Russia and Ukraine Current Events

[NoParty]

This should not be a political issue at all.
There is nothing "Democratic Party" or "leftist" about being pro-democracy.

If you took Trump's fetish for dictators (Putin in particular) out of the equation,
the U.S. would have no issue sticking to our traditional values.
There is nothing "conservative" about selling out democracies to appease dictators.

I felt really bad for Zelenskyy after that 2/28 Oval Office clusterfuck: Trump, Vance, etc.
were trying to get him to essentially say that Ukraine should make concessions, to bring peace.
I think Trump believes that if he can broker a deal, any deal, then his bogus, disproved
Art of the Deal fantasy rep will be restored.
He has literally no understanding of history, nor concern about the world's future.

But Zelenskyy can't play that game: Any resolution that sets a precedent for rewarding
Russia for a violent, unprovoked invasion, is unacceptable. In normal (non-Trump) times,
the Republicans would be yelling this loudly, shouting about principles, and pointing to the
infamous Munich Agreement of 1938, which made a bad Hitler an even worse Hitler,
leading the world into WWII, the worst thing humankind has ever experienced.

If someone breaks into your house, trying to steal everything, the appropriate response
is to try to stop it...or at least later catch the criminal and get your stuff back. You do not say:
"Well, he really wants my stuff...okay, he can have half, and we'll all move on."

I never thought I'd say this, but I wish the modern Republicans were the Republicans of my
youth: I didn't like all their positions, but they actually had values, and a backbone.


ETA: I noticed that immediately afterward, many in conservative media complained that
Zelenskyy could've just gone along, smiled and nodded, & not been "rude" by standing up for Ukraine.
That everything would've been much nicer that way. But if he had, then later Trump etc.,
could say: "You essentially conceded that Ukraine should make concessions, that day."
And again, as soon as he says that Putin should profit from this, the game is lost...for ALL of us!!

 

[deirdre]

the U.S. would have no issue sticking to our traditional values.

i thought pulling out of wars that cant be won and negotiating was our "traditional values". not that i studied every war so i could be mistaken.

 

[John J.]

i thought pulling out of wars that cant be won and negotiating was our "traditional values".

Doing the right thing in defence of freedom might be closer to how some other US administrations might have put it.

 

[deirdre]

Doing the right thing in defence of freedom might be closer to how some other US administrations might have put it.

how is pulling out of wars "in defense of freedom"? <not arguing with you, i dont really know all the war lingo.

 

[John J.]

how is pulling out of wars "in defense of freedom"?

I don't think we're disagreeing as such.
As a non-American (which is an important qualifier) I feel many administrations before the current one might have been more reticent to say that a campaign involving the United States, or being independently fought by a pro-US nation or group, was unwinnable.

They would be more likely to characterise continued US involvement or support for an ally as a defence of freedom (or at least a necessary confronting of an aggressive regime; Kuwait was no beacon of democracy but the Iraqi regime was worse, and posed a threat to other states). I guess this might be seen (or described as) in line with traditional American values by some, e.g. Reagan/ Bush-era Republicans (and many Democrats). Can't supply a checkable source for my conjecture though, and as an outsider I could be totally wrong.

 

[deirdre]

They would be more likely to characterise continued US involvement or support for an ally as a defence of freedom

obviously. until we change our minds and pull out. which, pretty sure, we tend to do.

I feel many administrations before the current one might have been more reticent to say that a campaign involving the United States, or being independently fought by a pro-US nation or group, was unwinnable.

so what was our excuse for pulling out of iraq? afghanistan? korea? vietnam? <honest question, im not a war person so certainly my perceptions of the past could be wrong. were those wars winnable? and we are just evil people for pulling out?

 

[NoParty]

There is a difference between saying "We'd prefer not to get involved, at least not yet"
and the "leader" of the world's most powerful military saying:
"Ukraine, you need to reward Russia for their naked aggression."
Fucking shameful.

