Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%(metaculus.com)
metaculus.com
Prediction that Kyiv falls to Russian forces by April 2022 goes from 90% to 26%
https://www.metaculus.com/questions/9939/kyiv-to-fall-to-russian-forces-by-april-2022/
418 comments
My partners and I have a couple hundred employees in Dnipro, Ukraine. Most of the employees have relocated to Poland or western Ukraine, some are sheltering in place, some are fighting. We started to source supplies last week, especially for those who are sheltering in place or fighting. During discussions with various parties across the supply chain it became clear that an enormous effort was underway by hundreds/thousands of organizations (Governments, NGOs, companies, individuals) to flood Ukraine with every conceivable item they might need to support combat operations. Almost all of the commercially available weapons systems, ammunition, and body armor that we could find was already headed to Ukraine. We decided to focus on battlefield/first responder medical kits and supplies since those items were needed, but hadn't been mobilized as much. "Soldiers win battles, logistics wins wars." I heard that last week and it stuck with me.
They are also getting fresh soldiers.
I saw a claim from a Canadian vet in Kyiv that 40,000 foreign fighters were already in Kyiv. The Canadian was part of a 500-man exclusively Canadian urban battalion. There was also a report on BBC that Russia had summoned foreign ambassadors in Moscow to complain about foreign volunteers traveling to Ukraine to fight against Russia [1].
I've also been on Telegram channels helping American vets organize, fund their flights to Poland, equip, and then drive them to the Ukrainian border.
These are highly motivated well equipped men - many are veterans. Assuming these data points are accurate, then Russia's odds of victory are going down by the day as more western men and supplies enter Ukraine each day than Russian men and supplies.
[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/west-sends-mercenaries-to-fi...
I saw a claim from a Canadian vet in Kyiv that 40,000 foreign fighters were already in Kyiv. The Canadian was part of a 500-man exclusively Canadian urban battalion. There was also a report on BBC that Russia had summoned foreign ambassadors in Moscow to complain about foreign volunteers traveling to Ukraine to fight against Russia [1].
I've also been on Telegram channels helping American vets organize, fund their flights to Poland, equip, and then drive them to the Ukrainian border.
These are highly motivated well equipped men - many are veterans. Assuming these data points are accurate, then Russia's odds of victory are going down by the day as more western men and supplies enter Ukraine each day than Russian men and supplies.
[1] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/west-sends-mercenaries-to-fi...
>There was also a report that Russia had summoned foreign ambassadors in Moscow to complain about foreign volunteers traveling to Ukraine to fight against Russia.
I am absolutely dying laughing at the absurdity of such a complaint (if true), lol.
I am absolutely dying laughing at the absurdity of such a complaint (if true), lol.
Unfortunately, it is a big point of Russian internal propaganda which demonizes it into foreign "soldiers of fortune", "mercenaries" coming to fight Russia, basically they are making it into an additional point of how Russia in this war is basically defending itself from foreign invasion. "Ukraine is being pumped up with foreign weapons and mercenaries!". Unfortunately Russians are eating it.
As a glaring example of how gullible are Russians to their propaganda - this official Russian TV story shows planes with unguided dumb bombs (FAB-250, 500lbs) with which Russia bombs Ukrainian cities, and they call it "high-precision missiles" and "point-precision weapons" with which Russia supposedly strikes only military targets (while any Russian can find, yet wouldn't, on YouTube the videos of Ukraine cities destruction by those bombs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrekdY2FgD0 , yet if you talk to a Russian in Russia they will be screaming that they only "precision-strike only military targets".
As a glaring example of how gullible are Russians to their propaganda - this official Russian TV story shows planes with unguided dumb bombs (FAB-250, 500lbs) with which Russia bombs Ukrainian cities, and they call it "high-precision missiles" and "point-precision weapons" with which Russia supposedly strikes only military targets (while any Russian can find, yet wouldn't, on YouTube the videos of Ukraine cities destruction by those bombs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrekdY2FgD0 , yet if you talk to a Russian in Russia they will be screaming that they only "precision-strike only military targets".
This is actually relatively comforting to me. Putler is at least trying to say they are using precision strikes.
A lot harder to uphold once a tactical nuke is used... My worry after the world is so blatently defying Putler with MiGs & other armarments...
A lot harder to uphold once a tactical nuke is used... My worry after the world is so blatently defying Putler with MiGs & other armarments...
Russia claims their SVP-24 bomb sight with integrated computer enables high precision (3-4m accuracy) bombing with dumb bombs
That obvious lie just like that missile launch in the video by a plane loaded only with bombs. That is technically impossible, and if that were possible you wouldn't use 500lbs bombs as it makes the precision pointless.
That is the same unit - the same planes and pilots - who did similar bombing of civilians in Syria cities back then. On February 5 Ukraine shot down one of those planes when it was bombing the city of Chernigov. The pilot was captured - happened to be the guy infamous for his Syrian cities bombings and who was celebrated by Putin for that. https://www.unian.net/war/bombil-mirnyy-gorod-letchika-so-sb...
That is the same unit - the same planes and pilots - who did similar bombing of civilians in Syria cities back then. On February 5 Ukraine shot down one of those planes when it was bombing the city of Chernigov. The pilot was captured - happened to be the guy infamous for his Syrian cities bombings and who was celebrated by Putin for that. https://www.unian.net/war/bombil-mirnyy-gorod-letchika-so-sb...
Nobody cares about Russian internal propaganda at this point.
Meanwhile Russia is busy trying to recruit foreign soldiers themselves from Kazakhstan and Syria. Kazakhstan told them no, despite begging Russia to send their troops into their country when riots broke out a few months ago.
It's one thing to agree to remain in Russia's sphere and offer them some favorable deals -- quid pro quo for the riot thing -- but it's another thing to scrape up your own people to die in someone else's war.
Plus the experience of the Chechen volunteers -- who generally got hit hard from the looks of it -- is something the Kazakhs can look at and say "nah".
Plus the experience of the Chechen volunteers -- who generally got hit hard from the looks of it -- is something the Kazakhs can look at and say "nah".
Chechen volunteers now seem to be leaning towards fighting against Russia https://www.newsflare.com/video/482085/chechen-volunteers-to...
I hope every single ambassador said "they're on holiday".
I was thinking this every time I read the news back when Putin was saying this.
“This kind of French passport, Ukrainian soldier papers, you can buy in any hobby story”.
What do you consider funny about it?
I suppose it is the difference between officially being at war and not. If some country sends fighters to support your enemy, you may start asking if you are at war with that other country, after all?
So would you say it would be funny if Canada was officially at war with Russia now?
Unless Russia gives up, WWIII seems to already have started, as most countries have joined in one way or another. I guess the only hope is that Russia will decide that the cost is too high.
I suppose it is the difference between officially being at war and not. If some country sends fighters to support your enemy, you may start asking if you are at war with that other country, after all?
So would you say it would be funny if Canada was officially at war with Russia now?
Unless Russia gives up, WWIII seems to already have started, as most countries have joined in one way or another. I guess the only hope is that Russia will decide that the cost is too high.
There is a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine.
Obviously the real world has more complexity than that. "Complain about it" could mean "We know about your tax incentives driving your citizens to fight us and we want you to end that program" but is more likely to mean "We want you to police your internal borders and prevent your citizens from traveling to Europe"
Obviously the real world has more complexity than that. "Complain about it" could mean "We know about your tax incentives driving your citizens to fight us and we want you to end that program" but is more likely to mean "We want you to police your internal borders and prevent your citizens from traveling to Europe"
> a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine.
and a legal quagmire. I wonder if a canadian citizen who murders someone overseas can be tried for such in canada (when they return). Because if they can be, then going overseas to participate in a war can be legally problematic, esp. unauthorized by the canadian gov't.
But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!
and a legal quagmire. I wonder if a canadian citizen who murders someone overseas can be tried for such in canada (when they return). Because if they can be, then going overseas to participate in a war can be legally problematic, esp. unauthorized by the canadian gov't.
But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!
> But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that subjecting people to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they claim residence regardless of where their actions take place would be "bad precedence"?
In the case where an individual who claims residence in Jurisdiction A (where murder is illegal) travels to and commits murder in Jurisdiction B (where murder is illegal).
Clearly some form of "double jeopardy" would be bad and odd cases with conflicting laws can get complex.
But, overall, the notation that you abide by all laws of the land in which you claim citizenship as well as the land in which you currently physically occupy seems to be a "good precedence".
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that subjecting people to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they claim residence regardless of where their actions take place would be "bad precedence"?
In the case where an individual who claims residence in Jurisdiction A (where murder is illegal) travels to and commits murder in Jurisdiction B (where murder is illegal).
Clearly some form of "double jeopardy" would be bad and odd cases with conflicting laws can get complex.
But, overall, the notation that you abide by all laws of the land in which you claim citizenship as well as the land in which you currently physically occupy seems to be a "good precedence".
Most laws apply to people within the territory of a country, not to citizens of that country wherever they may be, and extradition typically is used when the law was broken in some country and the offender fled, not when the offense was committed elsewhere. For what it's worth, I think the counter-examples are a worrying trend.
Is there a good reason why any country willing to claim you as a citizen should have a right to police you wherever you are in the world? In context, if Russia decided that all current Ukrainians were Russian citizens should they be allowed to continue the invasion (which at that point would just be ordinary police work quelling an internal rebellion)?
Is there a good reason why any country willing to claim you as a citizen should have a right to police you wherever you are in the world? In context, if Russia decided that all current Ukrainians were Russian citizens should they be allowed to continue the invasion (which at that point would just be ordinary police work quelling an internal rebellion)?
I think the key factor here is individual consent.
Russia cannot just declare that every person is a Russian citizen and therefor subject to Russian laws. (I mean... they can but it would obviously be in bad faith)
But it does make sense that people who themselves claim and hold Russian citizenship be subject to Russian laws and that if they do not wish to be so, they renounce their citizenship.
Russia cannot just declare that every person is a Russian citizen and therefor subject to Russian laws. (I mean... they can but it would obviously be in bad faith)
But it does make sense that people who themselves claim and hold Russian citizenship be subject to Russian laws and that if they do not wish to be so, they renounce their citizenship.
One might hope that consent would be the defining feature, but that's not how citizenship currently works. People become accidental citizens all the time, and the process for undoing the harm that causes is often lengthy and expensive.
>If some country sends fighters...
Canada itself is not sending them, that is the distinction here. The humor is in a country exercising hostility by invading another country then asking people to stop coming to that country's defense, simple as that.
Canada itself is not sending them, that is the distinction here. The humor is in a country exercising hostility by invading another country then asking people to stop coming to that country's defense, simple as that.
The irony simply comes from the "little green men" i.e. the Russian "volunteers" sent in Crimea/East Ukraine who were suspiciously well equipped and organized, almost like they were Russian Army military units in all but names.
As for the "country" sending fighters, in this instance, it's miss-representative. These are legit volunteers acting on there own initiatives outside of any government's call to arm, a bit like the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil war.
Lastly, Putin is a gambler, but not an idiot nor a lunatic wanting to end the world nor a leader in a desperate situation. He made a gamble in Ukraine because he knew he could somewhat get away with it (even if things are not exactly going according to plan).
He will not start a global/nuclear conflict over a silly matter like few hundreds foreign combatants acting on their own initiative, which doesn't mean he will not posture against it.
As for the "country" sending fighters, in this instance, it's miss-representative. These are legit volunteers acting on there own initiatives outside of any government's call to arm, a bit like the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil war.
Lastly, Putin is a gambler, but not an idiot nor a lunatic wanting to end the world nor a leader in a desperate situation. He made a gamble in Ukraine because he knew he could somewhat get away with it (even if things are not exactly going according to plan).
He will not start a global/nuclear conflict over a silly matter like few hundreds foreign combatants acting on their own initiative, which doesn't mean he will not posture against it.
Eventually the question becomes "if these guest fighters are successful, at what point do they consider going north through the contested border and attacking Russian (or, more likely, Belurussian) cities?"
As a Ukrainian whose relatives are being bombed and whose friends are currently enlisted - I sure hope they won't consider that at all. The only actions performed outside the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine should be in aid of stopping the invasion of Ukraine. Bombing troops and launch sites - yes. Attacking Russian servicemen wherever they can be reached - yes. Occupying even an inch of Russia - hell no.
Ukraine should even refrain from retaking Crimea militarily if things go well, unless it's virtually bloodless. This war has to end ASAP, and it won't end ASAP if Russians suddenly have a non-absurd reason to defend their land.
Ukraine should even refrain from retaking Crimea militarily if things go well, unless it's virtually bloodless. This war has to end ASAP, and it won't end ASAP if Russians suddenly have a non-absurd reason to defend their land.
> and it won't end ASAP if Russians suddenly have a non-absurd reason to defend their land.
This is an important point. This is why we should keep reiterating to the Russian people that the sanctions are not to spite them and will be revoked immediately if Putin is gone.
This is an important point. This is why we should keep reiterating to the Russian people that the sanctions are not to spite them and will be revoked immediately if Putin is gone.
They can not and must not be revoked. This will allow Russia to build up its army again. Give them 5 maybe 10 years and they will start a new war. We must keep Russia isolated for as long as they are a fascist state. If Russia gives up Putin to be trailed in the international court for war crimes then we can lift the sanctions, not earlier.
They won't be revoked if the attitude doesn't change. If Putin is just replaced by another person like him (there are several) then that doesn't help things.
... and hostilities cease.
-At that point, of course, they'd meet resistance from Russian forces which suddenly _have_ a good reason to fight, likely also being supported by a population which will not be thrilled at a bunch of mercenaries having a go at their homeland.
Kicking a poorly motivated invasion force out of the Ukraine is one thing.
Wreaking havoc in Russia? Quite another.
Now, Belarus, on the other hand, I could see toppling over in such a way (unless propped up by Russia)
Kicking a poorly motivated invasion force out of the Ukraine is one thing.
Wreaking havoc in Russia? Quite another.
Now, Belarus, on the other hand, I could see toppling over in such a way (unless propped up by Russia)
I was actually reading some analysis from a military strategist who was quite critical of the foreign fighters. Essentially his arguments were that they are much more driven by idiology (and different ones) and thus less easy to follow orders and be controlled, which could lead to unwanted escalation.
Not sure what to make of it, but people are definitely thinking about this.
Not sure what to make of it, but people are definitely thinking about this.
when you say driven by ideology, you mean they are neo-nazis ?
> when you say driven by ideology, you mean they are neo-nazis ?
Could be all over the ideological spectrum. Surely quite a few Neo-Nazis, yes, but: If you're a fervent anti-Nazi who sees Putin as rather equivalent to a fascist (I pretty much do; a kind of Duginian pan-Slavo-fascism), you could AFAICS go fight against the Russians on those grounds too.
Could be all over the ideological spectrum. Surely quite a few Neo-Nazis, yes, but: If you're a fervent anti-Nazi who sees Putin as rather equivalent to a fascist (I pretty much do; a kind of Duginian pan-Slavo-fascism), you could AFAICS go fight against the Russians on those grounds too.
Belarus may be at a higher risk here, the local army is weak and the political opposition was quite strong last election.
When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard
Probably not at all. I doubt there will be any will to invade Russia. Crimea and Donbas would be hard enough.
Aye. Attackers need 3-to-1 to overpower defenders, unless you've got some serious force-multipliers -- or so goes the thinking.
UA forces are doing a good job holding out and fighting defensively, but a genuine attack will require serious concentrations of troops and equipment. Outside of local counterattacks, or maybe special forces raids (blow up rail lines, etc), large scale assaults probably aren't feasible.
You only need a few NLAWs and a yoga mat to sleep on if you're fighting in Kherzon, but you'll need a lot of fighting vehicles and gas if you want to launch an offensive. See also: Russian logistical problems.
UA forces are doing a good job holding out and fighting defensively, but a genuine attack will require serious concentrations of troops and equipment. Outside of local counterattacks, or maybe special forces raids (blow up rail lines, etc), large scale assaults probably aren't feasible.
You only need a few NLAWs and a yoga mat to sleep on if you're fighting in Kherzon, but you'll need a lot of fighting vehicles and gas if you want to launch an offensive. See also: Russian logistical problems.
Ukraine attacking Russia would be akin to Finland attacking the USSR during the Winter War.
It's like a mouse attacking a cat. The mouse might get lucky and survive an attack by a cat, but it has no chance of killing the cat.
Ukraine is also likely to lose all Western support if it attacked Russia.
If they survive at all (which is still very doubtful), they'll likely lick their wounds and try to rebuild their shattered country rather than go on the offensive in Russia proper.
It's like a mouse attacking a cat. The mouse might get lucky and survive an attack by a cat, but it has no chance of killing the cat.
Ukraine is also likely to lose all Western support if it attacked Russia.
If they survive at all (which is still very doubtful), they'll likely lick their wounds and try to rebuild their shattered country rather than go on the offensive in Russia proper.
Finland did not "attack" Russia proper as such, but there were long-range ski patrols trying to cut the Murmansk railway. Also, Mannerheim kept Finnish troops out of the assault on Leningrad; the troops' remit was only to reclaim land taken in 1940. This was a wise move.
Except the cat is a paper tiger in this case. And my point was about mercenaries, not the Ukrainian military.
There's no point in attacking Russian cities or civillian targets. These are fighters specialized in sabotage behind enemy lines and highly mobile guerilla warfare. They make enemy military infrastructure go boom. Just what Ukraine needs right now: turning Russian combat vehicles into wrecks or stuck/abandoned vehicles, sabotaging supply lines.
