Ukrainian War Thread III: The Horrors

[Democratic Communist Federation]

This is why I emphasized ceding territory that had already been effectively lost, refusing to demilitarize, and gaining admission to NATO as soon as possible. If Ukraine can scrape by losing a couple Russian-majority regions that have been flattened by artillery bombardments and occupied by the Russian military, it's far from the worst possible outcome.

The territory wasn't lost. It was stolen.

[Picairn]

The thing is this won't prevent Russia from attempting to continue the war at a later date. It gives the government time to recover and for the people to forget the nonsense that started the war and the justification will be there again.

Nothing, not even the loss of Crimea and the 2 republics, is going to stop Russia from restarting the war except total occupation of Russian land and the destruction of Russian political institutions, which I think everybody here knows what their answer to that will be.

A peace treaty gives respite to both sides. Ukraine will have an opportunity to rest and recover, as well as better preparing its army for the next war, than fighting a slowly-losing attritional war costly in men and material. It's been pretty obvious that they are not going to storm Crimea without a navy or the 2 heavily entrenched republics since 2014.

[Adamede]

So what you're saying is, they should not consider ceding territory.

It should be considered only if it doesn't amount to a complete capitulation. Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden need NATO membership and EU support at this point. And, if Ukraine can't secure that, can't receive proper assurances from Russia, and can't retain its military forces, peace is an impossibility. The ceding of territory would need to be contingent on Putin backing off and taking an L in some key IR areas.

Yah I don’t see Russia budging on letting Ukraine join NATO or aligned military only with the West. They want that buffer space, and Crimea and Donbas aren’t enough.

[Adamede]

The thing is this won't prevent Russia from attempting to continue the war at a later date. It gives the government time to recover and for the people to forget the nonsense that started the war and the justification will be there again.

Nothing, not even the loss of Crimea and the 2 republics, is going to stop Russia from restarting the war except total occupation of Russian land and the destruction of Russian political institutions, which I think everybody here knows what their answer to that will be.

A peace treaty gives respite to both sides. Ukraine will have an opportunity to rest and recover, as well as better preparing its army for the next war, than fighting a slowly-losing attritional war costly in men and material. It's been pretty obvious that they are not going to storm Crimea without a navy or the 2 heavily entrenched republics since 2014.

Yah frankly this is now or never when it comes to Crimea and the Donbas. If Ukraine doesn’t regain them in this war they’re gone forever. No amount of military rebuilding will change that.

[Fahran]

I'm aware. It's why I still believe Russia will inevitably win the war. They hold all the cards, and in spite of their innumerable clusterfucks that hasn't changed.

I wouldn't say they hold all the cards. I mentioned before that the casualty rate in Donetsk and Luhansk is appalling by any modern standard. Russia probably hasn't lost this many soldiers since the Soviet-Afghan War. It's been more bloody than even the First Chechen War. If Putin didn't have the command of the media he has and Ukraine could send back bodies, home front morale could pretty easily collapse. Double the number of current dead isn't inconceivable to seize all of Donetsk and Luhansk. Which would make this worse for Russia than the Soviet-Afghan War was for the Soviets. Over territory that will essentially be worthless and depopulated by the end of it all.

The main question is whether NATO and the EU can and will maintain their support until the bitter end. Will we continue to send billions of dollars in aid when this isn't in the news cycle anymore? Or will we leave like we did in Afghanistan despite not incurring any casualties aside from to our coffers? Really, allowing polls to dictate long-term policy considerations has almost invariably been a mistake.

As I've said previously if Ukraine is lucky it will come out of this war with a Moscow Armistice of it's own. Anything more seems highly unlikely.

An armistice won't be at all meaningful if Russia can simply target other Russian-majority regions in the future or press for Kyiv any time Ukraine decides to apply for EU or NATO membership.

[Fahran]

The territory wasn't lost. It was stolen.

Semantics. I've made position on Russian aggression clear enough already, I think.

