political asylum in Europe.
Do you sneak away at the front? The opposition is hunting infiltrators, will they ask questions or shoot first? Do you sneak out behind the front? Your own side is likely to dispense quick "justice" and report you as KIA if you're caught (less trouble). How do you get to a border with a Western country? Do you stay in Ukraine and wait for things to settle down before making your move? That's a bet that you won't find yourself in a Russian-occupied zone. And so on.
How willing would Russia be to admit they deserted instead of surrendering or capture? Each family you punish is like telling their every colleague, relative, neighbor, and friend your army is faltering.
This is brilliant, why stop at political asylum? Change the narrative for attacking soldiers as a way to escape a regime and make some money. If you incentivized deserting without consequences that would be interesting. If each soldier was paid 10k to dessert and pick a country to immigrate to. Total cost 1.9billion on 190k soldiers. If you don’t dessert and join Ukraine in their fight you get 100k.
I think there's a far simpler explanation; genocide. Putin has been throwing Chechen conscripts into this meatgrinder at a pace which shows he has zero issues whatsoever with any level of casualties. The losses are a feature, not a bug. This is Russia, not Iran. They have reserves of over 10 million troops to call on, and the worlds largest inventory of military equipment. He knows he can just throw bodies at this and avoid losing the expensive aircraft and pilots he will need for his coming showdown with NATO.
Okay, by trying to operate all that (mostly incredibly crappy) equipment and massive conscript reserves in a hostile country all at once means just burning up your fuel and food much faster, leaving your equipment stranded and your soldiers deserting. You wouldn’t think logistics would be a problem just 100 or 200 miles away from your own de facto borders, but here we are.
I’m sure Ukraine appreciates all the weapons Russia is donating to them, though.
>Okay, by trying to operate all that (mostly incredibly crappy) equipment and massive conscript reserves in a hostile country all at once means just burning up your fuel and food much faster
Russia has unlimited food and fuel. And their capture of Ukraine will only solidify that. Soldiers and tanks are cheap. Su-57's and pilots are not.
>You wouldn’t think logistics would be a problem just 100 or 200 miles away from your own de facto borders, but here we are.
This is week 1 of an invasion that is going to last for years. Moving that kind of tonnage just physically takes time no matter what.
> the worlds largest inventory of military equipment.
I think the proper word is scrapeyard. The equipment does not work.
Yes there are many Chechens in Ukraine and you are right that they basically want to get rid of them but there are also many Russians. The regime simply does not care for the lives of people.
> Yes there are many Chechens in Ukraine and you are right that they basically want to get rid of them but there are also many Russians. The regime simply does not care for the lives of people.
> I think there's a far simpler explanation; genocide.
I don't think so.
I'm seeing estimates of 120-150k Russian troops deployed in Ukraine from sources like the Ukrainian government and the Pentagon. Outside of Russian propaganda, the estimates range from 10-12k range for Chechen fighters. The 10k number came from Chechen leadership. These numbers don't support the notion that Chechens are doing the bulk of the fighting or dying in Ukraine.
Moreover, the only reports of engagement with Chechen forces are in regard to the elimination of a special forces unit tasked with assassinating Zelensky. Russians are using the image of Chechens as fierce, brutal, battle-hardened fighters in an attempt to demoralize Ukrainians. If Chechens were doing a significant share of the fighting it would all over the news. Ukraine would capitalize on this as well to rally the populace against the "Putin's vicious Chechen mercenaries".
>I'm seeing estimates of 120-150k Russian troops deployed in Ukraine from sources like the Ukrainian government and the Pentagon. Outside of Russian propaganda, the estimates range from 10-12k range for Chechen fighters. The 10k number came from Chechen leadership. These numbers don't support the notion that Chechens are doing the bulk of the fighting or dying in Ukraine.
There's a 10:1 ratio of logistical units to front line fighters for any modern military. The Chechen units are 100% light infantry.
I was also very interested in that point. Later in the article, they also suggest the US give (via a lend-lease program) equipment to prevent Russia from gaining air superiority. So I wonder if the analysis of both the authors and Russia is that gaining air superiority would be time consuming, and Russia thought they needed to try ti advance faster.
