Russia and Ukraine

[The Architect Of Fate]

Those missile launches are proof of Russia's desperation

They are expending what's left of their shrinking stocks of PGMs against civilian rather than military targets.

That speaks volumes about Russian aims in this war.

Yet Belacqua is silent on these Russian attacks on civilians both before and after the bridge explosion.

Indeed the goal seems to be "burn everything down" and  " If I can't have it no one can". But it's what I have come to expect from Putin.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not as though it will save them as Belarus suffers many of the same issues as Russia with honestly none of the advantages and it's also been observed Poland has been subtly telling  Belarus to back off so I don't think Lukashenka for all his bluster is going to make a full commitment.

Right, his Defense Minister is already on record saying Belarus doesn't want any active engagement in this invasion. My reading of the tea leaves suggests that Lukashenko is walking a fine line between appeasing Putin and keeping Belarus out of a war that will almost certainly prove unpopular amongst Belarusians, and could conceivably lead to his downfall given his deep unpopularity.

However, even given the low combat-value of the Belarusian army, a force of 60,000 troops on Ukraine's northern lines cannot be disregarded. That's probably why this demarche is happening.

Indeed the goal seems to be "burn everything down" and  " If I can't have it no one can". But it's what I have come to expect from Putin.

Terror has been an aspect of Putin's methods since day one of Russia's invasion.

The only possible benefit from this is that these PGMs, shot from an already-depleted stockpile which is already seeing Russian air-force planes resorting to dumb iron bombs, are not being shot at troops in the field, or their supply hubs/equipment depots, etc. And despite Putin's likely aim, civilian morale is very, very hard to break by bombardment -- just ask the British, German, and Japanese civilians of WWII what those intense bombardments did. In a nutshell, those bombardments only hardened civilian hearts against the enemies doing the bombardments. I don't think that will prove any different here.

[Belacqua]

[...]

But as a deeper way of analyzing things: I think huge errors were made in the post-soviet era (by both sides). I think the west was too opportunistic in that era. I would have made agreements to 1) support the transition of the Russian legal system to a westernized legal system 2) support and monitor all the privatization efforts of the Russian state and try to supervise the way these privatizations are being made. So that no one robs the Russian people and that these people are not pushed into alcoholism and prostitution. In exchange, I would ask for the dismantlement of more nuclear weapons. [...]

Yes, I think it's good to step back and see that the history goes further back than last week, and what's happening now has direct causes.

When the US and the IMF imposed shock therapy on the collapsing Soviet Union, millions of people suffered financially, and life expectancy shortened significantly. The oligarchs took everything.

Putin is very popular in Russia now for restoring stability and exercising power over the oligarchs. No one is saying that he's a pure democratic leader and the ideal we would want -- but there's a reason he's so popular at home. 

There's also a reason why the Russian people have no trust for promises from the US. 

That’s what he did in Syria as well. Millions of refugees fled the country. Cities, historical places were razed to the ground. But the Assad regime (friendly toward Russia), has no collapsed, Russian interest has been maintained.

And remember that Russia got al Qaeda out of Syria, even as the US was supporting them. Now the US is occupying large parts of Syria and is stealing their oil and wheat with impunity. 

So again, no offence to anyone. But I don’t really like Russia’s foreign policy and in fact I didn’t like it in the Soviet Era either. I think that if the Soviets had not invaded Afghanistan, today we would have a Pakistan-like country in the region who isn’t posing any major threat to its own population or to any of the surrounding countries. 

I agree that the invasion of Afghanistan made the world worse. It would also have been better if Jimmy Carter had not begun funding the extremist Muslims in order to counter the Soviets. It was this US-backed group that caused a little bit of trouble later on.

These issues go back a long way. Both sides are guilty. Pretending that it's all one side prevents us from accurate evaluations of history and realistic plans for going forward.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Not as though it will save them as Belarus suffers many of the same issues as Russia with honestly none of the advantages and it's also been observed Poland has been subtly telling  Belarus to back off so I don't think Lukashenka for all his bluster is going to make a full commitment.

Right, his Defense Minister is already on record saying Belarus doesn't want any active engagement in this invasion. My reading of the tea leaves suggests that Lukashenko is walking a fine line between appeasing Putin and keeping Belarus out of a war that will almost certainly prove unpopular amongst Belarusians, and could conceivably lead to his downfall given his deep unpopularity.

However, even given the low combat-value of the Belarusian army, a force of 60,000 troops on Ukraine's northern lines cannot be disregarded. That's probably why this demarche is happening.

Indeed the goal seems to be "burn everything down" and  " If I can't have it no one can". But it's what I have come to expect from Putin.

Terror has been an aspect of Putin's methods since day one of Russia's invasion.

The only possible benefit from this is that these PGMs, shot from an already-depleted stockpile which is already seeing Russian air-force planes resorting to dumb iron bombs, are not being shot at troops in the field, or their supply hubs/equipment depots, etc. And despite Putin's likely aim, civilian morale is very, very hard to break by bombardment -- just ask the British, German, and Japanese civilians of WWII what those intense bombardments did. In a nutshell, those bombardments only hardened civilian hearts against the enemies doing the bombardments. I don't think that will prove any different here.

