Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[gosub]

They wouldn't need to win it, just claim they have.

Oh god, then the other side will spend years banging on about having another one. Can't Russia just calculate how this carnage is costing them a day, stick on the side of a few BMPs promising to spend same said amount on rebuilding

 

[LDC]

Yes they kind of have the same interests there, though exactly how that plays out I'm not sure, but I wouldn't say they have the same interests overall and do not agree with supporting the Ukrainian state...

How does that look on the ground for people in Ukraine do you think? Is it supporting/engaging in the resistance to the invasion and occupation but refusing to engage with the Ukrainian State and all its structures like civil defence, military, etc? Or accepting that in doing the former you have to engage and on some level work with and support the later currently? Or not compromising at all and maintaining distance from the fighting and only engaging in other forms of resistance outside the State and military structures? Or compromising more and joining the Ukrainian military as they have the most chance of enabling a better outcome for people in the short to medium term?

 

[andysays]

Don't want to derail the thread but yes, Churchill, like much of the Briitsh ruling class was pro-fascist (which is why they didn't intervene in Spain - unlike Hitler and Mussolini). The war was not an anti-fascist crusade for them, it was merely about protecting the interests of the British Empire and capital - dealing with a competitor that was perceived to have got too big for it's boots- the Axis Powers. And it's obvious why supporting the British ruling class and it's empire is anti-working class and why opposing them was pro-working class and anti-fascist.

Why do I have to explain this?

If you don't want to derail the thread, then don't derail the thread.

I happen to broadly agree with your point, but this is not the best place or the right way to be making it.

 

[mojo pixy]

So no overlap at all in the interests of the Ukrainian State and the Ukrainian working class in defeating Putin and preventing an occupation? Their interests in that are completely opposed?

I think this is an important grey area which is difficult to navigate. Is it wrong to oppose the invasion of one state by another, because it amounts to de facto support of the invaded state? Surely if we can part Russian state violence from The Russian People, and see their response as made more from state manipulation over years than from their actual personal scorn for Ukraine .. then we can support Ukrainian people's struggle against invasion without entirely supporting The Ukrainian State .. or any state for that matter. States here may be The Problem in grand terms, but right now people are being blown up and that has to be stopped by any means necessary IMO.

What's harder than an anarchist position now, is a pacifist one. Vladimir Putin (/the Russian leadership if there's even a difference) appears to be the type that would see nonviolence as weakness, and is anyway happy to invent his own pretext for doing whatever he feels like. I'm struggling to identify a nonviolent way to neutralize the threat he poses to (for now) the people of Ukraine, and the people of Russia and Belarus .. as well as (potentially) many more people even than that.

 

[existentialist]

No idea if this is genuine, but it's not exactly a morale-booster for Russian soldiers...

 

[Flavour]

I don't think there is a nonviolent solution, mojo pixy.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm struggling to identify a nonviolent way to neutralize the threat he poses to (for now) the people of Ukraine, and the people of Russia and Belarus .. as well as (potentially) many more people even than that.

Easy, mutiny. The only non-violent way to neutralise the threat he poses is for the Russian armed forces to strike. Easy to identify, rather harder to put into effect

 

[mojo pixy]

I don't think there is a nonviolent solution, mojo pixy.

I don't even think there's a de-escalatory solution tbh, sorry to say so but fuck me.

Assassination / a coup is all that's left now, I suspect. And even that may worsen things ffs.

 

[LDC]

Easy, mutiny. The only non-violent way to neutralise the threat he poses is for the Russian armed forces to strike. Easy to identify, rather harder to put into effect

The idea that a mutiny by the Russian military would be non-violent is a nice one!

 

[a_chap]

Can people please stop derailing the Churchill thread by talking about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Thank you.

 

[Pickman's model]

The idea that a mutiny by the Russian military would be non-violent is a nice one!

You're confusing the response to such a mutiny with the mutiny itself. And if reports earlier in the war of whole units - I think a regiment or brigade was mentioned - have defected then it's not beyond belief whole units might refuse to fight.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

If you don't want to derail the thread, then don't derail the thread.

I happen to broadly agree with your point, but this is not the best place or the right way to be making it.

I was asked about WW2 so I responded.