I propose Ukraine take up 5 Km over the border for a DMZ zone, like in Korea.
I suspect Russia is going to have big problems with revenge-seekers.
I really really hope not. As sad as this is, revenge will only escalate things. We want to be able to have our kids talk to their grandkids about the mistake that happened and that it ended as quickly as it started.
That's really dangerous. I'm not sure that Russia will care to distinguish between current and former military personnel when it considers whether NATO countries have intervened.
Whether Russia considers NATO to have intervened is less a function of whether the facts on the ground justify that assertion, and more a function of whether Russia wants a war with NATO. It will decide based on strategic considerations and manufacture or ignore the facts as necessary to justify its decision.
"Whether Russia considers NATO to have intervened is less a function of whether the facts on the ground justify that assertion, and more a function of whether Russia wants a war with NATO. It will decide based on strategic considerations and manufacture or ignore the facts as necessary to justify its decision."
If that were true, NATO would have at least have sent troops to defend Ukraine.
We know that if NATO uses nukes against Russia, Russia will nuke back.
Nuclear war will also almost certainly result from a direct non-nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia.
Everything short of that is a murky, gray area. We are in uncharted waters, where one wrong move or miscalculation could mean the end of civilization as we know it, and possibly all of humanity.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Russia and the US have already started working through their WW3 contingency plans and watching each other very closely like two gunfighters looking to see who's going to draw first.
The slightest hint of starting to move towards a direct confrontation could quickly and easily result in a corresponding or even more provocative response, and then spiral out of control.
If that were true, NATO would have at least have sent troops to defend Ukraine.
We know that if NATO uses nukes against Russia, Russia will nuke back.
Nuclear war will also almost certainly result from a direct non-nuclear confrontation between NATO and Russia.
Everything short of that is a murky, gray area. We are in uncharted waters, where one wrong move or miscalculation could mean the end of civilization as we know it, and possibly all of humanity.
I wouldn't be surprised if both Russia and the US have already started working through their WW3 contingency plans and watching each other very closely like two gunfighters looking to see who's going to draw first.
The slightest hint of starting to move towards a direct confrontation could quickly and easily result in a corresponding or even more provocative response, and then spiral out of control.
I'm part of a team that does (very small-scale compared to the big NGOs) logistics (food, clothing, baby stuff, hygiene, everything) and provides/mediates shelter in the North East of Germany and sending food, first aid kits and medical supplies to the borders/directly to Ukraine with the supplies and support of the people of the city I'm living in (I'm managing one of the provisional warehouses).
We have bus companies driving people and other things.
If you'd like to work together, I'd love to talk. Petrol has become pretty expensive, so pooling resources makes a lot of sense.
95% of everything is logistics. Fully agree with the quote.
If you'd like to work together, I'd love to talk. Petrol has become pretty expensive, so pooling resources makes a lot of sense.
95% of everything is logistics. Fully agree with the quote.
Yes, happy to talk with anybody involved in similar efforts so definitely reach out. My contact information is in my profile.
We are mostly sourcing supplies from the US at this point. Tampa is our pack/repack and pallet departure point. We have pallet space aboard flights from Florida through Germany to Poland and Romania, available every other day or so. We have trucks in Cluj, Romania but not in Poland. Romanian and Polish Governments have waived customs and we have a direct line for whatever other needs arise - they've been incredibly supportive - perhaps worried about Putin's further ambitions. Someone we know flies with the pallets from US departure and stays with them until they're handed off to someone else we know inside Ukraine who distributes to support and defense units in country. There is a lot of fraud involved in mass mobilization and cross-border transport so this level of accountability is important to us.
Very few people in Ukraine thought Putin would invade, and even if he invaded, almost nobody thought he would cross the Dnieper river (in the south) and make a run for Kiev. The Ukrainians we know, very "ordinary" people, have dug in. There is no concept in their minds of a negotiated peace that leaves Russia in control of Ukraine. They would rather fight it out. As a result it feels like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. We are focused on combat medical supplies at this point but as time drags on there will no doubt be a great need for food, clothing, and similar items you mentioned.
We are mostly sourcing supplies from the US at this point. Tampa is our pack/repack and pallet departure point. We have pallet space aboard flights from Florida through Germany to Poland and Romania, available every other day or so. We have trucks in Cluj, Romania but not in Poland. Romanian and Polish Governments have waived customs and we have a direct line for whatever other needs arise - they've been incredibly supportive - perhaps worried about Putin's further ambitions. Someone we know flies with the pallets from US departure and stays with them until they're handed off to someone else we know inside Ukraine who distributes to support and defense units in country. There is a lot of fraud involved in mass mobilization and cross-border transport so this level of accountability is important to us.
Very few people in Ukraine thought Putin would invade, and even if he invaded, almost nobody thought he would cross the Dnieper river (in the south) and make a run for Kiev. The Ukrainians we know, very "ordinary" people, have dug in. There is no concept in their minds of a negotiated peace that leaves Russia in control of Ukraine. They would rather fight it out. As a result it feels like it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. We are focused on combat medical supplies at this point but as time drags on there will no doubt be a great need for food, clothing, and similar items you mentioned.
Your operation is amazing, mobilizing air fright is massive. I'll definitely write you, we'll try what we can to support although we're much smaller.
All Ukraine has to do is:
1. Offer immediate provisional citizenship/asylum to anyone who immigrated to fight.
2. Anyone in their prisons, offer them clemency if they agree to fight (bad idea I know but it works)
1. Offer immediate provisional citizenship/asylum to anyone who immigrated to fight.
2. Anyone in their prisons, offer them clemency if they agree to fight (bad idea I know but it works)
> Offer immediate provisional citizenship/asylum to anyone who immigrated to fight.
Ukraine is not a wealthy country. Who might consider citizenship so desirable to risk his life over it?
Ukraine is not a wealthy country. Who might consider citizenship so desirable to risk his life over it?
It would allow those who want to fight to not worry about the repercussions back home. Or at least to lessen them, as they have an escape hatch to at least live in Ukraine afterwards. I imagine a lot of those who volunteered to fight will come back bankrupt, with creditors at their heels and possibly to broken homes. Some of them who come from places like Belarus may even face criminal charges for fighting.
> Who might consider citizenship so desirable to risk his life over it?
For those volunteers who already decided to risk their life for Ukraine that is not an issue. What it does is give them, and the state of Ukraine, an out from accusations of "ruthless soldiers of fortune!" or Western nation-level meddling: "No no, these aren't foreign 'mercenaries', they're our citizens!"
For those volunteers who already decided to risk their life for Ukraine that is not an issue. What it does is give them, and the state of Ukraine, an out from accusations of "ruthless soldiers of fortune!" or Western nation-level meddling: "No no, these aren't foreign 'mercenaries', they're our citizens!"
If Ukraine wins, that Ukraine citizenship is gonna be an EU citizenship in a couple of years.
Very unlikely for Ukraine to be fast tracked before countries which are already on their way to become EU members (like North Macedonia and Albania) and those are 5 years away. A lot of reforms are needed and can't happen overnight especially due to its size and population. It is probably going to happen if Ukraine comes out a winner but we are realistically looking at a decade away.
Riiiight. Why couldn’t they join the EU before the war if that’s the only thing in their way?
Because the EU is -- or at the very least, until the 24th of February, was (but if so, I fear they'll revert to form quite soon) -- a bunch of namby-pamby ditherers and cowards.
Sad to say it, as an EU citizen myself, but that's about it AFAICS.
Sad to say it, as an EU citizen myself, but that's about it AFAICS.
I'm not really sure about 1 (there are already many fighters from over the world), but they did 2. Unfortunately for this war, there aren't that many people in prisons there.
1. Already done, more than 10k foreign people arrived in Ukraine, some are already fighting https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-russ...
2. Already done for people with military experience.
2. Already done for people with military experience.
[deleted]
The Dirty дюжина
What about food?
There is a great risk of massive starvation in besieged Ukranian cities, where it's too dangerous for sheltering civilians to venture out and procure or supply food.
An army marches on its stomach.
I think the question is - is food being mobilized to Ukraine?
Anecdotally, I live in Ireland and a number of locals have mobilised to gather food and medicine to send it to Ukraine. Then I came across this article and now think this is happening across the country: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2022/0308/1285137-ireland-ai...
I wouldn’t be surprise if many other communities in Europe are doing the same. The problem might be getting the aid to the right place.
I wouldn’t be surprise if many other communities in Europe are doing the same. The problem might be getting the aid to the right place.
anecdotally - yes. We bought and brought some stuff following that https://www.facebook.com/lnyuz/posts/5490539337642083 (drop-off in San Jose, some people order stuff from Amazon with delivery right to there), and while i don't see food among the list of requested item, boxes packed with donated food were pretty prominent there (and even though food wasn't mentioned we actually brought food too - long term packaged high calories low weight, we thought that probably that may be needed too and it happened so, seems like many people do that).
> I think the question is - is food being mobilized to Ukraine?
Is the problem with food existence or food transport? My impression is the food problems are in besieged cities.
Is the problem with food existence or food transport? My impression is the food problems are in besieged cities.
> Almost all of the commercially available weapons systems, ammunition, and body armor that we could find was already headed to Ukraine.
Except fighters and drones.
Except fighters and drones.
This sounds like they want their capital destroyed like Grozny. Ukraine got played by the US, which misled it that they will fight together against the Russians.
Information from either side is to be taken with a grain of salt, although Ukraine is winning the social media ops-game hands down.
I think since after the 1st week of troop movements it's pretty clear:
- Russia aims at encircling cities, draining the resistance there, forcing them into negotiations and so that enemy combatants can evacuate into western Ukraine (like they did in Syria)
- Ukraine aims at short-term luring them into cities (e.g. preventing humanitarian corridors, creating negative pr) and long-term building up an insurgency (turning Ukraine into Russia's 2nd Afghanistan).
A recipe for humanitarian disaster.
The upside: Russia doesn't seem intent to even set foot in western Ukraine.
I think since after the 1st week of troop movements it's pretty clear:
- Russia aims at encircling cities, draining the resistance there, forcing them into negotiations and so that enemy combatants can evacuate into western Ukraine (like they did in Syria)
- Ukraine aims at short-term luring them into cities (e.g. preventing humanitarian corridors, creating negative pr) and long-term building up an insurgency (turning Ukraine into Russia's 2nd Afghanistan).
A recipe for humanitarian disaster.
The upside: Russia doesn't seem intent to even set foot in western Ukraine.
>Ukraine aims at short-term luring them into cities (e.g. preventing humanitarian corridors,
In what way is Ukraine "preventing" humanitarian corridors? Ukraine is requesting them daily, but Russian troops keep bombing them and disrupting the evacuation of civilians, daily.
In what way is Ukraine "preventing" humanitarian corridors? Ukraine is requesting them daily, but Russian troops keep bombing them and disrupting the evacuation of civilians, daily.
In Mariupol there are accusations against Azov Battalion that they are preventing people to leave the city. For the defensive side it is useful to have human shield preventing attacks. In the Internet there are also videos of people being shot trying to leave the city.
https://twitter.com/oulosP/status/1498365157747081218
https://twitter.com/oulosP/status/1498365157747081218
Russians shelled civilian infrastructure(water supply, power plant), and shoot everyone who was trying to fix it, they didn't let in humanitarian convoy. They shelled evacuation meeting point. Twice. And placed landmines on evacuation route. They resorted to similar tactics in previous conflicts.
And if you look at how Russians have been behaving themselves ever since this war has started, then you will realize that Azov don't need civilians as a human shield since Russians are willingly shelling and bombing civilians, and have been doing it ever since this war started. Human shield won't stop Russians.
And if you look at how Russians have been behaving themselves ever since this war has started, then you will realize that Azov don't need civilians as a human shield since Russians are willingly shelling and bombing civilians, and have been doing it ever since this war started. Human shield won't stop Russians.
That's the Russian propaganda. The Ukrainian propaganda says the Russians are the ones preventing people from leaving.
Using civilians as shield makes more sense for defenders, not for attackers. Civilians makes harder to shell and bomb places. The exception is if attackers force civilians to march in front of their troops, which is not the case apparently.
Russia mined the path they themselves had designated as a humanitarian corridor before. To target civilians. This is reported from Mariupol.
Please, don't come with conjectures about Ukrainians using civilians as a meat shield, this is either utterly bollocks or you need a pretty convincing source for that statement.
Please, don't come with conjectures about Ukrainians using civilians as a meat shield, this is either utterly bollocks or you need a pretty convincing source for that statement.
>Civilians makes harder to shell and bomb places
Not if you're Russian.
Not if you're Russian.
The (reports are that) Russians are using civilians for target practise and hostages, not human shields.
Reports? There's video all over the internet. Yesterday I saw a video of a solitary civilian car being lit up by machine gun fire before taking a couple shells. I'm told there were accompanying photos of a dead couple in their 80s, which I didn't look at because I want to sleep at night.
>Ukraine aims at short-term luring them into cities (e.g. preventing humanitarian corridors
I'm living relatively close to Ukrainian border, and helped moving Ukrainians further into the country. That's really weird not single one mentioned, that he has issues leaving due to other Ukrainians. Actually exact opposite.
Even weirder multiple people are parroting this today on HN.
I'm living relatively close to Ukrainian border, and helped moving Ukrainians further into the country. That's really weird not single one mentioned, that he has issues leaving due to other Ukrainians. Actually exact opposite.
Even weirder multiple people are parroting this today on HN.
>Even weirder multiple people are parroting this today on HN.
HN is read by many influential Silicon Valley people. It's definitely the target of Russian psyops.
HN is read by many influential Silicon Valley people. It's definitely the target of Russian psyops.
100% this. I remember the USA's "Mission Accomplished" line/speech and the years of American propaganda that followed which said we were doing great things in the middle east. In reality we blew up a lot of people (soldiers and civilians), cities, and spent a shit load of money to accomplish what?
I'm very skeptical of any news coming from either side currently.
I'm very skeptical of any news coming from either side currently.
There's a limit to open mindedness. Ukraine is not "luring [the Russian military] into [its] cities," they're defending their cities from an invading force.
Sure. I'm very skeptical that Ukraine is luring the Russian military into their cities. That is my point. I'm skeptical of news from both sides because there is a lot of propaganda involved in war news.
>Information from either side is to be taken with a grain of salt, although Ukraine is winning the social media ops-game hands down.
At lest in the west where our information is censored to provide a Pro-Ukrainian perspective.
I can only guess at how the social media ops-game is playing out in Russia and China within their own propaganda bubble.
At lest in the west where our information is censored to provide a Pro-Ukrainian perspective.
I can only guess at how the social media ops-game is playing out in Russia and China within their own propaganda bubble.
Can you clarify how are our information censored in the west? Like specifically what kind of information is actively suppressed by a government actor?
I don't have any evidence of government action so I assume it is voluntary. A simple example is I tried to Google search Ukrainian troop locations last weekend and got zero hits.
A number of Wikipedia articles for historic events are also actively being revised
A number of Wikipedia articles for historic events are also actively being revised
> A simple example is I tried to Google search Ukrainian troop locations last weekend and got zero hits.
Starting Feb 24th, every Ukrainian knows to never photograph our troops, never post about location of our troops, and to photograph and post enemy troops as much as possible. That's why you can easily find photos of vehicles marked Z, but it's very hard to find photos of vehicles wearing pixel camo.
Starting Feb 24th, every Ukrainian knows to never photograph our troops, never post about location of our troops, and to photograph and post enemy troops as much as possible. That's why you can easily find photos of vehicles marked Z, but it's very hard to find photos of vehicles wearing pixel camo.
That makes sense.
That doest explain why any loosely related information was scraped from the internet from the dawn of time
That doest explain why any loosely related information was scraped from the internet from the dawn of time
> A simple example is I tried to Google search Ukrainian troop locations last weekend and got zero hits.
Looks like the rumors are true: you Russians are using Google to search for targets. It's hilarious that you're complaining that this is censorship when saying "war" gets you 15 years in gaol in Russia.
Looks like the rumors are true: you Russians are using Google to search for targets. It's hilarious that you're complaining that this is censorship when saying "war" gets you 15 years in gaol in Russia.
I didn't say it was the end of the world.
Just an example of information being delisted from search engines in the west. i.e. censorship.
I don't like my government participating in a war while being censored form learning about what is going in that war from public sources. These could include statements from my own government, past or present.
Just an example of information being delisted from search engines in the west. i.e. censorship.
I don't like my government participating in a war while being censored form learning about what is going in that war from public sources. These could include statements from my own government, past or present.
Well, if the same oligarchies that influences the government by lobby also are the owners of big media companies, you do not need the direct involvement of government to censor the information and you can keep the image of a free press.
Hint: they blame the USA and NATO for Putin invading
I assume you were talking about me. I think blame is a stupid and fruitless framing for discussion. I do think the Eastward advance of NATO was a strategic and moral mistake.
Moral mistake to stand up to a bully?
That is the only reason NATO still exists.
We literally paid hundreds millions of dollars to prop up Russia and their nuke labs during Yeltsin.
Look what it got us. We should have snuffed them out like cockroaches. Instead we let them live. To our detriment.
We needed to keep the boogeyman alive.
That is the only reason NATO still exists.
We literally paid hundreds millions of dollars to prop up Russia and their nuke labs during Yeltsin.
Look what it got us. We should have snuffed them out like cockroaches. Instead we let them live. To our detriment.
We needed to keep the boogeyman alive.
You have to reconsider who is the bully given the number of countries invaded, governments toppled, and civilians killed by the US in the last 30 years.
