Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Kaka Tim]

I'm not sure that's the case. Looking at what Putin said he wanted, no to Ukraine in NATO, recognition of Donestk and Luhansk, de-nazificaton and de-militarisation, he's already achieved the first and the second looks increasingly politically (and militarily) possible. De-nazifying is no doubt largely propaganda but could well mean taking out Azov and aligned networks which seems in hand looking at where the fiercest fighting has been taking place and de-militarisation is ongoing - it may be this is the reason he's been so frustrated about Western arms shipments which will only prolong this objective. I would imagine air defenses are high up the list, and may well give him the chance for a me-fly zone over Ukraine.

How far he gets with the last is really in the hands of fate and how many casualties he can stomach before it becomes politically problematic domestically, but he can pull out any time he wants and declare victory, leaving Ukraine severely weakened, NATO cowed and many of his objectives met. In addition there's been a few bonuses, like Belarus agreeing to host nuclear weapons, and a whole host of brand new laws he can use to silence dissent internally They're taking losses, it doesn't look to be going that well, sanctions will bite but there's no reason not to hang around smashing up Ukraine's military and civillian infrastucture for as long as he can get away with. Russia has never been scared of taking casualties, and the losses are all infantary, he's still got an air force and a navy largely untouched and that's the expensive stuff. This idea of an out of control madman, as well as being pretty offensive, doesn't seem to match the facts on the ground to me. And it does raise the question of whether the West tooling up Ukraine for perpetual war are really acting in Ukraine's interests or are intended to draw Putin into a long term military quagmire that will ultimately undermine both him and the Russian state in general.

I'm not saying the West shouldn't be arming Ukraine, I don't know really, and I don't think we should take anything Putin says at face value, but there is propaganda happening in all directions and even if he pulls troops out tomorrow this still looks like a situation that could be spun to increase his stranglehold on power rather than place him at risk of a coup or revolution which seems pretty optimistic to me. Unfortunately.

what putin wanted - and expected - was for the urkanian regime to fold within days and to annex bits of the country and puppet the rest. He's now stuck in a what looks like a (possibly unwinnable) stalemate. We dont really know how long Russia can sustain its offensive - it may be able to keep on grinding on for months and eventually come away with the eastern provinces and a land route to Odessa. It may be that his military keeps on getting chipped away and ground down until its no longer effective due to lack of supplies, low morale, personal and equipment losses and desertion and has to withdraw. It may be that at that point Voldemort goes for taking out Kiev and/or Lvov with WMDs.
It bears all the hallmarks of the dictatorial, megalomaniacal self delusion meeting a very different reality. Putin is not playing by the "rules" of rational self interest - hes driven by romantic nationalism and paranoia - and IMO pretty much everything hes said and done over the past 6 months bears that out - just two days ago he was in full on fascist rant mode about the need for a "purification" of Russia from traitors and fifth columnists. File next to Urkaine not being a real country and its people are all russian. Weather they like or not.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Afaik the convoy was untangled a while ago. The lead elements have redeployed to form the positions north and west of Kyiv.

And, yet, they don't seem to have moved in over a week.

 

[The39thStep]

Of interest.


Direct link to his PDF. if you're interested in the core principles of urban warfare: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/a3...-507be641e336/Mini_Manual_Spencerv2.5pptx.pdf

 

[bimble]

This is apparently what Putin says he wants before agreeing a ceasefire. Half of it is so vague it’s impossible to see him as seriously engaged in looking for a way to stop isn’t it?

 

[smokedout]

Even if this is true it is being perceived as a failure and Russia is perceived as weak internationally. Which is almost as big an issue as being weak.

And that's why Western propaganda is so eager to present it as a failure, or a disaster. But I'm not sure it is so far, for anyone except the people of Ukraine and the soliders being used as cannon fodder. And depending how it turns out I don't think it will be perceived as that in either Moscow or Beijing, which I suspect is what Putin really cares about. It doesn't seem to have done much harm in surrounding regions either, Sweden and Finland don't seem to be rushing up to join NATO.

 

[Raheem]

This is apparently what Putin says he wants before agreeing a ceasefire. Half of it is so vague it’s impossible to see him as seriously engaged in looking for a way to stop isn’t it?

These must be conditions for a cessation/withdrawal. You can't have disarmament as a ceasefire condition.

It's vague because it's a second-hand report, though. It looks to me like a serious offer, because Putin is effectively asking for nothing much, except possibly in terms of disarmament.