 

[deirdre]

"We'd prefer not to get involved, at least not yet"
[...] of the world's most powerful military saying:

if we walk away (or even if we dont) the power of our military is pretty irrelevant to ukraine.

it's the "one of the worlds strongest economies" telling ukraine to concede that is unfair. well, kinda. its not like our military strength or strong economy has helped ukraine any as of yet. but who knows maybe another 25% on russian oil will hurt russia enough (as it devastates europe) to finally make some impact.

 

[John J.]

so what was our excuse for pulling out of iraq? afghanistan? korea? vietnam?

The United States didn't pull out of Korea. There are about 24,000 US servicemen there today, plus some dependents I think,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea.
Korea had been a possession of Japan. At the end of WW2, the north of Korea was occupied by Soviet (Russian) troops, who installed a fanatically communist government. The south was occupied by US troops- a bit like East and West Germany.
South Korea was invaded by North Korea, US forces were attacked. the US and some allies responded, after much bitter fighting North Korea was nearly defeated but China entered the war and almost took the whole peninsula. Eventually US forces retook most of South Korea. The communist forces suffered terrible losses but had huge reserves of manpower and had comprehensively "dug in" in the North- both sides, behind closed doors, sort of accepted it was an unwinnable war.
An armistice (ceasefire) was agreed; modern North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK) came into being.

The US has consistently supported the defence of South Korea ever since.
It's fairly clear which of the two Koreas has the best standard of living for its people, and which is friendliest to "western" nations.

I won't comment much on the Vietnam War as it is understandably a painful topic for many Americans who may have first hand or familial experience. American personnel fought there from 1955 to 1973.

There are some similarities with Korea: Communist insurgents fought returning French colonial troops from 1946 to 1954, winning independence for North Vietnam. The North supported communist groups in the pro-western South, hostilities started in 1955. From the outset there was some US assistance to the South, which gradually escalated to full-scale warfare in 1965.
American politicians of both parties were concerned that any nation falling to communism would invariably subvert its neighbours, "domino theory", so from some influential American perspectives the war in Vietnam was seen as part of a global struggle against communism (particularly Russian communism- Russia was North Vietnam's chief supporter, China second; the USSR and China had fallen out by this time. President Nixon was later to seek a form of rapprochement with China).
By the early 70s, many young Americans (and no doubt parents) resented the draft (conscription) which was used to support troop numbers in Vietnam. South Vietnam might have been pro-west but the governments were corrupt, unstable and did little to alleviate poverty in rural areas (the overwhelming bulk of the country).
Tensions between the USA and USSR were easing in other areas, détente, e.g. the signing of the SALT 1 treaty in 1972. It was fairly clear that domino theory or not, Vietnam's neighbours of Laos and Cambodia had been deeply damaged by the war and were heading for hell in a handbasket.
The US, North Vietnam and South Vietnam signed the Paris Peace Accords, Nixon's "Peace with Honor", in 1973, ending direct US combat involvement. Theoretically the Accords arranged a ceasefire between North and South Vietnam.
In practice, fighting resumed fairly quickly, and in 1975 South Vietnam fell to well-equipped, disciplined North Vietnamese troops, and ceased to exist as an independent country.

Approx. 2,500 US service personnel remain in Iraq, mainly to monitor/ address any threats from ISIL (if this article is still relevant),

"To be clear, the United States is not withdrawing from Iraq," a U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity told reporters.
...U.S. and Iraq officials have agreed to allow coalition troops to continue to support anti-ISIS operations in Syria from Iraq through the second phase of the transition until at least September 2026.

"US troops to stay in Iraq as anti-ISIS forces shift within the country", Matthew Adams, 27 September 2024,
Stars and Stripes website https://www.stripes.com/theaters/mi...roops-iraq-syria-isis-coalition-15324087.html

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was supposed to be in response to the Iraqi regime's development of weapons prohibited by the terms of the 1991 Gulf War ceasefire. The years of chaos that followed were mainly fuelled by sectarian violence, although nationalism/ jihadism also played important roles in attacks on US and allied troops.
The US did oversee reasonably effective elections to a (kind of) power-sharing parliament; however the majority Shia population, previously suppressed by Saddam Hussein, is religiously and culturally connected to Iran.
The US and other western nations might have hoped that a democratic Iraq would be pro-west and relatively liberal; this has not been the case.
The US forces that remain in Iraq are there because/ as long as the Iraqi leadership sees them as a useful bulwark against ISIL (who are extremist Sunni Muslims).