 

[mojo pixy]

You're confusing the response to such a mutiny with the mutiny itself. And if reports earlier in the war of whole units - I think a regiment or brigade was mentioned - have defected then it's not beyond belief whole units might refuse to fight.

The more things escalate, I suppose it possibly increases the chance that mutinies might happen. Especially if use of nuclear or chemical weapons is ordered. I think that's one reason for bringing in forces from Syria, they may be expected not to flinch, the way young conscripts may well do.

 

[Pickman's model]

If you don't want to derail the thread, then don't derail the thread.

I happen to broadly agree with your point, but this is not the best place or the right way to be making it.

You should be taking Mr moose to task

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Russian state TV bod saying that the 'Russian army has achieved its goals' mission accomplished well done lads lets call it a day, is good news and you're not going to spoil my tiny optimism.

Looks like Pickmans was right unfortunately, and if seizing Ukraine's natural resources ( gas) is part of this then this is far from over by the look of it (though hopefully I am wrong here). There's also the issue of the canal going into the Crimea I believe

 

[bimble]

You're confusing the response to such a mutiny with the mutiny itself.

I dropped my cup of coffee. Any resulting mess was caused by the floor existing, which is a separate matter entirely.

 

[Pickman's model]

I dropped my cup of coffee. Any resulting mess was caused by the floor existing, which is a separate matter entirely.

That's a really shit analogy. Gravity will always pull things down. How humans respond to other humans is a choice, not a foregone conclusion

 

[teqniq]

Analysis of possible outcomes by a Chinese policy thinker. Worth a read:

Possible Outcomes of the Russo-Ukrainian War and China's Choice | U.S.-China Perception Monitor

Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor's Office of the State Council.

uscnpm.org

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Just been listening to a podcast interview with Dr Peter Caddick, a military historian (if he's shit then OK) but sounded like he knew his stuff. He suggested that talk of nukes and chemical weapons is indeed a bluff. His reasoning was no soldiers had been given any form of protective gear for either. In fact many captured soldiers had packed parade uniforms as they all thought it would be an easy win and that Putin was advised so.

He further mentions that in order for chemical weapons to be launched, the actual mixing of the chemicals has to be done near the launch site or transported, mainly by rail, he says there's been no sign of either. Of course this can all change and all be wrong information but it makes sense to me and was a bit reassuring.

 

[andysays]

I was asked about WW2 so I responded.

From what I've read, the derail began when you accused someone of supporting Ukrainian nationalism and/or the Ukrainian state simply because they were against the invasion of Ukraine.

And that is what has lead to the whole WWII derail.

 

[Pickman's model]

Just been listening to a podcast interview with Dr Peter Caddick, a military historian (if he's shit then OK) but sounded like he knew his stuff. He suggested that talk of nukes and chemical weapons is indeed a bluff. His reasoning was no soldiers had been given any form of protective gear for either. In fact many captured soldiers had packed parade uniforms as they all thought it would be an easy win and that Putin was advised so.

He further mentions that in order for chemical weapons to be launched, the actual mixing of the chemicals has to be done near the launch site or transported, mainly by rail, he says there's been no sign of either. Of course this can all change and all be wrong information but it makes sense to me and was a bit reassuring.

If I was a ruthless dictator on a sticky wicket and needed something to rouse my restive population and get them back on side I think I could do worse than use chemical weapons and for the lives of a few score unprotected soldiers use the belief you outline to plausibly paint my opponents as prepared to deploy and use chemical weapons. It wouldn't really matter to me if this was widely believed in the west. A missile strike on the site of the attack could remove inconvenient witnesses and be doctored to look like a Ukrainian facility for domestic consumption

 

[existentialist]

Easy, mutiny. The only non-violent way to neutralise the threat he poses is for the Russian armed forces to strike. Easy to identify, rather harder to put into effect

Arguably, that is already happening. We don't seem to be hearing about many situations where Russian forces are engaged in combat and happy to fight to the last person. And there are those stories of Russian soldiers shooting holes in their fuel tanks, or otherwise abandoning their mission in the face of comparatively light opposition.

