Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[kebabking]

One thing that's occurred to me is that post war - even if Russia goes back to its pre war borders - it may now have to deal with a very unhappy population in Crimea who may suddenly not be so keen on being part of the Russia cos 1. sanctions. 2. they've seen first hand what the Russians have done to there Friends, neighbours and family members in Ukraine.

I was just thinking exactly the same about Belarus and the wider CTSO - if Russia is revealed as a bit of a paper tiger, what happens?

Are there senior figures in the Belarus military/Int hirarchy otherwise alligned to the existing regime looking at Mariopol and Kharkiev thinks 'hmm... that Putin bloke is a bit of a nutjob, I'm not sure our future should lie in his orbit...'.

 

[Artaxerxes]

Sky News





His anti knife crime charity press release

“War is unpleasant” seems to a surprise to a lot of people for some reason

 

[SpineyNorman]

When did urban get taken over by green party Lib dem type cunts for whom the mere mention of class is dogmatic student politics?

 

[JimW]

“War is unpleasant” seems to a surprise to a lot of people for some reason

But he was shit hot on Call of Duty

 

[SpackleFrog]

When you say 'help from that direction' do you mean you see no value in supplying the weaponry because "the west" is also still giving Russia money for gas? Hopefully not because that would be senseless.

Obviously with any sanctions package, it's value must be weighed in relation to the deleterious effect it has on your own (in this case mainly EU) economies. That's simple pragmatism. That said, I'm pretty sure you will see sanctions on Russian gas very soon. It's not as easy as just turning off the tap though. Obviously alternative supplies need to be found but there's also the fact that a fair bit of the gas supply infrastructure in European countries is owned by Russian firms. Gazprom, for example, owns UK based Pennine Natural Gas and has a fair sized UK network supplying heavy industry from a variety of sources (not just Russian gas). They own the metering stations that supply those firms. If Gazprom were sanctioned now, all of that would stop because anyone else who supplied gas across their equipment, without specific permission, would be sanctions-busting. There needs to be code and regulatory change to prevent that from happening. Same with the rest of Europe. All that takes time.

There will have been a lot of work going on in the past weeks to get to a position where sanctions can be imposed on Russia's gas economy but it isn't a question of just flicking a switch.

We could charitably assume that is the case, yes. And we know Johnson is going to the Saudis to try to buy more fuel from them (which will fund their war in Yemen).

But I think history teaches us that capitalist governments are fine with sanctions that don't threaten their own economic interests, so I am sceptical.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Yeah - youd think that its pretty obvious. But Putins most recent burst of threats, raging paranoia and swivel eyed fascism doesn't suggest someone who is capable of cool calculation. Everything we know about him - not least his decision to embark on this disastrous war in the first place - suggest he will continue to double down until Ukraine is ground to (radioactive?) dust. Again it comes back to how far he goes before his own side gently reign him in/retire him to a villa on the black sea/shoot him in the head.

I try not to assume that because I can't see someone's logic that there is no logic. I've heard a lot of theories that make sense for why he's doing this, such as securing access to food production areas in Ukraine. Another possibility is that allowing Ukraine to pivot to the west and becoming richer would be something Russians would tend to see and would be less accepting of their own poverty when they see what's possible. Of course, it could just be the standard malignant narcissism that many of the world's leaders seem prone to, including some in the US>

 

[Flavour]

And they rescued the mayor yesterday as well

think that was Melitopol

 

[Spymaster]

We could charitably assume that is the case, yes. And we know Johnson is going to the Saudis to try to buy more fuel from them (which will fund their war in Yemen).

But I think history teaches us that capitalist governments are fine with sanctions that don't threaten their own economic interests, so I am sceptical.

It's not a question of being sceptical it's a matter of fact. They're not continuing to use Russian gas because they want to, they're doing it because they have to. If shutting it out means collapsing half of your own economy and freezing a large portion of your population during a cold winter, of course there's going to be resistance to it. Until it can be done with acceptable consequences, it won't be. That's perfectly sensible. This notion that you seem to have that taking other measures (like supplying Ukraine with weapons in the meantime) is therefore pointless or outweighed, is absurd.