As for Afghanistan- particularly the adherence to a strict withdrawal timetable- we'd have to ask Presidents Trump and Biden.
Leaving many millions of dollars of US military supplies in the hands of the organisation that harboured the 9-11 conspirators must be questionable.

 

[captancourgette]

hey if logic doesnt help maybe realiy
https://photos.app.goo.gl/RsBTCdiogqqePe6W9
heres me and my daughter, Im about to go back to ukraine 3rd time, well end of month terrified of course

 

[John J.]

its not like our military strength or strong economy has helped ukraine any as of yet.

Oh, I think it has helped enormously. Without US aid it's unlikely Ukraine would still be an independent country.
Man-portable Javelin anti-tank missiles helped blunt the initial invasion. American Patriot missiles have helped reduce the effect of Russia's (criminal) missile and drone attacks on cities.
Ukraine's need for artillery shells and small arms ammunition far exceed anything that it might reasonably have prepared for
(I can't think of many nations that budget for a three-year war against Russia).

Financial aid allows crucial workers to be paid, and therefore feed their families and heat their homes, enabling them to continue as firefighters, electrical grid technicians, paramedics, water/ sewerage workers etc. etc.
US aid has been indispensable.

 

[deirdre]

Oh, I think it has helped enormously.

it hasnt helped as far as being able to drive Russia out of ukraine, (ie win the war, win their land back) which is kinda the topic No Party is getting at. i think.

 

[MapperGuy]

if we walk away (or even if we dont) the power of our military is pretty irrelevant to ukraine.

it's the "one of the worlds strongest economies" telling ukraine to concede that is unfair. well, kinda. its not like our military strength or strong economy has helped ukraine any as of yet. but who knows maybe another 25% on russian oil will hurt russia enough (as it devastates europe) to finally make some impact.

US Military strength has been crucial for Ukraines survival to this point. The US has been shipping large quantities of older equipment and ammunition to Ukraine from the start. Older and scheduled to be destroyed in some cases, older reserves that might have been sold to allies in other cases. Continued supplies of missiles, artillery ammunition and weapons to fire them have enabled Ukraine to survive to this point. Without them the war would have been over already.

US news media have not been covering the war particularly well, focusing on US politicians who support one side or the other.
If you want to follow along with the military progress of the war and related issues I would suggest you follow the daily reports from the Institute for the Study of War.
Institute for the Study of War
They also are covering the Middle East conflicts at the moment.

 

[deirdre]

The US has been shipping large quantities of older equipment and ammunition to Ukraine from the start. Older and scheduled to be destroyed in some cases, older reserves that might have been sold to allies in other cases. Continued supplies of missiles, artillery ammunition and weapons to fire them have enabled Ukraine to survive to this point. Without them the war would have been over already.

i hear you, but i see that as "economy", for ex we can still build arms to sell to ukraine because we have the money to set up manufacturing and the people to make them. [and a culture of "if someone wants to buy it, someone will make it and sell it"]

add: and since the taxpayer pays for all those arms and aid we have and are sending them...that's "economy". we can do more than say the UK because our economy is bigger and stronger.

to me "military strength' is "boots on the ground" and also "intel"...which that, the intel abilities (war experience tc), we are sharing with ukraine so far still.

US news media have not been covering the war particularly well, focusing on US politicians who support one side or the other.
If you want to follow along with the military progress of the war

agree. ive been watching/listening to some of those guys who just follow and report on the day to day stuff. pretty eye opening! <what's happening, but also that there are so many guys so fascinated by the minutia of the details. i guess everyone has their interests and hobbies.

They also are covering the Middle East conflicts at the moment.

i always avoid the middle east. theres only so much war stuff/depression my girly brain can handle.