The US takes the cake in all categories, but of course we aren't a bully, all the people we kill were the bullies. We are the strongest so we define who is a bully or not.
>We should have snuffed them out like cockroaches. Instead we let them live. To our detriment.
yeah, you really sound like the good guy here
The US takes the cake in all categories, but of course we aren't a bully, all the people we kill were the bullies. We are the strongest so we define who is a bully or not.
>We should have snuffed them out like cockroaches. Instead we let them live. To our detriment.
yeah, you really sound like the good guy here
The difference is that the US does not conquer, colonize, or annex the territories where they fight. It's even quite the opposite, since they usually try to give them freedom, independence and long term stability (with variable success and moral standing, but still)...
If that is how you feel about the US motivations and results, then I don't think we will be able to see eye-to-eye on these more specific issue.
I have a much more cynical view of US military interventions, in which they are largely self serving. The ideas of freedom, independence, and stability are platitudes to sell the war, are rarely align with the outcomes for the people in those countries.
The US did a good job of building liberal democracies after WWII, and perhaps up to the Vietnam war. If you look at countries in the last 50 years, the outcomes for the countries the US went into is quite poor.
I have a much more cynical view of US military interventions, in which they are largely self serving. The ideas of freedom, independence, and stability are platitudes to sell the war, are rarely align with the outcomes for the people in those countries.
The US did a good job of building liberal democracies after WWII, and perhaps up to the Vietnam war. If you look at countries in the last 50 years, the outcomes for the countries the US went into is quite poor.
The whataboutism is heavy. The USA aint no saints, but that doesn't absolve putin's invasion. "They did it first, so we should be allowed" isn't a defensible justification for war.
I'm not absolving anyone. It is a fucked situation.
The hypocrisy of people saying they "should have snuffed them out like cockroaches" after 50 years of US atrocities is just astounding.
Russia is a bully, but the US is 10x worse. Ukraine is the looser here.
The US intentionally played them like a pawn and use their lives to get more leverage against Russia.
The hypocrisy of people saying they "should have snuffed them out like cockroaches" after 50 years of US atrocities is just astounding.
Russia is a bully, but the US is 10x worse. Ukraine is the looser here.
The US intentionally played them like a pawn and use their lives to get more leverage against Russia.
I am sorry for the tone of that offensive sentence.
Perhaps I should have expressed the feeling in a more diplomatic wording.
We did have them against the mat and let them up.
Howz that for a PC version.
There was cold war and we could have defeated the opponent.
Instead we funded them.
>There was cold war and we could have defeated the opponent.
What does that mean in concrete terms? An invasion and occupation of Russia after the fall of the USSR? An extermination of the Russian people?
What would a more complete defeat looks like?
What does that mean in concrete terms? An invasion and occupation of Russia after the fall of the USSR? An extermination of the Russian people?
What would a more complete defeat looks like?
> >There was cold war and we could have defeated the opponent.
> What does that mean in concrete terms?
A thorough de-Communistification and collective education into the principles of democratic government and statehood, like the de-Nazification of (West) Germany after WW2.
> An invasion and occupation of Russia after the fall of the USSR?
Would have been preferable, yes; mainly because it would have been required for the above. Which would have meant that under the watchful eyes of a (comparatively enlightened) occupying force, Communism would have been far less likely to be replaced by a kleptocracy -> oligarchy -> neo-Soviet pseudo-fascist rule, which is what we've seen play out in Russia over the last thirty years. (Hm, about one decade per stage of this evolution?)
> An extermination of the Russian people?
If you absolutely want to be ridiculous, go ahead and be ridiculous. Not that comments like that make anyone more negative to the idea, you know.
> What would a more complete defeat looks like?
Pretty much anything would have been preferable to what the Russian people have become: The same as they have always been, a willing herd for autocrats to rule and use.
Isn't it about time for the Russians, too, to try something other than authoritarian rule for once[1] in their thousand years of history? If they can't even catch up to the seventeenth century, what use does the world really have of a "Russian people"? The Golden Horde and the Aztecs are also gone, and nobody seems to be missing them much.
___
[1]: For a bit longer than the two single decades of dithering chaos under, uhm, Kerensky? and of kleptocratic free-for-all under Yeltsin.
> What does that mean in concrete terms?
A thorough de-Communistification and collective education into the principles of democratic government and statehood, like the de-Nazification of (West) Germany after WW2.
> An invasion and occupation of Russia after the fall of the USSR?
Would have been preferable, yes; mainly because it would have been required for the above. Which would have meant that under the watchful eyes of a (comparatively enlightened) occupying force, Communism would have been far less likely to be replaced by a kleptocracy -> oligarchy -> neo-Soviet pseudo-fascist rule, which is what we've seen play out in Russia over the last thirty years. (Hm, about one decade per stage of this evolution?)
> An extermination of the Russian people?
If you absolutely want to be ridiculous, go ahead and be ridiculous. Not that comments like that make anyone more negative to the idea, you know.
> What would a more complete defeat looks like?
Pretty much anything would have been preferable to what the Russian people have become: The same as they have always been, a willing herd for autocrats to rule and use.
Isn't it about time for the Russians, too, to try something other than authoritarian rule for once[1] in their thousand years of history? If they can't even catch up to the seventeenth century, what use does the world really have of a "Russian people"? The Golden Horde and the Aztecs are also gone, and nobody seems to be missing them much.
___
[1]: For a bit longer than the two single decades of dithering chaos under, uhm, Kerensky? and of kleptocratic free-for-all under Yeltsin.
How do you think you would feel about that if you lived in Lithuania?
What price is preventing WW3 worth?
I would say any price, as after WW3 civilization as we know it, if not all of humanity will perish.
It is WW3 that we are edging towards in this war over NATO membership.
I would say any price, as after WW3 civilization as we know it, if not all of humanity will perish.
It is WW3 that we are edging towards in this war over NATO membership.
If the world demonstrates that possession of nuclear weapons is sufficient to ensure safety even while committing indefensible wars of conquest and aggression, then WW3 becomes more likely, not less. Our response to unacceptable behavior by nation-states should be swift and painful.
> It is WW3 that we are edging towards in this war over NATO membership.
It's not a "war over NATO membership"; that's just the Putler-propaganda framing of it.
It's not a "war over NATO membership"; that's just the Putler-propaganda framing of it.
I live in Lithuania and I'm glad we are part of Nato or now we will be the ones invaded by Russia
If I lived in Lithuania I would probably feel very scared of Russia, and not care much about what is good for NATO, the US, and the world. If I thought I would be accepted without repercussions, I would probably want that.
Lithuanians disagrees. This is why they applied for EU and NATO membership as quickly as they can. The Baltic states also was the first to leave the USSR. They always wanted to be free.
Reread my response.
I said if I was Lithuanian I would probably apply. Sounds like they think the way I said they do.
I said if I was Lithuanian I would probably apply. Sounds like they think the way I said they do.
Apply to what? Lithuania has been a NATO member since 2004. This is literally the "eastward advance of NATO" which you referred to as a "moral mistake". You contradict yourself.
You misunderstand.
The question of what is a strategic and moral mistake for this US is entirely separate from what makes Lithuania happy.
If someone asks me how I would feel if I were Russian, Lithuanian, or Chinese I provide an answer from that perspective. That doesn't mean I agree with it or it is moral.
To be absolutely clear, I can understand why Lithuania would want to be part of NATO, but I do not think it was wise or moral for the US to grant such a request.
This is not a radical position, and was held by many NATO members at the time. They required significant persuasion from the US to allow Lithuania entry to NATO.
Similarly, France, Germany, and many NATO countries did not want to open the door to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. They felt that it would lead to war in Europe. Again they were overruled by the US and we got a war in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the largest war in Europe since WW2 today.
The question of what is a strategic and moral mistake for this US is entirely separate from what makes Lithuania happy.
If someone asks me how I would feel if I were Russian, Lithuanian, or Chinese I provide an answer from that perspective. That doesn't mean I agree with it or it is moral.
To be absolutely clear, I can understand why Lithuania would want to be part of NATO, but I do not think it was wise or moral for the US to grant such a request.
This is not a radical position, and was held by many NATO members at the time. They required significant persuasion from the US to allow Lithuania entry to NATO.
Similarly, France, Germany, and many NATO countries did not want to open the door to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. They felt that it would lead to war in Europe. Again they were overruled by the US and we got a war in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the largest war in Europe since WW2 today.
> I can understand why Lithuania would want to be part of NATO, but I do not think it was wise or moral for the US to grant such a request.
> This is not a radical position
Maybe not; only a stupid and morally abhorrent one.
> and was held by many NATO members at the time. They required significant persuasion from the US to allow Lithuania entry to NATO.
Yeah, NATO member states are also capable of holding stupid and morally abhorrent positions.
> Similarly, France, Germany, and many NATO countries did not want to open the door to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. They felt that it would lead to war in Europe.
We'll never know, though, will we? Since Georgia and Ukraine weren't admitted into NATO in (or soon after) 2008, I mean.
> Again they were overruled by the US and we got a war in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the largest war in Europe since WW2 today.
Yup. Judging from the facts, all because Georgia and Ukraine weren't admitted into NATO in (or soon after) 2008. Well, because of that, and mainly because the Russian people keep clinging on to a fucking dictator who does shit like that, of course. Time for a fucking revolution, perhaps? I've heard you've tried one of those before. Pro tip: Try not to replace one fucking dictator with another this time.
> This is not a radical position
Maybe not; only a stupid and morally abhorrent one.
> and was held by many NATO members at the time. They required significant persuasion from the US to allow Lithuania entry to NATO.
Yeah, NATO member states are also capable of holding stupid and morally abhorrent positions.
> Similarly, France, Germany, and many NATO countries did not want to open the door to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. They felt that it would lead to war in Europe.
We'll never know, though, will we? Since Georgia and Ukraine weren't admitted into NATO in (or soon after) 2008, I mean.
> Again they were overruled by the US and we got a war in Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the largest war in Europe since WW2 today.
Yup. Judging from the facts, all because Georgia and Ukraine weren't admitted into NATO in (or soon after) 2008. Well, because of that, and mainly because the Russian people keep clinging on to a fucking dictator who does shit like that, of course. Time for a fucking revolution, perhaps? I've heard you've tried one of those before. Pro tip: Try not to replace one fucking dictator with another this time.
My personal impression is that Russian propaganda targets internal audience mostly, so its not fair to compare it to the Ukranians one.
You'd be surprised. While most people here in Romania are anti-Russia, some believe their propaganda that there's no war in Ukraine. They literally think that all the videos from Ukraine are fake.
It's sort of like the Cambridge Analytica thing. We live in bubbles, and we're unaware that in some bubbles the Russians are completely winning the propaganda war.
The overzealous covid response further fragmented society and led to further distrust of the media. This created a huge opportunity for Russia.
For now, it's not significant enough to matter, but it might come to bite us in the ass.
It's sort of like the Cambridge Analytica thing. We live in bubbles, and we're unaware that in some bubbles the Russians are completely winning the propaganda war.
The overzealous covid response further fragmented society and led to further distrust of the media. This created a huge opportunity for Russia.
For now, it's not significant enough to matter, but it might come to bite us in the ass.
Ukraine is not “luring” Russia into cities. Putin made quite clear he wants a regime change, so Russia must capture major cities to meet its goals. That would be like rephrasing “Thieves robbed bank” to “Bank lured thieves with cash”. That’s some bizarre victim blaming way of phrasing things.
So what are all those Belarusian military doing there at the border?
I think they officially said they were doing exercises and will not invade Ukraine. So no worries.
I think they officially said they were doing exercises and will not invade Ukraine. So no worries.
> The upside: Russia doesn't seem intent to even set foot in western Ukraine.
That seems to have changed since you wrote this five days ago.
That seems to have changed since you wrote this five days ago.
[deleted]
I just have no confidence that we can really know anything for sure one way or another. The media so far (in the West) ranges from tangibly self-conscious to overt propaganda, much of which is proven false a day later. There is no harm in this in itself, propaganda is as much part of the war as any other part, I get that, but I at this point I wouldn't be surprised that Russia is doing much better than what is being reported, or the opposite. I don't know, this is not a bet I would take.
There was a saying in falling Germany in 1944: "each day our victories are closer to Germany than the previous day".
You can follow the bombings, for example: if Kyiv is being shelled (and reported in Russian media), it's not under Russian control. If the shelling last for days, the city is holding.
If some city was being shelled, but there are no more news about it, but the news are a nearby and further city is being shelled, the first city is probably under Russian control.
Following that kind of info, it seems the Russian invasion is crawling, and not running as intended. Russia is not doing much better (but not as bad as "reported" in Reddit, for instance).
You can follow the bombings, for example: if Kyiv is being shelled (and reported in Russian media), it's not under Russian control. If the shelling last for days, the city is holding.
If some city was being shelled, but there are no more news about it, but the news are a nearby and further city is being shelled, the first city is probably under Russian control.
Following that kind of info, it seems the Russian invasion is crawling, and not running as intended. Russia is not doing much better (but not as bad as "reported" in Reddit, for instance).
"It seems the Russian invasion is crawling"
During WW2, the siege of Leningrad lasted 872 days. Ukraine has only been under attack for 13 days.
During WW2, the siege of Leningrad lasted 872 days. Ukraine has only been under attack for 13 days.
US invading Iraq (OIF) is probably a better comparison; that took about a month. And that had openly sympathetic forces, the Kurds and some Shias, willing to tap out quickly. Plus previous wars (Gulf War I) had shown US airpower was absolutely dominant and had fried much of Iraq's hardware on the "highway of Death".
I'm not in favor of Russia but it's clear they're running into much harder resistance than expected, and are really just warming up.
The Russians had to fight two brutal wars in Chechnya, lot of false starts and screw ups... but ~30 years later the Chechens sent 10000 men to fight in Ukraine for the Russians...
I'm not in favor of Russia but it's clear they're running into much harder resistance than expected, and are really just warming up.
The Russians had to fight two brutal wars in Chechnya, lot of false starts and screw ups... but ~30 years later the Chechens sent 10000 men to fight in Ukraine for the Russians...
This isn't WWII. The cost of war these days is insanely high and depends on a constant stream of materials. Losses also occur at a much faster rate. 800 days of drones flying over you with IR scopes means you'd run out of people to shoot at much sooner.
Instead you see things like the US does where you gain air superiority, take out all command and control via decapitation attacks, and then remove all the armor from the map with missiles and aircraft.
Instead you see things like the US does where you gain air superiority, take out all command and control via decapitation attacks, and then remove all the armor from the map with missiles and aircraft.
> Losses also occur at a much faster rate.
USSR in WWII was losing on average about 5000 (five thousand) soldiers per day. So no.
USSR in WWII was losing on average about 5000 (five thousand) soldiers per day. So no.
Russia's losses today would be much higher if they could figure out logistics. Ukraine might be running out of targets on the front lines. /s
More seriously, think about it percentage wise. Russia is losing resources (tanks, missiles, etc) in a hurry. And the floor is not "zero XYZ remaining" otherwise they would have nothing left in the entire country to defend themselves with. They only have what they allocated for their idiotic invasion and no more. Russia may already be running low on cruise missiles based on the relatively peaceful night in Kyiv.
More seriously, think about it percentage wise. Russia is losing resources (tanks, missiles, etc) in a hurry. And the floor is not "zero XYZ remaining" otherwise they would have nothing left in the entire country to defend themselves with. They only have what they allocated for their idiotic invasion and no more. Russia may already be running low on cruise missiles based on the relatively peaceful night in Kyiv.
GP was referring to material loses.
Ukraine shot down 4 Su-34. Russia has 134 of them. It takes years to build them.
In WW2, there were thousands of planes and tanks, but they were unsophisticated and quick to build.
The number of soldiers is also not comparable since modern armies aren't so large anymore.
Ukraine shot down 4 Su-34. Russia has 134 of them. It takes years to build them.
In WW2, there were thousands of planes and tanks, but they were unsophisticated and quick to build.
The number of soldiers is also not comparable since modern armies aren't so large anymore.
Exactly! Once the bombardment is over, the waiting part, which is the most horrible part of the siege will begin.
What are some examples of "propaganda" that proved to be false a day later?
Not what you're asking about, but I'd classify the filtering for what people want to hear as propaganda. Why is so much of the news I see about Ukrainian battle victories while Russians are clearly advancing on multiple fronts? There could easily be more coverage of Russian victories than Ukrainian if we were shown a random sample of phone footage.
I'm not complaining - these things have a tangible effect on morale. But it is propaganda.
I'm not complaining - these things have a tangible effect on morale. But it is propaganda.
Their performance has been abysmal. Russia (who claims that this is not even a war) is not inclined to post losses. It's had some 'wins', but many of those were short-lived and were recaptured. Even less incentive to post it. Which is understandable since it was supposed to be quick and done in a few days.
Ukraine - being the underdog and the invaded country - has every incentive to publish every single tank they destroy. It isn't surprising, really.
There has been coverage on the South, where Russia has had more successes.
Ukraine - being the underdog and the invaded country - has every incentive to publish every single tank they destroy. It isn't surprising, really.
There has been coverage on the South, where Russia has had more successes.
Yeah, I ran into this and was was shocked to see information not just berried, but firewalled.
I wanted to understand the situation and searched "Ukrainian troop locations" in google, bing, DDG, and Yahoo.
One of the first times I have received no results in google. Absolutely blatant censorship.
Ostensibly, google doesn't want to provide intel to Russia, who has ample satellites and combat reports.
It seems a little too convenient that the major consequence is that Americans cant get any information that doesn't support the public narrative.
