History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

I always said it like "Attacams".

Also, just in case anyone claims Ukraine isn't even attempting to build a future peace deal with Russia, They have, and Russia already said no.

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

Well, about time, and yeah!!

I might be wrong, but didn't we fight and defeat the Russians in Korea and Vietnam? We did lose both however unfortunately.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :

Not caring about corruption is potentially a large contributing factor in this war.  Not caring is a huge problem.  It's telling that the side that is pretending to care about this war, in fact, doesn't actually care at all.  Thanks for the name calling too.  I expect nothing less from most here anymore.  
 

And the reason most of you don't care is because you are being told not to care or look into it by the same people that racked up $33 trillion in debt.  
 

Most of you are so uncomfortable talking outside of any convenient talking point you condone, practice or even demand censorship.  
 

The world is turning into a worse place.  Actively working to make it worse and cheering it on isn't a path towards good no matter what influencers tell you.  

There's a lot of truth that you say alongside the condescension (which is a major contributor towards your downvotes). And I should be above name-calling. This is true. The debt has been a huge issue with me since the late 1970s when I'd cut class not to smoke weed, but to go to the library and read the National Review. Little did I know that in a few short years, Reagans terms would coincide with the debt going into overdrive.

 
Just as war is always a prime vehicle for corruption, part of that is the need to act decisively. When the tanks are rolling, there's precious little time to do due diligence and set up relatively honest means of resource distribution. As time goes by, however, that excuse wears thin. So corruption in the present tense carries a lot more weight than similar claims dating back a year.

I keep hearkening back to the lead-up to the Iraq war. the fact that our government was cherry-picking intel to justify our coming invasion seemed as clear as a bell, yet pointing that out got me banned at CC.com (It also had a lot to do with my self-righteous condescension. Hmmmm). To a large extent, that war was endorsed by the right and decried by the left, and in the instance of Ukraine, the tables have flipped. My takeaway isn't that one side is inherently that much more virtuous than the other, but that the domestic political landscape of practically any war with USA involvement will be largely defined by tribalism. And tribalism is as big a danger as any that we face right now. "If the other side is for it, we are against it" isn't the way to get things done and act in the best interests of an organization, family or country. 

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Also, just in case anyone claims Ukraine isn't even attempting to build a future peace deal with Russia, They have, and Russia already said no.

In fairness, the Ukrainian proposal is just as unrealistic as the Russian proposal. This is entirely normal, as both sides have to lay out their list of desires before any sort of negotiation can begin. The Russians saying no to the Ukrainian list is no different from the Ukrainians rejecting the Russian list.

Per the linked article, Lavrov is an experienced diplomat and knows exactly what he's doing. By emphasizing the willingness of Russia to continue fighting indefinitely, particularly as Zelensky is confronting war fatigue among some Western governments, is calculated to pressure Ukraine into seeking earlier negotiations, fearing that the situation on the battlefield may be increasingly tenuous the longer they continue to press. This is playing the long game, something the Russians are very good at, and Western governments tend not to be.

In reply to 02Pilot :

What!?! It's unrealistic to insist that your country returns to preinvasion borders?!!?

I think that's pretty realistic. 

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

I keep hearkening back to the lead-up to the Iraq war. the fact that our government was cherry-picking intel to justify our coming invasion seemed as clear as a bell, yet pointing that out got me banned at CC.com (It also had a lot to do with my self-righteous condescension. Hmmmm). To a large extent, that war was endorsed by the right and decried by the left, and in the instance of Ukraine, the tables have flipped. My takeaway isn't that one side is inherently that much more virtuous than the other, but that the domestic political landscape of practically any war with USA involvement will be largely defined by tribalism. And tribalism is as big a danger as any that we face right now. "If the other side is for it, we are against it" isn't the way to get things done and act in the best interests of an organization, family or country. 

 

This is a really really good point. The first Iraq invasion, the Persian Gulf war, was fairly analogous as I recall. Kuwait was being invaded by a stronger neighbor. Granted it was very blurry because the US armed Saddam, and we really wanted oil. This situation is an opportunity for Ukraine to further crack down on corruption, and bring the country into a democracy to help the people there escape the Soviet style living conditions. 

In both cases I was in favor on a humanitarian basis. In the Persian Gulf war I sounded like George H Bush and today I sound like Joe Biden. I'm the same guy. I'm conservative. I also believe the right to life begats humanitarian concerns like immigration and fighting against invasions. I'm pretty consistent, even if you disagree with me, but the political tribalism flip flops and bakes all manner of incongruous policy positions into the same cake. 

It's weird. 

If I say Reagan was in office when the debt ran out of control, or that Trump issued more executive orders than Obama did in their respective first terms, I'm branded a leftist. 

I think most of us don't fall into the "the other side sucks" mentality. I really hope not anyway. 

02Pilot said:

In fairness, the Ukrainian proposal is just as unrealistic as the Russian proposal.

Returning stolen Ukrainian children in unrealistic? Restarting the Grain Deal is unrealistic? The latter might be the primary reason for the Black Sea strikes- make Russia incapable of fighting against grain shipments.