 

[deirdre]

Institute for the Study of War

no offense but at a quick glance that seems like a highly biased site. my guys talk about each side like they -the reporters-are just playing a game of Risk (if Risk is that game guys used to play wargames with)

 

[Ann K]

if we walk away (or even if we dont) the power of our military is pretty irrelevant to ukraine.

it's the "one of the worlds strongest economies" telling ukraine to concede that is unfair. well, kinda. its not like our military strength or strong economy has helped ukraine any as of yet. but who knows maybe another 25% on russian oil will hurt russia enough (as it devastates europe) to finally make some impact.

And yet in the list of countries upon which Trump wants tariffs, Russia is notably absent.

 

[deirdre]

And yet in the list of countries upon which Trump wants tariffs, Russia is notably absent.

Article:

However, Leavitt noted that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included because existing tariffs and sanctions on them are already so high.

Breaking it down: The value of U.S.-Russia trade plummeted from around $35 billion in 2021 to $3.5 billion as of last year due to sanctions imposed over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Russia has asked Trump to lift some of those sanctions as part of the U.S.-mediated ceasefire talks, which have largely stalled.

Trump threatened Russia with secondary tariffs on oil earlier this week.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/02/trump-tariffs-russia-ukraine-ceasefire

Article:

On Sunday, Trump also vowed to impose "secondary tariffs" on nations that purchase oil from Russia if Moscow fails to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine.

The proposed tariffs, which range from 25 to 50 percent, would therefore not directly target Russia but would penalize foreign countries that continue trading with it, thereby discouraging global support for the Russian oil industry.

The U.S. has not imported Russian crude oil since April 2022, data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-explains-why-russia-not-included-trumps-new-tariffs-2054548

 

[NoParty]

U.S. support for Ukraine has been invaluable so far.
A democratic nation that many feared would be crushed by the Russian war machine in days,
is still standing after 3+ years! The world--including the U.S.--did that, because it was right.
To back away now, merely because Trump is dim, & has a crush on Putin, could be disastrous...

 

[FatPhil]

I never thought I'd say this, but I wish the modern Republicans were the Republicans of my
youth: I didn't like all their positions, but they actually had values, and a backbone.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Republicans of my youth set underway the changes within the USSR that Putin felt the need to push back against and reverse:

January 17, 1983
National Security Decision
Directive Number 75 [*]

U.S. RELATIONS WITH THE USSR
....
2. To promote, within the narrow limits available to us, the
process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more plura-
listic political and economic system in which the power of
the privileged ruling elite is gradually reduced.

-- https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-75.pdf

Their intentions may have been good - stopping Russian expansionism/imperialism - but they've clearly never heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences. They supported Gorbachov, and, in the words of AP in 2022:

In many ways, Gorbachev [...] unwittingly enabled Putin.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...rbachev-nato-716fbcf9308c0bfda7518a320b01ebf0

For those interested in that slice of history, https://harvardnsj.org/2011/12/29/the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union/ ain't a bad place to start.

[* The OCR turns the text in the fancy font in the original into "Nationae Secwaty Decision Dikective Mamba 75"]

 

[Mendel]

Their intentions may have been good - stopping Russian expansionism/imperialism - but they've clearly never heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Obviously, we would not have a Ukraine war now if the USSR still existed.
However, the intended consequences of lifting the iron curtain outweigh any unintended consequences. An oligarch who wants to have the Soviet Union back is not worse than still having the Soviet Union.

And there would have been "unintended consequences" on the other path as well.

 

[deirdre]

did that, because it was right.

sure it was right. at the time. except the west thought sanctions would crush Russia's economy and end the war.

that didn't happen.

What did happen was hundreds of thousands of young men and fathers have been killed, towns destroyed, children traumatized/ and taken... and Russia is still gonna get those territories (ie. pieces of dirt) it wants. and then some at this rate.

Article:

"The problem that Ukraine is facing is not that they are running out of money, [it] is that they are running out of Ukrainians," U.S. `Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during his confirmation hearing.

Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-army-war-attrition/

i say let Russia have those 4 regions and crimea, agree to no NATO and peace. (because that will be the outcome whether today or two years from now anyway.)

Then spend 20-30 years to let new replacement soldiers grow up (and let in mass immigration to build up soldier numbers), meanwhile the EU can manufacture and stockpile needed ammo/weapons. And if ukraine does a mineral deal with EU then the EU can also help build ukraines economy .. then just take those territories back when they have the ability (resources) to do it. <that's my "girly" take on it, none of the analysts i've heard have suggested that, so it likely is wrong for some reason.

 

[Gary C]

no offense but at a quick glance that seems like a highly biased site. my guys talk about each side like they -the reporters-are just playing a game of Risk (if Risk is that game guys used to play wargames with)

ISW is a non-profit academically oriented private group. Their work is sprinkled with terms-of-art (e.g. "shaping operations") that appeal mostly to other think tank types and geopolitical hobbyist like my self. The feature I like is that they refrain from attempting to do 'real time' reporting. Most of the initial reports out the Ukraine war tend to be incomplete, excessive, or simply fabricated. ISW typically waits until either confirming or disconfirming information is available from an independent source. Their work is slow and dry but rarely wrong and not aimed at the casual reader.

Full Disclosure: I've been a subscriber to ISW's free daily newsletter for many years.

 

[Mauro]

sure it was right. at the time. except the west thought sanctions would crush Russia's economy and end the war.

that didn't happen.

But noone thought that. Historically, sanctions by themselves have never deterred anyone/solved anything. Rather, sanctions are a form of pressure and a means to decrease the economic and military output of a country (which happened).

What did happen was hundreds of thousands of young men and fathers have been killed, towns destroyed, children traumatized/ and taken...

And only Putin is responsible for that.

and Russia is still gonna get those territories (ie. pieces of dirt) it wants. and then some at this rate.

Only if Western support fades (starting from the US). Otherwise, Putin is not going to get those territories (Russian army just can't do it) and the continuos grinding of man and resources (and the sanctions too) will in the end crush his power.

Article:

"The problem that Ukraine is facing is not that they are running out of money, [it] is that they are running out of Ukrainians," U.S. `Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during his confirmation hearing.

Source: https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-army-war-attrition/

This is what Rubio says. The reality on the field is that Russia is militarily as strained as Ukraine, if not more (and they are not fighting for their survival, but for their/their leader imperialistic ambitions).

i say let Russia have those 4 regions and crimea, agree to no NATO and peace. (because that will be the outcome whether today or two years from now anyway.)

Yeah, give the bully whatever he pretends hoping to appease him: a sure recipe to be bullied even more the very next day.

Then spend 20-30 years to let new replacement soldiers grow up (and let in mass immigration to build up soldier numbers), meanwhile the EU can manufacture and stockpile needed ammo/weapons. And if ukraine does a mineral deal with EU then the EU can also help build ukraines economy .. then just take those territories back when they have the ability (resources) to do it. <that's my "girly" take on it, none of the analysts i've heard have suggested that, so it likely is wrong for some reason.

Yeah, then let's pretend nothing has happened and hide our head in the sand, maybe we can kick the can down the road 20-30 more years (that would be enough also for me, btw, just I think 20-30 more peaceful years is quite optimistic should Russia win in Ukraine, and even all those years would in any case be too few for my nephews, I don't want them to live in a fascist state).

 

[Mendel]

Their work is slow and dry but rarely wrong and not aimed at the casual reader.

This is true especially for their description of the status quo.
I don't trust their analyses as much, but then I don't know any others that are better.

 

[jdog]

ISW is a non-profit academically oriented private group. Their work is sprinkled with terms-of-art (e.g. "shaping operations") that appeal mostly to other think tank types and geopolitical hobbyist like my self. The feature I like is that they refrain from attempting to do 'real time' reporting. Most of the initial reports out the Ukraine war tend to be incomplete, excessive, or simply fabricated. ISW typically waits until either confirming or disconfirming information is available from an independent source. Their work is slow and dry but rarely wrong and not aimed at the casual reader.