I wanted to understand the situation and searched "Ukrainian troop locations" in google, bing, DDG, and Yahoo.
One of the first times I have received no results in google. Absolutely blatant censorship.
Ostensibly, google doesn't want to provide intel to Russia, who has ample satellites and combat reports.
It seems a little too convenient that the major consequence is that Americans cant get any information that doesn't support the public narrative.
Yeah, you also will not be able to find locations of any reputable military - that's basic security measure. I know Russian army does not set the bar very high though, so maybe you're not used to that.
yeah, apparently it is a security concern to utter the words anywhere on the internet, in any context.
no "Ukrainian troop locations"... are well positioned, spread out, in the east, overwhelmed, shouldn't be disclosed, ect
0 hits containing the string.
no "Ukrainian troop locations"... are well positioned, spread out, in the east, overwhelmed, shouldn't be disclosed, ect
0 hits containing the string.
Yes it is? You can see similar instructions on hundred years old war-time posters.
You need to add "reddit" on query /s
The incident with the nuclear reactors seemed to involve an administrative building, not the reacor(s) themselves (As far as I can tell, hard to determine the truth from my chair in the USA)
It was reported from the beginning that the fire was in a training building and quickly stopped.
The outrage was that it was close enough.
The outrage was that it was close enough.
It took a little longer, but the mobile crematoria were stated as fact pretty early on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/23/russia-dep...
Who - UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace makes a claim
What - Russian forces have prepared a mobile crematorium for use in any future conflict with Ukraine
Where - Ukraine
Why - to avoid the problems with bringing bodies back
When - Now
There's no claim beyond that, however they do also highlight protests from Russia about missing and dead soldiers
I haven't seen anything debunking such a claim, although I haven't seen anything backing it up either. It's a fact that Wallace made that claim, and the company involved refused to respond.
The Snake Island incident is perhaps a better example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60522454
Which reports that
Who - Ukraine officials say
What - Russia killed their soldiers
Where - Snake Island
Why - to occupy the island
When - Recently
And they also say
Who - Russian officials say
Why - Soldiers surrendered it to them voluntarily
Where - Snake Island
Why - to occupy the island
When - recently
The BBC says the reported audio is unverified
Later events showed that at least some of the soldiers were not killed.
Who - UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace makes a claim
What - Russian forces have prepared a mobile crematorium for use in any future conflict with Ukraine
Where - Ukraine
Why - to avoid the problems with bringing bodies back
When - Now
There's no claim beyond that, however they do also highlight protests from Russia about missing and dead soldiers
I haven't seen anything debunking such a claim, although I haven't seen anything backing it up either. It's a fact that Wallace made that claim, and the company involved refused to respond.
The Snake Island incident is perhaps a better example.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60522454
Which reports that
Who - Ukraine officials say
What - Russia killed their soldiers
Where - Snake Island
Why - to occupy the island
When - Recently
And they also say
Who - Russian officials say
Why - Soldiers surrendered it to them voluntarily
Where - Snake Island
Why - to occupy the island
When - recently
The BBC says the reported audio is unverified
Later events showed that at least some of the soldiers were not killed.
Ghost of Kiev
Snake Island Soldiers Dying Heroically
Nuclear Reactor Shelled, Radiation Rising
Snake Island Soldiers Dying Heroically
Nuclear Reactor Shelled, Radiation Rising
I think you are conflating media and social media. If any of these stories were picked by something like NYT, it would be "here are some examples of local stories going around to strengthen the morale", never as "truth". Actually, even reddit comments were generally "I know the Ghost is made up, it would be silly to believe it, but gosh, it is a good story".
Moreover, the radiation in Chernobil did rise (measurably, but trivially). That has nothing to do with the active nuclear plant where actual fights happened.
Moreover, the radiation in Chernobil did rise (measurably, but trivially). That has nothing to do with the active nuclear plant where actual fights happened.
> you are conflating media and social media
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/ukraine-soldie...
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-snake-island-soldiers-russi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-sold...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/24/russia-ukrai...
I could go on, but you get the point. These were definitely fake stories propagated by the western media as part of their propaganda campaign against Russia. Even if these outlets didn't know they were fake, they also didn't bother to check.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/ukraine-soldie...
https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-snake-island-soldiers-russi...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-sold...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/24/russia-ukrai...
I could go on, but you get the point. These were definitely fake stories propagated by the western media as part of their propaganda campaign against Russia. Even if these outlets didn't know they were fake, they also didn't bother to check.
Every one of the stories you link make it clear that the reports came from Ukranian sources.
Nowhere in these stories do the news outlets claim that the Ukranian reports were independently verified.
So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. These news outlets are reporting what Ukranian sources say, just as they report what Russian sources say.
Nowhere in these stories do the news outlets claim that the Ukranian reports were independently verified.
So I'm not sure what you're complaining about. These news outlets are reporting what Ukranian sources say, just as they report what Russian sources say.
In the first few sentences, they mention these things as facts. And maybe at the fifth or so, it's mentioned that "Ukrainian media reported". It's clear that they are sourcing it from Ukrainian sources, but they present them as facts too.
Did you wanna include the part where outlets corrected themselves? Stories change - you do your best to verify, and then report the change once more information comes out.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/ukraine-island...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/ukraine-island...
Media reporting falsehoods then later correcting them doesn't mean the media isn't reporting falsehoods.
Retractions always - ALWAYS - get less attention than the initial story.
They aren't in the business of spreading truth, they are a business with incentives to gain people's attention.
Retractions always - ALWAYS - get less attention than the initial story.
They aren't in the business of spreading truth, they are a business with incentives to gain people's attention.
Still a big difference with propaganda which is intentionally misleading with an agenda.
For all the mentioned stories it is clear that these weren't drafted up in a backoffice (such as Putin's propaganda about the genocide in eastern Ukraine).
For all the mentioned stories it is clear that these weren't drafted up in a backoffice (such as Putin's propaganda about the genocide in eastern Ukraine).
How is this not propaganda if these news source have a side and put much more positive news for one side than the other?
Donbass is being shelled for 8 years. UN recognizes more than 10,000 deaths in the conflict there. The few journalists that interviewed people there got some interviews that really describes war crimes (watched recently an italian documentary that collected testimonialsthere). Which is not surprising, since neonazi groups were integrated to Ukranian army. You may dispute that this should be classified as genocide, but there are human rights violations happening there and this is not just Russia propaganda.
Donbass is being shelled for 8 years. UN recognizes more than 10,000 deaths in the conflict there. The few journalists that interviewed people there got some interviews that really describes war crimes (watched recently an italian documentary that collected testimonialsthere). Which is not surprising, since neonazi groups were integrated to Ukranian army. You may dispute that this should be classified as genocide, but there are human rights violations happening there and this is not just Russia propaganda.
I stand corrected on half of a story (I am certainly surprised The Guardian did not make it more clear that they are citing Zelensky, the way WaPo did).
The question was about propaganda, which happens on both social media and traditional media.
For your third point I think you are mixing things up.
Zaporizhzhia was shelled and afaik no increase in radiation was mentioned in any news I read. News also stressed that an office building was shelled, not the actual reactor.
Chernobyl there were rumors about a nuclear waste depot being blown up and subsequent increase in radiation. However, it was always mentioned that this could be due to troop movement over contaminated soil and there were never worrying radiation numbers.
Edit: I previously said the control room was on fire but can’t find a source anymore.
Chernobyl there were rumors about a nuclear waste depot being blown up and subsequent increase in radiation. However, it was always mentioned that this could be due to troop movement over contaminated soil and there were never worrying radiation numbers.
Edit: I previously said the control room was on fire but can’t find a source anymore.
If the fighting had been a bit more intense at Zaporizhzhia, a repeat of Fukushima would not be out of the question (reactors shut down but not cold, unlucky shots take out backup power, cooling lost, meltdown from decay heat from fission products).
Only the reactors 5 and 6 were shut down, 1-4 not.
I never heard that the control room was on fire, only that Chechens attached explosives to the reactors.
The shelling was at the training reactor building, and the administrative building was shot at and set on fire.
I never heard that the control room was on fire, only that Chechens attached explosives to the reactors.
The shelling was at the training reactor building, and the administrative building was shot at and set on fire.
You are correct, upon looking for a source I couldn’t find what I had seen earlier. Must have been wrong news :/
Were these reported by mainstream / reputable sources?
I only saw them on social media.
But I did see a source that radiation did rise around Chernobyl, probably due to dust getting kicked up by vehicles and foot traffic.
I only saw them on social media.
But I did see a source that radiation did rise around Chernobyl, probably due to dust getting kicked up by vehicles and foot traffic.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/ukraine-soldie...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/zaporizhzhia-n...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/zaporizhzhia-n...
Still with the power plant? There was a live YouTube stream of Oleg from Vladivostok shelling at whatever. Do you think the guy making $50 a month to die for Putin knows what the hell he is shooting at?
I am not sure if this makes it better or worse - that the army is full of imbecils in charge of deadly weapons, who have no idea how much danger they put everyone in.
I think there's a serious issue in America with 24 hr news networks that feel compelled to shovel every bit of information they think they've got directly onto air unvetted so, personally, my main news source is an hourly show that's been doing a quick twenty minute run-down of news from the last day - preferring to discuss older information that has been more thoroughly vetted.
I saw some memes about the Snake Island Soldiers but never heard serious reporting on their deaths - I only ever heard the location had been compromised. Maybe the issue isn't so much a propaganda mill forcing false facts but the news sources you're choosing to consume. Unless you have family/loved ones in Ukraine there is no reason to try and follow up-to-the minute news - watch the daily shows, read a newspaper or just be a bit more skeptical about what you're ingesting.
I saw some memes about the Snake Island Soldiers but never heard serious reporting on their deaths - I only ever heard the location had been compromised. Maybe the issue isn't so much a propaganda mill forcing false facts but the news sources you're choosing to consume. Unless you have family/loved ones in Ukraine there is no reason to try and follow up-to-the minute news - watch the daily shows, read a newspaper or just be a bit more skeptical about what you're ingesting.
Indeed Ghost of Kiev (if doesn't really exist) is crazy-evil propaganda, comparing to the Russians invading independent country and trying to sell it as "operation" against facism.
Here's a video showing heavy weapons damage to elevated walkways connecting the reactor buildings, showing damage to what looks to me like wiring conduit running through the walkways.
https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1499799810609668106
The focus of the fighting was elsewhere but some projectiles made it very close to the reactor buildings.
Based on comparing the shot out the window with a look on Google Maps this is between units 2 and 3 of the 6 at the plant
https://twitter.com/gbrumfiel/status/1499799810609668106
The focus of the fighting was elsewhere but some projectiles made it very close to the reactor buildings.
Based on comparing the shot out the window with a look on Google Maps this is between units 2 and 3 of the 6 at the plant
The nuclear reactor was shelled. I saw it live.
Doubt it had anything to do with radiation though.
Doubt it had anything to do with radiation though.
It was not shelled, there was a small firefight involving a training building outside the reactor complex. Shelling means artillery. No artillery was involved.
You did not “see the reactor get shelled live.”
You did not “see the reactor get shelled live.”
Not only did the reactor get shelled, and not only did I see it live, but I was so amazed at the Russians’ stupidity that I took screenshots: https://imgur.com/a/6T7p9BD
Those gigantic streaks in the lower right are shells from tanks. They certainly aren’t tracers from rifles.
Those gigantic streaks in the lower right are shells from tanks. They certainly aren’t tracers from rifles.
A good reminder that we should all be screenshotting everything of interest, just in case it won't be believed later.
Could you elaborate why or how you determined/believe that they are tank shots, for the rest of us?
It’s easier to tell in video form. But basically you could see the shells come from the road in the distance (see the bridge?) all the way past the camera. The still frame probably makes it hard to see the scale.
You’re right to press me for details on the “tank” part. I don’t know if the shots are from tanks. But they’re so large that it rules out foot soldiers, so it’s some kind of vehicle-mounted gun.
It’s definitely not the kind of thing you want hitting a nuclear reactor.
You’re right to press me for details on the “tank” part. I don’t know if the shots are from tanks. But they’re so large that it rules out foot soldiers, so it’s some kind of vehicle-mounted gun.
It’s definitely not the kind of thing you want hitting a nuclear reactor.
Could also be shots from weapons mounted on armored vehicles that aren't strictly speaking tanks. Ex-Soviet mechanized forces (both sides in this fight) field a bewildering array of tracked and wheeled vehicles that look more-or-less tank-like but aren't considered tanks because they are much more lightly armored.
They're typically equipped with heavy weapons that are smaller or less powerful than tank main guns but larger than something that could readily be carried by a soldier or two.
Tank misidentification satirized here: https://twitter.com/pascalheyman/status/1088555831187128321
They're typically equipped with heavy weapons that are smaller or less powerful than tank main guns but larger than something that could readily be carried by a soldier or two.
Tank misidentification satirized here: https://twitter.com/pascalheyman/status/1088555831187128321
The reactor buildings are to the left of the camera (out of frame).
The increased radiation is from kicking up dust around Chernobyl
Regardless of that it is incredibly stupid to do any kind of fighting around a nuclear plant.
Regardless of that it is incredibly stupid to do any kind of fighting around a nuclear plant.
> Regardless of that it is incredibly stupid to do any kind of fighting around a nuclear plant.
That goes both ways.
I saw the video from the start of the fighting and that was UA forces who started to fire upon oncoming forces from the building to the right on the video.
If you mount defenses for something vital for the civilians of your country you should always question how exactly to do that to minimize the damage from the fighting.
Given they took positions in the building, started the fight first, had a prerecorded video for Twitter of how they are under attack[0]...
Sure, I'm just an arm-chair general, but for me it looks what the Ukrainian force decided to fight on the NPP territory and buildings.
[0] go find it you if you didn't saw it. I doubt the first thing what would come to my mind as an operator of a NPP is to fire up a video for a social network.
That goes both ways.
I saw the video from the start of the fighting and that was UA forces who started to fire upon oncoming forces from the building to the right on the video.
If you mount defenses for something vital for the civilians of your country you should always question how exactly to do that to minimize the damage from the fighting.
Given they took positions in the building, started the fight first, had a prerecorded video for Twitter of how they are under attack[0]...
Sure, I'm just an arm-chair general, but for me it looks what the Ukrainian force decided to fight on the NPP territory and buildings.
[0] go find it you if you didn't saw it. I doubt the first thing what would come to my mind as an operator of a NPP is to fire up a video for a social network.
> If you mount defenses for something vital for the civilians of your country
In other words, never protect critical civilian infrastructure?
Is that the defense playbook you'd propose?
In other words, never protect critical civilian infrastructure?
Is that the defense playbook you'd propose?
I assume you never even bothered to look at the map? [0]
Like in your playbook there were absolutely no other options there.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5026803,34.5967556,6233m/dat...
Like in your playbook there were absolutely no other options there.
[0] https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5026803,34.5967556,6233m/dat...
There is quite a bit of fear that SVR/FSB is going to fake a dirty bomb incident on UKR soil as a pretext for tactical nukes.
Where did you see that?
I read some Reddit and even there they mentioned eg. The ghost of Kiev is probably fake.
Your other points are also ridiculous. No radiation was rising and there was huge protest against Russians to take the facility. There were definitely fires nearby.
Reports of the nuclear facility ( video + sound) are pretty clear about what happened.
They did mention it is very dangerous to attack a nuclear facility.
I think that's pretty logical....
I read some Reddit and even there they mentioned eg. The ghost of Kiev is probably fake.
Your other points are also ridiculous. No radiation was rising and there was huge protest against Russians to take the facility. There were definitely fires nearby.
Reports of the nuclear facility ( video + sound) are pretty clear about what happened.
They did mention it is very dangerous to attack a nuclear facility.
I think that's pretty logical....
Ghost of Kyiv hasn't been disproven yet; but there was a tiktok that circulated where the battle was "recreated" in a video game.
> There is no harm in this in itself, propaganda is as much part of the war as any other part
Huh? War is incredibly harmful to civilian infrastructure, and propaganda is similarly harmful to our ability to communicate.
Putin's propaganda loves this trope: "we can't know for sure, it's all propaganda, you have no choice but to pick a side. We're totally the good guys though, so be a good little soldier, spread our memes and ignore all other sources".
Contrary to what some people would like you to believe, you can know things without first-hand experience and you can be certain without having 100% proof.
Listening less to known liars also helps.
Huh? War is incredibly harmful to civilian infrastructure, and propaganda is similarly harmful to our ability to communicate.
Putin's propaganda loves this trope: "we can't know for sure, it's all propaganda, you have no choice but to pick a side. We're totally the good guys though, so be a good little soldier, spread our memes and ignore all other sources".
Contrary to what some people would like you to believe, you can know things without first-hand experience and you can be certain without having 100% proof.
Listening less to known liars also helps.
I agree with you.
And I ran a simple experiment on Google News.
I simply removed a news source (using the three dots) when an article presented by it was:
1. Easily proven inaccurate (with a Google search) 2. Pure speculation (no actually reporting of change to “facts on the ground”)
I don’t have a single major news source left in my feed.
I highly recommend curating sources by their trustworthiness.
And I ran a simple experiment on Google News.
I simply removed a news source (using the three dots) when an article presented by it was:
1. Easily proven inaccurate (with a Google search) 2. Pure speculation (no actually reporting of change to “facts on the ground”)
I don’t have a single major news source left in my feed.
I highly recommend curating sources by their trustworthiness.