 

[Pickman's model]

And, yet, they don't seem to have moved in over a week.

View attachment 314849

yeh well one theory for this might be that within those areas of control things are being reorganised to prepare for further advances.

positions not changing does not mean changes aren't occurring

 

[smokedout]

what putin wanted - and expected - was for the urkanian regime to fold within days and to annex bits of the country and puppet the rest. He's now stuck in a what looks like a (possibly unwinnable) stalemate. We dont really know how long Russia can sustain its offensive - it may be able to keep on grinding on for months and eventually come away with the eastern provinces and a land route to Odessa. It may be that his military keeps on getting chipped away and ground down until its no longer effective due to lack of supplies, low morale, personal and equipment losses and desertion and has to withdraw. It may be that at that point Voldemort goes for taking out Kiev and/or Lvov with WMDs.
It bears all the hallmarks of the dictatorial, megalomaniacal self delusion meeting a very different reality. Putin is not playing by the "rules" of rational self interest - hes driven by romantic nationalism and paranoia - and IMO pretty much everything hes said and done over the past 6 months bears that out - just two days ago he was in full on fascist rant mode about the need for a "purification" of Russia from traitors and fifth columnists. File next to Urkaine not being a real country and its people are all russian. Weather they like or not.

How on earth can we know what Putin wanted or expected? How can we know what his generals were thinking? Hoping for a quick and low casualty victory may be over optimistic or even foolish, but it's not irrational. And is his rhetoric that far away from some of the war on terror crap we heard from both Bush and Blair? Or the lies about WMD's and the claim that God himself was on their side? I'm sure there were people on the end of air strikes in Baghdad and surrounding regions who thought Bush was acting out of dictatorial, megalomaniacal self delusion, and ultimately that invasion really was a disaster. The reality though is this is how states behave, including making mistakes, and including getting trapped in circumstances they didn't forsee. As tempting as it may be to turn the heads of those states into cartoonish monsters it doesn't really help much with analysing what's actually going on.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is apparently what Putin says he wants before agreeing a ceasefire. Half of it is so vague it’s impossible to see him as seriously engaged in looking for a way to stop isn’t it?

i imagine some flash has been put on those bones by vp. you're just seeing the headings here, not the text beneath.

 

[elbows]

And its the same thing the John Simpson article was on about. The one which made me ask people what exactly is missing that we would have expected to see? Not much that I can think of. Some people responded to my question, but unless I missed something they couldnt think of anything obvious that was missing from Russias demands either.

 

[Raheem]

And its the same thing the John Simpson article was on about. The one which made me ask people what exactly is missing that we would have expected to see? Not much that I can think of.

Depends what you mean by "expected", but previous Russian demands have included independence for the Donbass republics, recognition of Crimea as Russian and a new government in Kyiv. Those things are notable by their absence here.

 

[elbows]

Depends what you mean by "expected", but previous Russian demands have included independence for the Donbass republics, recognition of Crimea as Russian and a new government in Kyiv. Those things are notable by their absence here.

The new government stuff is the only thing thats missing, the territorial stuff is all mentioned in the BBC article that tweet is based on as things Russia are demanding that Ukraine will find harder to swallow. And Russia abandoned the puppet government demand quite some time ago, well before the current round of talks.

 

[ohmyliver]

I'm slightly dissapointed to find out that isn't an actual thread.

 

[Raheem]

The new government stuff is the only thing thats missing, the territorial stuff is all mentioned in the BBC article that tweet is based on as things Russia are demanding that Ukraine will find harder to swallow. And Russia abandoned the puppet government demand quite some time ago, well before the current round of talks.

We might be at cross-purposes. I'm looking only at the brief summary supposedly based on Erdogan's phonecall with Putin, rather than the sum total of recent reports. These can't just be about the same thing, because granting independence to the Donbass republics wouldn't be consistent with also agreeing to negotiations about their future.

 

[bimble]

These must be conditions for a cessation/withdrawal. You can't have disarmament as a ceasefire condition.

It's vague because it's a second-hand report, though. It looks to me like a serious offer, because Putin is effectively asking for nothing much, except possibly in terms of disarmament.