[Fahran]

Nothing, not even the loss of Crimea and the 2 republics, is going to stop Russia from restarting the war except total occupation of Russian land and the destruction of Russian political institutions, which I think everybody here knows what their answer to that will be.

A peace treaty gives respite to both sides. Ukraine will have an opportunity to rest and recover, as well as better preparing its army for the next war, than fighting a slowly-losing attritional war costly in men and material. It's been pretty obvious that they are not going to storm Crimea without a navy or the 2 heavily entrenched republics since 2014.

Yah frankly this is now or never when it comes to Crimea and the Donbas. If Ukraine doesn’t regain them in this war they’re gone forever. No amount of military rebuilding will change that.

Where are the Winged Hussars when we need them?

[Adamede]

Yah frankly this is now or never when it comes to Crimea and the Donbas. If Ukraine doesn’t regain them in this war they’re gone forever. No amount of military rebuilding will change that.

Where are the Winged Hussars when we need them?

Kinda got hacked stabbed by the rest of the Holy League about a hundred years later.

[Fahran]

Where are the Winged Hussars when we need them?

Kinda got hacked stabbed by the rest of the Holy League about a hundred years later.

I cry every time. And I actually find Ottoman history interesting.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Semantics. I've made position on Russian aggression clear enough already, I think.

I suppose I am opposed to any concessions on the part of Ukraine, including ceding territory. Concessions will lead to demands for further concessions.

[Fahran]

I suppose I am opposed to any concessions on the part of Ukraine, including ceding territory. Concessions will lead to demands for further concessions.

Concessions aren't ideal, but I'm worried that the West won't be unwavering in their economic and military support. The Ukrainians have fought valiantly, but it won't mean a whole lot if they're eventually reduced to fighting with rocks when our governments decide yet again to abandon allies who had come to rely on us. I don't doubt the ability of the Poles and Balts to be steadfast. I'm far more worried about the Americans, British, French, and Germans. Not to mention the Turks and Hungarians who have chosen an awful time to bring up other issues or pursue appeasement.

I'm not proposing appeasement. I'm proposing to seize on what might be the best chances to weather the conflict with the full knowledge that the West might not keep up the pressure on Russia - which they're only doing half-heartedly at the moment because they spent the last two decades growing fat on Russian oil.

[Picairn]

The argument frequently put out by the "anti-appeasers" is that Ukraine should retake Crimea and the 2 republics, even at an enormous cost in men and material, to show Russia that it will not allow Russia to be emboldened by territorial gains and restart the war at a later date.

Here's a problem: This maximalist scenario can also provide Russia a powerful motivator to restart the war in the future: revanchism. The French spent 40 years simmering in anger at the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, and revanchism gripped France's political theater all the way until WW1. Can we be assured that the Russian nationalists would not see the loss of these territories as a humiliation and seek revenge? Of course not.

There is a high chance that Putin may be deposed and replaced with someone even worse or God forbid, a full-throated fascist. We may see an even more aggressive Russia, motivated by revenge, trying to solve its problems by force. Recall that Yeltsin's defeat in the First Chechen War took a blow to his popularity and, together with the 1998 financial crisis, led to the rise of Putin. So if history tells us anything, that situation can repeat once more with worse consequences.

So long as the current Russian political and military institutions remain in place, I don't see how Russia can be deterred from trying again. Obviously, trying to occupy Russia is out of the question.

I'm partial to Fahran's suggestion of ceding Crimea & the 2 republics, refusing to demilitarize, and joining NATO & EU as the "best" proposal for Ukraine (throw in the gradual lifting of sanctions to sweeten the deal). But I don't think Russia is willing to accept Ukraine as a NATO member. So we're left with reviving the Budapest Memorandum, unless Ukraine can reverse its fortune on the military front.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Concessions aren't ideal, but I'm worried that the West won't be unwavering in their economic and military support. The Ukrainians have fought valiantly, but it won't mean a whole lot if they're eventually reduced to fighting with rocks when our governments decide yet again to abandon allies who had come to rely on us. I don't doubt the ability of the Poles and Balts to be steadfast. I'm far more worried about the Americans, British, French, and Germans. Not to mention the Turks and Hungarians who have chosen an awful time to bring up other issues or pursue appeasement.