> no confidence that we can really know anything for sure one way or another
Not only is this true from a general sense of "fog of war" and misinformation, but even in a purely statistical sense, these numbers aren't compelling. As a stats person, both 0.9 and 0.26 are probabilities that basically reflect nothing more than a vague sense how the outcome will go.
In a classical NHST this degree of confidence would not pass even the most lose definitions of "statistical significance".
And in a more Bayesian setting, being 90% and 26% sure of rain both mean you'll bing an umbrella. Having a 90% chance of survival and a 26% chance of survival means are both too risky for almost all scenarios.
But for whatever reason, when predicting things like outcomes of an election or outcomes of a war, people start applying `round` to their probabilities.
At work if I see that I'm either 90% sure or 26%, I report that we still don't have enough information to say anything particularly interesting or to justify any major risks. So even if we had reliable information about the situation, these numbers aren't interesting. Since we don't, they're useless.
Not only is this true from a general sense of "fog of war" and misinformation, but even in a purely statistical sense, these numbers aren't compelling. As a stats person, both 0.9 and 0.26 are probabilities that basically reflect nothing more than a vague sense how the outcome will go.
In a classical NHST this degree of confidence would not pass even the most lose definitions of "statistical significance".
And in a more Bayesian setting, being 90% and 26% sure of rain both mean you'll bing an umbrella. Having a 90% chance of survival and a 26% chance of survival means are both too risky for almost all scenarios.
But for whatever reason, when predicting things like outcomes of an election or outcomes of a war, people start applying `round` to their probabilities.
At work if I see that I'm either 90% sure or 26%, I report that we still don't have enough information to say anything particularly interesting or to justify any major risks. So even if we had reliable information about the situation, these numbers aren't interesting. Since we don't, they're useless.
I am not sure I follow. Are you saying that a 90% chance of not needing an umbrella is the same as a 26% chance?
These are vastly different probabilities which mean that you might be wrong 9 out 10 days, or right 3 out of 4 times.
As another example: I bet most companies would die to turn up conversion rates up even 1 or 2 percent.
When dealing in risk management where probabilities should start in 1 in 10 or 1 in 100, then I could agree that 90% risk of failure isn't to different from 26%.
These are vastly different probabilities which mean that you might be wrong 9 out 10 days, or right 3 out of 4 times.
As another example: I bet most companies would die to turn up conversion rates up even 1 or 2 percent.
When dealing in risk management where probabilities should start in 1 in 10 or 1 in 100, then I could agree that 90% risk of failure isn't to different from 26%.
> These are vastly different probabilities
When it comes to certainty about an outcome (i.e. a hypothesis), they're not really that different. Probabilities are not linear, and start at 0.5. In log-odds terms were talking about 2.19 vs -1.04... not really a shocking amount of information. Sure in terms of gambling odds this might be useful but not for making any concrete statements about the world.
To your point:
> I bet most companies would die to turn up conversion rates up even 1 or 2 percent.
This is talking about two very different things. I would also be happy if I had a known 2 percent increasing in my stock performance. We're talking about quantifying uncertainty (though these criticism hold even in a frequentist frame work). I certainly wouldn't "die for" 2% absolute increase in my confidence about something (unless I'm 98% confident already!)
We're talking about our confidence in a hypothesis. At no company I've worked at would I be anywhere near comfortable stating that a 0.9 probability that A > B is enough to call an A/B test on. I'm going to be very skeptical of any analysis I'm doing if mode coefficients have anywhere near that probability of a sign error.
If you have no other information, then sure if I am 90% confident that one choice is stronger than other I'll go with the limited information that I have. However anyone with a statistics background would view either of these numbers as being very uncertain. That's arguably why these numbers are so good for betting, you want there to be a lot of uncertainty when gambling or it's no fun.
But as far as statistics is considered both 0.9 and 0.26 are essentially uninteresting numbers, that lead to very low confidence in the conclusion being drawn.
When it comes to certainty about an outcome (i.e. a hypothesis), they're not really that different. Probabilities are not linear, and start at 0.5. In log-odds terms were talking about 2.19 vs -1.04... not really a shocking amount of information. Sure in terms of gambling odds this might be useful but not for making any concrete statements about the world.
To your point:
> I bet most companies would die to turn up conversion rates up even 1 or 2 percent.
This is talking about two very different things. I would also be happy if I had a known 2 percent increasing in my stock performance. We're talking about quantifying uncertainty (though these criticism hold even in a frequentist frame work). I certainly wouldn't "die for" 2% absolute increase in my confidence about something (unless I'm 98% confident already!)
We're talking about our confidence in a hypothesis. At no company I've worked at would I be anywhere near comfortable stating that a 0.9 probability that A > B is enough to call an A/B test on. I'm going to be very skeptical of any analysis I'm doing if mode coefficients have anywhere near that probability of a sign error.
If you have no other information, then sure if I am 90% confident that one choice is stronger than other I'll go with the limited information that I have. However anyone with a statistics background would view either of these numbers as being very uncertain. That's arguably why these numbers are so good for betting, you want there to be a lot of uncertainty when gambling or it's no fun.
But as far as statistics is considered both 0.9 and 0.26 are essentially uninteresting numbers, that lead to very low confidence in the conclusion being drawn.
I think you can look at the maps that major establishment newspapers publish and see that the Russians are making significant land headway in many parts of the country. Each day they grind a little bit more, to the point where kyiv is facing two distinct military axes.
however, I don't think the western press is missing any deep details about russian fighting. The fight for Kyiv may end up looking like a reverse Stalingrad.
however, I don't think the western press is missing any deep details about russian fighting. The fight for Kyiv may end up looking like a reverse Stalingrad.
Do people put money on this because 4:1 odds are pretty good. If definition of fall is a mission accomplished type photo op I’d take those odds. If it’s prolonged stable holding then I probably would not
To be clear, Metaculus is a prediction aggregation platform, not a prediction market. There's no money at stake, only reputation.
https://www.metaculus.com/about/
It's well recognized, including my Metaculus users and admin, that money can provide a powerful incentive for accuracy which they do not use (presumably because this would be a very different, more legally encumbered platform). However, they attempt to make up for this by having many more predictions and, crucially, but weighting more heavily the predictions of people whose predictions have been more accurate in the past.
https://www.metaculus.com/about/
It's well recognized, including my Metaculus users and admin, that money can provide a powerful incentive for accuracy which they do not use (presumably because this would be a very different, more legally encumbered platform). However, they attempt to make up for this by having many more predictions and, crucially, but weighting more heavily the predictions of people whose predictions have been more accurate in the past.
IT looks to me like there is some money to be made:
https://polymarket.com/market/will-nato-expand-in-2022
https://polymarket.com/market/will-nato-expand-in-2022
I’d bet on no just cause how long it would take to certify and ratify. I don’t like bets where I put up a lot to win a little.
Literally the second sentence of the article. Is it that hard to read before commenting on an article?
> This question will resolve positively if it is publicly reported by at least three reputable media sources or from direct statements from at least four Permanent UNSC members that the majority of Kyiv's raions are under Russian military control by April 1, 2022.
> This question will resolve positively if it is publicly reported by at least three reputable media sources or from direct statements from at least four Permanent UNSC members that the majority of Kyiv's raions are under Russian military control by April 1, 2022.
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That doesn't help in anyway and in fact makes things even more ambiguous. On what basis would three "reputable" media sources report that the majority of Kyiv's regions are under Russian military control?
Well the point of using multiple reputable sources is that regardless of what basis it's reported, there is at least some widespread agreement. How does that "not help in anyway(sic)"?
Your response doesn't answer OP's question all it does is punt the issue to a news agency. If a news agency reports it on the basis of a "mission accomplished type photo op", does that count? Or does it require a news agency to report it on the basis of a "prolonged stable holding"?
Just saying that the prediction market shall resolve because three reputable news agencies report something is completely devoid of any insight into the nature of issue. It's as logically absurd as claiming that you have cancer because a Doctor told you that you have cancer, or claiming that you killed Jack because a jury delivered a guilty verdict. No, you don't have cancer because a Doctor said so and no you didn't kill Jack because of a jury's verdict; you have cancer because of an actual condition involving the rapid and abnormal cell growth and you killed Jack because you took a knife and stabbed him.
You are certainly justified to believe you have cancer because a Doctor told you so, and I am justified to believe you killed Jack because a jury said so, but a justification is not the same thing as an actual cause.
So going back to the original question: what is the criteria that determines that Kyiv has actually fallen to Russian forces as opposed to what is the justification for believing that Kyiv has fallen.
Just saying that the prediction market shall resolve because three reputable news agencies report something is completely devoid of any insight into the nature of issue. It's as logically absurd as claiming that you have cancer because a Doctor told you that you have cancer, or claiming that you killed Jack because a jury delivered a guilty verdict. No, you don't have cancer because a Doctor said so and no you didn't kill Jack because of a jury's verdict; you have cancer because of an actual condition involving the rapid and abnormal cell growth and you killed Jack because you took a knife and stabbed him.
You are certainly justified to believe you have cancer because a Doctor told you so, and I am justified to believe you killed Jack because a jury said so, but a justification is not the same thing as an actual cause.
So going back to the original question: what is the criteria that determines that Kyiv has actually fallen to Russian forces as opposed to what is the justification for believing that Kyiv has fallen.
Prediction markets for real money that relate to violent outcomes are a very dangerous territory ethically. You could bet the Kyiv will fall and then provide support or resources to the Russian forces, for example. A more practical example would be something like an assassination prediction.
It'd have to be a very liquid market, to make it profitable to provide enough support to make a material difference.
I'm not convinced assassination markets are practical. If you make a prediction that a person will be assassinated on a particular day, and put money on it, you'll make the odds for that day spike up, thus warning the target to take new and unpredictable precautions.
If you try to counter this effect with less specific predictions, then more people will take your side of the bet so you'll get worse odds.
I'm not convinced assassination markets are practical. If you make a prediction that a person will be assassinated on a particular day, and put money on it, you'll make the odds for that day spike up, thus warning the target to take new and unpredictable precautions.
If you try to counter this effect with less specific predictions, then more people will take your side of the bet so you'll get worse odds.
If you have the sort of influence or resources to make something like an assassination or war happen, then it's really easy to make money on those things already, for example by shorting certain stocks. And I'm sure that's already been happening for a while to some extent.
The insurgency in Iraq was also a minority- most supported the US. I like to imagine that Russia will have a much more difficult time in Ukraine where they are almost universally despised.
> The insurgency in Iraq was also a minority- most supported the US
Russians also think that most Ukrainians support Russia, it doesn't mean it's true. Same with believes that most Iraqis supported US.
Russians also think that most Ukrainians support Russia, it doesn't mean it's true. Same with believes that most Iraqis supported US.
Have you researched your assertion about Iraqi support for the US?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/da...
> Petraeus: Ukraine is not only bigger but some 50 percent more populous than Iraq, and the Iraqi population included many millions—Kurds, Christians, Yezidis, Shabak, and many of the Shia—who broadly supported the coalition forces throughout our time there. Only a minority of the Iraqi population comprised or supported the Sunni extremists and insurgents and Iranian-supported Shia militia. Though they did, to be sure, prove to be very formidable enemies.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2022/02/da...
> Petraeus: Ukraine is not only bigger but some 50 percent more populous than Iraq, and the Iraqi population included many millions—Kurds, Christians, Yezidis, Shabak, and many of the Shia—who broadly supported the coalition forces throughout our time there. Only a minority of the Iraqi population comprised or supported the Sunni extremists and insurgents and Iranian-supported Shia militia. Though they did, to be sure, prove to be very formidable enemies.
I'm not sure David Petraeus is an impartial source regarding the Iraq war, but even in that interview he avoids the claim that the majority of the Iraqi population supported the US invasion. Instead, he says that supporters of the insurgency are in the minority (you can dislike the invasion and occupation of your country by the US without supporting the Sunni insurgency or the Shia militia) and that "many millions" supported the coalition (how many?).
I'm not just posting this to be pedantic - there are strong comparisons between the US attitude that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the Russian attitude about Ukraine.
I'm not just posting this to be pedantic - there are strong comparisons between the US attitude that we would be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and the Russian attitude about Ukraine.
Going into Iraq was probably a bad call from the perspective of US interests, and the cause was definitely bullshit.
But Saddam Hussein's popularity doesn't even compare to Zelensky's.
But Saddam Hussein's popularity doesn't even compare to Zelensky's.
You aren't citing anything that refutes the claim.
Do you have a source for "most supported the US"? This was your original claim and you also haven't posted a source for it.
> most supported the US.
is not supported by
> the Iraqi population included many millions ... who broadly supported the coalition forces
"Many millions" !- "most"
is not supported by
> the Iraqi population included many millions ... who broadly supported the coalition forces
"Many millions" !- "most"
Most Ukrainians are forced to support Russia because the way how Zelensky "defends" Ukraine by freeing prisoners and giving advice to fight with Molotov cocktails.
These people have experienced being part of ussr and really, really don’t want to go back. Source: am Eastern European
Russia isn't part of USSR either. Source: am Russian
No, Russia isn't part of the USSR any more: It's all that's left of it.[1] Source: am not Russian
___
[1]: But, hey, don't despair: Belarus will join in any day now.
___
[1]: But, hey, don't despair: Belarus will join in any day now.
Putin wishes it still was.
Putin is not thinking about the USSR. He's not a communist and he is not interested in a soviet union.
He is thinking about the pre-Tsarist Russian Empire. Which included a few countries that were not in the USSR.
He is thinking about the pre-Tsarist Russian Empire. Which included a few countries that were not in the USSR.
AFAICS, it's all the same to him: If he were dreaming only of reviving the Tsarist (why "pre-"?) Russian Empire and not the Soviet Union, he'd hardly have gone on the record saying "the fall of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of thetwentieth century".
No party in Iraq "supported" the US. There were various opportunists with different priorities.
Does PredictIt make markets on the outcomes of military conflicts? That would pose some interesting ethical dilemmas...
I don’t think anyone is going to change their war plans to earn $850 on a PredictIt contract, let’s be real here.
26% is closer to 3-to-1 odds. :)
Zelensky is starting to sound like he's open to considering some of Russia's stated terms (no pursuit of NATO membership and cession of eastern Ukraine). That doesn't sound like things are going especially well for him.
It's a lot better than the regime change that Russia was initially aiming for. Fighting a large neighboring power to a standstill and suing for peace is quite the success.
Basically what Finland achieved in the heroic Winter War. True, Finland lost some terrain, but I don't think anyone would find the aftermath as a soviet victory, when the original desire was to anexate the whole country.
But Soviet losses were incomparably bigger than Finland. Is this war the case?
IMHO war isn't a scale of bodies. Each side has a strategic objective(s), and winning/losing should be measured against that.
Case in point: Vietnam. uSA and allies lost between 1/3 and 1/2 lifes than the North. And the USA loses were small (60.000 in a total of 1.5 million deaths). But it was a total defeat of the USA because none of the strategic objectives were achieved.
Ukraine: strategic objectives are being an independent country with a fairly working democracy. Russia: conquer and create a puppet state in Ukraine and keep pressing west againt NATO countries.
In the end we should measure against that, not by body count. I don't like it either.
Case in point: Vietnam. uSA and allies lost between 1/3 and 1/2 lifes than the North. And the USA loses were small (60.000 in a total of 1.5 million deaths). But it was a total defeat of the USA because none of the strategic objectives were achieved.
Ukraine: strategic objectives are being an independent country with a fairly working democracy. Russia: conquer and create a puppet state in Ukraine and keep pressing west againt NATO countries.
In the end we should measure against that, not by body count. I don't like it either.
The most important objective was achieved — preventing the expansion of the communism block to other countries. Vietnam today is a market economy, the country is communist in name only.
Also, please try to Vietnam. The US is very favorably perceived, more than China or Russia, although probably below European countries.
In the sense, the US lost the war, but won in the end, at a very steep price, of course
Also, please try to Vietnam. The US is very favorably perceived, more than China or Russia, although probably below European countries.
In the sense, the US lost the war, but won in the end, at a very steep price, of course
Sure! USA won a lot of wars just by not fighting: spreading wealth and culture via commerce is a far more effective way to _conquer_ countries than obliterating them.
And USA defeated the whole communist block using the same weapons. Also, don't dismiss tourism as a _weapon_: it's would be more effective to send millions of frienly tourists to Cuba than to embargoe them for decades.
But that's disgressing. Vietnam was only used as a sample of strategic millitary defeat albeit losing less people. I don't think anyone in the Whitehouse has planned the vietnamese frienship ahead.
And USA defeated the whole communist block using the same weapons. Also, don't dismiss tourism as a _weapon_: it's would be more effective to send millions of frienly tourists to Cuba than to embargoe them for decades.
But that's disgressing. Vietnam was only used as a sample of strategic millitary defeat albeit losing less people. I don't think anyone in the Whitehouse has planned the vietnamese frienship ahead.
It wasn't the US's intervention that succeeded in making it a "non communist" state, so the US failed in its objectives. Just because eventually Vietnam itself decided what path it wants to take doesn't mean, it was because of US.
US is perceived more favourably than China because their war with China was more recent and they have active disputes with PRC threatening island territories in South China sea.
Moreover, US has massive influence in terms of their media and their brands, something which China still doesn't match. Same reason even South Korea has massive appeal in Vietnam.
US is perceived more favourably than China because their war with China was more recent and they have active disputes with PRC threatening island territories in South China sea.
Moreover, US has massive influence in terms of their media and their brands, something which China still doesn't match. Same reason even South Korea has massive appeal in Vietnam.
> Vietnam today is a market economy, the country is communist in name only.
This has nothing to do with US intervention. China is also a market economy, the US never won a war there.
