Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[1984Echoes]

56 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You guys seem to forget that Ukraine is already conquered if the US didn't get involved.  We absolutely were a vital role in determining that this war did not end quickly.  We are still a vital role going forward.  

You seem to equate everything I say to appeasement or chalk it up as there is simply nothing we can do.  Like we are complete bystanders.  I have no problems putting more pressure on Russia, heck, why stop at Russia.  Put India in the spotlight for how they are getting around sanctions with Russia.  Feel free to go after everyone with all tools possible to put as much pressure on Russia as possible.

The U.S. HAS been pushing all parties to try to come to a resolution. 

A lot of it is behind the scenes. And that includes pressuring Ukraine (but not too much... they can't), Russia, China, India, and the EU... I mean, you've gotta know that the US has been pushing every single button that they can... right?

But again, neither side in this war is ready to give up/ stop hostilities. 

I would not call it appeasement (that is giving in to Putin's demands) but, rather, just "premature". That is the word I would use.

And not through any fault of your own... everyone (outside of Russia & Ukraine) would like this war to end. But it will be nothing except premature until the two key parties are ready to stop/ negotiate. I don't believe I've said otherwise.

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

You guys seem to forget that Ukraine is already conquered if the US didn't get involved.  We absolutely were a vital role in determining that this war did not end quickly.  We are still a vital role going forward.  

We have a vital role but, unless you are advocating that we just stop supporting Ukraine with arms (which I don't think you're doing, though I know others would be a-OK with), I'm not sure exactly what you think we should be doing differently at the moment.

Diplomacy is happening, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I don't believe that our government wishes this conflict to be happening. Basically I don't think anyone outside of the Russian government wanted this conflict to happen when it was inaugurated. But in terms of a diplomatic solution to the conflict that is ongoing, it's not going to work unless both of the parties actually involved in the conflict start wanting it to be resolved. The United States can't just will it into existence.

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

We have a vital role but, unless you are advocating that we just stop supporting Ukraine with arms (which I don't think you're doing, though I know others would be a-OK with), I'm not sure exactly what you think we should be doing differently at the moment.

Diplomacy is happening, as has been mentioned a few times in this thread. I don't believe that our government wishes this conflict to be happening. Basically I don't think anyone outside of the Russian government wanted this conflict to happen when it was inaugurated. But in terms of a diplomatic solution to the conflict that is ongoing, it's not going to work unless both of the parties actually involved in the conflict start wanting it to be resolved. The United States can't just will it into existence.

Yeah - the bottom line is that until Putin believes he cannot eventually win all his objectives, there can be no settlement, and up to this point, as bad as it has been for the AFRF, it hasn't created enough (maybe any) pressure on Putin to change course. As long as the deaths of thousands of Russians is a price for Empire that Russia appears happy to pay, the West has little choice but to hold the line against them.

[Screwball]

So fill me in here.  Where is the proof we have tried to bargain to halt this war? I think I read "behind the scenes" but I don't know what exactly that means.

[romad1]

She was wearing a leather skirt!

[romad1]

 

[romad1]

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

 

The only problem with this metaphor is Russia burnt their home so Ukraine wouldn't have a home and so Russian soldiers could steal their washing machines and toilets because Ukrainians are not considered actual people.

[romad1]

They seem nice

 

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, romad1 said:

They seem nice

 

I think the difference with Africa, with respect to how European nations acted there versus Russia in the Baltics et al, is that Europeans didn’t want to occupy the African land. They wanted to basically enslave the native population to help them extract and then abscond with the natural resources there, so they couldn’t genocide the population there. This, versus certain European nations wanting to wipe out other populations in other European countries so their citizens could take over their lands for a bit more lebensraum. 

[romad1]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

I think the difference with Africa, with respect to how European nations acted there versus Russia in the Baltics et al, is that Europeans didn’t want to occupy the African land. They wanted to basically enslave the native population to help them extract and then abscond with the natural resources there, so they couldn’t genocide the population there. This, versus certain European nations wanting to wipe out other populations in other European countries so their citizens could take over their lands for a bit more lebensraum. 

There was significant difference between individual European empires.   Belgium was terrible.   It was truely the heart of darkness in the Congo.  Germany was really bad, but in some ways good (their post-WWII treatment of former colonial areas was very good I'm told).   France remains the colonial power in vast areas via soft power.  The British areas were basically caught between the reformers, the capitalists, the missionaries and the modernizers.  Oxford eggheads fighting with City bankers, the Debeers diamond interests and their ilk fighting with the Clappham sect (the reformist who organized for the end of the slave trade).   The Boers were the worst because they had a religious zeal to their abuse of the Black Africans. 

[chasfh]

3 minutes ago, romad1 said:

The Boers were the worst because they had a religious zeal to their abuse of the Black Africans. 

Sounds very familiar!

[romad1]

I used to think on balance the experience of places like Africa and India were net positive from the British Empire.   I think if the British had recognized the folly of racism and their own hubris earlier, they might have had a much more productive relationship with the colonial states akin to the relationship they had with the "Dominions" such as Canada, Australia, NZ.  But, because humans were involved they didn't see past those things.   

