Political impacts of Ukraine war

[Cloud Cover]

So, Putin’s tyranny should not be resisted by Ukraine because living oppressed would be less costly than fighting to live free? That’s the argument we are getting here right?

Can’t help but feel there is hypocrisy from some making this case. It seems to be that tyranny must be resisted, except when you are facing a real tyrant. Storm the capital if someone asks you to wear a mask or get a vaccine. But if someone invades your country, targets civilians, and ethnically cleanses conquered regions then you’d better just roll-over cause that guy might hurt someone.

This is not the way.

Only old school Americans from the colonies get to Live Free or Die.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No, I get it. Resist "tyranny" but don't resist tyranny because that could get you killed.

Right; we need to dumb things down to the lowest level here.

 

[The Bread Guy]

A little something for those few out there who actually buy POTUS47 & Co. saying, "hey, that land occupied in UKR was paid for in Russian blood," - this from the Institute for the Study of War ...

Institute for the Study of War

Kremlin officials are reportedly demanding that Ukraine cede to Russia strategically vital unoccupied territory in Donetsk Oblast and freeze the frontline in other areas as part of a ceasefire agreement. The surrender of the rest of Donetsk Oblast as the

understandingwar.org

From the piece (highlights mine) ...

... with USSR 2.0's map of Novorossiya:

 

[YZT580]

Putin probably doesn't care whether he gets a ceasefire or not. Perhaps his main goal is to shut off or at least reduce the flow of American weapons. If Ukraine has to limit their use of precision weapons Russia's mass attacks will overwhelm the defenders in time. All Putin has to do to achieve that is get Trump back in the "its Ukraine's fault for resisting" line of thought and with the number of Putin fans in his inner circle to influence him, that may not be a hard sell.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Putin probably doesn't care whether he gets a ceasefire or not. Perhaps his main goal is to shut off or at least reduce the flow of American weapons. If Ukraine has to limit their use of precision weapons Russia's mass attacks will overwhelm the defenders in time. All Putin has to do to achieve that is get Trump back in the "its Ukraine's fault for resisting" line of thought and with the number of Putin fans in his inner circle to influence him, that may not be a hard sell.

At this point in the game, I just don't see any scenario where Poland and to a lessor extent, the Baltics, just stand back idly and let Ukraine fall. Even the Germans may be forced to act as they completely understand that if Poland were to fall next that they would be on frontlines once again.

Specifically, Article 51 under the UN Charter - 'Collective self-defense' could be used.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is still minimal evidence that third parties will arm Ukraine sufficiently for it to indefinitely prevent Russia from slowly advancing, let alone recover lost territory. NATO could admit Ukraine in the middle of a war and take up the war, but that is absurdly unlikely - there is less evidence of a will to intervene than of a will to adequately arm and supply. There is a secondary course by which NATO instead draws a line and offers Putin the choice of not crossing it to avoid an escalated war with NATO. NATO could admit Ukraine after some resolution of this current phase, which would also amount to a line-drawing ultimatum to Russia. Admission could be complicated, if any NATO member plays politics with the proposed admission.

Without a strong and determined alliance backing it - NATO or some other willing coalition - Ukraine will lose in chunks if Russia really does want more of it. If some kind of peace now is a prerequisite for NATO admission - to avoid the complication of drawing NATO into an active war - it's another reason to make some kind of peace.

The choices for everyone doing a little but not enough to help Ukraine remain:
Escalate and win.
End it to cut losses, arm and re-arm, rebuild infrastructure, and prepare.
Stay in just enough to drag it out and lose.

Pick the first or second, but for fuck's sake desist with the third.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There is still minimal evidence that third parties will arm Ukraine sufficiently for it to indefinitely prevent Russia from slowly advancing, let alone recover lost territory. NATO could admit Ukraine in the middle of a war and take up the war, but that is absurdly unlikely - there is less evidence of a will to intervene than of a will to adequately arm and supply. There is a secondary course by which NATO instead draws a line and offers Putin the choice of not crossing it to avoid an escalated war with NATO. NATO could admit Ukraine after some resolution of this current phase, which would also amount to a line-drawing ultimatum to Russia. Admission could be complicated, if any NATO member plays politics with the proposed admission.

