Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

Here here

The learn from this content was posted directly at a poster who annoyed me by doing that "you made me do it" simplified comment one time too many. There's no point of discussing anything if people are prepared to reduce it that far. It's the kind of simplification that breeds conflict.
So I got fed up with the way you expressed how fed up you were with someone saying how fed up they were hearing similar sorts of things we're both fed up with?
 
what's this then, looks like, we might just decide to start shooting your aircraft down if you carry on giving Ukraine weapons.
View attachment 313717

They wont attack us unless we do [some specific thing] is seeming less and less logical to me.
Reckon she's doing some back-assed hint at a Flight MH17 type incident as if it wasn't Russian weaponry that shot it down, but hoping people just recall it was SAMs in Ukraine?
 
what's this then, looks like, we might just decide to start shooting your aircraft down if you carry on giving Ukraine weapons.
View attachment 313717
it could be. perhaps. but equally the shovelling of weapons into the hands of all manner of people also risks the transport of those weapons elsewhere. the use of those weapons by people whose only training might be manpads 101 poses risks to any civilian aircraft still flying over ukraine. ukraine will be awash with potent weaponry and there may need to be a buy-back scheme to remove them from the region.
 
Well, day 15 now. Not saying that this is good news, just that the idea based on those documents that it was all still going more or less to plan was wrong.

Yes we are now entering the period where it starts to become possible to judge the extent of the setbacks to Russian plans. I'll start to run further with these ideas next week if there are no major developments in the next few days.

Yesterdays ISW update mentions that Russia have restarted Kyiv-related operations, but apparently on a smaller scale than ISW anticipated. However when I read the whole thing they expressed some uncertainty about the detail on this which came via the Ukrainian General Staff, mostly because ISW arent able to independently verify the detail about Russian force sizes that are active again in the area. I'll probably wait till Monday to see what additional clarity emerges.

There is also stuff in this report about Russias use of conscripts and other attempts to bolster their forces.

 
A mate went to Thailand when I was there who was by no means rich, I think its basically more common than you might think but sure there are going to be loads of people who rarely if ever travel abroad. European Russia is also vastly different to Siberia etc too.
 
A mate went to Thailand when I was there who was by no means rich, I think its basically more common than you might think but sure there are going to be loads of people who rarely if ever travel abroad. European Russia is also vastly different to Siberia etc too.
yeh the european russians i met when i went commented on it
 
Reckon she's doing some back-assed hint at a Flight MH17 type incident as if it wasn't Russian weaponry that shot it down, but hoping people just recall it was SAMs in Ukraine?
Whatever it is, it says that arming ukrain is not being perceived as non involvement.
 
Now that it isn’t 1.30am and the effects of alcohol have worn off I can find the actual statement I was objecting to:

Stop the War opposes any war over Ukraine, and believes the crisis should be settled on a basis which recognises the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination and addresses Russia’s security concerns.

But those two things are not equal,and could be contradictory. It may be practical realpolitik, but that wasn’t what STW was set up for. Russian security concerns should be no more important than US or Saudi ones.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve no issue with strong criticism of NATO or demanding the UK quits it, just fuck russias ‘security concerns’
Totally agree. STW seems to have lost its way. Not sure it knows what it exists for nowadays. Certainly Neither Washington nor Moscow has never felt more relevant. And let's call those concerns by their proper name. They're not security concerns. They're power concerns.
 
what's this then, looks like, we might just decide to start shooting your aircraft down if you carry on giving Ukraine weapons.
View attachment 313717

They wont attack us unless we do [some specific thing] is seeming less and less logical to me.
We’ll she’s not wrong there. There are certainly groups of people in Ukraine who you wouldn’t want to have access to anti-aircraft weaponry outside of the conflict, and I think it would be naive to think that some of this stuff won’t go missing.
 
How much agency do these young people have? Everyone who could form the bedrock of an opposition is leaving if they have the means. Those brave souls who stay and protest are buying themselves a one way ticket to a stretch in Russia's worst penal colonies. I've seen telegram videos of young folks singing in the back of an autozak on their way to "processing" by the FSB. Heartbreaking.

800 people were arrested n Minsk in Belarus this weekend (effectively Belarus is now an autonomous western republic of the Russian Federation). People in the vicinity of the notorious Okrestina jail reported terrible screaming for most of the night.