Just because the Russian army doesn't have air superiority doesn't mean they have no air support at all.
It's possible the convoy is protected but that the Russians can't or don't want to deploy more aircrafts for other operations.
It's also possible that the Ukrainians don't want to attack the convoy but the support this convoy needs to get. That's a powerful tactic if you can cut off the supply chain for such a massive number of vehicles.
Note: I'm no military expert (is there a handy acronym for that?) :-)
> with Kremlin propaganda portraying Ukraine as a proto-fascist, neo-Nazi state
Kremlin propaganda... I mean the US did (publicly at least)suspend military aid to Ukranian militias over their overt neonazi and white supremacist ties¹(these militias were then simply subsumed into the National Guard). Furthermore, the American military has even published a publicly available analysis of such forces in Ukraine², confirming their existence.
None of the sources I've used here are in any way "Russian", they are all by Western sources. If quoting the American military's own reports is spreading "Kremlin propaganda", well then I can't help you.
If you think there is no weight to the neonazi presence in Ukraine, you've clearly fell for western propaganda, which the linked article gives itself away as being.
> However, the mobilization of far-right groups in Ukraine does not extend to political success; in the 2019 parliamentary elections, they received little over two percent of the vote.
These groups don't need political success when they are already subsumed into the apparatus of the military, as the sources I have linked to also point out.
[0] seems to be the sole source of this, and even it doesn’t make any claim of power within the military outside of being protected. And that is ignoring that there are a lot of words like "ostensibly" or "seemingly" when explaining why the author is correct. Which brings us back to 2%.
You can find some white supremacist/neo-nazi fuckwits pretty much wherever you go, there are probably more then a few in most western militaries (and I wonder how many you could find in the Russian military). It's not grounds for overthrowing a democracy and murdering innocent civilians in the process, particularly when according to your sources:
However, the mobilization of far-right groups in Ukraine does not extend to political success;
Are you implying that having a neo-nazi problems justifies the invasion? Because that’s what it sounds like.
There’s also some irony in dismissing this article as propaganda when all you’ve pointed out is that it, offhandedly I might say, called the situation Kremlin propaganda. Especially it since consists mostly predictions, an enormous amount of which have become true.
> Are you implying that having a neo-nazi problems justifies the invasion? Because that’s what it sounds like.
Not that I condone war, or the invasion, but going off the cuff here: If we take the context of what Russia has said, and to facts on the ground, the 2 largest Russian military operations are currently surrounding Kharkiv and Mariupol, which have shown to be 2 of the largest bases for the neo-nazi and far-right militia recruitment in Ukraine.
> There’s also some irony in dismissing this article as propaganda when all you’ve pointed out is that it, offhandedly I might say, called the situation Kremlin propaganda. Especially it since consists mostly predictions, an enormous amount of which have become true.
I don't doubt the validity of the article's predictions. I doubted the articles dismissal of the neo-nazi and far right presence as being "Kremlin propaganda". When I hear this line, it automatically makes me believe the writer is either ignorant, or intentionally spreading propaganda, as this kind of dismissal does not coincide with reality. I'm just trying to inform people, because I see this narrative constantly, and it's worth fighting back against.
If behaving like a Nazi justifies invasion, we need to plough some missiles into Moscow. Barrelling tanks into a resisting democracy is about as Nazi as one can get.
There are more Neo Nazi's in Moscow alone than in all of Ukraine. Heck, in NL they are sitting in Parliament. Germany the same. USA the same. The whole of the West has a Neo Nazi problem. And we will have to deal with that, but open societies, freedom of speech and democracies are an ideal breeding ground for this sort of thing.
> Kharkiv and Mariupol, which have shown to be 2 of the largest bases for the neo-nazi and far-right militia recruitment in Ukraine.
What are you talking about? Kharkiv and Mariupol are 95% russian speaking population. Before the Donbas events, these were very pro-russian cities, after Donabas the population learned what Russia is. The same amount of neo-nazis tehy can find in Minsk or St. Petersberg, may as well bomb these.