That is possible. However, IMO, it is best to make geopolitical decisions based upon an observation of current events. By ceding territory, not only will the Russian empire expand, but Russia may be empowered to expand, or try to expand, even further.

I'm not proposing appeasement. I'm proposing to seize on what might be the best chances to weather the conflict with the full knowledge that the West might not keep up the pressure on Russia - which they're only doing half-heartedly at the moment because they spent the last two decades growing fat on Russian oil.

Appeasement (like with Chamberlain), no. The risk is not working to contain Russia.

[Paddy O Fernature]

So... did anyone else see that Ukraine is now selling key chains made from downed Russian aircraft to raise funding for drones and body armor?

[Free Algerstonia]

So... did anyone else see that Ukraine is now selling key chains made from downed Russian aircraft to raise funding for drones and body armor?

YOOOOOOOOO

FIGHTER JET CHAINZ FIGHTER JET CHAINZ DRIP POPPIN YAH

[Picairn]

An independent legal analysis found that Russia is in breach of Article II and III(c) of the Genocide Convention. This means that Russia is potentially guilty of incitement to commit genocide, and a pattern of genocide can be found from its mass killings and war crimes against civilians.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

So... did anyone else see that Ukraine is now selling key chains made from downed Russian aircraft to raise funding for drones and body armor?

I am suspicious. Please check them out first. It looks like a con to me.

[Pacific Federal State]

How likely is Putin to give the order to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine as a last ditch attempt at winning if he feels he is about to lose the war? High or unlikely?

[Democratic Communist Federation]

How likely is Putin to give the order to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine as a last ditch attempt at winning if he feels he is about to lose the war? High or unlikely?

I don't think we have enough data to make a prediction.

[Infected Mushroom]

India joins China in buying up record barrels of Russian oil.

[Bear Stearns]

this war could be ended right now if president thompson revealed the truth about the miami attacks. but obviously she won't. ever since secretary of state suarez was murdered for leaking information on vice president smith's corruption, she's doubled down and sent more men to the meat grinder.

not cool.

[Infected Mushroom]

The argument frequently put out by the "anti-appeasers" is that Ukraine should retake Crimea and the 2 republics, even at an enormous cost in men and material, to show Russia that it will not allow Russia to be emboldened by territorial gains and restart the war at a later date.

Here's a problem: This maximalist scenario can also provide Russia a powerful motivator to restart the war in the future: revanchism. The French spent 40 years simmering in anger at the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, and revanchism gripped France's political theater all the way until WW1. Can we be assured that the Russian nationalists would not see the loss of these territories as a humiliation and seek revenge? Of course not.

There is a high chance that Putin may be deposed and replaced with someone even worse or God forbid, a full-throated fascist. We may see an even more aggressive Russia, motivated by revenge, trying to solve its problems by force. Recall that Yeltsin's defeat in the First Chechen War took a blow to his popularity and, together with the 1998 financial crisis, led to the rise of Putin. So if history tells us anything, that situation can repeat once more with worse consequences.

So long as the current Russian political and military institutions remain in place, I don't see how Russia can be deterred from trying again. Obviously, trying to occupy Russia is out of the question.

I'm partial to Fahran's suggestion of ceding Crimea & the 2 republics, refusing to demilitarize, and joining NATO & EU as the "best" proposal for Ukraine (throw in the gradual lifting of sanctions to sweeten the deal). But I don't think Russia is willing to accept Ukraine as a NATO member. So we're left with reviving the Budapest Memorandum, unless Ukraine can reverse its fortune on the military front.

I think this is well-argued. I can definitely see something similar to this being reached as a working agreement between the two sides.

However, I think Russia would insist on No-NATO and No-EU (in addition to more land). That’s the main issue.