If he was seriously looking for a way to stop this, he’d at least have stopped talking about “denazification” imo. As a goal let alone as a condition of ending the war. Unless it has some specific meaning we’re not privy to.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How on earth can we know what Putin wanted or expected? How can we know what his generals were thinking? Hoping for a quick and low casualty victory may be over optimistic or even foolish, but it's not irrational. And is his rhetoric that far away from some of the war on terror crap we heard from both Bush and Blair? Or the lies about WMD's and the claim that God himself was on their side? I'm sure there were people on the end of air strikes in Baghdad and surrounding regions who thought Bush was acting out of dictatorial, megalomaniacal self delusion, and ultimately that invasion really was a disaster. The reality though is this is how states behave, including making mistakes, and including getting trapped in circumstances they didn't forsee. As tempting as it may be to turn the heads of those states into cartoonish monsters it doesn't really help much with analysing what's actually going on.

I think you make some very good points. But I also think it's worth trying to work out how it is that so many well-informed and thoughtful commentators got this so wrong, and were convinced Putin would not act as he has done right up to the day of the invasion.

The orthodox view of Putin (pun unintended) has been that he is entirely free of ideology. This has been seen as key to the way he has maintained his transactional power base. But recent actions suggest that he is far from an ideological vacuum, that his rhetoric over the years concerning the Russian empire and his desire to rebuild it should be taken at face value, and that there is very probably a religious aspect to his beliefs in this regard. It's also clear that he is willing to blow up the transactional side of his relations with the oligarchs - I can't believe any of them is anything other than dismayed by the way this is panning out, but Putin seems not to care. At the very least, he has demonstrated a willingness to go for broke when there was no compelling reason why he should have done.

 

[Gramsci]

Ukraine government trying to reduce workers rights. The fear is that post war (if Ukraine survives as independent country) this will be permanent.

This "liberalisation" of workforce to supposedly encourage outside investment has been pushed for before the war.

Makes me wonder what sort of society is wanted if Ukraine "wins".

Does seem to me rather off to do this when from all reports ordinary Ukrainians are bravely doing their bit.

And it doesn't go with the WW2 rhetoric that's been used. Here after WW2 ordinary people got the Welfare state and Council housing.

The president has yet to agree to this.

Is war an excuse for removing employees’ rights?

Law radically curtailing labour rights is crucial in face of Russian invasion, say Ukrainian politicians. Trade unions say it’s an excuse for deregulation

www.opendemocracy.net

 

[Pickman's model]

I think you make some very good points. But I also think it's worth trying to work out how it is that so many well-informed and thoughtful commentators got this so wrong, and were convinced Putin would not act as he has done right up to the day of the invasion.

The orthodox view of Putin (pun unintended) has been that he is entirely free of ideology. This has been seen as key to the way he has maintained his transactional power base. But recent actions suggest that he is far from an ideological vacuum, that his rhetoric over the years concerning the Russian empire and his desire to rebuild it should be taken at face value, and that there is very probably a religious aspect to his beliefs in this regard. It's also clear that he is willing to blow up the transactional side of his relations with the oligarchs - I can't believe any of them is anything other than dismayed by the way this is panning out, but Putin seems not to care. At the very least, he has demonstrated a willingness to go for broke when there was no compelling reason why he should have done.

your second paragraph doesn't to me answer the question you pose in the first paragraph. part of the answer would i think the commentators we thought were well-informed weren't. that warning indicators such as the presence/absence of various sorts of units were either missed or weren't as valid as indicators as believed. turning to the issue of putin and ideology, i think a lot of people have seen in putin what they wanted to or expected to see. he isn't a president of the people so much as he is the president of the russian elite, and this elite is not one homogenous body but composed of factions. from this it's easy to see that he balances factions, sometimes favouring one group and sometimes another. i don't think he is devoid of ideology but rather that the many of the views he espouses are for domestic rather than international consumption. like the younger bush he sends out 'dogwhistle' messages, many of which doubtless escape the ears or eyes of most western observers. with the oligarchs, the point's been made that despite their vast wealth few of them have any actual power in russia. like the nobles of the russian empire they hold their positions at the tsar's sufference - at putin's sufferance.

i don't think there's some grand scheme here, and i certainly don't think that he can go for an invasion of the baltic states or poland in the near future because great deficiencies in planning and execution of operations are clear: plus he will have to resupply the army with armoured vehicles and tanks, frankly it could be several years before the russian army is ready for a new major operation.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ukraine government trying to reduce workers rights. The fear is that post war (if Ukraine survives as independent country) this will be permanent.

This "liberalisation" of workforce to supposedly encourage outside investment has been pushed for before the war.

Makes me wonder what sort of society is wanted if Ukraine "wins".

Does seem to me rather off to do this when from all reports ordinary Ukrainians are bravely doing their bit.

