The Russians are Coming, the Russians are...oh, they're here...

Putin's Folly -failing to win his war in days....now I suspect he will park his troops in the Donbas and leave them there for years in the hope that the Ukrainian govt accepts this 'temporary' arrangement in exchange for some kind of peace. But will the people, if asked in a referendum, accept such terms?

"Vladimir Putin risks running out of viable tanks, missiles and fighter jets because the components they use are made in Ukraine, The Telegraph understands.The engines for all Russian helicopters, ships and cruise missiles and a substantial portion of fighter jet engines and ground-to-air missile and tank components are made in Ukrainian factories, which no longer supply Mr Putin’s forces."
Vladimir Putin ‘running out’ of missiles – because parts are made in Ukraine (yahoo.com)

A desperate, pathetic response by the Russians to the massacres in Bucha and surrounding villages. The demonization of Ukraine as a place so rife with Nazis the place doesn't just need to be 'de-Nazified' but also 're-educated' begs questions -such as, why would a Ukrainian be a Nazi when the Nazi policy of 'Lebensraum' required the elimination of well, Ukrainians so the 'Aryan Race' could populate the 'vacated' land? One can understand why some Ukrainians in the 1940s supported the Germans -because they hated Stalin's Russia (as did a lot of Russians!) but those days are past, and there are probably as many Jew-hating Ukrainians as there are Russians.

Also, why should the Third Reich be the historical event by which contemporary events are to be judged? And is there some reverse Psychology at work, when the Russians use as a tool, the very example of mass murder that they are perpetrating? There are other examples in history to use, but positive ones, should the Russians choose to use them.

Have Ukrainians done bad things to Russians? I would say yes. I had a conversation with someone close to some Russians who complained that nobody has anything to say about 'the other side'. I argued that if the discrimination against Russians in the Donbas region had been so bad before 2014 we would have the evidence, but I haven't seen it, and anyway would military occupation have been the only means to combat such things? Moreover, if the Russians could provide hard evidence of what Ukrainians have done to them, even if they are defending their country, the balance of argument would at least facilitate debate.

Instead, all we get is abuse, violence, and a complete lack of contrition, or compassion -so the killings will go on, and on, and on.

"“The Guardian says Russia troops brutalised civilians in Bucha while regrouping, using kids as human shields – without proof, taking word at face value,” said an NTV news presenter on Sunday evening.While Russian state media categorically denied any links to the atrocities, leading news agency RIA on Monday published an op-ed titled “What Russia should do with Ukraine” by a pro-Kremlin political commentator in which the author called for the “denazification” and “re-education” of a large part of Ukrainian society.
“The name Ukraine can seemingly not be retained as the title of any fully denazified state formation on the territory liberated from the Nazi regime,” the pundit Timofei Sergeitsev wrote."
(1) Russia-Ukraine war latest: Biden calls for Putin to face war crimes trial after atrocities in Bucha – live (theguardian.com)
-posted at 13.51

A few random thoughts.

This may become another 'forever war'. Having over-estimated the abilities of his military, I suspect that Putin as a minimum expects to consolidate Russia's annexation of the Donbas region, which will end the current level of hostilities, and in effect return Russia-Ukraine relations to the 'low-level warfare' that existed between 2014 and February 2022. It means, if it can be done, he can declare some sort of 'victory' on May 9th- and NATO relax the intensity of its support. But this may create a crisis in the leadership in Ukraine, if compromise undoes Zelensky's coalition, another potential gain for Putin.
Sitrep: Putin 'desperate' to celebrate victory on 9 May (forces.net)

The scale of violence and destruction in Ukraine is genuinely distressing, but is no worse than the combined Syrian-Russian demolition of life and property in Syria, while the full detail of the Saudi Arabian offensive in Yemen has not been covered in the media. The prospects of any Russian being held to account in a Court of Law for offences in Syria or Ukraine is close to zero. I may not want that to be the case, but it can only happen if most of Russia's formal and informal allies abandon Putin, much as changes in Serbian politics enabled the arrests of Milosovic, Mladic and Karadzic. I don't see that happening, not as long as Putin can rely on the Gulf Arabs and Saudi Arabia to maintain the oil price at a level even diminished Russian exports remain an important source of revenue.

If the current phase of the war ends, will NATO and allies lift sanctions against Russia? I don't think so, but I also think the urgency of the transition away from fossil fuels to break the dependency on Russia, has not gained momentum, not in the UK, where Boris Johnson, making up policy on a day to day basis is claiming the UK will develop nuclear power stations, without telling us where, or what the cost is going to be, or who is going to pay for it, let alone build the stations. The Germans are in a difficult position because like Japan they are a major industrial power without the core energy sources to make their economies less dependent on external providers.

Can Putin stay in power? He has changed personnel at the top of the military, but there is no sign of an internal coup, though in the absence of any intelligence on the matter, who knows?

When I was a student of Russian history and politics, many years ago I admit, we learned that the foundations of Imperial Russia were the Autocracy of the Tsar, the Orthodoxy of the Church, and Russian Nationalism. The post-Imperial USSR evolved into one whose foundations were the Autocracy of the Communist Party, the Orthodoxy of Marxism-Leninism, and Russian Nationalism. Soviet 'Internationalism' as defined by the Comintern was never more than an external means to maintain internal power.

It seems to me that since 1991, the Autocracy has been re-established by Putin after the chaos of the Yeltsin years, and Russian Nationalism is as toxic and destructive now as it has been since the 19th century. What seems missing to me is a binding ideology, an 'Orthodoxy', because I don't think the concept of Russia as Eternal Victim is sufficient to create the solidarity Putin needs to defend himself and his supposed vision of Russia as a great power restored.

Russia has been let down by the billionaires who shifted most of their wealth out of the country, rather than invest in it. Most of the troops on the ground in Ukraine seem to be from the Far East where poverty rather than Patriotism is the motive for joining the forces. What the generation growing up think about their country, when they have no personal experience of the USSR is not clearly established.

I feel sorry for Russia on this level, it is an amazing place to visit, but someone I know who lived there for a year came to hate the ease with which he was robbed by the police on a regular basis, a level of corruption that too many Russians get used to living with. It suggests to me that whether he stays or goes, Putin is President of a dysfunctional state with no opposition, which has no practical solution for its problems, the ones that existed before the crisis created by the war. Just as one wonders if life really is better under Russian rule in South Ossetia, or Transnistria, or Luhansk and Donetsk, I don't see the quality of life in Russia itself improving in the short to medium term. Will Russians conclude Putin is to blame for their situation?

Putin is in effect, destroying his own country. And for what? The absurd need to be a Great Man? But for years we gave this little prick what he wanted, and his Hubris and its destructive consequences is as not something we can, in the UK in particular claim we played no part in nurturing. The deaths of Alexander Litvinenko, and the Salisbury poisonings should have been the 'red line' that ended Russian saturation of the UK economy and the Conservative Party. They got a slap on the wrist, the City of London billions of dollars.