This has nothing to do with US intervention. China is also a market economy, the US never won a war there.
Perfectly valid standpoint, but USA and Vietnam is not Russia and Ukraine. Geography, culture, history - all of this. We can hardly guess what the hell is in Putin's head and what those plans really were aimed at. We are guessing thoroughly, though.
And also like the Winter War, Soviet/Russian forces were shown up to be incompetent, or at least really really badly led. They had planned on cutting Finland in half in two weeks flat, so even that schedule was not as ambitious as the two-day decapitation planned in the current war. Anyways I can't see how the Soviet failure to flatten Finland didn't subsequently embolden Hitler.
There's really never been a scenario where Ukraine wins unconditionally. Russia has started backing off on their terms - it's not going well for them either. What makes a negotiated settlement very likely at this point is that Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims.
If Russia can get them to give up NATO and EU ambitions, and get them to start supplying water to Crimea, they can sit back and wait until they can claim Ukraine by other means (as they already tried once, and as Belarus has gone). Conceding on that, at this point, is just delaying the Russian takeover somewhat. If Russia can't get that out of them, I expect them to demand such large territorial concessions that what's left will have, at best, 1/2 the GDP it used to (not even counting damage from the war). That diminished state will go on to head toward EU and/or NATO membership, but it won't represent the kind of relief valve from European dependence on Russia that a free and prosperous united Ukraine might (which is a big part of why Russia wants to carve them up or conquer them to begin with).
"it won't represent the kind of relief valve from European dependence on Russia that a free and prosperous united Ukraine might"
The EU and NATO are voluntarily breaking away from dependence on Russia on many fronts as we speak.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine galvanized this process.
Peace would have been far less devastating to all the countries involved.
The EU and NATO are voluntarily breaking away from dependence on Russia on many fronts as we speak.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine galvanized this process.
Peace would have been far less devastating to all the countries involved.
> they can sit back and wait until they can claim Ukraine by other means
when will this be exactly?
Putin was living on borrowed time due to the move away from fossil fuels
and his main customers are now willing to pay more explictly not to use his exports
their military ambitions are now finished, permanently
when will this be exactly?
Putin was living on borrowed time due to the move away from fossil fuels
and his main customers are now willing to pay more explictly not to use his exports
their military ambitions are now finished, permanently
Multilateral agreements as part of a peace settlement are their most likely way out of the economic pain they're in now—removal of sanctions and normalization of relations with the West part of the peace agreement. I agree that their long term prospects, having blundered so badly, are now dim, but I think if they can get the right concessions out of Ukraine they'll still have salvaged a lot of their immediate goals from launching the war (probably at far too high a cost for it to have been worth it, yes, but at least it won't be a complete failure) and be in a decent position to realize further expansion before the end of their fossil fuel fortunes arrives.
> their military ambitions are now finished, permanently
I'd like to think that if Russia fails to subjugate and absorb Ukraine then it will put an end to Russian dreams of restoring empire, for at least one generation and perhaps for longer. Recalling Zbigniew Brzeziński "It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire."
I'd like to think that if Russia fails to subjugate and absorb Ukraine then it will put an end to Russian dreams of restoring empire, for at least one generation and perhaps for longer. Recalling Zbigniew Brzeziński "It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire."
"Putin was living on borrowed time due to the move away from fossil fuels and his main customers are now willing to pay more explictly not to use his exports"
China will buy Russia's fossil fuels.
China will buy Russia's fossil fuels.
"Russia has started to make serious concessions and reduced their demands primarily to territorial claims"
Could you link to an article which shows a Russian official making such concessions or reducing their demands?
From my own reading, Russia has just been reiterating the same demands they had all along: for Ukraine to recognize the breakaway republics and for Ukraine to give up hopes of ever joining NATO.
Could you link to an article which shows a Russian official making such concessions or reducing their demands?
From my own reading, Russia has just been reiterating the same demands they had all along: for Ukraine to recognize the breakaway republics and for Ukraine to give up hopes of ever joining NATO.
"Demilitarization and denazification" was the justification for the war, and is really the only way their full war, which has been costly in many ways, makes sense. Pre-war negotiations with NATO included demands far wider than just Ukraine. There's a chance things are being misinterpreted in terms of wording, but it sounds like demilitarization has been softened and any agreement would involve accepting the existing Ukraine government ("nazis"). There are also nuances about recognition of DPR/LPR, Russia's preferred version previously would have essentially given veto power over Ukraine government decisions. Losing that means they need a different form of leverage, such as replacing the government ("denazification"), with constitutional guarantees being a far weaker option.
> Zelensky is starting to sound like he's open to considering some of Russia's stated terms (no pursuit of NATO membership and cession of eastern Ukraine). That doesn't sound like things are going especially well for him.
If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the West of the urgency of a radical step escalation in military assistance, I might want them to perceive me as starting to waver in the face of the assault.
If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the Russians that good faith humanitarian corridors that weren't simply routes to captivity in Russia/Belarus and maybe even a general cease fire for negotiations while the Western sanctions continued to hollow out their war capacity were good ideas, I’d want to project the prospect of an acceptable resolution through negotiations.
If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the West of the urgency of a radical step escalation in military assistance, I might want them to perceive me as starting to waver in the face of the assault.
If I was President of Ukraine, and wanted to convince the Russians that good faith humanitarian corridors that weren't simply routes to captivity in Russia/Belarus and maybe even a general cease fire for negotiations while the Western sanctions continued to hollow out their war capacity were good ideas, I’d want to project the prospect of an acceptable resolution through negotiations.
What are you talking about? Zelenski just declined such an offer from russia.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/where-zelensky-is-open-...
> Along with "cooling down" to the idea of joining NATO, Zelensky told ABC News that there's room for negotiating on the occupied territories and unrecognized republics.
Read between the lines.
> Along with "cooling down" to the idea of joining NATO, Zelensky told ABC News that there's room for negotiating on the occupied territories and unrecognized republics.
Read between the lines.
Simply appearing to be more open to diplomatic resolution is a huge win on the international stage - I can't say whether he's genuine in his openness to diplomacy but appearing to be more open keeps western support on his side. So, cynically, Zelensky will want to be seen to be open to negotiating whether he is or not - openness to negotiation is, itself, a negotiation tactic... it's like telling your manager that you got a job offer floated from Microsoft to head up a new division and then just saying "Well, I didn't say no".
Such is the interpretation by the Russian media of what Zelensky said in a recent interview with ABC.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/zelenskyy-interview-david-mu...
https://abcnews.go.com/US/video/zelenskyy-interview-david-mu...
Cession of eastern territories and Crimea is probably not going to be too difficult a decision, considering Russia controls them anyways and did so even before the war.
Demilitarization of Ukraine, NATO membership and relations with the west in general are all going to be very contentious, and it's hard to see a solution here that both sides will accept.
Demilitarization of Ukraine, NATO membership and relations with the west in general are all going to be very contentious, and it's hard to see a solution here that both sides will accept.
Demilitarisation is an absolute non-starter, I don't see how any sovereign nation could ever agree to that. I assume Russia are putting it on the table so it can be traded away for something else.
If what you say is true about Ukraine being willing to trade away Crimea and the eastern territories, then I don't think an agreement is necessarily that far away. Your initial demands in a negotiation are rarely your red lines.
The most contentious point (again, assuming you are correct that Ukraine is willing to cede the above-mentioned territories) will be bloc membership. Zelensky could possibly give some informal guarantee that he has no interest in NATO membership, but having your own foreign policy is a fundamental part of being a sovereign state, so being coerced into promising they will never join this or that bloc is kind of incompatible with Ukrainian statehood. And down the line they will definitely be eyeing EU membership.
Personally I would be sad to see territory ceded to Russia as it would reward their brutal and criminal tactics. I am also highly sceptical of Russia's willingness to abide by its obligations under any peace agreement. However, I appreciate that for Ukrainians especially, ending the bloodshed is the most important thing.
If what you say is true about Ukraine being willing to trade away Crimea and the eastern territories, then I don't think an agreement is necessarily that far away. Your initial demands in a negotiation are rarely your red lines.
The most contentious point (again, assuming you are correct that Ukraine is willing to cede the above-mentioned territories) will be bloc membership. Zelensky could possibly give some informal guarantee that he has no interest in NATO membership, but having your own foreign policy is a fundamental part of being a sovereign state, so being coerced into promising they will never join this or that bloc is kind of incompatible with Ukrainian statehood. And down the line they will definitely be eyeing EU membership.
Personally I would be sad to see territory ceded to Russia as it would reward their brutal and criminal tactics. I am also highly sceptical of Russia's willingness to abide by its obligations under any peace agreement. However, I appreciate that for Ukrainians especially, ending the bloodshed is the most important thing.
> Demilitarisation is an absolute non-starter, I don't see how any sovereign nation could ever agree to that.
Particularly one next to Russia. (And Ukraine, in particular, after this?!?)
The Chutzpa negotiation approach would of course be, "OK, let's discuss demilitarisation. How and when do you propose to start yours?"
Particularly one next to Russia. (And Ukraine, in particular, after this?!?)
The Chutzpa negotiation approach would of course be, "OK, let's discuss demilitarisation. How and when do you propose to start yours?"
I bet you he is only prepared to give up Crimea. That's the only area where referendum to join Russia could actually be fair and passed.
> Cession of eastern territories and Crimea is probably not going to be too difficult a decision, considering Russia controls them anyways and did so even before the war.
Before the recent escalation of the 8-year war it controlled Crimea and the breakaway “People’s Republics” in Donbas and Luhansk each controlled a small fraction of the territory they claim; before the war Russia and their pawns controlled nothing in Ukraine's claimed and generally internationally recognized borders, that was the proximate problem Russia (which shortly before that time had controlled the Ukrainian government as a puppet) sought to rectify with the war.
Before the recent escalation of the 8-year war it controlled Crimea and the breakaway “People’s Republics” in Donbas and Luhansk each controlled a small fraction of the territory they claim; before the war Russia and their pawns controlled nothing in Ukraine's claimed and generally internationally recognized borders, that was the proximate problem Russia (which shortly before that time had controlled the Ukrainian government as a puppet) sought to rectify with the war.
That does seem like it's probably gonna be the trickiest part of the negotiations, doesn't it?
Zelensky has said he is open to neutrality, but the problem is that he would need some sort of security guarantees moving forward. Demilitarization of the sort Russia originally envisioned is probably out of the question in any case, so that would solve part of it.
Maybe some solution involving international peacekeepers and demilitarized zones could work. Or escape clauses where Ukraine is permitted to annul their neutrality in the event of future aggression by Russia.
Zelensky has said he is open to neutrality, but the problem is that he would need some sort of security guarantees moving forward. Demilitarization of the sort Russia originally envisioned is probably out of the question in any case, so that would solve part of it.
Maybe some solution involving international peacekeepers and demilitarized zones could work. Or escape clauses where Ukraine is permitted to annul their neutrality in the event of future aggression by Russia.
I don't see why NATO membership for Ukraine is so contentious, considering NATO has already made it crystal clear that they won't fight Russia directly over Ukraine.
Because it just means Ukraine will be invaded again later.
That changes if Ukraine becomes a treaty member. The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily.
"The treaty means attack one member, all other members respond militarily."
That's what it means on paper. But we already see that in practice NATO is not willing to start WW3 to protect Ukraine.
That's what it means on paper. But we already see that in practice NATO is not willing to start WW3 to protect Ukraine.
Yes, because Ukraine is not a NATO member.
If it was, then as per treaty, the alliance would respond.
How is that not clear?
How is that not clear?
There's no guarantee that anyone does anything. The proof is in actions, not words. Treaty or no.
If it comes to preventing the end of the world or protecting Ukraine, NATO has already shown it would rather prevent the end of the world.
If it comes to preventing the end of the world or protecting Ukraine, NATO has already shown it would rather prevent the end of the world.
> If it comes to preventing the end of the world or protecting Ukraine, NATO has already shown it would rather prevent the end of the world.
That's because NATO hadn't committed to protecting Ukraine.
If it had, Putler wouldn't have dared attack.
Again: How is that not clear?
That's because NATO hadn't committed to protecting Ukraine.
If it had, Putler wouldn't have dared attack.
Again: How is that not clear?
Commitments and treaties can and have been broken throughout history.
The motivation to save the world from utter destruction gives greater reason than ever before to not start WW3... at least not over Ukraine.. treaty or no.
The motivation to save the world from utter destruction gives greater reason than ever before to not start WW3... at least not over Ukraine.. treaty or no.
As ch4s3 and otherme123 state in sibling/niece comments, it's not bad. There is a reality here that countries on Russia's border face, that can be hard to understand if you live elsewhere. All victory against/agreement with Russia is temporary. Neighbor countries need to negotiate a space that allows Russia to save face and also gives the neighbor country room to maneuver and live relatively freely. Parts of western Europe and the US preach an uninhibited national freedom, that every country should be free to do what they want without their neighbor nations interfering. This is not reality, and I speak as a citizen of a country neighboring Russia. It's like thinking on a family level that your parents should fully respect and accept you no matter how far you stray from their traditions -- sure, it's a nice modern idea, but it's not how it works unless you have an amazing relationship where you can talk through your position with respect. Russia is just not there yet. No little country next to Russia is going to talk through their national ideals and national hopes & dreams with Putin and receive his blessing, encouragement, support, unconditional acceptance. Nah, it's more negotiating an abusive relationship where you can't get out. It's nice that the whole world tells you "leave, it doesn't have to be that way, you can do better!" but geography is geography. There is no leaving.
"Better a scanty agreement than a robust battle"
"Better a scanty agreement than a robust battle"
I mean, this outcome would be pretty close to the status quo belle ante. It doesn't feel like a L for Ukraine.
Maybe Zelenskyy doesn't like thousand of Ukraines dying for some inflated ego, potentially millions. That solution, and specially if acompanied with guarantees of no further agressions if Ukraine doesn't enter NATO or EU, is a win for the country, and a pyrric victory for Putin: his credibility is gone forever, and all he got is a small piece of terrain. Enough to sell internally as a win, but hardly anywhere else.
> if accompanied with guarantees of no further aggressions
Which Russia cannot provide since they already promised not to invade.
Which Russia cannot provide since they already promised not to invade.
After how this one went, it seems very unlikely they'd try again unless Ukraine was somehow disarmed first.
(Disarmament was one of the Russian asks during yesterday's negotiations. It was rejected ofc.)
(Disarmament was one of the Russian asks during yesterday's negotiations. It was rejected ofc.)
It was "unlikely" when Ukraine had the nukes it handed over. Now nothing is unlikely.
They can agree on a DMZ, like in Korea. Remember that Putin negated the invasion while amasing an army at the border. You can't invade if your troops cannot be piled up near the border.
A DMZ is a good idea, but it doesn't address Russia's demand that no nukes be stationed in Ukraine (or other countries on its border) either.
I'm not sure how much that matters in practice, since nukes can be delivered by submarine or through ICBMs, but regardless, that's what Russia wants and a DMZ won't address that demand.
I'm not sure how much that matters in practice, since nukes can be delivered by submarine or through ICBMs, but regardless, that's what Russia wants and a DMZ won't address that demand.
In terms of human lives, it's the right deal. Past that, it's the worst possible scenario: Ukraine's territory is not rightfully and completely restored while Russia's economy is nearly irrecoverable, leading it to become nothing more than a resource vassal state to China.
This war has dire global economic consequences. China's not going to get away unscathed either, as demands for its own goods will decrease as the rest of the world's economies get hit by an enormous increase in energy prices and decreased profits as companies around the world stop doing business with Russia.
The world is connected like never before and there are no unipolar winners or losers any more (if there ever were, considering the squandered individual, society-wide, and world-wide human potential when people die).
At the very least this is likely to lead to a global depression.
That's if we avoid WW3, which would devastate the entire world if it happened.
The world is connected like never before and there are no unipolar winners or losers any more (if there ever were, considering the squandered individual, society-wide, and world-wide human potential when people die).
At the very least this is likely to lead to a global depression.
That's if we avoid WW3, which would devastate the entire world if it happened.
This could very well lead to the end of the global economy as it exists now, and the formation of a few large, insular economic blocs only doing business amongst themselves.
"if acompanied with guarantees of no further agressions if Ukraine doesn't enter NATO or EU"
Such guarantees are worthless.
It's also clear that the rest of NATO is not willing to directly fight against Russia to save Ukraine, so NATO membership for Ukraine is just as worthless.
Such guarantees are worthless.
It's also clear that the rest of NATO is not willing to directly fight against Russia to save Ukraine, so NATO membership for Ukraine is just as worthless.
I think he won't be able to sell anything for a win because Russia is financially finished. The only way this can play out is by the oligarchs killing Putin, apologizing to the world, replacing the public face of Russia with a new puppet, so they can continue earning. Putin has stopped the machine. That's the only rule in organized crime (and business) that must never be violated. You don't stop the machine. If Putin were a CEO of a legit "Russia Inc" then he is directly responsible for that business collapsing. There is no universe (criminal or legit) in which that scenario goes well for the leader.
[deleted]
I’m sure his interests are in ending a war that’s costing civilian lives. If the expectation is that Russia will increase the severity of their fight, you cannot keep fighting at all cost. I fully think Ukraine can outlast Putin, but at what cost?
Like he said to NATO in regards to the no-fly zone “How many civilians need to die? Give me a number, I’ll start counting.”
Similarly here; how many civilians are Crimea and the two eastern provinces worth? If you have a number we’ll start counting. We’ll get there before Putin falls.