We're talking about neonazi and far right militias in the ground that are being trained and funded by America. You clearly didn't read any of the sources that I linked(which are Western, and in some cases, US military sources). I'm not talking about dumb neonazis larping somewhere, we're talking about well armed and funded militias that are being used to fight a proxy war, killing civilians.
Regarding Kharkiv and Mariupol I won't discuss further as you clearly are more motivated by rhetoric, than talking about actual facts.
The statements you make don't pass basic sniff test. America training anti-russian militias in Kharhiv, would be like Russia training anti-american militas in Toronto. Did America trains some small % of overal ukrainian army - yes, can you find some wierdoes there - sure. But large scale anti-russian milita training in kharhiv is nuts (well was nuts until last week, now it's different story)
About rethoric vs facts. Is Kharhiv not predominant russian speaking population? In 2010 elections Kharkiv voted 70% for Yanukovych, very pro-russian candidate (wanted to unite Ukraine with Russia which resulted in hime being booted in the end). Today Kharkiv is resisting russian invasion for 7th day, surrounded 40km from russain border, is all this resitance by american trained neo-nazis?
Azov is a single militia unit with plenty of non-neo-Nazi members, who joined because it's well equipped and has high morale rather than to advance some far-right cause.
Oh, we had more than one scandal with neo-Nazis in the Armed Forces. One officer, who was flagged due to his master thesis by the French as a Nazi, posed as a refugee from Syria and tried to kill some politicians and blame it on refugees. One unit of the KSK was dissolved after some very Nazi-themed parties. One of their NCOs was found to have an underground depot of weapons and ammo in his garden.
And I could go on and on.
EDIT: In the official history of the Bundeswehr, neither the 3. Reich and the Wehrmacht nor the GDR does exist. Which is such a wasted opportunity to teach soldiers about the risk of serving oppressive regimes, facilitating genocide and not standing up for democracy. Anecdotally, I once passed their Officer Candidate Assessment center. In the welcome speech, an Air Force Major directly said something along the lines of "people with Antifa stickers on their bags can just drop out right away. You are not welcome". I kept my mouth shut, I did drop out after successfully passing due to other reasons, but it struck me as strange that, of all the armed forces, anti-fascists should be welcome in the German ones.
> In the official history of the Bundeswehr, neither the 3. Reich and the Wehrmacht nor the GDR does exist.
Uhm, no?
> Which is such a wasted opportunity to teach soldiers about the risk of serving oppressive regimes, facilitating genocide and not standing up for democracy.
Yes, and the portion of history I mentioned isn't shown in the official Bundeswehr museum nor is it considered part of their tradition. Maybe I worded it wrong, than.
The German Armed Forces have a right wing problem.
That's why a 100 billion Euro budget for these guys might not be the best idea without adressing the Nazi problem first.
I used to be a huge proponent of getting rid of conscription in Germany. Turned out that conscripts, being by definition from all walks of life and political backgrounds, offset the right wing problem a lot. But yes, we need to get a grip on that. I wouldn't worry abut the additional money, so. After all we spend 20+ million on the restauration of a sailing ship. A new one goes for around 4 to 5. Maybe we burn that money on a carrier? Forgetting the aircraft?
Well, you are not wrong to some extent. Even the mainstream media's 'blue eyes and blond hair' bias are playing into Putin's weak excuse to invade - making the media look like white supremacists. [0]
Just how they think wars cannot happen anywhere in the world and now they have been revealed to be and admitted white supremacists themselves on TV is just beyond me.
Ukraine has a neonazi problem that has been thoroughly analyzed and presented in the West. That's not exactly news.
However (and that's a big however) majority of Ukranians are not neonazis. And their political leadership is certainly not neonazis with Zelensky being a Jew. That kinda puts the 'ol Soviet playbook about "liberating people from neonazis" that's being used by Putin in a weird light. Maybe he's going to liberate USA next, because you know, KKK?
Ukraine are supporting the Azov Battalion out of sheer desperation due to constant Russian aggression. They can't afford to pick and choose who will help them in their defence. The presence of neo-nazis in the general population is actually much lower in Ukraine than it is in Russia according to polling. And there's no evidence of a neo-nazi presence in Ukrainian leadership.