Russia is going down, and taking with it more than its own crooks and swindlers. But to clear out our own filthy backyard, we need a more robust media prepared to expose Boris Johnson and his Party for the catastrophic incompetents that they are. It is going to take time, though, and time is not on the side of those people dying every day in the Ukraine, seeing everything they lived for trashed by yet another Governing machine that treats people and their property with contempt.

Ni slavom uniat', ni platkom uteret'

Unfortunately, Russia is reverting to historical type as a backward, isolated country whose leaders rely on brute force and keeping their people ignorant rather than on competence. While there have some great Russian contributions to culture and knowledge, it does seem like the civilised virtues have always been a veneer rather than something that has put down deep roots.

None of this speaks well of the various Western leaders over the past three decades. First, they assumed naively that democracy and free enterprise would take root despite the absence of any historical foundations. Instead, the end of Communism simply crashed the economy and allowed insiders to loot previously public assets, which discredited the democratic project in the eyes of most Russians. Then they indulged Putin's behaviour and ignored the warning signs on the assumption that he would not go too far and thereby lose the benefits of Russia's integration into the global economy. That was a category error because it assumed that someone like Putin actually cares about his peoples' wellbeing.

Will we finally learn the lesson this time? I had assumed that one good thing to come out of this would be the discrediting of populist politicians who had been Putin enthusiasts. However, I see the recent polls are suggesting that Marine Le Pen has a chance of winning the French Presidential election. Apparently, she has been running hard on the rising cost of living. The key question is what the voters will care more about ultimately - defending another democracy from a brutal dictator or bringing down energy prices?

Thank you for your thoughtful post, which I agree with. Marine Le Pen has had to destroy campaign literature which was printed before Russia's invasion, which featured her photographed with Putin, just as it is widely known her party received loans from a Russian bank. That said, and as your post indicates, the domestic situation in France appears to appeal to voters more than Le Pen's shady past, and it seems the emergence of two candidates even further right than she has enabled her to look more moderate.

That said, I am not sure she can win the second round, and the question with Hungary is not so different from the question asked of Luhansk and Donetsk -is life better there than it was before? In the latter case, Ukraine stopped paying pensions in the breakaway 'Republics' and the leadership there is now firmly part of the Russian system, so it is hard to see those regions being re-incorporated into Ukraine; but is life itself actually better than it was before, and will the people in Hungary feel their lives have improved over the next five years if they continue to test the EU's resolve on a range of issues, and, for example lose access to EU loans?

Were Le Pen to become President, I think it would be more divisive than the French have experienced for some time, rather like Trump treating the Constitution and the Rule of Law with contempt and, so far, getting away with it. Not sure about Johnson as the negative drip-feed of illegal parties, non-dom Tax benefits and 'Golden Visas' for Russians won't go away, just as Brexit continues to seep into the economy like poison.

I offer a link to an analysis of Ukraine and Russia with the chilling prediction- “There’s seven bad years ahead, but then we’ll have our hundred years of empire.” , and an interesting point about Putin's view that he aims not to re-create the USSR, but a vertically structured Empire in which he is Tsar in all but name.

Article also criticises Zelensky's various positions, though the actuality of war has changed a lot of perspectives, so while there is an assumption Russia has the capacity to spend years grinding Ukraine into dust, it leaves them with the prospect of control over a territory in which the remaining population is a permanent source of division and conflict, similar to Israel and Palestine. With the equally grim view that just as Israel has been able to maintain its illegal siege of Gaza for 15 years, so the Ukraine-Russia sore will seep for years to come because external parties are not going to intervene to change it. Unless something dramatic happens and I am proven wrong.

A Ukrainian Socialist Explains Why the Russian Invasion Shouldn’t Have Been a Surprise | Спільне (commons.com.ua)

Easter Hymn
by A. E. Housman

If in that Syrian garden, ages slain,
You sleep, and know not you are dead in vain,
Nor even in dreams behold how dark and bright
Ascends in smoke and fire by day and night
The hate you died to quench and could but fan,
Sleep well and see no morning, son of man.

But if, the grave rent and the stone rolled by,
At the right hand of majesty on high
You sit, and sitting so remember yet
Your tears, your agony and bloody sweat,
Your cross and passion and the life you gave,
Bow hither out of heaven and see and save.

An interesting analysis of Russia's 'strategic mistakes' in Ukraine, derived from its campaign in Syria.

As Fortress Russia crumbles, the global economy faces a new world order (yahoo.com)

The letters in this link are critical of 'Luxury' Liz Truss, aiming to be the most expensive Foreign Secretary in British history, and apparently as useless at the job as Boris Johnson was. The key point is that the only conceivable 'end' to the crisis in the Ukraine will not in fact be an 'end' but a compromise which leaves Russia in control of some territory in the east of Ukraine, thus allowing Putin to claim 'victory' even if the reality is that even Russians realise their military is not that good, the leadership even worse. This may be Putin's last stand, if he is as ill as some footage indicates he is.

That said, he is also keen to lob cruise missiles into Kyiv, really just to let 'us' know he can do it, just as I expect him to provoke Moldova and in effect, keep begging NATO to attack Russia so he can say to the Russians 'See, I told you they are out to get us'.

After all, next month sees the 15th anniversary of the start of Israel's siege of the Gaza District, a crime for which there appears to be no solution as no external party is willing or even able to coerce Israel into lifting the siege, or for that matter engaging in peace talks to end illegal settlement building in the illegally occupied Palestinian territories, on the basis that 'facts on the ground' are what matter, just as 'the West' is again, neither capable nor willing to pressure Israel into ending the daily assault on Christians in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The Charter of the United Nations makes the acquisition of territory by force illegal, but there is no agreed mechanism to reverse it.

The letters are in this link-
Liz Truss’s careless talk fans the flames of war in Ukraine | Letters | The Guardian

Interesting perspective out of Germany...
Merkel's Legacy on Russia Casts a Shadow over Her Party
https://www.spiegel.de/international...3-982574b15b28

And....(from Germany again)....
Germany and France Must Drive Effort for Credible Deterrent Against Russia
https://www.spiegel.de/international...c-052c0a508ef5

An article in today's Guardian concerns the lack of fight in Russian soldiers, some of whom have refused to do so, being protected by the legal fact that Russia has not formally declared war on the Ukraine. The real point of interest is how it intersects with a report that was on the Wednesday edition of BBC-2's Newsnight, which looked at how the Ukraine campaign has exposed the changes taking place to warfare.

Just as the Russian soldiers don't want to fight, the logic of a land army taking possession of territory seems to have become, for the time being, marginal to Russian intentions. Initially it seems the idea was that strategic targets in Ukraine would be knocked out, the Russians arrive and take over, appoint their representatives, and integrate Ukraine into Russia. The resistance from the Ukraine and the shambles that the Russian military has become, has done two things.

First, to continue prosecuting the war, the military has shifted from being land-based to being almost solely air-based, but not with the Air Force, but in the Russian case, air attacks with land-based artillery fired from within Russia, and in the Ukraine's case, the effective use of Drones, as both delivery vehicles for bombs, and as aerial intelligence to identify targets. The key point is that while Air Power has been the darling of strategy for some time now, these days it is not manned airpower that is proving to be effective, just as tanks and armoured vehicles are proving to be a liability when they get stuck in the mud, or are in such a poor shape they break down, with spare parts somewhere in a distant warehouse in Russia, or because the vehicles are old and crap anyway.

