Russia and Ukraine

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ha!

The “Machiavellist” would be the side that close off all possibly exist ramps for Russia in Jan and Feb, knowing Russia would have no other recourse but to invade.   They did this knowing what it would mean to Ukraine,  they did this implying to the Ukrainians they would prevent Russian invasion but have neither the ability or the intention to do so, so that the Ukrainians would not be tempted to come to an independent accommodation with Russia and forestall the invasion.

They did this for a simple reason that they realized they over reached by pushing NATO boundary all they way to Russia Border and can’t stop Russia from pushing back the boundary of NATO, but they wanted to exacting the highest possible political price from Russia for arriving at the same inevitable end result.   They maneuvers the Ukrainian into to become futile cannon fodder to be sacrificed purely for the opportunity to generate outage and provide reason for sanction, without having realistic hope of achieving something for Ukrainians themselves.


But since we are already here, I will state the bluntly obvious that everyone bemoaning ukraine is too foolishly head in sank to seem to understand:,   The whole point of sacrificing some is so overall, the suffering is less.

You should ask why is it that those who made it necessary to sacrifice a few in order reduce the overall suffering, and why those are not sanctioned, while those who did the thing those people made necessary are sanctioned.

There was no legitimate reason for Russia to invade and no one but made Russia do anything this is 100% on them and only them ......

---

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

Well, let's take a look.

Putin's pretexts for the invasion:

-Protect Russian lives: failure

-Stop the eastward expansion of NATO: failure (Sweden and Finland)

Putin's goals for the invasion:

-Restoration of 'Greater Russia' as Russia/Belarus/Ukraine: failure (significant numbers of ethnic Russians in Ukraine no longer support Russia)

-Fracture NATO: abject failure (the invasion has sped up healing the splits in NATO caused by Trump)

Putin's expectations for the invasion:

-It would be done in 100 hours (his promise to the oligarchs): failure

-The world would do nothing: epic failure

-It would serve as a showcase for Russia's military might: failed in terms of morale, logistics, planning and execution

The above aside, can Russia eventually take Ukraine? Probably. But there's a huge difference between taking a country and holding a country. Putin doesn't have the military or economic resources to hold Ukraine in the face of determined opposition by the West. The invasion has already cratered the Russian economy. Sadly, though, Putin's megalomania won't ever allow him to withdraw. Over the next few years, the situation for the average Russian is going to get more and more dire, and Putin is likely to be remembered as the man who removed Russia as a player on the world stage.

Boru

Yup, he has failed in every way imaginable and he has only himself to blame because Ukraine and any other nation have the right to join NATO if they want to, and no one needed to consult Russian on dick nor was NATO obligated to let Russia join. So this is Russia throwing a hissy fit for no valid reason.

---

Ha!

The “Machiavellist” would be the side that close off all possibly exist ramps for Russia in Jan and Feb, knowing Russia would have no other recourse but to invade.

Yes, the Prince would corner his enemy, force him to invade another country, then do nothing at all, but go to the UN council (of which the enemy is a member of) and get a resolution declined.

Yeah, a real sly fox this Prince.

You havent read any of Machiavelli, have you? You are still sitting behind your desk on the west coast, just waiting for Putin to send his invasion force, since......its necessary to him, ya know, and then you would run over, in spirit of Benedict Arnold and offer him a blow job, while he is taking all liberties from you, since.....its necessary, ya know.

Pathetic.

Yes throwing hissy fits and invading your neighbors because you don't like the fact you don't get a say in what international organization they get to be in and they didn't invite you is " necessary"

[Mister Agenda]

To pick a nit, joining NATO isn't a right, you have to meet certain qualifications, which Ukraine currently does not.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Another, longer term, problem for Russia is the million+ Ukrainian refugees fleeing to Central Europe. Most of these countries are NATO members, and the influx of refugees are going to be a big factor in strengthening ties between NATO and Ukraine. Once Putin’s successor withdraws Russian forces from Ukraine, NATO membership is going to be fast-tracked.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

I wouldn’t be so sure about that.

Well, let's take a look.

Putin's pretexts for the invasion:

-Protect Russian lives: failure

-Stop the eastward expansion of NATO: failure (Sweden and Finland)

Putin's goals for the invasion:

-Restoration of 'Greater Russia' as Russia/Belarus/Ukraine: failure (significant numbers of ethnic Russians in Ukraine no longer support Russia)

-Fracture NATO: abject failure (the invasion has sped up healing the splits in NATO caused by Trump)

Putin's expectations for the invasion:

-It would be done in 100 hours (his promise to the oligarchs): failure

-The world would do nothing: epic failure

-It would serve as a showcase for Russia's military might: failed in terms of morale, logistics, planning and execution

The above aside, can Russia eventually take Ukraine? Probably. But there's a huge difference between taking a country and holding a country. Putin doesn't have the military or economic resources to hold Ukraine in the face of determined opposition by the West. The invasion has already cratered the Russian economy. Sadly, though, Putin's megalomania won't ever allow him to withdraw. Over the next few years, the situation for the average Russian is going to get more and more dire, and Putin is likely to be remembered as the man who removed Russia as a player on the world stage.