Like he said to NATO in regards to the no-fly zone “How many civilians need to die? Give me a number, I’ll start counting.”
Similarly here; how many civilians are Crimea and the two eastern provinces worth? If you have a number we’ll start counting. We’ll get there before Putin falls.
I think Zelenskyy should take: No eu/Nato membership (face it, he's months or years from qualifying anyways), and he leaves Donbask, and Crimea (for now), but does NOT agree to disband any military, and is allowed to secure his own borders.
In otherwords he can still ramp up, then the west simply continues squeezing Putin and Russia for a year, or 3... then he can either go take back Crimea/Donbask regions, or perhaps wage a coup inside Russia -- get the oligarchs to agree to a Democratic Merging of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia with Zelenskyy as President for the first two terms, and with a path towards NATO and EU membership - which would be a HUGE finger to China and a big win for Democracy.
This essentially gives both sides a ceasefire but western pressure on Russia slowly strangles them to the point of collapse, and Zelenskyy can then basically take over, as he's basically a Hero for many in Ukraine and Russia and even Europe and USA. I mean a comedian turned President against Putin and he's holding his own pretty well - it's David vs Goliath.
IMHO that's the best option. As for this war, whether Zelenskyy does this or not. Putin has lost Russia. It's a matter of time before he's deposed after this blunder. Russia will never win in Ukraine.
Option B: Hold out a month, and basically Russia might be at the point they'd give him Crimea, Belarus, and Donbas if the west just eases up a tiny fraction on sanctions.
In otherwords he can still ramp up, then the west simply continues squeezing Putin and Russia for a year, or 3... then he can either go take back Crimea/Donbask regions, or perhaps wage a coup inside Russia -- get the oligarchs to agree to a Democratic Merging of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia with Zelenskyy as President for the first two terms, and with a path towards NATO and EU membership - which would be a HUGE finger to China and a big win for Democracy.
This essentially gives both sides a ceasefire but western pressure on Russia slowly strangles them to the point of collapse, and Zelenskyy can then basically take over, as he's basically a Hero for many in Ukraine and Russia and even Europe and USA. I mean a comedian turned President against Putin and he's holding his own pretty well - it's David vs Goliath.
IMHO that's the best option. As for this war, whether Zelenskyy does this or not. Putin has lost Russia. It's a matter of time before he's deposed after this blunder. Russia will never win in Ukraine.
Option B: Hold out a month, and basically Russia might be at the point they'd give him Crimea, Belarus, and Donbas if the west just eases up a tiny fraction on sanctions.
You’re letting your imagination run a little too wild here. Depending on which polls you believe, 20-50% of Russians support this invasion. There is no end scenario where Russians are content being ruled by a non-Russian, even in a newly formed democratic state.
The ones in Odessa seem fine with it.
I think, they should do the exact opposite. Join EU on a quick path and call Putin's nuclear bluff.
I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.
I'm not happy about it and can't sleep right for days anymore, because I fear a nuclear escalation. But I don't want to live in a world where such a situation could happen again and again. There are many slavic countries this fascist hungers for.
Given what's already happened, and provided (I'm hoping) Ukraine continues to hold out as it has, both EU/NATO membership is looking very realistic and likely to occur in relatively quick order. I think settling for less would be illogical at this point.
EU membership is only possible if certain economic metrics are met, IIRC, and that is impossible to achieve while under attack or even soon after in the rebuilding phase. So to me EU membership is looking pretty far out. Why does it look realistic to you?
Treaties aren't set in stone, and novel ones can be invented. If I had to crystal-ball predict what a plausible Ukrainian victory looks like here—that is, the best likely outcome I think they might achieve on a relatively short timetable—it's a negotiated peace that gives some territorial concessions and, for face-saving for Putin/Russia, rejects Ukrainian NATO ambitions... but puts them in a quick-n-dirty EU status that grants them a security agreement of some kind, as they progress on the slower track to full EU membership.
I think if Russia backs them into fully rejecting all security agreements with the West as part of a settlement, they're just in for a takeover by other means, once Russia has its near-term concerns addressed by the peace settlement and can afford to sit back and wait. I think the most likely way out of that (assuming Ukraine achieves one) is a novel arrangement of some kind, more likely with with the EU than NATO, or (waaaay less likely) a new bloc & mutual defense agreement with Sweden and Finland.
I think if Russia backs them into fully rejecting all security agreements with the West as part of a settlement, they're just in for a takeover by other means, once Russia has its near-term concerns addressed by the peace settlement and can afford to sit back and wait. I think the most likely way out of that (assuming Ukraine achieves one) is a novel arrangement of some kind, more likely with with the EU than NATO, or (waaaay less likely) a new bloc & mutual defense agreement with Sweden and Finland.
Yes, I understand the requirements for EU/NATO membership and that Ukraine is a long way from there. I thought it was realistic given the circumstances: Ukraine is quite literally fighting for eastern Europe - including those countries that have already acceded to the EU. I can't see any other way to look at it given the facts that have already surfaced. While the EU and NATO waffle over the extent it is willing to risk engaging in this war, Ukraine is getting destroyed, but may yet do enough to set back Putin's designs by 30 or more years, if not permanently. I believe such an outcome should confer the deserved right to special treatment for Ukraine by both the EU and NATO. However, perhaps I am too romantic in this regard as even at this time I'm sensing stodginess on the part of the EU and NATO.
>both EU/NATO membership is looking very realistic
Neither is possible. Ukraine does not control its borders so can't join NATO and is not economically viable enough to enter EU. And under that scenario trying to take Crimea starts a world war between Russia and NATO.
Ukraine joining NATO is just not ever going to be allowed to happen.
Neither is possible. Ukraine does not control its borders so can't join NATO and is not economically viable enough to enter EU. And under that scenario trying to take Crimea starts a world war between Russia and NATO.
Ukraine joining NATO is just not ever going to be allowed to happen.
<Ukraine joining NATO is just not ever going to be allowed to happen.>
I believe a lot will depend on the outcome of this war as well as its ramifications for Putin's grip on power. Ukraine has so far defied all the odds and I wouldn't bet against them at this point. If given a bloody enough nose Russia may not be in a position to never allow NATO membership to happen.
I believe a lot will depend on the outcome of this war as well as its ramifications for Putin's grip on power. Ukraine has so far defied all the odds and I wouldn't bet against them at this point. If given a bloody enough nose Russia may not be in a position to never allow NATO membership to happen.
In the 90s Finland wanted to lock itself into the Western orbit, and (IMO) membership in either EU or NATO would accomplish this. As things turned out, an EU offer came first and a national referendum approved it and well hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa). This still might work for Ukraine.
> hey whaddaya know, that EU membership is sufficient to ensure that Finland is in the West and has full access to Europe (and vice-versa).
As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.
As long as "full access" is defined as "except for any actual defense guarantees", that is. The EU one isn't actually that.
By access I meant civilian access, People doing people things. Commercial entities doing commercial things. Defense? Well, yah. It's complicated for Finland.
>call Putin's nuclear bluff.
And what do you think would be the outcome?
And what do you think would be the outcome?
Someone in power in Russia would see the issue and "remove" him.
The replacement could then spin it as being a good replacement and play by the rules of the west.
The replacement could then spin it as being a good replacement and play by the rules of the west.
When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force?
[deleted]
As a general rule, over the decades (centuries?), every change of leadership in Russia has been at least a bit less bloody than the previous one. Some dare call it "progress" :-P
>When has Russia ever had a transfer of power that didn't involve the use of force?
Kruschev --> Brezhnev
Brezhnev --> Andropov
Andropov --> Chernenko
Chernenko --> Gorbachev
Gorbachev --> Yeltsin
Yeltsin --> Putin
Putin --> Medvedev
Medvedev --> Putin
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia
Kruschev --> Brezhnev
Brezhnev --> Andropov
Andropov --> Chernenko
Chernenko --> Gorbachev
Gorbachev --> Yeltsin
Yeltsin --> Putin
Putin --> Medvedev
Medvedev --> Putin
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_Russia
Point taken. Though Putin to Medvedev and back wasn't really a transfer of power :)
Also, if you haven't seen "Death of Stalin", it's an excellent dark comedy, if a bit historically inaccurate.
Also, if you haven't seen "Death of Stalin", it's an excellent dark comedy, if a bit historically inaccurate.
This list is missing Stalin wiping out most of his opposition and things like https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14589691
Right. Which is why I didn't include him on the list.
What's your point?
What's your point?
Nothing. A Nuclear Bluff is just that, a Bluff. Putin can't win in a nuclear war and if he uses nukes anywhere, he is done for. No one is going to have anything to do with him or Russia on any level after that.
In any case, get used to brinksmanship like this now that the Pax Americana is coming to an end.
No one is going to have anything to do with Putin after launching a nuclear first strike because he'll be dead. Along with most of the population of Russia and a big chunk of the rest of the world too. And Putin knows this. Thus, it's a bluff.
Unless he's got terminal cancer and decides he's going out with a bang. He does seem to have some jowls. I mean the guy is blatantly lying to everyone and acting irrationally as is. The problem with poker is sometimes people go all in even with shit hands.
Not necessarily. There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side.
Lets say Putin nukes a carrier group at sea. This wont trigger an immediate counter attack like launching ICBMs would. Biden/whoever would have to order launching the nukes. Follow this for any usage of tactical nuclear weapons.
Will he decide to end life in America and most of the world over a carrier group? There's a non zero percent chance he would flinch at that.
Your argument is that nobody would have anything to do with Putin, but we already pretty close to that point. Backing Putin in a corner makes him MORE dangerous, not less.
Putin could do all kind of things to completely undermine as well. What happens if he decides that the world uniting against Russian means Russia no longer need to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treat and offers "free" nukes to whoever aligns with his new order? It's already understood geo politically that "no nukes" means the West and China get to bully you whenever they want. So why not take the offer? There's all kinds of ways this could get worse without all life ending.
Lets say Putin nukes a carrier group at sea. This wont trigger an immediate counter attack like launching ICBMs would. Biden/whoever would have to order launching the nukes. Follow this for any usage of tactical nuclear weapons.
Will he decide to end life in America and most of the world over a carrier group? There's a non zero percent chance he would flinch at that.
Your argument is that nobody would have anything to do with Putin, but we already pretty close to that point. Backing Putin in a corner makes him MORE dangerous, not less.
Putin could do all kind of things to completely undermine as well. What happens if he decides that the world uniting against Russian means Russia no longer need to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treat and offers "free" nukes to whoever aligns with his new order? It's already understood geo politically that "no nukes" means the West and China get to bully you whenever they want. So why not take the offer? There's all kinds of ways this could get worse without all life ending.
> There is a very real chance that a nuclear strike on a purely military target will cause a flinch by the other side.
I really doubt it. At the bare minimum a nuclear strike on military targets would provoke nuclear strikes on military targets in response. Excepting the middle of oceans, that's going to involve major civilian casualties. And then we're back to doomsday.
Not to get all Dr Strangelove on you, but once the nukes start flying there's really only one option - immediately take out as many of your enemy's weapons as possible. Sink all submarines, nuke all silos, hope for "no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks."
I really doubt it. At the bare minimum a nuclear strike on military targets would provoke nuclear strikes on military targets in response. Excepting the middle of oceans, that's going to involve major civilian casualties. And then we're back to doomsday.
Not to get all Dr Strangelove on you, but once the nukes start flying there's really only one option - immediately take out as many of your enemy's weapons as possible. Sink all submarines, nuke all silos, hope for "no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks."
Would it? Would you order a nuclear strike on a target that would guarantee a retaliation that would destroy your country and maybe the world and likely yourself?
Especially if a purely military target was hit like a carrier group and it was all soldiers that died?
Its not so obvious to me that every leader could do that.
Now look at the opposite. You are a leader who is about to be killed/ousted/lose everything if current course continues. No matter what you are probably dead in 10 years anyways due to old age. Why not? Especially if you think Putin is how he is portrayed by Western media?
Especially if a purely military target was hit like a carrier group and it was all soldiers that died?
Its not so obvious to me that every leader could do that.
Now look at the opposite. You are a leader who is about to be killed/ousted/lose everything if current course continues. No matter what you are probably dead in 10 years anyways due to old age. Why not? Especially if you think Putin is how he is portrayed by Western media?
By that same logic, Putin could nuke NYC and there should be no response. And then Washington. And then San Francisco. The calculus is the same.
Not sure what culture you grew up in, but I grew up in the "progressive" side of the US and I'm quite certain that even the folks out here would demand immediate retaliation. The folks that grew up in red states are even more bloodthirsty. At minimum we'll be using nukes against Russian military targets, and I just don't see that de-escalating.
Not sure what culture you grew up in, but I grew up in the "progressive" side of the US and I'm quite certain that even the folks out here would demand immediate retaliation. The folks that grew up in red states are even more bloodthirsty. At minimum we'll be using nukes against Russian military targets, and I just don't see that de-escalating.
I would , sadly, say he could a-bomb kiev and this would not result in total nuclear war. Why would someone bomb moscow because of that? Killing more civilians because civilians where killed?
"A Nuclear Bluff is just that, a Bluff. Putin can't win in a nuclear war and if he uses nukes anywhere, he is done for."
We don't know what he would do. A desperate dictator might just use nukes.
There's also the greatly increased risk of accidentally starting a nuclear war -- something we've come close to multiple times, even in peace time. In war time that's just short of WW3, the risk is increased exponentially.
No sane person wants to gamble with the literal fate of the world. Yet both sides are doing this by getting this close to WW3... that doesn't lend confidence to the possibility of staying out of a nuclear war if NATO "calls Putin's nuclear bluff".
We don't know what he would do. A desperate dictator might just use nukes.
There's also the greatly increased risk of accidentally starting a nuclear war -- something we've come close to multiple times, even in peace time. In war time that's just short of WW3, the risk is increased exponentially.
No sane person wants to gamble with the literal fate of the world. Yet both sides are doing this by getting this close to WW3... that doesn't lend confidence to the possibility of staying out of a nuclear war if NATO "calls Putin's nuclear bluff".
Putin most certainly can win a nuclear war. He has literally thousands of nukes.
[deleted]
Armies have momentum. Germany almost lost in 1941 when Barbarossa failed. Hitler managed to keep his armies from disintegrating, but it was a near thing. Japan's armies went far further then they had any right too in the same period, because of the perception of invincibility, higher morale, and everyone underestimating them for racial reasons.
It's very clear that the Russians badly screwed up their logistics chain - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w for a good obvious breakdown. But they also dramatically underestimated the morale of Ukrainians and also badly miscalculated NATO's response. NATO is flooding UKR now with drones, anti-tank misles and surface to air missles.
They also have failed to have clear armor and air supremacy. They have fed some of their most "elite" VDV units into a meat grinder by sending them directly into Kyiv without any support, under the thesis that the Ukrainians would leave them uncontested, or where not able to maintain a reasonable response.
Nevermind that Ukraine is mobilizing quickly (pre-war calculations where 30 days to build a effective force), while 75% of Russia's strike forces are in theater, and 95% are committed to battle.
Because of all this - Russia is in a no-win scenario. To hit their goals will result in sanctions staying in place - and eventually destroying the Russian economy or alternatively leaving them as a vassal state of China. If they retreat, they may save their army, avoid a vietnam scenario, but Putin will loose face, and Demcoratic forces will be revitalized inside of Russia.
Or they just stay where they are at. Inching ever close to Kyiv, but never winning any strategic victory.
Forces are pushing towards stasis right now.
I'd never bet on it - it's disrespectful to the dead and those fighting for their futures, and there are armies in the south that are a big problem - but I don't see a path for Russia to get what it wants. The question is how long will the sunk cost fallacy rule?
It's very clear that the Russians badly screwed up their logistics chain - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4wRdoWpw0w for a good obvious breakdown. But they also dramatically underestimated the morale of Ukrainians and also badly miscalculated NATO's response. NATO is flooding UKR now with drones, anti-tank misles and surface to air missles.
They also have failed to have clear armor and air supremacy. They have fed some of their most "elite" VDV units into a meat grinder by sending them directly into Kyiv without any support, under the thesis that the Ukrainians would leave them uncontested, or where not able to maintain a reasonable response.
Nevermind that Ukraine is mobilizing quickly (pre-war calculations where 30 days to build a effective force), while 75% of Russia's strike forces are in theater, and 95% are committed to battle.
Because of all this - Russia is in a no-win scenario. To hit their goals will result in sanctions staying in place - and eventually destroying the Russian economy or alternatively leaving them as a vassal state of China. If they retreat, they may save their army, avoid a vietnam scenario, but Putin will loose face, and Demcoratic forces will be revitalized inside of Russia.
Or they just stay where they are at. Inching ever close to Kyiv, but never winning any strategic victory.
Forces are pushing towards stasis right now.
I'd never bet on it - it's disrespectful to the dead and those fighting for their futures, and there are armies in the south that are a big problem - but I don't see a path for Russia to get what it wants. The question is how long will the sunk cost fallacy rule?
From 0 day, I was shocked by Ukrainian elite twitter/facebook forces. They even continue fighting from Poland/Moldova, they never were affected by broken supply chains or blockades. I don't see any viable Kremlin alternative for this, so maybe with time they will take over and we will finally see democracy in Russia.
>and Demcoratic forces will be revitalized inside of Russia.
Now there's a good prediction market - who will replace Putin if he's gone soon. My money will be on the kinds of people who will make Putin himself look like a liberal democrat.
Now there's a good prediction market - who will replace Putin if he's gone soon. My money will be on the kinds of people who will make Putin himself look like a liberal democrat.