This suggests that war is being fought almost as a form of 'remote control' -an officer sitting in Moscow ordering a missile strike on Mariupol or Kyiv or anywhere, the ferocious bombardment not being met with an incoming wave of troops, just destruction for the sake of destruction, creating a wasteland of ruined buildings and urban areas with no running water, gas or electricity, a Nihilist's dream. One wonders if any Russians genuinely want to go and live in Mariupol. It may become a ghost city -with only a functioning port the sign of life.

The terrifying logic of this remote sensing, is that using a Nuclear Weapon becomes a matter of simple logic when all else fails. And yet, from what we know, is the Russian nuclear capability, well, capable? Not sure anyone wants to find out.

‘They were furious’: the Russian soldiers refusing to fight in Ukraine | Russia | The Guardian

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, the original import of this thread concerned Russian funding of, and links to Boris Johnson and his 'Conservative Party', and not so shocking news the party is reluctant to publish the report into the circumstances in which Evgeny Lebedev became The Noble Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia...yep, though the formal title is a bit longer.

Read all about it!

Boris Johnson Delays Publishing Secret Lebedev Advice Due to ‘Security Challenges’ – Byline Times

If Sweden and Finland were to become members of NATO, it would be another failure in Putin's security plan for Russia, being the opposite of what he has claimed he wants, or the confirmation of his paranoia that Russia is under threat from the corrupt, transgender-lovin' West (huh?).

Putin appeared to threaten Finland and Sweden if they join NATO, but yesterday he seemed to scale the rhetoric down, but the real story here is whether or not Turkey will use its veto to prevent Sweden and Finland from becoming full members. Some have argued that with an election looming, Erdogan is using the issue to buff up his image of a strong leader, claiming that Sweden hosts Kurdish 'terrorists' and that Turkey is being unfairly treated because it has purchased arms from Russia.

Turkey became a member of NATO during the Cold War, but has more than once acted against the interests of the Alliance, without being held accountable, perhaps because the logic of the politics is that Turkey ought not to be a member of NATO. The two most obvious problems are with Turkey's illegal occupation of northern Cyprus, which began in 1974 and continues today, an occupation that set back hopes of a peace deal that would give Cyprus its independence, and continues to be a block today.

The other is Turkey's illegal occupation of northern Syria -described by some as a 'new Gaza'-, which has only been possible because the same Kurds Erdogan claims are 'terrorists' were the main force that broke the back of Daesh and led to its demise as an 'Islamic State'.

Turkey has form here, having annexed the Sanjak of Alexandretta in 1938 following tactics similar to what one finds with the Russians in Ukraine, there being little that is new about politics and the military when a dictatorship or even a democracy chooses to change 'facts on the ground' -my view being Turkey was one of the first Fascist states to emerge after the First World War, becoming a 'Fascist Democracy' -in other words, you can have a democratically elected Government, but only if the voters identify as Turks.

Anyway, two links -the first on Turkey's Gaza in Syria, the other to the fascinating if depressing story of the Sanjak of Alexandretta, and how a multi-ethnic, multi-religious state became an almost entirely Turkish province. (If you can find it, there is an article on Alexandretta by Robert Satloff, which would normally come with a health warning given his political affiliations, but on this occasion an intriguing analysis -it is from the journal Middle Eastern Studies in 1986 but is only available through subscription).

A new Gaza: Turkey’s border policy in northern Syria – European Council on Foreign Relations (ecfr.eu)

Sanjak of Alexandretta - Wikipedia

I see Putin was at it again, plucking morsels from history from which to make a meal celebrating, indeed justifying his war against Ukraine. This time, Peter the Great is recruited to confirm the fiction that Ukraine is really just Russia, so Putin is 'Taking Back' what was lost -lost by whom? Well, that would be Communists -bear in mind he was a Communist for most of his life before succeeding Yeltsin.

The Great Northern War with Sweden is in its details the Great Northern Bore, replete with Kings and Princes marching into this and that territory, claiming it for themselves. The irony is that when Peter the Great was first defeated by the Swedes, it was because his armed forces were weak, poorly equipped and mostly cavalry rather than infantry, and when he defeated the Swedes it was after he had modernized the forces -take note, Vladimir, because your lads are failing because you failed to modernize your army!

As for the fiction Ukraine is Russia, well maybe some parts once were, or were part of Poland, or Lithuania, or not really populated much at all. Take Luhansk and Donetsk -both of them founded as industrial towns...one by a Scot called Gascoigne, the other by a Welshman called Hughes, as the link tells you.
The surprising British origins of eastern Ukraine - The Washington Post


All of which begs the question, Vlad -if Ukraine is Russia, why are you bombing your own country into ash and rubble? And who is going to live in places like Mariupol when this is all over?

"There is no Ukraine": Fact-Checking the Kremlin's Version of Ukrainian History | LSE International History

Sad :(

Either Biden is trying to rewrite history or he is laying down the groundwork for either cutting off aid to Ukraine or an eventual negotiated settlement between them and Russia. Because if I recall, it was the Biden administration that was downplaying an invasion and almost calling Zelensky, "an alarmist".

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/11/biden-zelensky-russia-invasion-warnings-putin/

Also, if the world's food supply was going to be threatened by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, wouldn't that have been a significant reason for NATO to get more involved.

Your post is bang on, Blackchubby, as it exposes the most dangerous issues right now.

I am not sure how to describe Biden's posture, which looks comatose, but so far must be described as caution. If the US were to get involved, what is the strategic aim, the end result? Given that most of the damage in Ukraine is being caused by artillery bombardments from inside Russia, could NATO get involved without bombing targets inside Russia?

The irony here is that Russia's land forces have been so so poorly organized and equipped, that bombing Russian targets may lead to a Russian defeat more clearly defined than the kind of war fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, which begs the question, does the US want Russia defeated in a war? It might remove Putin from the stage, but it doesn't mean an equally aggressive Russian nationalist will not replace him. These 'known unknowns' are exercising minds in the Pentagon, hence the restraint.

As you know, a Casus Belli has to be more precise for NATO to act on the basis of its charter, and so far, Russia has not provoked that kind of reaction. The military action has the political objective of establishing without question Russia's sovereignty over the region that comprises Ukraine in the West but which, because of historic Russian Imperial history could also include the Baltic States and parts of Poland. This on the basis that Belarus and Moldova are compliant to the extent that 'they know their place'.

The assumption is that if Russia were to face defeat or another year of fighting in the Donbas it would seek an escalation of its 'special operations' in the Baltic states, my view being Putin might try a single attack on one of them just to see if NATO does in fact act, or expose the perception it has that the US doesn't want to get involved in any more wars, so Russia can do what it likes.

For this reason, your reference to the food supply issues brings in the maritime aspect of this conflict which has not received much exposure, perhaps because it is more likely to provoke a direct confrontation with the Russians than threats to the Baltics.