[The Lone Alliance]

The argument frequently put out by the "anti-appeasers" is that Ukraine should retake Crimea and the 2 republics, even at an enormous cost in men and material, to show Russia that it will not allow Russia to be emboldened by territorial gains and restart the war at a later date.

Here's a problem: This maximalist scenario can also provide Russia a powerful motivator to restart the war in the future: revanchism. The French spent 40 years simmering in anger at the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, and revanchism gripped France's political theater all the way until WW1. Can we be assured that the Russian nationalists would not see the loss of these territories as a humiliation and seek revenge? Of course not.

Any sort of peace treaty that doesn't result in the complete conquest of Ukraine will still lead to Russia nationalists seeing it as a humiliation and seeking revenge. Have you seen the narrative coming out of Russian nationalist circles? At this point they are demanding complete mobilization and not to stop until all of Ukraine is destroyed. To the Russia nationalist, Ukraine being allowed to exist even as a rump state is seen as a humiliation after the many humiliations that Ukraine has visited on Russia and because to the Russian Nationalist Ukraine belongs to Russia. Ukraine doesn't exist in the Russian Nationalist's mind, especially when Russia put out article after article about how Ukraine isn't real and how Ukraine must be brought back into the fold. If Ukraine is allowed to live then that's a crippling blow for Russian pride and prestige, and the idea that Putin will somehow be able to soothe the Nationalist rage by offering them Donbass and maybe Kherson and Mariupol as a consolation prize, that's not going to cut it.

There is a high chance that Putin may be deposed and replaced with someone even worse or God forbid, a full-throated fascist. We may see an even more aggressive Russia, motivated by revenge, trying to solve its problems by force. Recall that Yeltsin's defeat in the First Chechen War took a blow to his popularity and, together with the 1998 financial crisis, led to the rise of Putin. So if history tells us anything, that situation can repeat once more with worse consequences.

At this point Putin himself is likely not going to survive this war even if he does somehow get some sort of concession treaty out of Ukraine. History will repeat, Russia will be back to finish the job no matter what treaty Ukraine signs, it might not even matter if Ukraine somehow joins NATO, Russia's nationalist belief that Ukraine belongs to them will not be stopped by treaties, they will believe,that the threat of Russian nukes mean that the West will inevitably surrender Ukraine to Russia out of fear of nuclear holocaust. And if nuclear blackmail works in Ukraine why stop there?

From all appearances Russia has completely abandoned the concept of Soft Power for Hard power, force is the only thing Russia has left, they have no credibility, they have no international respect from anyone who matters, the few countries who support them are even more brutal than they are, and even China has hesitance about Russia's future political sanity. The only card Russia has left is military force, economic force is degrading day by day, and even if they buddy up to China, China isn't going to embargo the rest of the world on behalf of Russian pride.

And as long as Russia is convinced, despite all evidence, that their military might is still potent enough to win, whatever existing peace will only be a delay, Russia will be back, at least until their population shrinks and the economy continues to decline, and then Russia is going to resort to the only thing they'll have left, nuclear blackmail.

So long as the current Russian political and military institutions remain in place, I don't see how Russia can be deterred from trying again. Obviously, trying to occupy Russia is out of the question.

Except you pointed out that it's highly unlikely that whatever changes that happen to the Russian political and military institutions will be for the better. Russia is on a path of self destruction and I don't see them coming out of it because of their own pride.

Really at this point I see war with Russia as a concept of When, not If. Unless the West caves and surrenders to Russia's nuclear blackmail which point Russia will be allowed to do whatever they want simply by threatening to kill all life on earth if they don't get what they want.

I'm partial to Fahran's suggestion of ceding Crimea & the 2 republics, refusing to demilitarize, and joining NATO & EU as the "best" proposal for Ukraine (throw in the gradual lifting of sanctions to sweeten the deal). But I don't think Russia is willing to accept Ukraine as a NATO member. So we're left with reviving the Budapest Memorandum, unless Ukraine can reverse its fortune on the military front.