Full Disclosure: I've been a subscriber to ISW's free daily newsletter for many years.

At the start of the invastion I started listening to the War on Rocks podcast, since Mike Kofman was really insightful and offered no pretensions about Ukraine's prospects. But it just got too depressing when the U.S. pushed Ukraine into that faulty offensive in 2023.

Leaving Russia off the tariff list doesn't make much practical difference, since we only imported about $3.3 billion in Russian goods in 2024 (mostly raw materials, not finished products), but by the trade-imbalance formula the Trump administration was apparently using they should have been hit with significant tariffs.

 

[Mendel]

Leaving Russia off the tariff list doesn't make much practical difference, since we only imported about $3.3 billion in Russian goods in 2024 (mostly raw materials, not finished products), but by the trade-imbalance formula the Trump administration was apparently using they should have been hit with ~500% tariffs.

Nah, Trump's going to fix that by lifting sanctions, presumably after the peace deal. (You figure out if I'm joking or not.)

 

[deirdre]

(which happened)

are you sure?

And only Putin is responsible for that.

so? does that knowledge help ease the devastation?

Only if Western support fades (starting from the US)

you're wrong. but if thats what you believe, then i guess i'll shut up.

eah, then let's pretend nothing has happened and hide our head in the sand,

strategically building up your resources isnt really pretending nothing happened...but ok.

I don't want them to live in a fascist state

oh sorry. i didnt know you had family in the Donbass/crimea regions. i'll keep my thoughts to myself from now on. sorry

 

[deirdre]

Nah, Trump's going to fix that by lifting sanctions, presumably after the peace deal. (You figure out if I'm joking or not.)

he might do it even if there isnt a peace deal. because i can't see a peace deal happening at this point. He really wants to normalize relations with Russia because we want to concentrate on other world issues.

 

[jdog]

Nah, Trump's going to fix that by lifting sanctions, presumably after the peace deal. (You figure out if I'm joking or not.)

Well, since no one else wants to buy American-made weapons anymore...

 

[Gary C]

Problem: Define "Winning"
For Putin and his supporters inside and outside Russian, this is a finite game. Wining = Absorbing Ukraine
For Ukraine this is an infinite game. Their strategic objective is political independence, specifically freedom from Russian subjugation. Their military goal is "don't lose."

Background: Finite vs Infinite Games - https://singjupost.com/transcript-what-game-theory-teaches-us-about-war-simon-sinek/

In game theory, there are two types of games. There are finite games, and there are infinite games. A finite game is defined as known players, fixed rules, and agreed-upon objective. Baseball, right? An infinite game is defined as known and unknown players, the rules are changeable, and the objective is to perpetuate the game.

(The video is less than ten minutes in length. There is a much longer TEDtalk covering this but the version I linked to includes a full transcript for those in a hurry and it covers the key concepts.)

So long as Ukrainians are willing to fight and the EU/US are willing to provide adequate support, Russia cannot seem to generate the combat power to overwhelm the Ukrainians. At current glacial rates of advance, Russia will need another couple of decades to reach Kyiv.

Putin realized this problem only after his original invasion failed to meet his overly optimistic maximalist goals. Much as the US was not able to target North Vietnam's sources of supply in the USSR and PRC, Russia is not able to target Ukraine's sources of supply in the EU and North America. His only option was to conduct a war of attrition. He is wagering that he can maintain pressure on Ukraine and domestic support inside Russia until the next recession causes Western leaders to turn inward leaving Ukraine to fend for itself. With Trump in the process of triggering just such a recession, Putin may be about to get his wish.

 

[Ann K]

i say let Russia have those 4 regions and crimea, agree to no NATO and peace. (because that will be the outcome whether today or two years from now anyway.)

If Russia gets what it wants simply by demanding it, what will it demand next? Appeasing a dictator is NEVER a "solution".