Lawrence Freedman lays out the scenarios in the link below, noting that Russia's attempts -successful so far- to control the maritime links between the Sea of Azov via the Kerch Straits to the Black Sea and through the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean, are illegal but that an international maritime force designed to protect Odesa and facilitate its exports, would be the maritime equivalent of a 'no fly zone' over the air space of Ukraine that the US has explicitly said it will not enforce. Turkey's role in this too is hard to read, as Turkey tends to act in its own interests regardless of its NATO membership (cf Cyprus) and would have to agree to any maritime force protecting shipping in and out of Odesa.

Will the 'war at sea', if it happens, be the inevitable 'war with Russia'?

One rogue factor could be Boris Johnson, desperate to remain Prime Minister in the UK and perceiving Germany and Macron to be NATO's 'weak link', sending a Royal Navy vessel into the Sea of Azov- but let's just let that thought sink somewhere, given the state of our Navy as it is, let alone Johnson's declining powers.

For this reason, I think there is/will be pressure from the EU and NATO on Zelensky to at least negotiate terms for a Ceasefire, if Ukraine cannot stomach a treaty of any sort that cedes territory to Russia's control. Biden wants to avoid the US becoming involved in a military conflict anywhere, Putin knows this and is deliberately provoking the US, and I think Biden's posture remains committed to not getting involved, but while this appears to benefit Putin, it only does by forcing Ukraine to some kind of settlement that Putin can call a 'triumph' even if it means his original strategic vision has failed, along with the decimation of the officer class and substantial troop -and maritime losses.

So yes, either there will be a military confrontation at sea, or there will be a messy, unhappy compromise that forces Ukraine to concede to Russia, though whether that solves the question of grain exports I don't know, as Russia is stealing grain and selling it on the world market, and though Ukraine can, with difficulty export grain via rail and road through Poland, the disruption to the production and export of grain and other things will continue, pushing up prices, but an issue which Putin doesn't care about.

"Protecting commercial shipping is by no means a simple option. Escorts would need to include minesweepers. Accompanying warships can also suffer from mines. There would need to be unanimity in Nato to authorise the operation – Turkey in particular would need to sign up. Because of the Montreux treaty, it has an effective veto as it would need to authorise Nato warships moving through the Turkish straits from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. And Turkey’s actions are not always predictable."
Russia's Black Sea blockade causes food shortages for the whole world - New Statesman

On Ukraine's exports-
Odessa official: Ukraine needs help to break Russian blockade | World Grain (world-grain.com)
Russia has blocked 20 million tons of grain from being exported from Ukraine : NPR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Either Biden is trying to rewrite history or he is laying down the groundwork for either cutting off aid to Ukraine or an eventual negotiated settlement between them and Russia. Because if I recall, it was the Biden administration that was downplaying an invasion and almost calling Zelensky, "an alarmist".

---

Your recollection is incorrect. US intelligence agencies were definitely warning that an invasion was imminent and Ukraine did express concerns that this was alarmist.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...vasion-ukraine
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/pa...ukraine-200846

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Your post is bang on, Blackchubby, as it exposes the most dangerous issues right now.

I am not sure how to describe Biden's posture, which looks comatose, but so far must be described as caution. If the US were to get involved, what is the strategic aim, the end result? Given that most of the damage in Ukraine is being caused by artillery bombardments from inside Russia, could NATO get involved without bombing targets inside Russia?

The irony here is that Russia's land forces have been so so poorly organized and equipped, that bombing Russian targets may lead to a Russian defeat more clearly defined than the kind of war fought in Iraq or Afghanistan, which begs the question, does the US want Russia defeated in a war? It might remove Putin from the stage, but it doesn't mean an equally aggressive Russian nationalist will not replace him. These 'known unknowns' are exercising minds in the Pentagon, hence the restraint.

As you know, a Casus Belli has to be more precise for NATO to act on the basis of its charter, and so far, Russia has not provoked that kind of reaction. The military action has the political objective of establishing without question Russia's sovereignty over the region that comprises Ukraine in the West but which, because of historic Russian Imperial history could also include the Baltic States and parts of Poland. This on the basis that Belarus and Moldova are compliant to the extent that 'they know their place'.

The assumption is that if Russia were to face defeat or another year of fighting in the Donbas it would seek an escalation of its 'special operations' in the Baltic states, my view being Putin might try a single attack on one of them just to see if NATO does in fact act, or expose the perception it has that the US doesn't want to get involved in any more wars, so Russia can do what it likes.

For this reason, your reference to the food supply issues brings in the maritime aspect of this conflict which has not received much exposure, perhaps because it is more likely to provoke a direct confrontation with the Russians than threats to the Baltics.

Lawrence Freedman lays out the scenarios in the link below, noting that Russia's attempts -successful so far- to control the maritime links between the Sea of Azov via the Kerch Straits to the Black Sea and through the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean, are illegal but that an international maritime force designed to protect Odesa and facilitate its exports, would be the maritime equivalent of a 'no fly zone' over the air space of Ukraine that the US has explicitly said it will not enforce. Turkey's role in this too is hard to read, as Turkey tends to act in its own interests regardless of its NATO membership (cf Cyprus) and would have to agree to any maritime force protecting shipping in and out of Odesa.

Will the 'war at sea', if it happens, be the inevitable 'war with Russia'?

One rogue factor could be Boris Johnson, desperate to remain Prime Minister in the UK and perceiving Germany and Macron to be NATO's 'weak link', sending a Royal Navy vessel into the Sea of Azov- but let's just let that thought sink somewhere, given the state of our Navy as it is, let alone Johnson's declining powers.

For this reason, I think there is/will be pressure from the EU and NATO on Zelensky to at least negotiate terms for a Ceasefire, if Ukraine cannot stomach a treaty of any sort that cedes territory to Russia's control. Biden wants to avoid the US becoming involved in a military conflict anywhere, Putin knows this and is deliberately provoking the US, and I think Biden's posture remains committed to not getting involved, but while this appears to benefit Putin, it only does by forcing Ukraine to some kind of settlement that Putin can call a 'triumph' even if it means his original strategic vision has failed, along with the decimation of the officer class and substantial troop -and maritime losses.

So yes, either there will be a military confrontation at sea, or there will be a messy, unhappy compromise that forces Ukraine to concede to Russia, though whether that solves the question of grain exports I don't know, as Russia is stealing grain and selling it on the world market, and though Ukraine can, with difficulty export grain via rail and road through Poland, the disruption to the production and export of grain and other things will continue, pushing up prices, but an issue which Putin doesn't care about.

"Protecting commercial shipping is by no means a simple option. Escorts would need to include minesweepers. Accompanying warships can also suffer from mines. There would need to be unanimity in Nato to authorise the operation – Turkey in particular would need to sign up. Because of the Montreux treaty, it has an effective veto as it would need to authorise Nato warships moving through the Turkish straits from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea. And Turkey’s actions are not always predictable."
Russia's Black Sea blockade causes food shortages for the whole world - New Statesman

On Ukraine's exports-
Odessa official: Ukraine needs help to break Russian blockade | World Grain (world-grain.com)
Russia has blocked 20 million tons of grain from being exported from Ukraine : NPR

---

Sometimes a show of force can be just as effective as using force itself. So if NATO can convince Turkey it is in its best interest to help break Russia's Black Sea blockade, than they should send commercial ships (possibly from a non NATO member) protected by NATO forces just to see what Russia is going to do. Therefore you put the ball into Putin's court and make him decide does he really want his country to get into a shooting match over trying to make sure the world has enough grain.