Yes, there are neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military. There's neo-Nazis in the American military too, and the German military despite their extensive anti-Nazi efforts, along with neo-Nazis in the Russian military such as the Wagner group. Turns out militaristic authoritarians are attracted to military service wherever they are. I'm not saying that neo-Nazis in the military aren't a problem, but it's a problem like covid in the military is: something that's nigh inevitable as long as it exists, and something to be stamped out when evidence of its existence is found, regardless of which military it's in.
This is amazingly detailed. It is interesting to see what this got right and what it got wrong.
It seems clear that Russia was seeking a quick fait acoompli, likely by installing a puppet government and winning so fast that everyone would just have to accept it. It still seems unclear which of the strategic goals Russia has here from complete occupation to carving up the country to just having a puppet regime like Belarus.
But this all seems like a hopelessly naive miscalculation. Ukraine is massive and there's only so fast you can advance (which the brief mentions). Stretched supply lines and the prospect of a prolonged insurgency just make th eodds of success look really bad.
Another factor in the timing supporting a winter invasion is the greater dependence Europe has on natural gas for heating at that time.
I was in the camp that believed this invasion wouldn't happen for all the reasons why it is (still!) looking like a losing proposition now. And while Putin is clearly the bad guy here and nothing justifies the invasion, I still believe that reckless foreign policy by the United States in particular, starting with dangling NATO membership to Ukraine in 2008 that has persisted through 4 administrations, is the root cause of this crisis.
US interventionist foreign policy, despite its terrible track record, has really put European security and US interests at risk and the Ukrainians are paying the price.
This video from 2015 [1] details how US foreign policy is inviting war in the Ukraine. It's held up even better than this brief.
I fail to see any credible alternative to "dangling NATO membership". It's the eastern european countries themselves with historical experience with Russia that clamored for NATO membership. In the US there are many influential children of eastern european immigrants that saw it as necessity too.
Even if it was possible to leave these countries in the cold "stfu we must not anger russia" that would do no good either, many of them would likely fail under such "denied future" circumstances.
> I fail to see any credible alternative to "dangling NATO membership".
You mean other than a policy of neutrality, much like Switzerland and Finland (and, to a lesser extent, Ireland) have pursued?
This would mean training a defensive army with the clear message that the cost of invasion would be so high as to dissuade such imperialist endeavours. The Swiss developed this half a century ago [1].
The Swiss and Finnish geographies are uniquely suited to holding out against a much larger force. Ukraine has to try to do that now, but that doesn't make it a good strategy for them to have planned on.
(The other thing that makes Swiss neutrality work is that the bulk of the resources that they have that matter are human, and therefore hard to claim when conquered.)
Switzerland is highly mountainous and 2 out of its 3 big neighbors historically could not agree with anything the others proposed, which most likely meant that at least 1 of them would support the Swiss against the other 2 (at most) invaders.
Scaling Swiss neutrality worldwide is unrealistic.
Most countries don't have these kinds of luxuries.
Don't cherry pick - Yugoslavia initially pursued it, too. And there are similar ethnic/religious tensions all over eastern europe, but they were not acted upon when western integration was available.
This sharing of video by Kremlin apologist needs to stop.
Why Westerners have so much taste for Russian state propaganda?
If something is “logical”, doesn’t mean that it is true.
Russia has tried to subdue Ukraine since Putin came to power, courting Ukrainian political parties at least since 2002. When “soft” approach failed miserably in 2014, he went for military interventions.
It doesn’t matter what West was doing at the time, picturing every political development in Ukraine as a result of Western interference is really it’s own way of saying - “Ukrainians are stupid and all their political life is just a proxy for competing foreign powers”
>US interventionist foreign policy, despite its terrible track record, has really put European security and US interests at risk
Isn't it the opposite? It may be too early to tell but NATO is reinvigorated, Europe is once again turned back towards the Atlantic faction, Russia's economy is faltering, Ukraine is out performing what anyone expected militarily and Russia's army looks shambolic.