 

[deirdre]

For Putin and his supporters inside and outside Russian, this is a finite game. Wining = Absorbing Ukraine

his biggest concern is long term threats to Russia to be nixed. like Nato on his border and ukrainian militarization. (obviously he wants other stuff like the nazis outlawed and other russiay stuff...but i dont think just absorbing Ukraine would be considered "winning" for him.)

the threat was never really about ukraine at all, the threat was and is and will continue to be "the west".

 

[deirdre]

If Russia gets what it wants simply by demanding it, what will it demand next?

they aren't simply demanding it, they went to war.

But maybe youre right, maybe if the sanctions and the money and arms keep flowing (which the eu could provide) to ukraine they will somehow be able to push Russia out of ukraine. fingers crossed.

 

[FatPhil]

Obviously, we would not have a Ukraine war now if the USSR still existed.

If things weren't the way they are, then things wouldn't be the way they are. 100% correct, have a cookie.

However, the intended consequences of lifting the iron curtain outweigh any unintended consequences. An oligarch who wants to have the Soviet Union back is not worse than still having the Soviet Union.

And there would have been "unintended consequences" on the other path as well.

You're responding to me as if I haven't been living behind the former iron curtain for well over a quarter of my life. My day-to-day friends here held hands down the Baltic Way, I'm not ignorant of the history at all.

All I'm saying is that there may have been better ways of disturbing the prior equilibrium so as to not invoke a backlash. Either a less invasive disruption, or a way of preventing the splashback would work. The latter's harder, so perhaps the former would have been more sensible?

 

[Mendel]

You're responding to me as if I haven't been living behind the former iron curtain for well over a quarter of my life.

I'm responding to you as if you had put the decision point in 1983 and not 2014 (Euromaidan).

 

[FatPhil]

I'm responding to you as if you had put the decision point in 1983 and not 2014 (Euromaidan).

What "decision point"?

 

[Gary C]

his biggest concern is long term threats to Russia to be nixed. like Nato on his border and ukrainian militarization. (obviously he wants other stuff like the nazis outlawed and other russiay stuff...but i dont think just absorbing Ukraine would be considered "winning" for him.)

the threat was never really about ukraine at all, the threat was and is and will continue to be "the west".

Depending on one's definition of "long term" everything turns into an infinite game.
Putin's real problem has always been the EU. The expanding rule of EU law, however imperfect, threatens his kleptocracy.
Cross membership in NATO protects EU states from direct military pressure.

The cost of being tied to Russia has now become apparent. This is cumulative growth from 1989 through 2019

Source - The Post-communist Transition at 30 Simeon Djankov and Filip Jolevski1 February 12, 2020, pg 5
Available at - https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/118920/1/DP793.pdf

 

[John J.]

Then spend 20-30 years to let new replacement soldiers grow up (and let in mass immigration to build up soldier numbers), meanwhile the EU can manufacture and stockpile needed ammo/weapons. ... then just take those territories back when they have the ability (resources) to do it.

Traditional military thought is that, all other things being equal, defenders have a 3:1 advantage, that is, you need 3x as many attacking troops than defenders to take a location.

There are many examples where this hasn't been the case, but often this is because "all other things", sometimes imperceptibly, are not equal: Small numbers of defenders might hold off much larger numbers of attackers, or a small number of attackers take an objective due to better training, morale, kit, communications/ intelligence etc. etc.

Opposing forces are rarely evenly matched, but a smaller force will aim (ideally) to have a local, temporary numerical advantage before attacking a location, e.g. a platoon of 30-40 men might assault a building held by a squad of 8-10 men.

It's a pretty fair bet that if Putin's Russia holds its invaded territories in Ukraine for a number of years of a ceasefire, Russian people will be settled in those areas- cheap (or free) good farmland, mining in the Donbass- and those areas will be regarded, by Russians, as part of Russia. Local dissent will be, well, quietened. At best, suspected pro-Ukrainian families might be relocated in isolated locations in Russia, as thousands of Ukrainian children already have been.
Road signs, currency, school lessons will be Russian.