I by no means want this to escalate into a war between NATO and Russia and/or possibly WW III. But I think we are getting to the point that confrontation between the two maybe inevitable. Especially if Putin's war is responsible for things like inflation and high gas prices as the Biden administration has stated. So then the question becomes how much more are governments going to be willing to take with the war having an impact on their countries. As well as the death and destruction that continues to be inflicted upon Ukraine, before they have no choice to get more involved.

If a confrontation happens at sea and can be limited to that specific theater without further escalation, I think its a chance that NATO should be willing to take if it helps prevent further food shortages. There is a chance that Putin may blink if it he sees a combined naval effort heading towards the blockade.

Again, you highlight the dilemma, namely direct confrontation with Russia, or an indirect one so transparent the Russians could say it is so, but also, can NATO call Russia's bluff? The weakness of the land forces Russia has in Ukraine and the losses it has incurred, along with the turmoil in the higher ranks of the military, suggest Russia is not as strong as it likes to project, but this also raises the stakes with regard to potential/threatened nuclear action.

If Russia is strategically overstretched, could NATO further undermine Russia by promoting Georgia's claim that Abkhazia and South Ossetia be 'returned' to Georgia, as they are considered 'fake' republics? The Russians have -or had- around 8,000 troops in South Ossetia, about 3,500 in Abkhazia, but the problem lies in Georgia where the population is divided on the Ukraine question, where it supports Georgia's aim to join NATO, and the so-far 'agreement' that the EU recognize its aspirations to join without yet becoming a Candidate Member (though this does raise the obvious question, is Georgia in Europe?), while some are pro-Russian.

Critically, so far Georgia has decided not to 'rock the boat' and has tended to side with the Russians, so it remains weak link. Earlier this month the UK Govt issued a statement calling for the reintegration of Georgia and a 'right of return' for the 160,000 odd people made refugees when this conflict began in 2008.

On the other side, there is little expectation that Moldova will attempt to re-integrate Transnistria into the country. There are approx 1,500 Russian troops there, but again, Moldova tends to be compliant when dealing with Russia, and as with Ukraine and Poland, gas supplies are an important leverage.

If you factor in Turkey as an unreliable ally, given its illegal occupation of Cyprus since 1974 and its negative impact on peace negotiations there, plus its illegal actions in Northern Syria, I would assume the US is unwilling to get involved because other than Ukraine, the Baltic States and Finland, it cannot rely on support from the Caucasus in the east, or Moldova in the west -Moldova is vulnerable in regard to gas supplies, Georgia with regard to the BTC pipeline which runs from Moscow-friendly Baku through Georgia to the Turkish coast.

So on the surface yes, a free shipping lane sounds possible -though both Ukraine and Russia have mined the waters- and would be considered a defeat for Putin, but he has other options, other allies, and as someone from the Brookings Institution said on the BBC last night, the US/NATO doesn't really have an 'end game' - repatriating eastern Ukraine looks too much to ask, but negotiating their official transfer to Russia remains unacceptable in Kyiv; and Putin may calculate that as long as his artillery in Russia can bomb targets in Ukraine, the war can go on until he runs out of ammo.

That may be why NATO is looking at further sanctions to weaken Russia economically, which so far is working, albeit slowly. A direct attack on the locations from which the bombardment takes place would be a direct attack on Russia, and so far that has been ruled out, as has, I think, a significant upgrade of Ukraine's air force -I don't know if Israel's Iron Dome would lessen the impact of Russia's bombardment, but Israel has so far sat on the fence, though Bennet may lose the upcoming election there, and I don't know what Netanyahu's position is, should he return to power.

Then there are the rumours of Putin's health, or of an inside cabal that wants to replace him and what's left of the Military High Command (Shoigu in particular). I think NATO and Biden are cautious for good reason, but the cost is mounting and a sense that 'something must be done' to at least bring the fighting and the bombing to an end, even if it then means years of inconclusive on-off negotiations. Putin, after all, can look at Donetsk, Luhansk, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia -and Chehnya too- and see the Russians have achieved their objectives there, even if they are all poor, corrupt and young people leave as soon as they can. He really doesn't care.

Some links-
In Georgia, Calls Emerge To Retake South Ossetia, Abkhazia (rferl.org)

Putin Is Failing in Ukraine, But Winning in Georgia - The Bulwark

Reiterating our deep concern over the continued illegal Russian presence in Georgia - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

What you need to know about Transnistria | openDemocracy

This guy did a better job at explaining what I meant in my last post:

Putin is already at war with Europe. There is only one way to stop him

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/putin-is-already-at-war-with-europe-there-is-only-one-way-to-stop-him

Corcoran's article on the more extreme nationalists in Russia and their criticism of Putin raises questions about Russia if Putin were to be removed from power, or die, or whatever. As is common with Autocracies, survival depends on crushing all forms of dissent, and while the one-party state that was created by Lenin and ended by Yeltsin has not been replaced Putin has in effect created, or tried to create a monopoly form of power, though it looks to some more like a personality cult than a one-party state. To that extent, the existence of other parties, mostly more Nationalist than Putin, suggests that Russia is likely to be weakened by internal disputes on top of the lamentable performance of its military in Ukraine.

So while some comment in the UK press has asked if Putin is going to be so desperate he might use tactical nuclear weapons, maybe the question is, if he is succeeded by even more extreme politicians, will they use them? But while they may cause trouble for Putin, how powerful are the Nationalists, and how much support do they have across Russia?

Russia's Hawkish Nationalists Who Want All-Out War in Ukraine (businessinsider.com)

Yesterday we read that Erdogan claimed Putin wanted to end the war, today he has increased the escalation. He also says Russia is not bluffing when it says it will use all means to defend itself.

The man is either making a major strategic error, as with Saddam in Kuwait in 1990, or still gambling that over the long term, it is Ukraine and, crucially, its supporters in NATO and Europe that will weaken, and provide Russia with the agenda it can claim as 'victory' -even as the Russian annexed regions of Ukraine are less secure than they were in 2014. A lot does now rest on the willingness of NATO to continue its supplies of materiel to Ukraine, and to absorb the energy shocks Russia hopes will weaken any support Ukraine has across Europe.

I wonder if it were not for Russia's nuclear arsenal, NATO would have hammered Russia in Ukraine, though Desert Shield and Desert Storm were both backed by Security Council Resolutions. But maybe NATO should call Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I wonder if it were not for Russia's nuclear arsenal, NATO would have hammered Russia in Ukraine, though Desert Shield and Desert Storm were both backed by Security Council Resolutions. But maybe NATO should call Putin's bluff on nuclear weapons.