True 60,000 troops is still  60,000 troops and Ukraine would be foolish to simply ignore such a threat but I don't think it will ultimately shift Russia's fortunes in the overall war and will be as you said before a distraction as Putin scrambles to find some actual soldiers and yes these missile strikes seem to be about morale and it will likely fail as it's nothing new and has historically only galvanized a populous. Pity Mr. Putin for all his bluster about The Patriotic War doesn't seem to have read a lot about it and seems intent on repeating mistakes from that era.

[Belacqua]

Interesting and detailed analysis of recent Ukraine/US relations here:

https://policytensor.substack.com/p/the-...kraine-war

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, I think it's good to step back and see that the history goes further back than last week, and what's happening now has direct causes.

When the US and the IMF imposed shock therapy on the collapsing Soviet Union, millions of people suffered financially, and life expectancy shortened significantly. The oligarchs took everything.

Putin is very popular in Russia now for restoring stability and exercising power over the oligarchs. No one is saying that he's a pure democratic leader and the ideal we would want -- but there's a reason he's so popular at home. 

There's also a reason why the Russian people have no trust for promises from the US. 

Yes, the issues in eastern Europe have nothing to do with having corrupt autocratic leaders. It's all the west's fault and apologizing for an autocrat who's only "popular"  due to silencing all his critics and a sweeping decades-long bombardment of state propaganda....

And remember that Russia got al Qaeda out of Syria, even as the US was supporting them. Now the US is occupying large parts of Syria and is stealing their oil and wheat with impunity. 

Yeah let's just ignore that Russia props up the Assad Regime and no the US has not "stolen " anything unlike Russia which plunders left, Right, and Center

I agree that the invasion of Afghanistan made the world worse. It would also have been better if Jimmy Carter had not begun funding the extremist Muslims in order to counter the Soviets. It was this US-backed group that caused a little bit of trouble later on.

These issues go back a long way. Both sides are guilty. Pretending that it's all one side prevents us from accurate evaluations of history and realistic plans for going forward.
Posted by Thumpalumpacus - 23 minutes ago

Yes the US should not have funded the only group that was willing to fight the autocratic dictatorship that was slaughtering the Afghans. Because the US is psychic and can totally tell the future, And there are no both sides here. It is one side and it's the mass of ego and receding hairline sitting in the Kremlin...

[The Architect Of Fate]

Interesting and detailed analysis of recent Ukraine/US relations here:

https://policytensor.substack.com/p/the-...kraine-war

Yeah, another site reciting long-refuted Tankie bullshit ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

True 60,000 troops is still  60,000 troops and Ukraine would be foolish to simply ignore such a threat but I don't think it will ultimately shift Russia's fortunes in the overall war and will be as you said before a distraction as Putin scrambles to find some actual soldiers and yes these missile strikes seem to be about morale and it will likely fail as it's nothing new and has historically only galvanized a populous. Pity Mr. Putin for all his bluster about The Patriotic War doesn't seem to have read a lot about it and seems intent on repeating mistakes from that era.

1) Putin galvanized the populace in 2014, I believe. Further bombardment will likely only increase Ukrainian intransigence.

2) Posing a threat from Belarus won't change anything except internal Ukrainian deployments, and those not much, because it's safe to assume they keep the capital guarded well anyway and sit at the center of the road and rail nets. It won't stop the Ukrainians from pursuing the offensive east and south, though it might perhaps slow those Ukrainian advances, which is I think the main Russian goal in this, buying breathing room. This threat won't interdict any supply-lines, absent a spectacular success that they couldn't achieve in March this last year. With mud season coming up once again -- and that's what scuppered the March drive on Kyiv in large part -- this current move looks more like posing than actually-sound strategy.

Even if they do launch, they now will have one more supply-line to maintain. Now Russia has to supply 60,000 more troops far away from their other concentrations. Given their problems with logistics heretofore, I don't see this move as threat, but more like bluster.

But for political reasons, it won't go forward, I don't think. Russia's recent defeats have likely made Belarusians even more wary of involvement. In short I think it's a dog-and-pony show.

[arewethereyet]

I think Putin incorrectly thought that Ukraine would just lay down and let him walk all over them.

[Belacqua]

Interesting paper on the "Snipers' Massacre" that had such an impact on the unfolding events.

This is just the abstract. If you have access to Academia.edu you can read the whole thing.

(I removed the author's e-mail address to protect him from trolls.)

---

The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine1

With Revised and Updated Online Video Appendix A (2017) and Video Appendix B (2018)

Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.

School of Political Studies University of Ottawa Ottawa, ON
K1N 6N5, Canada

Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of American Political Science Association in San Francisco, September 3-6, 2015

“Il est dцfendu de tuer; tout meurtrТer est punТ, р moТns qu’Тl n’aТt tuц en grande compagnТe, et au son des trompettes; c’est la rчgle.”

[It Тs forbТdden to kТll; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets; it is the rule].1
( oltaire).

   1 Earlier version of this paper was presented at the Chair of Ukrainian Studies Seminar at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, October 1, 2014.

1
Abstract
The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre.

The question is which side organized the "snipers' massacre." This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.

The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protestors. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts in mass media and social media in different countries (some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protestors' deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the "Euromaidan." This study includes two video appendixes.

This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of "snipers" targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan "snipers" and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

---