Look, too, at the number of tanks, etc., that are being recovered intact by the Ukrainian forces (and farmers). These soldiers aren't even sabotaging their equipment when they bale out, to deny their use to the enemy. And my guess is that, as more and more enter the meat grinder, that rate of desertion is only going to increase. I am sure there will be many too frightened to desert, and no doubt a hard core of true believers, but it doesn't bode well for their cohesiveness over time.

 

[emanymton]

Just been listening to a podcast interview with Dr Peter Caddick, a military historian (if he's shit then OK) but sounded like he knew his stuff. He suggested that talk of nukes and chemical weapons is indeed a bluff. His reasoning was no soldiers had been given any form of protective gear for either. In fact many captured soldiers had packed parade uniforms as they all thought it would be an easy win and that Putin was advised so.

He further mentions that in order for chemical weapons to be launched, the actual mixing of the chemicals has to be done near the launch site or transported, mainly by rail, he says there's been no sign of either. Of course this can all change and all be wrong information but it makes sense to me and was a bit reassuring.

That assumes they care about issuing them to their own troops. And since they have been setting up to blame the Ukrainians for an chemical weapon attack then yeah you would leave your troops unprotected.

 

[A380]

Don't want to derail the thread but yes, Churchill, like much of the Briitsh ruling class was pro-fascist (which is why they didn't intervene in Spain - unlike Hitler and Mussolini). The war was not an anti-fascist crusade for them, it was merely about protecting the interests of the British Empire and capital - dealing with a competitor that was perceived to have got too big for it's boots- the Axis Powers. And it's obvious why supporting the British ruling class and it's empire is anti-working class and why opposing them was pro-working class and anti-fascist.

Why do I have to explain this?

Because that's a massive over simplification based on sixth form level analysis?

 

[AmateurAgitator]

From what I've read, the derail began when you accused someone of supporting Ukrainian nationalism and/or the Ukrainian state simply because they were against the invasion of Ukraine.

That's a misrepresentation. I was simply disagreeing with someone about the Putin regime being the worse ruling class compared to others, not opposing the invasion.

 

[bimble]

How humans respond to other humans is a choice, not a foregone conclusion

True. I will stop responding directly to you because nothing good comes of if. If you could do the same that would be a non violent end in action, peace in our time .

 

[WhyLikeThis]

This is an interesting take on a psychological factor of the spiralling escalation between NATO and Russia: Social Psychology Provides Insights for Defusing the Ukraine Crisis

In a recent article published in The National Interest, George asserts that Russian and American leaders profoundly misunderstand each other, mutually interpreting fundamentally defensive military preparations as evidence of aggressive military intent. For instance, while U.S. policymakers believe they expanded NATO up to Russia’s borders after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a purely defensive measure to consolidate democracy and deter Soviet-era-style aggression, Kremlin leaders interpret those same moves as evidence that the U.S. and its NATO allies are intent on crippling, if not overthrowing, the Russian regime.


Although George’s recent article never uses the phrase, these mutual perceptions of mistrust could be a textbook example of “fundamental attribution error," a term coined by social psychologist Lee Ross to describe mistakes that we make in attributing motives to other people’s behavior. An example of attribution error in the current context is that we believe our own behaviors (such as placing NATO troops on or near Russia’s borders in countries like Latvia and Poland) are forced upon us by external factors (Russian military rebuilding in the Putin era) while attributing Russia’s military moves to fundamental internal personality traits (Putin and other Kremlin leaders are by nature, aggressors).

 

[Pickman's model]

True. I will stop responding directly to you because nothing good comes of if. If you could do the same that would be a non violent end in action, peace in our time .

It's not like our exchanges have ever been violent, it seems to me what you really object to is having what you say challenged

 

[Spymaster]

...if seizing Ukraine's natural resources (oil and gas) is part of this then this ...

Ukraine imports almost all of its oil and gas, Wolfie.

Most of its electricity is nuclear and hydro-electric, and the primary exports are grain and steel.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

That assumes. They care about issuing them to their own troops. And since they have been setting up to blame the Ukrainians for an chemical weapon attack then yeah you would leave your troops unprotected.

Indeed, that was an issue with his analysis. I'm not sure Putin would give a shit about unprotected soldiers but at the moment I'll take whatever crumb of comfort I can get.