How likely is Putin to give the order to use a tactical nuclear weapon against Ukraine as a last ditch attempt at winning if he feels he is about to lose the war? High or unlikely?

I don't think we have enough data to make a prediction.

I think one Understanding War strategy paper proposed that Russia's strategy is to advance to the point where it's army will be at the point of collapse at which point Russia will declare all of it's conquered territory to be Russian territory and state that any Ukrainian counteroffensive to be a direct threat and invasion of the Russian nation which means Russia will have full right to respond with nuclear weapons on Europe.

It sounds like a crazy theory but really Russia's not going to be able to conquer every square inch of Ukraine with the forces it has now and I really doubt Ukraine will run out of people before Russia runs out of fighters since it's clear Russia isn't going to push for Mobilization.

Of course that might be the alternative, push to the limit, then say any counterattack will be met with full mobilization, I see that far more likely than a threat for nuclear extermination. But that'll still likely just be a frozen conflict until Russia can push for Round two.

[Latvijas Otra Republika]

You don't concede anything to a country like Russia. They'll just take that as an opportunity to take more, more, and more in the future. Their neighbors have basically said as much. Also pretty sure like...history says as much.

This is why I emphasized ceding territory that had already been effectively lost, refusing to demilitarize, and gaining admission to NATO as soon as possible. If Ukraine can scrape by losing a couple Russian-majority regions that have been flattened by artillery bombardments and occupied by the Russian military, it's far from the worst possible outcome.

The problem of course is that Ukraine can't assume Russia will negotiate in good faith because at no point in its history as a coherent state has Russia negotiated in good faith with anyone it desires the territory of or who it considers or has ever considered its de jure client-state, something Ukrainians, like most other people in Eastern Europe, know perfectly well.

This isn't really true. You're pulling a handful of examples, mostly related to Ukraine and Georgia, and extrapolating a broad principle from them. And I'm not certain Putin's doctrine of frozen conflicts can be generalized in that way - even supposing one might characterize it in such terms.

Cede territory and then what? Wait till the next conflict so they get more land, the thing the west has allowed since Chechnya (wow it clearly works!)

[Picairn]

Any sort of peace treaty that doesn't result in the complete conquest of Ukraine will still lead to Russia nationalists seeing it as a humiliation and seeking revenge. Have you seen the narrative coming out of Russian nationalist circles? At this point they are demanding complete mobilization and not to stop until all of Ukraine is destroyed. To the Russia nationalist, Ukraine being allowed to exist even as a rump state is seen as a humiliation after the many humiliations that Ukraine has visited on Russia and because to the Russian Nationalist Ukraine belongs to Russia. Ukraine doesn't exist in the Russian Nationalist's mind, especially when Russia put out article after article about how Ukraine isn't real and how Ukraine must be brought back into the fold. If Ukraine is allowed to live then that's a crippling blow for Russian pride and prestige, and the idea that Putin will somehow be able to soothe the Nationalist rage by offering them Donbass and maybe Kherson and Mariupol as a consolation prize, that's not going to cut it.

You've established that the Russian nationalists are extremists and can not be negotiated with. The problem is that this undermines the anti-appeasers' argument, not the opposite. You have at best argued that neither the maximalist scenario which the anti-appeasers championed nor the cession of territory can placate the Russian nationalists' extreme demands, which means that Ukraine is screwed regardless.

However, you make the assumption that the nationalists will still be highly influential in Russian politics and among the Russian people in case of victory as much as defeat. With a partial Pyrrhic victory, Putin can present to the populace at large that he has delivered results and thereby mostly (hopefully) mollify nationalist sentiment. In the maximalist scenario, the Russian nationalists will be far more advantageous, riding on the exploding post-defeat wave of revanchist sentiments to the high offices. I need not tell you how dangerous that is. We are looking at a real scenario of Russia going full fascist (yes, it can get worse). Not even the machines of state propaganda can downplay or cover up the loss of Crimea and the 2 republics.