The repression will be savage, cruel and relentless. Belarus has already had a taste of it since August 2020, and in some ways their opposition movement was more coherent in its demands than the various groupings in Russia.

The headroom and oxygen that a disciplined and viable opposition needs to grow support and presence will be denied ruthlessly.

Short of an outright Russian economic collapse and descent into Civil War in the coming months, it seems fanciful to think that a viable opposition could grow in the current circumstances.

I wish the admirable idealism and courage of Russia's young people would meet with a better reward but I cannot see it in the short-medium term.

Largely agree with what you’ve written but I think the main point I’m emphasising here (and where I disagree with you) is that cracking down on everyone under 50 is going to be a very tall order for the state. I accept that, as someone else pointed out, there might be a rural/city dimension. I also think that you are right that there will be mass flight and in the short term it’s going to be terrifying and difficult. But, fundamentally, Putin can’t erase a developed culture, transnational networks, lived experience and concomitant assumptions and aspirations easily. It’s harder still if others in authority lack the stomach for the task and aren’t signed up to the vision of winding society back.

Lastly, if we don’t have hope and belief in the people and especially the youth where do you go? That’s why I think it’s important to emphasise the point and amplify and give a platform to their voices
 
Last edited:
We’ll she’s not wrong there. There are certainly groups of people in Ukraine who you wouldn’t want to have access to anti-aircraft weaponry outside of the conflict, and I think it would be naive to think that some of this stuff won’t go missing.
Yeah you could read it that way. Maybe she’s genuinely concerned about that. Idk.
 
A mate went to Thailand when I was there who was by no means rich, I think its basically more common than you might think but sure there are going to be loads of people who rarely if ever travel abroad. European Russia is also vastly different to Siberia etc too.
Thailand is only a shortish flight from Russia. As far as I remember, Russians make up the second largest tourist numbers behind Chinese people for Thailand. Sanctions will probably dent Thailand's post covid recovery a fair bit as it's main income is from tourism.
 
In connection with the we might shoot your passenger planes down threat, there was this weird story yesterday.

Spoofing?
 
Totally agree. STW seems to have lost its way. Not sure it knows what it exists for nowadays. Certainly Neither Washington nor Moscow has never felt more relevant. And let's call those concerns by their proper name. They're not security concerns. They're power concerns.

It would have been much easier to have a sensible conversations and solutions to concerns regarding security and power if we were attempting it in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, rather than all these years later after the picture has mutated and now features a hideous bloody war backdrop.

It would have been hard for me to talk about it even then because I dont like the concentration of power that the concept of nations brings, and how normal people and their concerns are usually missing from the security picture and deals that are done. But in the sad context of the realities of concentrated power it would be legitimate to acknowledge and properly consider Russian concerns under the banner of security, just as nations in Europe place many concerns under that banner. The opportunity to bring the cold war to a sustainable conclusion back then was squandered, but I dont fancy trying to have a long, sensible conversation about this on a thread like this one at a time when so many lives are being lost :(
 
They wont attack us unless we do [some specific thing] is seeming less and less logical to me.

When I spoke about that stuff in the past I was mostly speaking specifically about the clearest of red lines that relate directly to mutually assured destruction via nuclear weapons. There are all sorts of greyer areas which may stumble over some other, lesser red lines and may involve escalations that dont automatically and instantly lead straight to full on world war 3 doom. But there is always the fear that we can slide towards armageddon more gradually, be brought to the brink via a series of escalating tensions and acts. The instant MAD red lines are pretty well understood and assumptions can be made about those, but its much less safe to make assumptions about the other stuff, there are more opportunities to make mistakes with the stuff that involves a gradual slide towards that brink. Rhetoric, acts and the interpretation of acts can lead in that direction, and safeguards exist but are limited. For example at times when there is a risk of direct engagement and misinterpretation of acts, direct lines of communication are normally opened up, eg between Russia and the USA, in order to attempt to avoid certain acts->interpretations->responses leading to the brink of nuclear doom in a single step. They opened such channels when the situation in Syria developed to include Russian involvement, and I think I read that they did so again recently for this conflict.
 