---

Well that's fine for some of you old bleeders, knocking on deaths door anyway.
Meanwhile, some of us would rather not become crispy critters on the turn of a card in a game of global brag!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jericho

Well that's fine for some of you old bleeders, knocking on deaths door anyway.
Meanwhile, some of us would rather not become crispy critters on the turn of a card in a game of global brag!

---

Am I in the departure lounge? Maybe! The point I was trying to make was a matter of strategy, not what I want. When the war began earlier this year, the strategic aim was to slow the Russians down; Macron I think it was even said that NATO should not humiliate Putin. Fast forward to where we are now, and Putin is humiliated by his own strategic blunders, and by what to some is the amazing failure of Russian troops on the ground -poorly equipped, poorly managed, lacking in motivation -the parallels with the Iraq of Saddam Hussein are spooky, after all in 1990 Iraq had the fourth or fifth largest army in the world.

The Russian failures on the ground have led to Putin escalating his campaign. I assume he knows how badly it is going, but the nuclear threat, while real needs to be seen in context -the use is likely to be of tactical, or 'battlefield' nuclear weapons rather than strategic warheads -the point being that tactical nuclear weapons can 'take out' a moderate sized city like Kremenchug with minimal fall-out, and destroy much but probably not all of Kyiv. What the much-publicized Hypersonic missile can do is unknown, with the difficulty that on the one hand Russian armaments and delivery systems have been exposed as poor, but on the other hand as a new weapons system, Hypersonic might be very effective,

Also, in 1980 Saddam Hussein became an ally of the USA in its attempt to overthrow the Iranian government, ten years later, Saddam was the enemy and ten years after that, his son was plotting regime change in Iraq. NATO might not be plotting regime change in Russia, but it is no secret that people want Putin out of the way, though as I argued in an earlier post, we don't know who would replace him, and it might be someone even more reckless.

The referenda being held in regions of Ukraine is designed to integrate them into Russia so any attack on them is an attack on Russia, and other than Ukraine attacks on targets in Russia close to the border, there has been no serious attempt to take the war into Russia. Whether anyone outside Russia believes overnight these places can become Russia doesn't matter, it won't stop Ukraine from seeking to remove the Russian military presence there. Whether or not this does lead Putin to use tactical nuclear weapons is currently the great Unknown, and one can only hope it doesn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Am I in the departure lounge?

---

I checked the arrivals at the place above and the place below and they say they don't expect you. I agree with Jericho that NATO can't be calling bluffs with nuclear war.

That doesn't mean there's no way to oppose Russia, as I don't think they're totally suicidal, but there are terms of conflict that everyone has sort of accepted.

The war is particularly devastating for Ukraine and Ukrainians but they decided early on they do not want to surrender. The argument from some that the west is willing to fight "to the last Ukrainian" is based on the assumption that Ukrainians would surrender or that it would be less deadly to allow Russia to annex all of Ukraine. Russia has showed they commit summary executions, they don't reprimand soldiers for doing so, and that the only way for the bloodshed to end is for Russia to give up its illegal ambitions.

Sadly, there is no peaceful outcome unless Russia chooses it. Russia has to be defeated and it has to be defeated by western armaments and Ukrainian soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Sadly, there is no peaceful outcome unless Russia chooses it. Russia has to be defeated and it has to be defeated by western armaments and Ukrainian soldiers.

---

The question used to be 'what do we win when we win?', whereas your comment asks the question, 'what does defeat look like?'.

I am not sure either side can claim either victory or defeat. It doesn't look like Russia will succeed in annexing the Ukraine, which was the original mission. Not even with the mobilization of 'reserves' in Russia, including Ukrainians under Russian occupation in Luhansk and Donetsk. How those reservists will fight is not clear, but they can't be better than what Russia has offered so far. Russia has to hold on to parts if not all of Luhansk and Donetsk, otherwise this is a defeat of sorts, though I doubt their position in the Crimea will change.

But what would it mean for a Russian defeat in Eastern Ukraine, because if Ukraine regained sovereignty there, how will it treat the ethnic Russian and pro-Russian citizens who live there? Can we be so confident only Russia has committed war crimes against one side and other is squeaky clean?

I don't know if Putin can survive another year, but if he goes, a replacement is not going to simply withdraw from eastern Ukraine. The fighting war may fizzle out, and the situation revert to what it was between 2014-2022 with no resolution. If this enables both sides to claim a victory, then it is up to the spin doctors to make it work at home, though Russia has been more significantly damaged than Ukraine, and I think is heading for a decade of instability.

Territorial disputes can drag on forever -Palestine and Kashmir have been going since the late 1940s, the Korean peninsula remains divided since the 1950s, and I see no threat to the bogus republics created by Russia out of Moldova and Georgia. And in the end, can NATO or Russia afford to keep the war going?

So I see no conclusive defeat. Only a winding down of the war, and no desire to talk, and decades of dissembling punctuated by 'incidents'. In the end, people learn to adapt to chaos and instability. I wish it were not so, but I don't feel optimistic about this war.

While I can't be sure Ukraine is squeaky clean there's good reason to infer that most of the human rights violations are committed by Russia. First, the only people killed by Ukrainian soldiers have been soldiers, mainly because they're not in Russia or rolling tanks through Russian streets. Second, there's an enormous number of eyewitness accounts in Bucha and Mariupol that Russian soldiers are trying to kill all the survivors. There have been bodies found with hands tied behind the back and shot at close range. There's also the death toll at this point which is catastrophic in a short period of time. But we will know more eventually and if Ukraine commits atrocities they should be condemned.

Then there's the sequence of events. There was no actual threat to Russia. Maybe a threat to its influence but no attempt to kill its citizens or breach its border or invade the country. They decided one day they wanted to invade Ukraine on the grounds they're "Nazis". Yes, they saw the potential for inclusion as NATO as a threat but it wasn't a threat to their territorial integrity, an invasion, or anything that international law recognizes as an excuse for their actions.

The only way for Ukraine to win is to repel the Russians from their country or for Russia to decide they never should have invaded.

I'm not saying there can't be peace. But I don't see how it can happen if the country that led an expedition to conquer Ukraine doesn't leave the way they came.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

They decided one day they wanted to invade Ukraine on the grounds they're "Nazis".

---

I'm also ignoring the revanchist claims to Luhansk and Donetsk because while there are Russian speakers it looks like a pretext to roll over Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm also ignoring the revanchist claims to Luhansk and Donetsk because while there are Russian speakers it looks like a pretext to roll over Ukraine.

---

It has been an old Nationalist tactic since at least the first decade of the 20th century when Serbian nationalists argued with regard to the 'ethnic mix' in the Balkans, 'wherever there is a Serb, there is Serbia'. Hundreds of thousands died in the Balkan Wars before the Serbian Nationalists murdered the Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914, the city hosting the kind of diverse range of people that drove Serbs mad with rage. That the creation of Yugoslavia after the War bottled up rather than dealt with the pre-existing Nationalism of the Serbs is now regarded as a cause of the wars of the 1990s.

You will be aware of the claims Nazi Germany made on the Sudetenland, so in this context, it is spooky that when Russia claims Eastern Ukraine is really Russia but has fallen to 'Neo-Nazis' who attack Russians there, the result is not so different from what happened in 1939.