 

[SpackleFrog]

But, that is something no ones knows, if the Ukrainians don't fight back now, and hopefully bring about a more favourable agreement with Russia in the coming weeks, resulting in the withdrawal of Russian troops, that could actually save more lives in the long-term than letting Russia occupy the country resulting in a guerrilla war that could run for years and years, with an ever growing number of deaths and all the associated misery such a long drawn out war would ensure.

It's for the Ukrainians to decide what they think is the better option for them, and if that means more weapons to damage the invading army, we should supply them, it would be immoral not too.

I'm not saying jts definitely wrong to supply weapons to Ukraine, I haven't got that far yet. But I'm not sure I buy the idea it is immoral not to.

There would still be resistance in an occupied Ukraine, but it would take a different form, and it wouldn't necessarily be a guerilla war. There could be potentially be mass non-violent resistance etc, another reason I think in the longer term as well as in the short term we should be building links with Ukrainian workers organisations.

You are right that we can't know anything for certain but I'm trying to decide what I think based on what is likely.

Maybe providing weapons will shorten the conflict, maybe it won't. I'm quite happy to agree neither of us knows for certain.

 

[Cid]

Zelensky's address to German parliament looks a lot like one of those very serious 'some kid got caught with drugs/drinking/fighting' assemblies you used to get at school from time to time.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I specifically said weapons, because that is what was under discussion, there's no chance of a NFZ, and most likely not the supply of jets, that has been made very clear by NATO.



This is just silly, of course I am referring to the various governments, when using the terms "the Ukrainians" and "we", to think otherwise would be a bit bonkers.

You are saying that we should give Ukraine what Ukraine asks for though, no? Or are you saying we should give them some of what they ask for but not the no fly zone/actual war with Russia?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

At the present rate there will be very few women and children, or elderly men, left in much of the Ukraine. Lots of men of fighting age with lots of weaponry. Will Russia be able to pacify and control such a country? If there is no ceasefire agreement I can't see much future in Putin's attempt at empire building. ( I can't see much future for Ukrainians either).

 

[Artaxerxes]

But he was shit hot on Call of Duty

Apparently even the soldiers signing up are getting cold feet. Turns out a war against enemies without overwhelming air supremacy is a bit of a scary proposition

 

[cupid_stunt]

You are saying that we should give Ukraine what Ukraine asks for though, no? Or are you saying we should give them some of what they ask for but not the no fly zone/actual war with Russia?

In every post I've only referenced weapons, not jets, not a NFZ, I am genuinely sorry that you are struggling with something so simple.

 

[Cid]

I'm not saying jts definitely wrong to supply weapons to Ukraine, I haven't got that far yet. But I'm not sure I buy the idea it is immoral not to.

There would still be resistance in an occupied Ukraine, but it would take a different form, and it wouldn't necessarily be a guerilla war. There could be potentially be mass non-violent resistance etc, another reason I think in the longer term as well as in the short term we should be building links with Ukrainian workers organisations.

You are right that we can't know anything for certain but I'm trying to decide what I think based on what is likely.

Maybe providing weapons will shorten the conflict, maybe it won't. I'm quite happy to agree neither of us knows for certain.

Isn't it more likely to just be a grinding, long-term occupation with suppression of protest and a move to puppet governments and virtual police state though?

I agree with building links to Ukrainian worker's organisations, but under occupation those would surely also be suppressed/'reformed'.

I think the problem for me is that you're talking about years of organising for a chance at... Something? e2a: I'm not phrasing that very well, I have no particular objection to years of organising for a chance of something in itself. Just struggling to see how it would achieve much within the specific situation we're talking about.

 

[SpackleFrog]

It's not a question of being sceptical it's a matter of fact. They're not continuing to use Russian gas because they want to, they're doing it because they have to. If shutting it out means collapsing half of your own economy and freezing a large portion of your population during a cold winter, of course there's going to be resistance to it. Until it can be done with acceptable consequences, it won't be. That's perfectly sensible. This notion that you seem to have that taking other measures (like supplying Ukraine with weapons in the meantime) is therefore pointless or outweighed, is absurd.

So you are saying that you are absolutely certain that in a few months time sanctions will be put in place on Gazprom/Gazprom bank? I think your belief that you can be certain about what is going to happen is absurd.

We shouldn't forget that the main reason Putin believes he can do this that Europe is reliant on Russian gas.