I have seen that video linked often in past month and it seems like Mearsheimer's biggest miss was how weak Russia truly is and how irrational Putin may act. If we expect Russia to fiercely defend its interest in Ukraine as IR realists then shouldn't we also expect the US to use Ukraine to twist the knife in the current Russian state?
> Europe is once again turned back towards the Atlantic faction
Pardon, but in the last couple of years it was the United States that gave off more than one signal that they felt that NATO was outdated and that it would be each for themselves from now on. The EU response to that was to form a European military alliance.
The United States gave off more than one signal that their NATO allies (particularly Germany) should stop violating the written agreement and spend the required 2% of GDP on defense. Some of our European allies were just freeloaders, taking advantage of US security guarantees without contributing any meaningful capabilities in return.
> Either Ukrainians have a right to self-determination, or no one does.
Cuba decided to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons on their soil. Don't they also have that right?
This "self-determination" argument is both hopelessly naive and inconsistently applied. Somehow it applies to Ukraine joining NATO (despite that being a massive destabilizing influence to the world's largest nuclear power) but doesn't apply to, say, Palestine.
As further evidence of how dangerous this rhetoric was and is, Biden has repeatedly stated that the United States will not put boots on the ground in Ukraine. Why? Because that would put nuclear powers in direct conflict, which is a recipe for disaster. This was always the case and the US and NATO were never going to come to Ukraine's aid so dangling that unrealistic possiblity filled Ukraine with false hope and provoked Russia.
For the interventionist hawks in the US, this invasion is in many ways a "win". The defence industry gets to sell a lot of guns and Russia gets mired in (their) Afghanistan 2.0 that may well end Russia through protracted insurgency.
Too bad a whole bunch of Ukrainians will die in the process and the country will be wrecked. But hey, things are looking up for Lockheed stock.
The embargo on Cuba has been a humanitarian and political disaster, and I think a position of respecting Cuban sovereignty is more widespread than you'd expect. The West has tons of dirty laundry, but it doesn't negate Russia waging a war of conquest.
>Cuba decided to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons on their soil. Don't they also have that right?
This was before 1997, when NATO and Russia signed the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, stating the "aim of creating in Europe a common space of security and stability, without dividing lines or spheres of influence limiting the sovereignty of any state."
> Cuba decided to allow the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons on their soil. Don't they also have that right?
Of course they do. They did exercise that right, didn’t they? But the US had the right to be concerned about that too, and the USSR cared more about striking a deal with the US than accommodating Cuba.
> This was always the case and the US and NATO were never going to come to Ukraine's aid so dangling that unrealistic possiblity filled Ukraine with false hope and provoked Russia.
You mentioned right above that Biden was clear that there would be no US force in Ukraine. So where is the false hope? NATO membership would take years to materialize. And Russia was provoked? Give me a break. Russia has been provoking, meddling with other countries, bullying smaller neighbors, annexing Crimea. It’s beyond absurd to say Russia is a victim. Russia consider themselves a superpower and have the right over their neighbors regardless of their desire. Simple as that.
Absolutely correct. The idea that Putin or Russia is somehow 'threatened' by NATO is just wrong. Putin only doesn't want Ukraine in NATO because then he wouldn't be able to take over Ukraine.
> I still believe that reckless foreign policy by the United States in particular, starting with dangling NATO membership to Ukraine in 2008 that has persisted through 4 administrations, is the root cause of this crisis.
Only the mind of one already set on conquering his neighbors could see an invitation to join an exclusively-defensive alliance as an existential threat.
At this point, it's obvious to any country that borders Russia that it's either join NATO or be absorbed in one way or another. If Ukraine falls, it's on to Moldova or Georgia. He already has his pretext provinces ready to go.
This is another myth that needs to die. I'll give three examples:
1. NATO bombing of Kosovo;
2. NATO invasion of Libya; and
3. NATO has strategic nuclear weapons.
Even if you ignore those real examples of aggression, from an adversary's perspective, the only difference between NATO being "defensive" and "aggressive" is a policy change or even just stretching the definition of "defensive" to include preemptive military action in other countries.