Yes, it can be argued that there are historical links between what is now Ukraine and Russia, that the Kievan Rus of the 9th century is considered the fons et origo of the Russian State, but are we to believe nothing changes in a thousand years of history, that there is some sort of 'pure' condition the restoration of which will end all wars? Putin seems to think he can be the contemporary equivalent of Peter the Great, which gives some indication of how this distorted Nationalist narrative is used to justify his war, a war he fights from behind a desk. And Peter was at least Six Foot Eight or just over 2 metres tall, which makes the comparison even more ridiculous.

As ever, Nationalist extremes produce extreme results, soaked in blood, the destruction of homes, hospitals, schools and businesses just part of the necessary actions taken to achieve some perfect world. On this basis alone, Putin is doomed to fail. But there is no guarantee Ukraine will win either. It is a mess, and it will remain a mess.

So my question is this, is this considered calling a bluff:


U.S. Warns Russia of ‘Catastrophic Consequences’ if It Uses Nuclear Weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us...a-nuclear.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

So my question is this, is this considered calling a bluff:


U.S. Warns Russia of ‘Catastrophic Consequences’ if It Uses Nuclear Weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us...a-nuclear.html

---

I don't know what the right posture is bc unrestrained nuclear war can't really be threatened bc everyone knows that's civilization ending.

It has to be made clear to Russia and Putin that if Russia uses nuclear weapons it will be completely isolated. Maybe a good idea to try to get China on board here as well since they're a sometimes ally of Russia. They're already somewhat isolated from economic sanctions but using a nuclear weapon in a war to annex its neighboring country should make them a pariah state for a hundred years if we all last that long.

I don't think if Biden is asked to follow up on what "catastrophic consequences" means it could possibly mean a hundred ballistic nukes launched at Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

So my question is this, is this considered calling a bluff:

U.S. Warns Russia of ‘Catastrophic Consequences’ if It Uses Nuclear Weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/25/us...a-nuclear.html

---

Referrals to the use of Nuclear Weapons, tactical or otherwise, should bear in mind Russia has used chemical weapons in Syria, and twice in the UK to kill former members of the KGB/FSB.

I don't know if Putin would use chemical weapons in an attack, say, on Kyiv or a smaller place in areas Russia is still fighting for in the Donbas or around Kherson, but Putin could calculate that he has used chemical weapons before and got away with it -Obama declared a 'Red Line' in Syria, but when Putin crossed it, there was no response, though this might have been due to lack of support for it in Congress.

So a chemical weapons attack ought not to be ruled out.

What the US considers to be a 'Strategic' response is not clear, or whether it would be a response 'in kind', which is the great fear, or the intensification of alternative 'weapons' in terms of economics, trade and so on. Were Russia to claim the areas it has held Referenda in are now Russia and any attack there is an attack on Russia and thus justified retaliation, the US might then use this to open a deeper dialogue with China.

China is fixated on issues of Sovereignty and has a problem with Russia in Ukraine because of this. The US could attempt to put some distance between China and Russia, but China must surely see that a weak Russia enables China to become the only major player that can match the US globally, something Biden has argued since his inauguration. But rather than embolden China with regard to Taiwan, which I now think is lower down Xi's priorities, China must now see an advantage in increasing its interests in the Russian economy, with regard to oil, gas and minerals, but also a boost to its credentials across the Asian republics which have been part of Russia's orbit since Soviet days, but which may now see Russia as too weak to be of any real help outside energy pipeline deals and immigrant labour rights in Russia.

We may be seeing an end to the phase of Globalization which created supply chains locking the world's economy into a network of Chinese producers and western consumers, but China may not need it if it can maintain the growth of its domestic market and become the major supplier to a country that borders the Pacific in the East and Poland in the West.
But I doubt Xi can restrain Putin when it comes to military affairs.

Does the US have a list of targets in Russia? Yes, but it has always stopped short of attacking Russia directly, not just because of the potential military response, but because it might increase Putin's support among the people who, with a US attack realize Putin was right all along about 'the evil West' planning since the 1990s to render Russia just a footprint on European and American heels.

But, finally, this thought -once Putin uses either chemical weapons and/or nuclear weapons, what else does he have? It looks like a last throw of the dice, and this from a military machine that so far has been proven all but useless, its only effective weapons the artillery it lobs across the border at indiscriminate targets, often civilian. Does Russia still have an air force?

Kaliningrad for some is now the focus of intense US surveillance as it is believed Russia is pouring arms into the enclave, possibly including tactical nukes.

And if Russia uses sabotage on the Nordstream pipeline, can the US/NATO use sabotage on installations inside Russia with 'plausible deniability'?

The partial destruction of the bridge linking Russia to the Crimea is said by some to be a 'game changer' because the bridge was one of Putin's prestige projects which he claimed was indestructible.

Russia has the artillery to continue bombarding Ukraine and that will not stop. Whether or not the bridge incident leads to another form of escalation I do not know. I have suggested before Russia could just as much use chemical, as tactical nuclear weapons, but I don't see Russia having anything but a military response, even though so far it is the military that has been Russia's weakest component in the war, bombardments being the exception.

So more of the same, more destruction, more lives lost, people injured.

I was thinking of bringing the last couple of posts from the other thread in here because they're interesting, mostly on topic, and I have some thoughts.

One thing I think that needs to be addressed head on is how the world deals with nuclear brinksmanship. Now that Putin's army is seriously faltering, we face more explicit threats of nuclear blackmail than before. Russia threatening to use tactical nukes, and making veiled threats about what happens if they face serious peril. The problem with this last argument is that self-defense doesn't extend to cover military losses while trying to conquer another country.

So let's say NATO and Ukraine let's Russia have some of what it wants. Does this encourage Russia to use this tactic again and for further gains? They're not constrained by the truth at all. So it's not like they even need a plausible excuse to run over eastern europe if they can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I think the claimed provocation is the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe, despite assurances apparently given to Gorbachev in 1990. The are obvious problems in using this to excuse Russia's action.

1. NATO had not expanded into Ukraine. Although they had expressed a wish to join, there was no indication this was going to happen any time soon.
2. Self-defence hardly justifies attempting to obliterate another country, deliberate targeting of civilians, etc.
3. Russian aggression has obviously been counter-productive, given previously-neutral countries (Sweden and Finland) have now asked to join NATO and Ukraine has also now formally applied.
4. The argument implies that Russia's neighbours have no right to choose their own destiny. They can't choose to be part of the West just because Russian leaders are paranoid.
5. The self-defence argument ignores Putin's rhetoric about restoring the Russian empire and Ukraine not being a real country, as well as previous Russian aggression in Crimea and Georgia.

I know the anti-Western leftists will say that the US has also interfered in neighbouring countries against leftist governments, but I don't think they've done anything that compares with Russia's behaviour in Ukraine.

---

Thank you for this. I agree with all of your points. I can see why Russia sees NATO as a concern because maybe a border skirmish triggers some sort of collective obligation and this changes the balance of power in the region. But even the most generous yet still rational interpretation cannot view it as a threat to Russia's sovereignty or legally recognized territories.