Per the linked article, Lavrov is an experienced diplomat and knows exactly what he's doing.

I disagree, he's gone on antisemetic rants at the UN before. Implication is, that he genuinely believes this E36 M3 too.

In reply to AnthonyGS :

I can't make you read, but I CAN re-quote what I wrote 2 pages ago about Ukraine battling their internal corruption to show everyone you aren't reading lmao

As for "corruption", Ukraine also just sacked their Defense Minister Reznikov because he was implicated in a corrupt procurement of uniforms, so they're clearly trying to battle and defeat it. They did the same to their Chief Supreme Court justice for a possible taking of a 3 million dollar bribe. They have a bounty program active as well, so why scream about it when they're clearly doing something about it?

VolvoHeretic said:

I might be wrong, but didn't we fight and defeat the Russians in Korea and Vietnam? We did lose both however unfortunately.

My Father did 3 tours in Vietnam. His take is he was fighting to stop the spread of communism, and they did. He does not see it as a loss. He also says calling it a "conflict" and not declaring it a "war" was a huge reason it dragged on. We were restricted by rules the other side was unwilling to follow, lol. 
 

I've always thought that was an interesting take from someone that was there. 

tuna55 said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

What!?! It's unrealistic to insist that your country returns to preinvasion borders?!!?

 

I think that's pretty realistic. 

I suspect he means:  Unrealistic to think the Russians would ever agree to it.

You can wish/demand/hope for many things, but if they are just never going to happen because of the realities of the situation, they are unrealistic, or idealistic.  So, no real point in discussing them much, since they are never going to happen.

aircooled said:

tuna55 said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

What!?! It's unrealistic to insist that your country returns to preinvasion borders?!!?

 

I think that's pretty realistic. 

I suspect he means:  Unrealistic to think the Russians would ever agree to it.

You can wish/demand/hope for many things, but if they are just never going to happen because of the realities of the situation, they are unrealistic, or idealistic.  So, no real point in discussing them much, since they are never going to happen.

Precisely. It is unrealistic unless conditions can be created that compel Russian compliance, or that offer sufficient benefit to them, and chances of those eventualities are low.

02Pilot said:

aircooled said:

tuna55 said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

What!?! It's unrealistic to insist that your country returns to preinvasion borders?!!?

 

I think that's pretty realistic. 

I suspect he means:  Unrealistic to think the Russians would ever agree to it.

You can wish/demand/hope for many things, but if they are just never going to happen because of the realities of the situation, they are unrealistic, or idealistic.  So, no real point in discussing them much, since they are never going to happen.

Precisely. It is unrealistic unless conditions can be created that compel Russian compliance, or that offer sufficient benefit to them, and chances of those eventualities are low.

That's insanity. By that definition of realistic, the only thing they could offer in terms of a cease fire is giving up their entire government to the Russians. 

This is why I find your policy positions so silly. 

In reply to 02Pilot :

Okay that makes perfect sense then, since their military seems to be following the standards and concepts set by berkeleying Stalin.

tuna55 said:

That's insanity. By that definition of realistic, the only thing they could offer in terms of a cease fire is giving up their entire government to the Russians. 

 

This is why I find your policy positions so silly. 

No he's basically saying "The Russians are so absurd that they'll only capitulate under the most dire of circumstances". He's basically saying they'll only give in to Ukrainian offers if they're staring down a barrel and they have an offramp to save safe.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

tuna55 said:

That's insanity. By that definition of realistic, the only thing they could offer in terms of a cease fire is giving up their entire government to the Russians. 

 

This is why I find your policy positions so silly. 

No he's basically saying "The Russians are so absurd that they'll only capitulate under the most dire of circumstances". He's basically saying they'll only give in to Ukrainian offers if they're staring down a barrel and they have an offramp to save safe.

No, I'm saying that all states behave within a range of limitations, and seek the best outcome from the available circumstances.

If Ukraine had found itself on the verge of defeat a week after the invasion, it would have tried to make a deal to survive in some form. If Russia found itself in the midst of widespread civil unrest and upheaval as a result of the fighting in Ukraine, it would seek a deal to mitigate the problem and focus on survival.

Diplomacy doesn't work by one government accepting another's demands wholesale. It's a process, where each side pushes to achieve as much as in can under the circumstances. It can often take years to achieve a compromise all sides can agree to, during which conditions will change, sometimes substantially. The only time this doesn't happen - and it's rare - is when one side is defeated so completely that it has effectively no choice but to accept whatever it is offered.

In reply to tuna55 :

If, for example, the Russians would never agree to any treaty, whatever the conditions and whatever their situation (think a bit like Japan in WWII).

Any treaty proposal would be unrealistic.

(This is almost certainly not the case BTW)

A map that shows how busy Ukraine has been in Crimea this summer:

tuna55 said:

02Pilot said:

aircooled said:

tuna55 said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

What!?! It's unrealistic to insist that your country returns to preinvasion borders?!!?

 

I think that's pretty realistic. 

I suspect he means:  Unrealistic to think the Russians would ever agree to it.