Boru

no.  all the bullshit and political fluff are for propaganda.    This balls on which his eyes are really fixed are these:

1, his one single overriding aim is to ensure no non-russian offensive nuclear weapon, or other weapons that threaten russian nuclear deterrence, such as launch stage ballistic missile defence, can be deployed to Ukraine, ever. He will drag the war on for as long as it takes, inflict and take as much casualty as it takes, and absorb any economic cost to achieve this. 
the political corollary to this aim is russia must ensure whatever postwar political reality eventuates in ukraine, it is such that Ukrainian government can’t effectively scheme to overturn this situation.

2. his second aim, far down in importance, is to make it possible for russia to deploy  Russian offensive nuclear weapon or defensive anti-ballistic and anti-cruise missile weapons  to western ukraine in retaliation against EU for America pulling out of the INF treaty.    He is doing this to the EU because he can’t deploy these weapons to cuba to hold the US under the same threat that US withdraw from INF puts Russia under.  but that is probably optional.    if the first is achieved, the second would be weighed against the cost of acquisition, and if achieved, can be used as bargaining chip for postwar negotiations with the EU at the appropriate time.      When it dawned on the EU that US withdraw from INF puts the EU, but not the US, under added nuclear threat, we’ll see if NATO remains as United as before. 

3. His third aim, similarly far down the importance, is to expand political control in postwar Ukraine beyond what is required for the political corollary to his number one priority stayed above.   That is easy to achieve for area around crimea and large parts east of the Dniper because ethnic and linguistic closely to russia.   it would be rather difficult to achieve for ukraine west of the Dniper, so he would probably push for a divided ukraine.   But so long as it does not undo his objective 1,  this is likely also negotiable.

militarily it does not look like he is really stalked despite talking heads whose antagonism to putin cause them to paint every event in the worst possible light fit russia rather than really carefully consider what the russian plans probably were.

1. undoubtedly Russians hoped ukrainian government would fall quickly.   All military invasions have an dream outcome,  and not a few embarrassed themselves by clearly having a window to achieve a better outcome than they planned, but lacking forethought to plan for such a happy contingency, they missed the opportunity to capitalize it.   the US planned for saddam just folding and leaving the country in 2003, that too didn’t happen.

2.  but importantly the russian operation didn’t depend on the dream outcome falling on their lap.   clearly they had an effective and robust plan to take down ukraine against heavy resistance and are putting it into operation. 

3.  Much hay has been made about the detailed defects of the Russian army.   An effective plan is a plan which would work given the defects of the army, and it appears to be working well.   compare how much progress russia has made with other recent combined arms land invasion, such ad 1991 and 2003 US led invasions of iraq.   By day 4-5, With broadly comparable amount of ground forces as in 1991 iraq invasion, but without the benefit of a 3 week air campaign to soften up defences first, the russians have actually made deeper amount of total combined penetration depth into enemy territory, and captured substantially larger area of enemy territory, than either the 1991 or the 2003 allied invasions.  When george HW bush proclaimed victory in 1991, the coalition for had neither penetrated as deeply, nor taken as much territory, nor had to take towns, cities and other built up areas as the Russians have done.

I would say the Russians have conducted an effective operation, and it is probably going according to previously determined plan.   Maybe plan B, but certainly a serious and robust plan.

[The Grand Nudger]

And hey, if it isn’t, we’ll call it plan c, and continue all the way through the alphabet and beyond with alpha numerics.

I think you should have stuck with your initial appraisal anom.

Russian forces were inadequate for this invasion.

[Anomalocaris]

when i appraised their forces as inadaquate, news reports pegged the forces deployed at 100,000 troops, just over half of what he was later said to be deploying, which was 180,000.


and yes, it could be plan c.   the key to military success is not to ensure plan A works.   it is to ensure some of of the numerous plans singly or in combination called for by circumstances, plus any necessary improvisation, works together. 

ability to adapt and improvise at was long thought to be a major weakness of the russian and soviet armies. A main Past WWII soviet military develop goal was to correct this at operational as well as tactical level.   By late 1980s the soviets believed themselves superior to NATO in at both levels.  In this it appears they have not lost it all at the operational level since the fall of the USSR, even though they seem to have regressed a lot on the tactical level.

[The Grand Nudger]

Or plan z41-b. Aka, if you can’t accomplish what you wanted, just smash some shit, complain bitterly, and call it a day.

[Anomalocaris]

Or plan z41-b. Aka, if you can’t accomplish what you wanted, just smash some shit, complain bitterly, and call it a day.

the only outcome from the day that matters for Russia is to make sure NATO can’t ever deploy either nukes or ballistic missile defense in Ukraine. 

If Putin achieved just this and no others, no doubt western press will hail that as a resounding victory for heroic Ukrainian resistance, but they will forget Putin offered the west just this and no others, free of any charge in the form of Ukrainian casualty and property damage ahead of time, before the war started.

basically the west didn’t mind ukrainians bled so long as russians bled, even if the end results is the same.

to be cynical, the US decided ukrainian blood is a small price to pay for hurting Russia as much as possible for pushing NATO back from Russian borders.

[The Grand Nudger]

Putins rambling revisionist obsession with relitigating the Cold War begs to differ.

[Anomalocaris]

you are only a revisionist if you are still working on it.   once you are done you are the champion of the true path until another revisionist come along.  russians might see US effort to push NATO to russian borders as revisionists relitigating the outcome of WWII.   they are just protecting the true path from western revisionists. 

taking sides does not change the fact that historic outcome is man made and can be undone by men.   no historic outcome is so sacrosanct that no one affected can feel they have a legitimate reason for undoing or over throwing it.