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, romad1 said:

I used to think on balance the experience of places like Africa and India were net positive from the British Empire.   I think if the British had recognized the folly of racism and their own hubris earlier, they might have had a much more productive relationship with the colonial states akin to the relationship they had with the "Dominions" such as Canada, Australia, NZ.  But, because humans were involved they didn't see past those things.   

All due respect, sounds a bit like wishful thinking.

[gehringer_2]

Just posted at WaPo

.....begin paste....

President Biden said Thursday that he is prepared to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin if he indicates he is interested in ending his country’s war with Ukraine. But Biden said Putin hasn’t done that yet.

Biden’s comments came during a joint news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron during which both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine.

“I’m prepared to speak with Mr. Putin if in fact … he’s looking for a way to end the war,” Biden told reporters in the East Room of the White House. “He hasn’t done that yet.”

Biden also emphasized his view that Russia will not prevail in the war.

“The idea that Putin is ever going to defeat Ukraine is beyond comprehension,” Biden said, saying it is impractical for Russian forces to occupy the country on a sustained basis.

“He’s miscalculated every single thing,” Biden said of Putin.

....end paste.....

[1984Echoes]

18 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Just posted at WaPo

.....begin paste....

President Biden said Thursday that he is prepared to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin if he indicates he is interested in ending his country’s war with Ukraine. But Biden said Putin hasn’t done that yet.

Biden’s comments came during a joint news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron during which both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine.

“I’m prepared to speak with Mr. Putin if in fact … he’s looking for a way to end the war,” Biden told reporters in the East Room of the White House. “He hasn’t done that yet.”

Biden also emphasized his view that Russia will not prevail in the war.

“The idea that Putin is ever going to defeat Ukraine is beyond comprehension,” Biden said, saying it is impractical for Russian forces to occupy the country on a sustained basis.

“He’s miscalculated every single thing,” Biden said of Putin.

....end paste.....

Even so...

Biden pressed Zelensky into dropping the "Refuse to negotiate with Putin" stance that he was holding...

about a month or so ago...

This was one of the under-the-radar diplomacy moves Biden/ U.S. were making that I had alluded to earlier...

[romad1]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

All due respect, sounds a bit like wishful thinking.

Totally

[mtutiger]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Just posted at WaPo

.....begin paste....

President Biden said Thursday that he is prepared to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin if he indicates he is interested in ending his country’s war with Ukraine. But Biden said Putin hasn’t done that yet.

Biden’s comments came during a joint news conference with French President Emmanuel Macron during which both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine.

“I’m prepared to speak with Mr. Putin if in fact … he’s looking for a way to end the war,” Biden told reporters in the East Room of the White House. “He hasn’t done that yet.”

Biden also emphasized his view that Russia will not prevail in the war.

“The idea that Putin is ever going to defeat Ukraine is beyond comprehension,” Biden said, saying it is impractical for Russian forces to occupy the country on a sustained basis.

“He’s miscalculated every single thing,” Biden said of Putin.

....end paste.....

I though Macron's comments were even more notable, echoing what Biden said, given that he's been the one western leader who has been more open to diplomacy with Russia.

[romad1]

Will read this with interest.  I'll comment when I'm through.

 

[romad1]

59 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Will read this with interest.  I'll comment when I'm through.

 

One particularly interesting nugget

Quote

Warfighting demands large initial stockpiles and significant slack capacity. Despite the prominence of anti-tank guided weapons in the public narrative, Ukraine blunted Russia’s attempt to seize Kyiv using massed fires from two artillery brigades. The difference in numbers between Russian and Ukrainian artillery was not as significant at the beginning of the conflict, with just over a 2:1 advantage: 2,433 barrel artillery systems against 1,176; and 3,547 multiple-launch rocket systems against 1,680. Ukraine maintained artillery parity for the first month and a half and then began to run low on munitions so that, by June, the AFRF had a 10:1 advantage in volume of fire. Evidently, no country in NATO, other than the US, has sufficient initial weapons stocks for warfighting or the industrial capacity to sustain largescale operations. This must be rectified if deterrence is to be credible and is equally a problem for the RAF and Royal Navy

I wasn't tracking the importance of this due to overweighted coverage of the Javelin.  

[romad1]

Another interesting point

Quote

Ukraine’s international partners dismissed the threat in spring 2021 because they did not observe the necessary enablers deployed with the Russian formations nor the necessary political shaping of the information environment in Russia to support an invasion. They were correct on both counts – the build-up turned out to be a mobilisation exercise. However, the lesson for the Kremlin was that the enablers could be brought to the formations faster than Ukraine’s partners could bring military capabilities: if these were the indicators that would cause international partners to react, they would do so too late. The Kremlin’s confidence that it could invade Ukraine without significant international interference was an important reason for undertaking the full-scale invasion.