You can wish/demand/hope for many things, but if they are just never going to happen because of the realities of the situation, they are unrealistic, or idealistic.  So, no real point in discussing them much, since they are never going to happen.

Precisely. It is unrealistic unless conditions can be created that compel Russian compliance, or that offer sufficient benefit to them, and chances of those eventualities are low.

That's insanity. By that definition of realistic, the only thing they could offer in terms of a cease fire is giving up their entire government to the Russians. 

 

This is why I find your policy positions so silly. 

You may find them silly, but they are based on analysis of centuries of historical evidence of interstate behavior before, during, and after conflicts. So that I can better understand it, on what do you base your criticism?

In reply to 02Pilot :

I reject the premise that they truly are based on historical evidence, no more than any system of thoughts claims to have accurately predicted something in hindsight. I don't have time for a thorough list, but the fall of the Soviet Union was itself an action which the realist would have never considered. Everyone is building a model, and everyone predicts the past with stunning accuracy. History is never as inevitable as it seems in retrospect. I've read Jeremy Black drilling that into my head enough to convince me. As for the future, people tend to be far more unpredictable and driven by far more complex situations than any model is going to sufficiently account for. I am critical not solely because it's a flawed simplistic system, but because it's not based on humanity and morality, especially when your opponent is not driven by those things.

In this case, Ukraine is a sovereign nation is reasonable to not settle for less than their pre-invasion borders etc. Ukraine has a right to this attitude regardless of what Russia wants. Russia certainly isn't terribly concerned with what Ukraine wants.

In reply to tuna55 :

I don't think anyone is questioning Ukraine's sovereignty, nor expecting them to capitulate to Russia. I think the point is just that Russia seems to be intent on continuing the bad-guy role and is currently unlikely to do an about face after realizing they are, in fact, the bad guy.

Are Ukraine's demands reasonable? Of course they are. Am I willing to hold my breath for Russia to see that they are the ones being unreasonable to the west's eyes? Nope. I do not think Russia is going to come to the table unless they are either going to get what they want or they are unable to continue the fight in any significant manner. In this case, the realistic/reasonable expectation is to expect continued unreasonable/unrealistic desires from Russia.

In reply to tuna55 :

I would argue that no state is driven by "humanity or morality", much as some might like to claim they are. Even in instances of conflicts that appear to have a humanitarian purpose, I cannot think of a single case where the moral argument outweighs the pragmatic pursuit of state interest.

While it is certainly true that events cannot be accurately predicted in detail, there are enough commonalities in general that history offers a useful, if imperfect, guide to how things are likely to develop. Fundamental principles apply, and one of them is that rights are only as strong as the enforcement mechanism behind them. Much as we might like to think that there are rules of "natural law" inherent in human statecraft, these are merely an Enlightenment construct, and when insufficiently defended, fall apart when challenged.

Ukraine is indeed a sovereign state, and is entitled under international law to certain things. But international law is a very fungible thing, and virtually devoid of any practical enforcement mechanism, so it's largely toothless. Why? Because strong states have determined that they prefer to rely on unfettered individual strength or direct military alliances rather than the potentially slow, complex, and problematic nature of international institutions based on a lowest-common denominator set of rules. This means that Ukraine, or any other sovereign state, while it may claim the protection of international law, knows that it cannot be relied upon for actual meaningful assistance; this is why it initially sought direct bilateral assistance, rather than pursuing claims of protection at the UN or elsewhere.

Do they have a "right" to their pre-invasion borders? Technically, sure. Can they enforce that right? No. And any right that cannot be defended or enforced is meaningless in practical terms.

With all that in mind, I am curious about your position on the recent Azerbeijani operation in Nagorno-Karabakh. How does that fit into your worldview, and how do you explain the almost total silence on it from other states?

Hmmm... looks like Russia may be in the midst of a officer shortage:

(some obvious translations weirdness here)

Updated information on the losses of the enemy as a result of the special operation to destroy the BDC "Minsk" and the headquarters of the Russian Armed Forces:

▪️BDK "Minsk" - 62 occupiers suffered irreversible losses.

▪️After the defeat of the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation, 34 officers died, including the commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation. Another 105 occupiers were wounded.

A recent attack on a Russian airfield:

Yesterday, a UAV attacked the Khalino airfield in the Kursk region - Babel publication with reference to the GUR

The blow hit the building where the leadership of the 14th Guards Fighter Aviation Regiment was located. Zhdanova. Wounded or killed:

 - commander of the 14th air regiment;
 - one of his deputies;
 - group of aviator officers;
 - representative of the FSB military counterintelligence;
 - airfield workers.

60 minutes just did a piece on Ukrainian assistance.  Obviously, western news outlet, slant etc.  Seems like a reasonable review, with some good points covered I think.      (no, Col Ovtruth is not interviewed)

(video is on page):

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-aid-ukraine-60-minutes-transcript/

As a sort of sign of what is clearly a serious issue for the Russians.  They put up anti-drone nets near Bahkmut.  Hmmm.... I suspect they will work their way around those.   Seems like yet another "tank hat" solutions, which is really there to make the targets feel like they are safer, even if they really are not.