If there were 20 years of relative peace (which assumes Putin, having "triumphed" in extending his power, doesn't try again or elsewhere) it would be a big ask to expect young people from free Ukraine to leave their normal lives and invade "Russia", now with a Russian/ largely pro-Russian population, and face numerically superior forces in prepared defences.
And anyway, one of Putin's current preconditions for a ceasefire negotiated by the Trump administration is the demilitarisation of Ukraine; a sudden upsurge of military training and arms imports would be obvious- and (if that precondition had been accepted as the price of a ceasefire in the near future) an infringement of the by then long-standing armistice: A reason for for renewed Russian action against whatever is left of a free Ukraine.

his biggest concern is long term threats to Russia to be nixed. like Nato on his border

Norway joined NATO in1949 and has a border with Russia.
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia joined NATO in 2004, all have borders with Russia -Lithuania with the militarised exclave Kaliningrad. Thinking about it, Poland has a border with Kaliningrad (part of Russia) as well.
Finland has a long border with Russia, precisely because of the invasion of Ukraine it joined NATO in 2023.

On what moral or ethical grounds (there are no legal grounds) should the Russian government determine the defence policies of its neighbours?
Why can't the Ukrainian, Estonian or Latvian governments tell Russia to disarm?
Should Mexico have the right to tell the US how to defend its borders?
Can Russia ask for Alaska to be demilitarised and leave NATO?
Does China have the right to tell Taiwan to disarm, out of "fear of being attacked" by the pro-American island?

I've knocked together a couple of maps showing allegiances in Europe if we accept that Russia has the right to tell its neighbours not to join NATO.

As things are now:

As they would be:

 

[MapperGuy]

Depending on one's definition of "long term" everything turns into an infinite game.
Putin's real problem has always been the EU. The expanding rule of EU law, however imperfect, threatens his kleptocracy.
Cross membership in NATO protects EU states from direct military pressure.

The cost of being tied to Russia has now become apparent. This is cumulative growth from 1989 through 2019
View attachment 78818

Source - The Post-communist Transition at 30 Simeon Djankov and Filip Jolevski1 February 12, 2020, pg 5
Available at - https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/118920/1/DP793.pdf

Russian fear of the EU is about the standard of life in the EU countries. As long as the Russian kleptocrats are obsessed with stealing everything they can the standard of living in Russia will continue to decline with respect to the standard of living in the EU. THAT is what the Russian leadership is really afraid of, the every-day man in the street in Russia realizing that they are never going to have better lives. Unless they leave Russia. Or they revolt and kill all of the Russian Oligarchs and make fundamental changes in the way Russia is governed. Which would include the fragmenting of Russia into many separate ethnic states.

The Russian population is declining, the Russian average lifespan is decreasing, many want to leave the country for somewhere else. Russia is a dying nation. By taking control of nations bordering Russia the oligarchs think they can shield the Russian people from the reality that they living in.

 

[FatPhil]

Depending on one's definition of "long term" everything turns into an infinite game.
Putin's real problem has always been the EU. The expanding rule of EU law, however imperfect, threatens his kleptocracy.
Cross membership in NATO protects EU states from direct military pressure.

The cost of being tied to Russia has now become apparent. This is cumulative growth from 1989 through 2019
View attachment 78818

Source - The Post-communist Transition at 30 Simeon Djankov and Filip Jolevski1 February 12, 2020, pg 5
Available at - https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/118920/1/DP793.pdf

I'd claim that that graph is in some ways misleading - ppp means that some of the changes that have taken place have been scaled away. The ones with the best growth are also ones whose purchasing power has increased. Estonia certainly *feels* (so ppp adjusted) vastly more prosperous than when I was first here 31 years ago, it's hard to put a number on it, but 3x seems believable if that's what their stats say, but in absolute terms (so not ppp adjusted) it's unimaginably more prosperous than that - the world bank seems to be claiming it's 10x:

-- https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2023&locations=EE&start=1993&view=chart

EDIT: Sorry, firefox is being mental and not taking a screenshot of what I actually see - the mouse-overs claim 4.01B in 1993 and 41.29 in 2023.