I agree with others, blaming the invasion on the expansion of NATO is victim blaming. Russia was and is a credible threat to these nations. Otherwise they would not have felt the need to join NATO and get its protection. Historically Russia has treated these eastern european nations as its property to lord over. This is true now, was true during the Soviet era and was true in the imperial era as well.
This is an old and deep rooted notion of what Russia considers its sphere of influence and vassal states. It goes so far that almost as soon as they came to power the Soviets set about bringing the former vassal states of imperial Russia back under their control. They invaded Poland in 1918. Of course it should go without saying they also joined Nazi Germany in conquering Poland in 1939 and after WW2 quickly moved to bring all of eastern europe fully under their control. Finland managed to remain independent after two costly wars with them.
Many of these nations see NATO membership as essential to their survival. If anything the last week proved them right. If you don't join NATO then Russia will eventually try to conquer you again.
>In addition, Russian annexation of some or all of Ukraine would increase Russian manpower, industrial capacity, and natural resources
Right now the only thing from that list it will provide is natural resources. Industrial capacity and cities are being destroyed. Good luck making an army of conscripts from Ukraine that you expect to fight the west (although russia's way of doing things would be to send them east to fight China).
It's an inside joke, industry circle jerk, trope, whatever you want to call it.
That phrase or variations thereof dates to the soviet afghan war and is a general reference to the futility of trying to beat an insurgency of people who are sufficiently dedicated to their cause.
I'll see if I can find the OG source but search engines only seem to want to turn up more recent references to the US occupation thereof (it's hard to find unimportant niche things that predate the internet).
Am I the only person the caught Putin's "I don't care to occupy Ukraine" in his address a few days ago? Dude goes back on that, he'll have even more problems from untrusting Russian citizens. Everyone assumes his goal is to conquer Ukraine and keep a tight grab on it. We don't know that positively.
> Everyone assumes his goal is to conquer Ukraine and keep a tight grab on it. We don't know that positively.
There is strong evidence for that. A ‘reporter’ at RIA Russian media accidentally uploaded a preprepared article saying Ukraine had been returned to Russian rule and tried to delete it. [1]
Here's some commentary about what that means from a guy I have really come to respect. [2]
You know what, that's a fair point. It's possible at that scale that that reporter was just writing both outcomes to be prepared for each scenario, while not being aware of what the actual agenda was.
Yes, it's state-owned media. That doesn't mean everything they write comes directly from mouths of the top officials. It just means it's generally biased towards the state.
Yeah, it seemed it was all about security for the two separatist regions in Ukraine and stopping "genocide". And that seemed to be a somewhat reasonable approach. But what is happening now does not fit. And seems unreasonable and illogical.
Are you the only person who doesn't understand Putin has proven himself time and time and time and time and time and time.......and time and time and time....and time again to be a genocidal liar? That his word means absolutely nothing?
"Absent a major U.S. and European military deployment to Ukraine, which President Biden has already ruled out since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, Ukrainian forces cannot prevent a rapid deployment of Russian forces into Ukraine"
So far that statement is proving to be wrong. Perhaps they overestimated the effectiveness of the Russian military or underestimated the resolve of the Ukranian people.
I've been trying to game this out. The only logical explanation is that Putin has spent the last 20 years installing nuclear dead-man switches for himself across Russia, and has taken the entire populace as hostage. Nothing else really explains it. The amount of backlash and isolation Russia is receiving would be enough to incite a coup otherwise. I'm sure that everyone in his inner circle is made well aware of the dead-man switch, and anyone who even thinks about opening their mouth about it ends up falling from a window.
The conspiracy theory comments here on Hacker News are very disheartening and not what I expected from this community. Sure, as tech workers we are cynical and pessimistic, and think we know better than the average person.
But to think we can translate that knowledge to anything, like say geopolitics, is laughable.
If I see written here one more time that civilians being bombed, and small Ukrainian military victories, are just PsyOps campaigns manufactured by the West, I don't be reading any more non-tech comments here on HN.
Interesting thought, this goes way beyond Europe and Russia.
reply