My point about Gazprombank remaining unsanctioned is not that makes supplying weapons pointless (although if you are financing Russia's invasion through buying gas it may well cancel it out) but just to highlight that Western states are supplying military aid to Ukraine because it suits their interests to do so, and that it is naive to think that they are motivated by what is best for ordinary Ukrainians.

It would rightly be regarded as absurd to say that Putin criticised the Iraq war because he was a humanitarian - he criticised it because it was not in the interest of Russian capitalism. The same applies when we talk about the US/Europe and their actions in Ukraine.

 

[SpackleFrog]

In every post I've only referenced weapons, not jets, not a NFZ, I am genuinely sorry that you are struggling with something so simple.

I'm just asking you to clarify what you mean. You said that it is up to the Ukrainians to decide what they want and that morally, states should give it to them. But actually, you mean that in the case of weapons, morally states should provide these, but morally, states should not provide the no fly zone?

I think that's a perfectly logical position (moral justification aside but the rest makes total sense to me), I'm just checking if that is your position.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Isn't it more likely to just be a grinding, long-term occupation with suppression of protest and a move to puppet governments and virtual police state though?

I agree with building links to Ukrainian worker's organisations, but under occupation those would surely also be suppressed/'reformed'.

I think the problem for me is that you're talking about years of organising for a chance at... Something? e2a: I'm not phrasing that very well, I have no particular objection to years of organising for a chance of something in itself. Just struggling to see how it would achieve much within the specific situation we're talking about.

I think that's all perfectly fair comment. But I also think that to be fair we are discussing the provision of weapons to the Ukrainian army for a chance at...something?

E2A: Worth remembering we have built links with organisations that were suppressed/banned in the past though, like for example the ANC in South Africa.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I try not to assume that because I can't see someone's logic that there is no logic. I've heard a lot of theories that make sense for why he's doing this, such as securing access to food production areas in Ukraine. Another possibility is that allowing Ukraine to pivot to the west and becoming richer would be something Russians would tend to see and would be less accepting of their own poverty when they see what's possible. Of course, it could just be the standard malignant narcissism that many of the world's leaders seem prone to, including some in the US>

yeah there are beneficial reasons for Russia annexing Ukraine - but a simple, rational cost benefit analysis would come down very firmly on the side of "really, really not fucking worth it" (cos huge costs, militarily very difficult, international outrage, prolonged unwinnable insurgency, expelled from Eurovision etc) - unless that's all trumped by some delusional romantic dream of returning Russia to its former borders and gathering all Russian speaking peoples together in Moscow's benevolent embrace. Which - i strongly fear - is pretty much where Putin is at.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I'm just asking you to clarify what you mean. You said that it is up to the Ukrainians to decide what they want and that morally, states should give it to them. But actually, you mean that in the case of weapons, morally states should provide these, but morally, states should not provide the no fly zone?

I think that's a perfectly logical position (moral justification aside but the rest makes total sense to me), I'm just checking if that is your position.

BIB - I've never said that, you have claimed I've said that, but that is you just making stuff up.

 

[SpackleFrog]

BIB - I've never said that, you have claimed I've said that, but that is you just making stuff up.

It's for the Ukrainians to decide what they think is the better option for them, and if that means more weapons to damage the invading army, we should supply them, it would be immoral not too.

 

[Cid]

I think that's all perfectly fair comment. But I also think that to be fair we are discussing the provision of weapons to the Ukrainian army for a chance at...something?

There's something concrete to work from there though. Russia's economy simply can't sustain a conflict like this for an extended period of time... It will force some kind of resolution I think. It's very unclear of course; on the one hand we have noises about peace, on the other we have flat-out fascist speeches from Putin. But I dunno, I think there is a pretty reasonable argument there that it's simply impossible for them to continue this, even in the medium term. And that conflict is also arguably going to force people in Russia to confront Putin's failings. It's a fucking grim way of doing it of course.

I don't really see the alternative at the moment.

 

[SpackleFrog]

I try not to assume that because I can't see someone's logic that there is no logic. I've heard a lot of theories that make sense for why he's doing this, such as securing access to food production areas in Ukraine. Another possibility is that allowing Ukraine to pivot to the west and becoming richer would be something Russians would tend to see and would be less accepting of their own poverty when they see what's possible. Of course, it could just be the standard malignant narcissism that many of the world's leaders seem prone to, including some in the US>

I think it's a good point about not assuming there is no logic just because we can't understand it.