I'm sure the analogy is inapt but imagine Mexico signed a collective security agreement with a bunch of countries that would obligate these countries to defend Mexico if the US or any other country attacked them. Mexico, like Ukraine, is considered the weaker military power and has never shown aspirations of engaging in the aggressive conquest of US territory. Would this be a "threat" in any real sense? I'm sure Republicans would pretend it is. They think people sneaking into the US to make a better life for themselves is an invasion though rational people know this is a product of their racism (though I'm not saying there aren't rational ways to object to illegal immigration). Sometimes a pretext for war is so flimsy it's barely rational which your points 4 & 5 address.

I know my analogy falls short because there's a greater history of belligerence and conflict between NATO and Russia/Soviet Union, but what is a threat? I would think that something is a threat if a neighboring country wants to conquer your territory and is willing to kill your civilians (either they have or they threaten to do so).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I was thinking of bringing the last couple of posts from the other thread in here because they're interesting, mostly on topic, and I have some thoughts.

One thing I think that needs to be addressed head on is how the world deals with nuclear brinksmanship. Now that Putin's army is seriously faltering, we face more explicit threats of nuclear blackmail than before. Russia threatening to use tactical nukes, and making veiled threats about what happens if they face serious peril. The problem with this last argument is that self-defense doesn't extend to cover military losses while trying to conquer another country.

So let's say NATO and Ukraine let's Russia have some of what it wants. Does this encourage Russia to use this tactic again and for further gains? They're not constrained by the truth at all. So it's not like they even need a plausible excuse to run over eastern europe if they can.

---

What would be the purpose of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons?

In theory it would be to bring the conflict to an end, with Ukraine -urged on by its allies- agreeing to peace talks that would give Russia the territory in Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea it has occupied since 2014. But to do this Putin has to maintain the contradiction of claiming Ukraine is really part of Russia, and destroying so many of its cities, towns and villages- inheriting a blasted landscape, tremendous loss of life, and people injured for life who are embittered and angry. Ukraine may have the natural resources Russia wants, but its human resources would be difficult if not impossible to manage.

It seems to me to return us to the place where we were before, where Russia in reality has no claim on Ukraine, other than the historical relations which have gone from familial and comradely to dismissive and violent.

in practice, then, using nukes is a lose-lose-lose result

-He loses the 'Ukraine is Russia' argument: Putin doesn't win any territory that wants to be part of Russia.
-He loses the weapons in the arsenal;
- He loses any trust other States have with Russia who are not already on its side, and may lose some who either are, or currently hedge their bets -such as China, Turkey and Israel.

For Saudi Arabia and Iran, it would probably accelerate their own nuclear developments, with the Russians and the Chinese aiding Iran, the US and Israel aiding Saudi Arabia (as the US already has under Trump) [though the long-term aim of the Wahabi Saudis is to unify the whole of the Middle East under their command].

Unfortunately, Putin is in a position where he loses whatever he does, as I don't think even using nukes will bring Ukraine to the negotiating table, and inside Russia, there must be calculations about the devastating impact the war is having on the military, on the economy, and on the wider society which has no voice owing to the crushing by Putin of civil society. How long Putin can survive on his own I don't know, but I also wonder if in military terms, the Nationalist Extremists who don't think Putin has gone far enough to win Ukraine, have a workable plan that would be supported by the military. Again, unfortunately, I think Putin consider Russian military intervention in Syria to be a success, which begs the question, what is success?

Unless the only outcome of all this is that Russia all but destroys enough of Ukraine to render it poor, disorganized, and dependent on external powers who, like Elongated Musk cannot finance it forever.

Rogue factor -would the new govt in Israel if it contains the extremists like the 'Religious Zionist Party' -a party that has said it wants to expel Arabs from Israel, directly attack Iran and be encouraged to do so if Putin used tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?
There is an assessment of the Israeli elections and a section on the RZP by the pro-Israeli Washington Insitute, here-
Israeli Elections, Round Five: A Game of Inches | The Washington Institute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

What would be the purpose of Putin using tactical nuclear weapons?

---

The problem is that you are trying to apply a rational calculus, but if Putin was using such a calculus he would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

I think the fear that is uppermost in Putin's mind is that his leadership won't survive if he doesn't get some kind of win out of his gamble. Losing power is hugely risky for brutal dictators.

The dilemma for the West is that giving in to nuclear blackmail to let Putin have his win will guarantee there is more of it in future. History is full of examples of outcomes that were in nobody's interest resulting from this kind of dynamic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm sure the analogy is inapt but imagine Mexico signed a collective security agreement with a bunch of countries that would obligate these countries to defend Mexico if the US or any other country attacked them.

---

There was a somewhat analogous episode in WWI, although Mexico did not take up the German proposal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

Anyway, we do have the real world example of Cuba, which was a Soviet ally. Although the US tried various measures to undermine the Cuban Regime, I don't think they ever attacked Cuba directly (apart from sponsoring the proxy Bay of Pigs fiasco). That said, they did threaten war when the Soviets tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba in 1962. But they never attacked Cuba after that crisis was resolved, presumably because they were worried about the Soviet reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The problem is that you are trying to apply a rational calculus, but if Putin was using such a calculus he would not have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

I think the fear that is uppermost in Putin's mind is that his leadership won't survive if he doesn't get some kind of win out of his gamble. Losing power is hugely risky for brutal dictators.

The dilemma for the West is that giving in to nuclear blackmail to let Putin have his win will guarantee there is more of it in future. History is full of examples of outcomes that were in nobody's interest resulting from this kind of dynamic.

---

I think it must depend on what Putin believes the end-result of his campaign will be. To that end, the submission of Ukraine to Russia, outside NATO, inside the Economic Zone which Putin has been trying to create to integrate the former Soviet Republics into their version of the EU, his actions have been rational. It matters nothing to Putin if cities, towns and villages and the people who live in them are destroyed, humans will create new ones, and it is Ukraine's resources, notably in agriculture that Russia needs. The rationality of his intentions has been undone by his mis-calculation of Russia's military abilities, and Ukraine's reformed military. One has proved to be useless on the ground, the other superior.

Putin could order a ceasefire pending a round of talks, and then present Ukraine as the obstacle to peace. I think on the basis of what happened in Chechnya and Syria, the bombing will continue as, at the very least, Putin wants to destroy as much of Ukraine's infrastructure as he can.

Rationality in Iraq meant the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 because Saddam did not believe it would be opposed -there is some argument he mentioned it to April Glaspie and she did not indicate hostility to the idea by President GHW Bush. The Argentine Junta authorized the invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, on the basis the UK would not respond with military force. These, at the outset were all rational decisions, but factored in the lack of response which actually materialized. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956 expecting a military response, but was able to use control of the canal to create enough of an international crisis that external powers did not support the Anglo-French-Israeli attack. In all these cases, the rationale contained a fatal risk, and either succeeded or failed. In all these cases, the self-confidence of the decision makers launched the actions they later suffered for.

By contrast, the USSR putting nuclear missiles on Cuba does seem crazy from every angle, and in that case led to Khrushchev losing his job.