And it doesn't go with the WW2 rhetoric that's been used. Here after WW2 ordinary people got the Welfare state and Council housing.

The president has yet to agree to this.

Is war an excuse for removing employees’ rights?

Law radically curtailing labour rights is crucial in face of Russian invasion, say Ukrainian politicians. Trade unions say it’s an excuse for deregulation

www.opendemocracy.net

no wonder people like johnson back vz, he's a man they can do business with

 

[magneze]

These must be conditions for a cessation/withdrawal. You can't have disarmament as a ceasefire condition.

It's vague because it's a second-hand report, though. It looks to me like a serious offer, because Putin is effectively asking for nothing much, except possibly in terms of disarmament.

I agree, only disarmament seems to be the controversial one. Even the last one is 'negotiate' rather than 'surrender'.

 

[smokedout]

If he was seriously looking for a way to stop this, he’d at least have stopped talking about “denazification” imo. As a goal let alone as a condition of ending the war. Unless it has some specific meaning we’re not privy to.

Kicking the Azov Battalion out of the formal military and the de-arming/arrest/execution of it's leaders and political supporters probably (also as cover for demilitarisation of the wider region). That would be pretty important for the security of any new political arrangement in Donetsk and Luhansk.

 

[emanymton]

Kicking the Azov Battalion out of the formal military and the de-arming/arrest/execution of it's leaders and political supporters probably (also as cover for demilitarisation of the wider region). That would be pretty important for the security of any new political arrangement in Donetsk and Luhansk.

That at least would be one small positive to come out of this horror.

 

[Raheem]

If he was seriously looking for a way to stop this, he’d at least have stopped talking about “denazification” imo. As a goal let alone as a condition of ending the war. Unless it has some specific meaning we’re not privy to.

Denazification might not mean very much in practical terms. But it has hugely exaggerated importance to a lot of Russians because they have been fed propaganda. So Ukraine disbands the Asov Regiment, bans this and that far-right organisation and maybe passes some symbolic laws. Putin saves a lot of face by pretending that was the primary objective.

 

[elbows]

We might be at cross-purposes. I'm looking only at the brief summary supposedly based on Erdogan's phonecall with Putin, rather than the sum total of recent reports. These can't just be about the same thing, because granting independence to the Donbass republics wouldn't be consistent with also agreeing to negotiations about their future.

I think they are about the very same thing because that tweet does say "retold by senior Turkish official Kalin to BBC" and that exactly what the John Simpson article I've been going on about is based on:

Within half an hour of the ending of the phone call, I interviewed Mr Erdogan's leading adviser and spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin. Mr Kalin was part of the small group of officials who had listened in on the call.

Ukraine conflict: Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call

Russia's president revealed his peace conditions in a phone call - the BBC spoke to someone who listened in.

www.bbc.co.uk

The tweet isnt clear enough about what they mean by Donbass negotiations - I think it means current negotiations, not what it sounds like you've assumed that a deal to end this war pushes such things off to a further future set of negotiations. Here is the relevant part of the Simpson piece:

Although Mr Kalin didn't go into detail, the assumption is that Russia will demand that the Ukrainian government should give up territory in eastern Ukraine. That will be deeply contentious.
The other assumption is that Russia will demand that Ukraine should formally accept that Crimea, which Russia illegally annexed in 2014, does indeed now belong to Russia. If this is the case, it will be a bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow.

 

[two sheds]

When it's all over I wonder whether Ukraine will go to International Court to request reparations. Not that they'd get them from Putin but it might be a way to legitimize nicking the oligarchs' assets.

 

[Pickman's model]

I think they are about the very same thing because that tweet does say "retold by senior Turkish official Kalin to BBC" and that exactly what the John Simpson article I've been going on about is based on:

Ukraine conflict: Putin lays out his demands in Turkish phone call

Russia's president revealed his peace conditions in a phone call - the BBC spoke to someone who listened in.

www.bbc.co.uk

The tweet isnt clear enough about what they mean by Donbass negotiations - I think it means current negotiations, and here is the relevant part of the Simpson piece:

a spoonful of sugar famously helps the medicine go down. i don't suppose wrecked cities and a dislocated economy would make recognising the lose of crimea at all sweet. and i can see it being a factor in further conflict in yeaers to come as eg alsace-lorraine was.