Without a strong and determined alliance backing it - NATO or some other willing coalition - Ukraine will lose in chunks if Russia really does want more of it. If some kind of peace now is a prerequisite for NATO admission - to avoid the complication of drawing NATO into an active war - it's another reason to make some kind of peace.

The choices for everyone doing a little but not enough to help Ukraine remain:
Escalate and win.
End it to cut losses, arm and re-arm, rebuild infrastructure, and prepare.
Stay in just enough to drag it out and lose.

Pick the first or second, but for fuck's sake desist with the third.

Does your version of #2 include the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO and/or the EU? Because if it doesn't then its just another version of #3

 

[KevinB]

There is still minimal evidence that third parties will arm Ukraine sufficiently for it to indefinitely prevent Russia from slowly advancing, let alone recover lost territory.

Agreed, for the signatories (UK and USA - we can ignore that Russia was a signatory too) that previously made security guarantees to Ukraine in 1994 when it gave up its nuclear weapons, have not provided what they pledged.

NATO could admit Ukraine in the middle of a war and take up the war, but that is absurdly unlikely - there is less evidence of a will to intervene than of a will to adequately arm and supply.

NATO can't because there are some Russian vassals inside of NATO that would veto that.

There is a secondary course by which NATO instead draws a line and offers Putin the choice of not crossing it to avoid an escalated war with NATO. NATO could admit Ukraine after some resolution of this current phase, which would also amount to a line-drawing ultimatum to Russia. Admission could be complicated, if any NATO member plays politics with the proposed admission.

See above - without ejecting Hungary and Serbia (and probably America at this junction in time) NATO cannot, as it's voting methods are FUBAR.

Without a strong and determined alliance backing it - NATO or some other willing coalition - Ukraine will lose in chunks if Russia really does want more of it. If some kind of peace now is a prerequisite for NATO admission - to avoid the complication of drawing NATO into an active war - it's another reason to make some kind of peace.

Given Putin has repeated that Ukraine suffered a revolution and none of the treaties with it are binding, there is zero reason to believe that any peace deal would do anything but allow him to re-arm.

Furthermore if NATO and other UKR friendly nations are not willing to supply more weapons and training to Ukraine now, what gives anyone the idea that if they capitulate to Russia now, that anything would change?

The choices for everyone doing a little but not enough to help Ukraine remain:
Escalate and win.
End it to cut losses, arm and re-arm, rebuild infrastructure, and prepare.
Stay in just enough to drag it out and lose.

Pick the first or second, but for fuck's sake desist with the third.

The only option that actually will stop Russia from going past Ukraine is #1.
The utter destruction of Russia as a military entity would also be a lesson learned for the Chinese to take on about Taiwan.
All the current dithering does is make Russia's actions look viable for other Axis of Evil countries to who want to occupy neighbors -- which frankly I think Canada might want to be a tad more concerned about given our Emperor down here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Does your version of #2 include the acceptance of Ukraine into NATO and/or the EU? Because if it doesn't then its just another version of #3

EU accession won't do much good. NATO would. Surely it's clear, after many posts on the subject, that my first choice is terminating the current phase of fighting and getting Ukraine into NATO quickly.

 

[Brad Sallows]

All the current dithering does is make Russia's actions look viable for other Axis of Evil countries to who want to occupy neighbors -- which frankly I think Canada might want to be a tad more concerned about given our Emperor down here.

After the events going back to the '90s, it should be clear that some countries are more equal than others regarding the likelihood of military assistance. Someone wanting to take over, say, the DRC is probably safer than someone wanting to take over Taiwan or one of the oil-producing Gulf states.

 

[KevinB]

EU accession won't do much good. NATO would.