Reinforces that deterrence is an important aspect of collective security, which is an important driver of peace and stability.   If you let the bully do what he wants and do not react to aggressive moves, he will keep it up and will cross the thresholds eventually beyond what you can reasonably deter.  

[romad1]

This is a hoot in retrospect

Quote

In July 2021, the 9th Section of the 5th Service of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) was enlarged into a directorate and tasked with planning for the occupation of Ukraine. As part of this preparation, the FSB drew on extensive surveys carried out in Ukraine. These surveys painted a picture of a largely politically apathetic Ukrainian society that distrusted its leaders, was primarily concerned about the economy and thought an escalation of the war between Russia and Ukraine was unlikely. Moreover, Russian President Vladimir Putin had personally articulated in an essay in July 2021 his belief that the people of Ukraine viewed Russians favourably and believed they were part of a shared civilisation, cruelly divided by historical political mistakes. The barrier, in his view, to correcting these mistakes was the government in Kyiv, which he accused of being a puppet to external powers hostile to Russia. The Russian military leadership was also confident that it would defeat the UAF after more than a decade of modernisation. Assurances from General Valery Gerasimov on Russia’s military capabilities played a key role in shaping the confidence of Russia’s special services in their plan. As Gerasimov told international interlocutors on the outbreak of the war, ‘I command the second most powerful Army in the Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting 8 Zabrodskyi et al. world’. Separately Gerasimov told British counterparts that Russia had achieved conventional military parity with the US.

 

[romad1]

 

Resistance is not futile.  But it can definitely get you killed

Quote

Meanwhile the FSB was tasked with capturing local officials. The Russian counterintelligence regime on the occupied territories had compiled lists that divided Ukrainians into four categories: • Those to be physically liquidated. • Those in need of suppression and intimidation. Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting 11 Zabrodskyi et al. • Those considered neutral who could be induced to collaborate. • Those prepared to collaborate.

Quote

For those in the top category, the FSB had conducted wargames with detachments of the Russian Airborne Forces (VDV) to conduct kill-or-capture missions. In many cases, the purpose of capture was to put individuals involved in the 2014 Revolution of Dignity (often referred to as the Maidan Revolution) on trial to be executed. Although initial lists of persons in the second category existed, the approach was to be more methodical, with the registration of the population through door-to-door sweeps and the use of filtration camps to establish counterintelligence files on large portions of the population in the occupied territories. Filtration would be used to intimidate people, to determine whether they needed to be displaced into Russia, and to lay the groundwork for records to monitor and disrupt resistance networks. Over time, Russia would bring teachers and other officials from Russia itself to engage in the re-education of Ukrainians

 

[romad1]

More amaze-balls stuff

Quote

That the Russians overstretched in terms of the number of axes embarked upon, the small size of the force employed for many tasks, and the failure to develop appropriate contingencies is indicative of many contributing technical judgements to the planning not having been fully briefed about the overall context. No independent red teaming appears to have taken place. Instead, the plan itself – while theoretically plausible – compounded optimism bias in each of its stages and, most tellingly, offered no reversionary courses of action, indicated no decision points to determine whether conventional forces should adjust their posture nor envisaged any outcome other than its own success. Neither did the plan account for the needs of those tasked with implementing it, nor afford any agency to Ukraine. The FSB’s inaccurate assessment of the reaction of Ukrainian society is much less consequential in how the plan actually unfolded than the fact that there is no evidence in the Russian planning that anyone had asked what would occur if any of its key assumptions were wrong.

Remind anyone of Iraq 2003? 

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, romad1 said:

More amaze-balls stuff

Remind anyone of Iraq 2003? 

at 50,00O ft, but OTOH the Russians failed long before they even got to the civilian management point where the US failed in Iraq. The US in Iraq failed primarily on not appreciating that we couldn't simply install the 'out-party' into power just because they were the majority and expect them, despite decades of suppression, to have the civil institutions already present to create a functional civil infrastructure. It's years later and they are still stuggling to do that. I'm not sure how it could have been done, but in hindsight it's now not hard to see that abruptly removing the Sunni from power simply collapsed the whole society because they were managing the only existing civil structure.

Ironically, if the Russians had gotten to the civilian issues, it would have been much simpler for them, they would have had no scruples about just killing or imprisoning anyone in the way.

Edited December 2, 2022 by gehringer_2

[romad1]

23 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

at 50,00O ft, but OTOH the Russians failed long before they even got to the civilian management point where the US failed in Iraq. The US in Iraq failed primarily on not appreciating that we couldn't simply install the 'out-party' into power just because they were the majority and expect them, despite decades of suppression, to have the civil institutions already present to create a functional civil infrastructure. It's years later and they are still stuggling to do that. I'm not sure how it could have been done, but in hindsight it's now not hard to see that abruptly removing the Sunni from power simply collapsed the whole society because they were managing the only existing civil structure.

Ironically, if the Russians had gotten to the civilian issues, it would have been much simpler for them, they would have had no scruples about just killing or imprisoning anyone in the way.

They have gotten to that stage in the occupied areas and the irony part is not helping them with the rest of Ukraine.