 

[The39thStep]

Kicking the Azov Battalion out of the formal military and the de-arming/arrest/execution of it's leaders and political supporters probably (also as cover for demilitarisation of the wider region). That would be pretty important for the security of any new political arrangement in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Denazification might not mean very much in practical terms. But it has hugely exaggerated importance to a lot of Russians because they have been fed propaganda. So Ukraine disbands the Asov Regiment, bans this and that far-right organisation and maybe passes some symbolic laws. Putin saves a lot of face by pretending that was the primary objective.

Denazification might not mean very much in practical terms. But it has hugely exaggerated importance to a lot of Russians because they have been fed propaganda. So Ukraine disbands the Asov Regiment, bans this and that far-right organisation and maybe passes some symbolic laws. Putin saves a lot of face by pretending that was the primary objective.

Can anyone explain why the Azov regiment wasn’t disbanded prior to the invasion ?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

And that's why Western propaganda is so eager to present it as a failure, or a disaster. But I'm not sure it is so far, for anyone except the people of Ukraine and the soliders being used as cannon fodder. And depending how it turns out I don't think it will be perceived as that in either Moscow or Beijing, which I suspect is what Putin really cares about. It doesn't seem to have done much harm in surrounding regions either, Sweden and Finland don't seem to be rushing up to join NATO.

Sweden and Finland, and indeed Ukraine, weren't rushing to join NATO before the invasion. Since the invasion the first two are making noises in that direction, even if they don't actually go through with it.

 

[Raheem]

Can anyone explain why the Azov regiment wasn’t disbanded prior to the invasion ?

Mainly because it played a prominent role in the Donbass conflict.

 

[Kaka Tim]

How on earth can we know what Putin wanted or expected? How can we know what his generals were thinking? Hoping for a quick and low casualty victory may be over optimistic or even foolish, but it's not irrational. And is his rhetoric that far away from some of the war on terror crap we heard from both Bush and Blair? Or the lies about WMD's and the claim that God himself was on their side? I'm sure there were people on the end of air strikes in Baghdad and surrounding regions who thought Bush was acting out of dictatorial, megalomaniacal self delusion, and ultimately that invasion really was a disaster. The reality though is this is how states behave, including making mistakes, and including getting trapped in circumstances they didn't forsee. As tempting as it may be to turn the heads of those states into cartoonish monsters it doesn't really help much with analysing what's actually going on.

Well putins words and actions are pretty good indicator of what he wants - hes obsessed about restoring his version of Russia - which means assimilating nations like urkraine and others back into the fold. The military strategy is there for all to see - they were clearly unprepared for any sort of serious resistance and are now in serious trouble.
Unlike the US/uk and Iraq - I doubt anyone outside Putin's echo chamber thought invading Ukraine would be a good idea - whereas the the Iraq war was fiercely argued for by both the US and Uk governments and their media cheerleaders (a pre war propaganda campaign notably absent from Russia's build up to invasion) . And - militarily - they were correct in that Saddam's forces would crumble very quickly. What they got disastrously wrong was their belief that they could easily install a stable pro western regime and that the invaders would be welcomed as liberators (and that everyone would forget about the WMD nonsense).
I dont remember bush or Blair making long paranoid rants threatening nuclear Armageddon and "purifying" the country of traitors in pursuit of national glory.
Was there hubris, and self delusion and ego involved? - yes for sure - but Putin's is another level - just listen to the rabid shit he spews - or look at the fucking table. This is on scale of the US deciding to invade and install a pro western regime in Iran and expecting them not to fight. An idea that was occasionally mooted but very quickly shot down. I think Trump (also a delusional megalomaniac) toyed with that one as well - but the pentagon were very strongly against it cos it nonsense on stilts.
But Putin's regime seems immune to any voices opposed to the caprice of their leader - so yes it does make sense to try and understand what the fuck he is doing and why - and I would argue that his actions are driven far more by (self fulfilling) paranoia and deluded, obsessive romantic nationalism rather than cold geo-political calculation. Which is NOT generally how most states behave - other than ones that are in the grip of your hitlers, saddam's, pol pots, idi amins and vladimir putins.
Every outcome is bad for Russia - even if they manage to conquer ukraine (now a very big if) they will face an unending well supported, well armed insurgency that will require a huge commitment of resources to contain. Their have been exposed as militarily far weaker than what was believed. Their economy is in the toilet thanks to sanctions. They have united all their neighbors in opposition. They are an international pariah. They have revitalized the unity and resolve of both NATO and the EU. Nobody will be clamoring to join up to some greater Russia -its the exact opposite.