At this point Putin himself is likely not going to survive this war even if he does somehow get some sort of concession treaty out of Ukraine. History will repeat, Russia will be back to finish the job no matter what treaty Ukraine signs, it might not even matter if Ukraine somehow joins NATO, Russia's nationalist belief that Ukraine belongs to them will not be stopped by treaties, they will believe,that the threat of Russian nukes mean that the West will inevitably surrender Ukraine to Russia out of fear of nuclear holocaust. And if nuclear blackmail works in Ukraine why stop there?

Treaties are signed to achieve immediate peace and cessation of hostilities, not a permanent binding document that outlaws war between signatory states forever. Any country that isn't prepared for a betrayal scenario should consider an overhaul of its foreign affairs department. What is good about signing a peace treaty is that for a short or long term, Ukraine will have respite from the destruction of the conflict, and can be better prepared for the next war should it come. Same goes for Russia, I suppose, but permanent conflict is a feature not exclusive to Eastern Europe (China-Vietnam, Middle East, India-Pakistan, etc.). Joining NATO can be a long-term solution to this impasse, which is why I'm supportive of Fahran's proposal. The biggest problem with "nuclear blackmail" is nuclear deterrence. The US, UK, and France can collectively issue a threat that any Russian nuke dropped on NATO territory will be responded to in kind, and Russia will be left debating whether it wants to follow through with its threat with all the risks of ending the world. You'll notice already that aside from the propagandists on TV, Putin's government has not formally threatened the US and NATO with "submit to us or get nuked". They didn't even do that before the invasion, when Putin loudly demanded that NATO pulled back from Eastern Europe. So why exactly would they try an unfeasible strategy? In fact, why aren't they doing that now if they think nuclear blackmail is working? It seems to me that NATO is still valuable, especially when Putin hasn't threatened it with nuclear blackmail or a show of force on the border, nor has it attempted to stop Sweden and Finland from joining.

From all appearances Russia has completely abandoned the concept of Soft Power for Hard power, force is the only thing Russia has left, they have no credibility, they have no international respect from anyone who matters, the few countries who support them are even more brutal than they are, and even China has hesitance about Russia's future political sanity. The only card Russia has left is military force, economic force is degrading day by day, and even if they buddy up to China, China isn't going to embargo the rest of the world on behalf of Russian pride.

No, but China will continue to provide life support to the Russian economy, floating it barely enough for Russia to continue as a limping power. India is also purchasing Russian oil from what I've heard. In fact, the world is split into three blocs, two of which are neutral or supportive of Russia, which means both of them will continue to have business with it. I don't see Russia collapsing as a nationstate any time soon, nor will it degrade into history like the UK.

And as long as Russia is convinced, despite all evidence, that their military might is still potent enough to win, whatever existing peace will only be a delay, Russia will be back, at least until their population shrinks and the economy continues to decline, and then Russia is going to resort to the only thing they'll have left, nuclear blackmail.

There is nothing to stop Russia from trying again, even the loss of Crimea & DNR/LPR. If anything, that will inflame it even more. Occupation of Russia is out of the question, so we're stuck with dealing with Russia as a hostile power for a long time. I prefer not to let things slide into even worse outcomes from the already terrible reality we're living in.

Except you pointed out that it's highly unlikely that whatever changes that happen to the Russian political and military institutions will be for the better. Russia is on a path of self destruction and I don't see them coming out of it because of their own pride.

I said that it can get worse with a future change in leadership in the maximalist scenario, reinforced by revanchist sentiment and the current institutions. Dismantling them completely might be the only permanent solution to stop the overflowing Russian nationalist undercurrent from screwing us all, but it's completely unworkable with nukes still in charge.

Really at this point I see war with Russia as a concept of When, not If. Unless the West caves and surrenders to Russia's nuclear blackmail which point Russia will be allowed to do whatever they want simply by threatening to kill all life on earth if they don't get what they want.

So you're saying that we are going to be screwed with a final nuclear exchange between two nuclear powers regardless. How great, I must find a bunker.