I have started to wonder in the last few days if part of the motivation is to demonstrate to Ukraine that they will not be accepted into Nato, and that because their neighbour is a nuclear power, their neighbour can invade when they want and the West will provide aid but it will not be drawn into a direct war with Russia.

I suppose one possible positive is that if this is part of what Putin wants to achieve, this is achieved, so maybe there will be some sort of awful kick-the-can-down-the-road settlement and the killing will stop.

 

[SpackleFrog]

There's something concrete to work from there though. Russia's economy simply can't sustain a conflict like this for an extended period of time... It will force some kind of resolution I think. It's very unclear of course; on the one hand we have noises about peace, on the other we have flat-out fascist speeches from Putin. But I dunno, I think there is a pretty reasonable argument there that it's simply impossible for them to continue this, even in the medium term. And that conflict is also arguably going to force people in Russia to confront Putin's failings. It's a fucking grim way of doing it of course.

I don't really see the alternative at the moment.

Yeah, I see what you mean. If we're talking about people in Russia confronting Putin though, that brings us back to the Russian anti-war movement, and whether it is possible to find ways to support them.

 

[Kaka Tim]

When did urban get taken over by green party Lib dem type cunts for whom the mere mention of class is dogmatic student politics?

Arguing that a struggle against Russian imperialism should be led by the organised Ukrainian working classes and that is what we should be actively supporting is kind of irrelevant when there is no realistic possibility of that happening. From what i can see the majority of Ukrainians have enthusiastically thrown in their lot with their government as they believe their interests are one and the same. Good luck arguing them out of that.

 

[cupid_stunt]

FFS, SpackleFrog, you have just quoted me saying 'WEAPONS', not jets, and not a NFZ, which funny enough means just 'WEAPONS', the whole bloody discussion from the start was just about 'WEAPONS', not jets, and not a NFZ.

It's so easy, if you only follow the discussion, read the words and understand them.

 

[Cid]

I think it's a good point about not assuming there is no logic just because we can't understand it.

I have started to wonder in the last few days if part of the motivation is to demonstrate to Ukraine that they will not be accepted into Nato, and that because their neighbour is a nuclear power, their neighbour can invade when they want and the West will provide aid but it will not be drawn into a direct war with Russia.

I suppose one possible positive is that if this is part of what Putin wants to achieve, this is achieved, so maybe there will be some sort of awful kick-the-can-down-the-road settlement and the killing will stop.

My problem, and others have mentioned this a bit, is that Putin's internal rhetoric is so fundamentally alien from the 'negotiations progressing' stuff we've seen recently. I don't see how he can row back from his talk of purity, denazification, the establishment of this Z-facism thing. I mean potentially, with the right territorial gains etc... but there's a realistic possibility he's started a wildfire he can't control here. I dunno, it's hard to get a good picture of how this is playing out in Russia.

 

[Cid]

And indeed the graun has just reposted this from Reuters:

There remains a “very big gap” between Ukraine and Russia in peace talks between the two nations, Western officials have said.

Reuters quotes an unnamed official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, as saying that both sides are taking peace talks seriously but that there was little sign of an imminent breakthrough:

“Both sides are taking them seriously but there is a very, very big gap between the positions in question.”

Another official said: “Those ... who saw [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin addressing the nation yesterday would be forgiven for thinking that Russia was not in compromising mood.”

 

[bimble]

I don’t see any reason to believe that both sides are taking negations seriously tbh. I think Ukraine is most likely pretending to believe that Russia is negotiating in good faith but they more than anybody know that they can’t trust a single word said.
Not a word about any ceasefire even being discussed.
And every column inch that’s taken up with “Lavrov said blah about the very real diplomatic efforts” is one less bit of space given to kids pulled out of the rubble in their latest heinous act of war.

 

[MrCurry]

That video suggests he is partly lining up his Oligarchs to take the blame for his disastrous war.

And also perhaps to pave the way for taking back into public ownership the former state enterprises they’ve made their fortunes with. How else will he pay for this war and its disastrous effect on the economy?