Last edited:
Avoiding escalation doesn't guarantee anything but it does mitigate risk. What is clear from events so far, is that Putain would have a greater incentive to go nuclear than NATO if the conflict spread, because the balance of power doesn't favour Russia in terms of conventional warfare by any stretch of the imagination. This is also a good reason to believe that he is unlikely to extend operations beyond Ukraine unless he feels pushed to do so any time soon. Maybe Western powers could call his bluff, but if they miscalculate, what is happening in the Ukraine now could look like a sideshow to the rest of the northern hemisphere being devastated and a nuclear winter would then put everyone else's concerns about global heating to rest.
yes, i get that.
It does just come down to, we (other countries) can't really do anything apart from send supplies cos if we do then he MIGHT decide to nuke us all. Which i'm struggling with, mostly on an emotional level but also rationally for 2 reasons:
1) If he wanted to widen the war he could use any pretext he fancies to do so at any moment, anything at all.
2) In the imaginary scenario when concerted armies from 30 countries went over and destroyed his forces in Ukraine tomorrow (yes i know wont happen & would be a hideous mess if it did) what exactly is the repercussion that is feared? half his army is a bit busy right now shooting at civilians.
 
President Zelensky is still beating that no-fly-zone drum:


Man, I gotta say that headline hurts. I'm sure Zelensky and his admin are well aware of the likely consequences of enforcing an NFZ (as well as the consequences of declaring one but not enforcing it), and that's he doing this in order to hold the feet of the world to the fire. But what else could they be doing, rhetorically? Banging on about the NFZ surely has a limited shelf-life?
 
President Zelensky is still beating that no-fly-zone drum:


Man, I gotta say that headline hurts. I'm sure Zelensky and his admin are well aware of the likely consequences of enforcing an NFZ (as well as the consequences of declaring one but not enforcing it), and that's he doing this in order to hold the feet of the world to the fire. But what else could they be doing, rhetorically? Banging on about the NFZ surely has a limited shelf-life?
there is also the 'this would never have happened if you'd imposed a nfz' line which he seems to be alternating with the 'give us...' one
 

Mad bast ards those Ukrainians waiting for half the Russian army to amass in the other side of the border before deciding to attack Donbass. Patience of a saint these Ruskies not attacking Ukraine after that l. Still probably means it's safe for those Ukrainan pilots that were stuck in Poland on Special Training Operation to fly home
 
2) In the imaginary scenario when concerted armies from 30 countries went over and destroyed his forces in Ukraine tomorrow (yes i know wont happen & would be a hideous mess if it did) what exactly is the repercussion that is feared? half his army is a bit busy right now shooting at civilians.
london, washington, paris, berlin in radioactive ruins

you did notice the 'don't interfere or the nukes come out' bit last week? didn't you?
 
Having a child abroad and taking a holiday in the South of France puts you in a tiny minority of cosmopolitans, I'm afraid.


Of course it does, yet the mum and the woman's dad well remember the repression and had brothers and sisters killed by Stalin, Russia didn't really have a middle class until the 90's came along.
 
london, washington, paris, berlin in radioactive ruins

you did notice the 'don't interfere or the nukes come out' bit last week? didn't you?
the nuclear threat was repeated in retaliation for economic sanctions and mean words.
That's the thing, he could decide to do that anyway.
So everyone is just betting that he won't as long as we just make sure those Polish fighter jets are transferred in some super cunning way etc. That's stopped making sense to me.
 
yes, i get that. It does just come down to, we (other countries) can't really do anything apart from send supplies cos if we do then he MIGHT decide to nuke us all. Which i'm struggling with, mostly on an emotional level but also rationally for 2 reasons:
1) If he wanted to widen the war he could use any pretext he fancies to do so at any moment, anything at all.
2) In the imaginary scenario when concerted armies from 30 countries went over and destroyed his forces in Ukraine tomorrow (yes i know wont happen & would be a hideous mess if it did) what exactly is the repercussion that is feared? half his army is a bit busy right now shooting at civilians.

1) It is precisely because such a wider conflict isn't what 'he' (i.e. the Russian regime) wants that it might make sense to try to mitigate the risk of one occurring. If he was just looking for a pretext to launch WWIII then it wouldn't matter what other governments did.

2) The fact that the Russian army is so weak, apparently, might make escalation to nuclear war even more likely.
 
Back
Top Bottom