The EU would, simply because Poland and other would ensure that it then became an Article 5 NATO issue if Polish Peace Monitors where attacked - and frankly Poland at this point is a very potent Military - that could roll Moscow (if it where not for Russians Nuclear forces).

Surely it's clear, after many posts on the subject, that my first choice is terminating the current phase of fighting and getting Ukraine into NATO quickly.

The unfortunate aspect is that we know already that the US, Hungary, and Serbia will veto that, or block it until the cows come home, short of all those three having leadership changes that blow more in UKR's favor.

Germany and France blocked it back when it was really needed, and while they have changed course, there are still too many countries that won't go for it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The EU would, simply because Poland and other would ensure that it then became an Article 5 NATO issue if Polish Peace Monitors where attacked - and frankly Poland at this point is a very potent Military - that could roll Moscow (if it where not for Russians Nuclear forces).

The unfortunate aspect is that we know already that the US, Hungary, and Serbia will veto that, or block it until the cows come home, short of all those three having leadership changes that blow more in UKR's favor.

Germany and France blocked it back when it was really needed, and while they have changed course, there are still too many countries that won't go for it.

Serbia is not a NATO member - thankfully.

Again, use Article 51 under the UN - Collective self defense.

The key would be to ensure that if it comes down to it, a rump state Ukraine must not allow a land border between Hungary and Russia.

 

[MrWhyt]

my first choice is terminating the current phase of fighting and getting Ukraine into NATO quickly.

the US president is openly sympathetic to russia and has said that Ukraine joining NATO is not on the table, your first choice is a fantasy.

 

[QV]

the US president is openly sympathetic to russia and has said that Ukraine joining NATO is not on the table, your first choice is a fantasy.

If you have written off the US, then that leaves the UK, Germany, France, etc to do what needs to be done.

When I am going to hear your criticisms that all those other righteous countries have not committed enough material and blood to defeat Russia in Ukraine?

How far would you like Canada to go, deploy everything it has to fight in Ukraine?

 

[Czech_pivo]

If you have written off the US, then that leaves the UK, Germany, France, etc to do what needs to be done.

When I am going to hear your criticisms that all those other righteous countries have not committed enough material and blood to defeat Russia in Ukraine?

How far would you like Canada to go, deploy everything it has to fight in Ukraine?

I think we'll get a better sense of what Canada and the others will be willing to do after the news breaks on Friday as to what the outcome of the meeting in Alaska.

 

[MrWhyt]

When I am going to hear your criticisms that all those other righteous countries have not committed enough material and blood to defeat Russia in Ukraine?

The west as a collective has not done enough to help Ukraine, however it's the current US administration that has said that russia can keep the land it is occupying.

 

[KevinB]

Serbia is not a NATO member - thankfully.

Again, use Article 51 under the UN - Collective self defense.

The key would be to ensure that if it comes down to it, a rump state Ukraine must not allow a land border between Hungary and Russia.

Brain fart - mean to type Slovakia - due to their President Fico, who has been a thorn to say the least, as is the most Pro Putin leader in the EU.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Brain fart - mean to type Slovakia - due to their President Fico, who has been a thorn to say the least, as is the most Pro Putin leader in the EU.

I thought so.

Same thing holds true - If any free, non-Russia controlled/influenced Ukraine is going to survive, the EU needs to ensure that no land border with Slovakia/Hungary exists with Russia.

 

[Brad Sallows]

the US president is openly sympathetic to russia and has said that Ukraine joining NATO is not on the table, your first choice is a fantasy.

The US president is the most pliable leader in the west. All someone has to do is frame the issue to look like he'll be a hero if he doesn't oppose it. The worry, as noted by others, is Hungary. Maybe also Turkey. But everyone has a price.

 

[Brad Sallows]

How far would you like Canada to go, deploy everything it has to fight in Ukraine?

There will be a lot of ash-grey faces if Canada commits a force to the border fighting.