The Russian government knew there would be sanctions no matter what happened. They had already decided to accept those even in the event of victory.
They aren't in a no-win scenario either. Kyiv cannot hold out forever. The Russians have an overwhelming numeric advantage and they can simply wait out the defenders, using that time to fix their supply lines.
It's tempting to exaggerate a Russian setback into a total collapse or a defeat. That's wishful thinking.
They aren't in a no-win scenario either. Kyiv cannot hold out forever. The Russians have an overwhelming numeric advantage and they can simply wait out the defenders, using that time to fix their supply lines.
It's tempting to exaggerate a Russian setback into a total collapse or a defeat. That's wishful thinking.
> Kyiv cannot hold out forever.
They don't have to. They only have to hold out longer than the Russians.
In the north, the Russians are running out of supplies and their logistics is halted so they are not going to get more supplies any time soon.
In the south, Russia appears to have better logistics and they are still moving, but slower and slower. Their southern logistics is the railroad through Crimea - that is a major weak point. They have been trying with all their might to take Mariupol which would give them an alternative (albeit road-based) logistics path but have been fought to a standstill there too.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has an open logistics path through Poland all the way to the front lines (uncontested by Russia, unlike Russia's logistics paths which are long and vulnerable) and military supplies are pouring in.
Ukraine is getting stronger and the Russian troops are running out of men, diesel, food, and probably ammunition.
They don't have to. They only have to hold out longer than the Russians.
In the north, the Russians are running out of supplies and their logistics is halted so they are not going to get more supplies any time soon.
In the south, Russia appears to have better logistics and they are still moving, but slower and slower. Their southern logistics is the railroad through Crimea - that is a major weak point. They have been trying with all their might to take Mariupol which would give them an alternative (albeit road-based) logistics path but have been fought to a standstill there too.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has an open logistics path through Poland all the way to the front lines (uncontested by Russia, unlike Russia's logistics paths which are long and vulnerable) and military supplies are pouring in.
Ukraine is getting stronger and the Russian troops are running out of men, diesel, food, and probably ammunition.
They certainly knew there would be sanctions, but I don't think they estimated they would be this harsh. Almost nobody in the west even thought they'd be able to unite enough to do what's been done. These sanctions have got to be far harsher than anything they anticipated.
"The Russians have an overwhelming numeric advantage"
They don't, quite to the contrary. A tight siege of a city of three million would require some 500 000 troops, give or take. (Germans had 750 000 soldiers encircling Leningrad.) That would be three times as many as Russia committed to the entire theater of war.
Russian logistics are strained. They can't simply mobilize millions and somehow flood the Ukrainian territory with them.
They don't, quite to the contrary. A tight siege of a city of three million would require some 500 000 troops, give or take. (Germans had 750 000 soldiers encircling Leningrad.) That would be three times as many as Russia committed to the entire theater of war.
Russian logistics are strained. They can't simply mobilize millions and somehow flood the Ukrainian territory with them.
>Kyiv cannot hold out forever.
I agree with that, but if it takes going Full Grozny or Idlib on them, what's the point, other than saving face?
I agree with that, but if it takes going Full Grozny or Idlib on them, what's the point, other than saving face?
[deleted]
Saving face matters a lot for dictators, who often lose power if they embarrass their countries. For Putin this is now a matter of personal survival. He will do whatever it takes to avoid an outcome that makes him look weak to the Russian public -- he clearly doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks of him at this point.
You mean Alleppo. Idlib still under opposition/Turkish proxies.
Ah damn, you're right. Can't believe I mixed them up.
From the Russian perspective:
If the country wont agree to NATO neutrality, the next best outcome is destroying it so thoroughly that it will be a humanitarian disaster for decades to come.
The former is a much more attractive option to them because it would pose the lest threat. The second is still favorable to a prosperous NATO and EU member.
If the country wont agree to NATO neutrality, the next best outcome is destroying it so thoroughly that it will be a humanitarian disaster for decades to come.
The former is a much more attractive option to them because it would pose the lest threat. The second is still favorable to a prosperous NATO and EU member.
I am not sure that Russia has a government in the commonly accepting sense of the concept.
As to simply waiting out, a clock may be ticking for Russians as well as for the Ukrainians. Probably not the same clock but still...
As to simply waiting out, a clock may be ticking for Russians as well as for the Ukrainians. Probably not the same clock but still...
actually it looks like they planned for a quick victory in a couple of days and slap on the hand like they got in 2014. they didn't anticipated this mess and this level of sanctions.
* Community prediction..
This is basically a survey.
This is basically a survey.
Not so basic.
Survey with the predictors (humans) being ranked in their impact on the conclusion based on their historical prediction success.
Survey with the predictors (humans) being ranked in their impact on the conclusion based on their historical prediction success.
Ah so the better you do in previous surveys, the more weight it puts into your prediction?
Yes.
Interesting twist. Will be more interesting if its tied to an index fund.
The Taliban took 2 weeks to take over Afghanistan with little resistance in comparison.
Both Ukraine and Afghanistan have similar land in sqm and population sizes.
Why does anyone expect Ukraine to be taken over in a few weeks when there is bound to be more resistance? You would think atleast double or treble that time.
Both Ukraine and Afghanistan have similar land in sqm and population sizes.
Why does anyone expect Ukraine to be taken over in a few weeks when there is bound to be more resistance? You would think atleast double or treble that time.
lack of natural barriers, the Ukraine, Belarus lands are flat which means very little places to hide for the insurgency.
in Afghanistan the Taliban could hide out in network of caves and there is just no flatten mountains, the Vietcongs could utilize underground networks and dense forests to operate.
One hope for Ukraine is urban warfare, Putin launched two miserable wars against Chechnya and they were decimated from insurgents hiding out in various apartment buildings, it is likely what is stalling the advance in Kyiv.
in Afghanistan the Taliban could hide out in network of caves and there is just no flatten mountains, the Vietcongs could utilize underground networks and dense forests to operate.
One hope for Ukraine is urban warfare, Putin launched two miserable wars against Chechnya and they were decimated from insurgents hiding out in various apartment buildings, it is likely what is stalling the advance in Kyiv.
Ukraine is tundra. Right now it's entering the muddy season.
Russia could only possibly even attack using airforce now, because anything on the ground is going to sink.
Ironically, Xi telling Putin to wait till the Olympics were over probably cost Putin the war, because of all the abandoned vehicles stuck in the mud.
There's a convoy with who knows how many vehicles but it stretches 40 miles and it's never digging out of the mud, most likely it'll be added to Ukraine's assets when things dry out.
Russia is leveling cities, but this is a WIN for urban warfar. In previous wars some people would level their own cities so they had better places to hide and setup snipers at.
Here's a good video outlying why Putin has already lost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4hvLqNfqo
Russia could only possibly even attack using airforce now, because anything on the ground is going to sink.
Ironically, Xi telling Putin to wait till the Olympics were over probably cost Putin the war, because of all the abandoned vehicles stuck in the mud.
There's a convoy with who knows how many vehicles but it stretches 40 miles and it's never digging out of the mud, most likely it'll be added to Ukraine's assets when things dry out.
Russia is leveling cities, but this is a WIN for urban warfar. In previous wars some people would level their own cities so they had better places to hide and setup snipers at.
Here's a good video outlying why Putin has already lost: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4hvLqNfqo
Plot twist, Xi knew that tricking Putin into delaying the invasion would weaken their neighbor, allowing Xi to profit.
Yes. The terrain for Ukranian insurgents will simply be civilians. How can you tell who is going to shoot you in the back when you turn around?
Unfortunately, we live in a new age and China has perfected facial recognition software, which they will probably have no scruples about providing to Russia. I'm not sure a crowd provides the same kind of anonymity that it once did.
Unfortunately, we live in a new age and China has perfected facial recognition software, which they will probably have no scruples about providing to Russia. I'm not sure a crowd provides the same kind of anonymity that it once did.
It depends totally on how unified people remain. I don't think facial recognition cameras will last long against crowds that have proven themselves willing to dance on top of enemy tanks.
I was imagining that the cameras would be carried by the troops themselves as an IFF measure.
But you're right, the conflict may or may not actually reach the stage of clandestine insurgency.
But you're right, the conflict may or may not actually reach the stage of clandestine insurgency.
The uncomfortable truth is that civilians will be used as shields by insurgency as it always has.
We are starting to see some of this right now (and I'm not 100% certain) but for instance the alleged Azov battalion operating near DNR/LNR area is said to be not allowing citizens to leave the city. There are footages going around them turning (you can tell from the patches they wear) citizens away from checkpoints as they try to leave.
Like Hamas in Palestine who regularly launch rockets at Israel from top of apartment buildings, it's only a matter of time before insurgency turns to this tactic as they are determined to keep fighting.
We are starting to see some of this right now (and I'm not 100% certain) but for instance the alleged Azov battalion operating near DNR/LNR area is said to be not allowing citizens to leave the city. There are footages going around them turning (you can tell from the patches they wear) citizens away from checkpoints as they try to leave.
Like Hamas in Palestine who regularly launch rockets at Israel from top of apartment buildings, it's only a matter of time before insurgency turns to this tactic as they are determined to keep fighting.
> There are footages going around them turning (you can tell from the patches they wear) citizens away from checkpoints as they try to leave
Do you suppose that may have something to do with things like
https://www.newsweek.com/evacuation-route-offered-fleeing-uk...
and
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/06/europe/ukraine-russia-inv...
?
Do you suppose that may have something to do with things like
https://www.newsweek.com/evacuation-route-offered-fleeing-uk...
and
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/06/europe/ukraine-russia-inv...
?
> There are footages going around them turning (you can tell from the patches they wear) citizens away from checkpoints as they try to leave.
Another side of the story is that Ukrainians claim they couldn't reach agreement of ceasing fire and humanitarian corridors with Russians.
I believe people are leaving Kharkov and Kiev relatively freely.
Another side of the story is that Ukrainians claim they couldn't reach agreement of ceasing fire and humanitarian corridors with Russians.
I believe people are leaving Kharkov and Kiev relatively freely.
Ukrainians accepting their new Russian overlords, is another reason to think the invasion will succeed quicker.
Ukrainians will not accept Russian overlords. They hate them. Any puppet government will be killed / removed very quickly. Ukrainians do that very often. Their mentality is very different from russian mentality.
LMAO, this will never happen. Especially after Russians gunned down civilian refugees during a 'ceasefire'. Russians are defecting from the military left and right if anything the Russians are likely to beg Ukraine to be their new overlords or at least claim asylum.
It's certainly been going better for the Ukrainians than I thought at the start - I thought the tanks would roll straight into Kyiv. Now they seem stuck and Russia lost 30 helicopters last night and today Poland agreed to give all their MIG29s. I guess this isn't really just Russia vs Ukraine but to an extent Russia vs the free world.
I'll tell you straight-up: this was written to increase morale for Ukraine. Whether Kyiv fall or walled up to Russian forces has yet to happen. It's still too early in the siege to make up these predictions
I could imagine Russian propaganda pulling up statistics saying Kyiv will fall soon
Also, too many people here do not understand geopolitics - the aim of invading Ukraine is to speed up the process of Russia's demands:
- Ukraine never joining NATO
- Donbas and Crimea ceding to Russia w/ Ukraine losing claim to them
It's not about fully invading Ukraine and ceding the whole state, because that would be a bigger problem for Russia if it does so
I could imagine Russian propaganda pulling up statistics saying Kyiv will fall soon
Also, too many people here do not understand geopolitics - the aim of invading Ukraine is to speed up the process of Russia's demands:
- Ukraine never joining NATO
- Donbas and Crimea ceding to Russia w/ Ukraine losing claim to them
It's not about fully invading Ukraine and ceding the whole state, because that would be a bigger problem for Russia if it does so
I wonder if some corrupt Russian general stands to make a lot of money from this type of bet
Reminds me of the time Trump won and I'd "hedged my emotions" - chucked £50 on him winning when he had 1/10 odds, so figured my friends and I could spend the £500 (that I eventually won) drink our sadness away in the pub that evening. Worked an absolute charm.
I also bet on the politician I don't want to win, with the thinking that I'll be happy either way.
But in this case there's no actually money on the line, that's not how the linked website works. (PredictIt and others won't take bets on the issue, it appears.)
But in this case there's no actually money on the line, that's not how the linked website works. (PredictIt and others won't take bets on the issue, it appears.)
This is a pretty wild swing, indicating that "Fog of War" is a very real thing.
Under news stories like this, it's worth remembering that actions have consequences and high level political decisions matter.
Remember that Trump was impeached for threatening to cut off military aid to Ukraine in exchange for a personal favor. The very same military aid that has likely prevented the outright capture Ukraine by Russia.
Remember that Trump was impeached for threatening to cut off military aid to Ukraine in exchange for a personal favor. The very same military aid that has likely prevented the outright capture Ukraine by Russia.
Putin is dumb or desperate (maybe trying to score a quick victory because of some more pressing matters). All he needed to do is to assemble a big enough chunk of his army at the borders, do some maneuvers from time to time, pepper it with threatening rhetoric to keep everyone stressed, but never attack. This "psychological siege" would tank the economy of Ukraine and he could demand progressively bigger concessions. The west would've only expressed a "strong disapproval", but ignored the situation otherwise.
What you described is exactly what Putin has been doing over the last decade, and the result was simply pushing Ukraine more towards the west and NATO, exactly the opposite of what he had intended.
You have little idea how impossible it is to keep a large force deployed along the border like that full time. Huge untenable monetary cost and morale drops precipitously where intelligence communities know it's not a threat if they've been sitting there a year+.
Hindsight is ...
Here's my prediction:
Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.
As it stands the West can do nothing.
In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).
It seems to be that there's no way out for the Ukrainians :(
Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.
As it stands the West can do nothing.
In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).
It seems to be that there's no way out for the Ukrainians :(
> Russia will take control of all or most nuclear power plants and other infrastructure. At which point it's only a matter of time until the people of Ukraine will surrender with no water or electricity.
I doubt Ukraine will surrender as long as it can supply its forces with food, drinking water, and ammo.
> As it stands the West can do nothing.
The West can do a lot of things that it chooses not to do out of fear. IMHO one of the biggest mistakes it has made has been to be very, very clear about what it won't do, while letting the Russians be very, very unclear about what it won't do. The result has been the Russian leadership is not afraid, and has taken advantage of the freedom that affords to bomb the shit out of Ukraine.
If NATO had massed soldiers in Poland in January and been deliberately ambiguous about its intentions, it's quite possible that Russia might not have invaded Ukraine at all (and then mocked the NATO by saying "LOL guys, we were really just doing exercises").
I doubt Ukraine will surrender as long as it can supply its forces with food, drinking water, and ammo.
> As it stands the West can do nothing.
The West can do a lot of things that it chooses not to do out of fear. IMHO one of the biggest mistakes it has made has been to be very, very clear about what it won't do, while letting the Russians be very, very unclear about what it won't do. The result has been the Russian leadership is not afraid, and has taken advantage of the freedom that affords to bomb the shit out of Ukraine.
If NATO had massed soldiers in Poland in January and been deliberately ambiguous about its intentions, it's quite possible that Russia might not have invaded Ukraine at all (and then mocked the NATO by saying "LOL guys, we were really just doing exercises").
Please elaborate on what else the West can do?
No fly-zone is a non-starter
Supplying the Ukrainians with food, water and weapons is a good start. Supplying them early warnings about troop movements from satellite imagery and cracked Russian communications would be a second, and it would be very deniable to boot. Sanctions will reduce the ability of the Russians to keep up the offensive in the mid-term, and there is indirect pressure to be exerted via the Chinese (who are miffed at the lack of warning they got from "close friend" Putin about his plans) and other diplomatic means. And finally there are of course all sorts of black ops you can do in an active warzone, similar to how Russia deployed "little green men" in Donetsk and Luhansk in 2014.
> Supplying the Ukrainians with food, water and weapons is a good start.
Countries have been very public about doing this.
> Supplying them early warnings about troop movements from satellite imagery and cracked Russian communications would be a second, and it would be very deniable to boot.
They're pretty obviously doing this, Ukranian forces seem to have a lot of knowledge about Russian movements.
> And finally there are of course all sorts of black ops you can do in an active warzone
Something like 20k "volunteers" have gone to Ukraine to fight. Many of these people are likely not random couch surfers that decided to sign up.
I think the west is already doing almost everything you've outlined here. We just aren't in a position to know.
Countries have been very public about doing this.
> Supplying them early warnings about troop movements from satellite imagery and cracked Russian communications would be a second, and it would be very deniable to boot.
They're pretty obviously doing this, Ukranian forces seem to have a lot of knowledge about Russian movements.
> And finally there are of course all sorts of black ops you can do in an active warzone
Something like 20k "volunteers" have gone to Ukraine to fight. Many of these people are likely not random couch surfers that decided to sign up.
I think the west is already doing almost everything you've outlined here. We just aren't in a position to know.
> They're pretty obviously doing this, Ukranian forces seem to have a lot of knowledge about Russian movements.
There are direct reports of this. IIRC, they're taking raw intelligence, scrubbing it to hide sources and methods (they think the Ukrainian government is full of Russian spies), and refraining from recommending specific actions based on it (because they feel like that would cross some stupid line and irritate the Russians too much). My understanding is that they've been able to get timely updates the the Ukrainians pretty quickly.
There are direct reports of this. IIRC, they're taking raw intelligence, scrubbing it to hide sources and methods (they think the Ukrainian government is full of Russian spies), and refraining from recommending specific actions based on it (because they feel like that would cross some stupid line and irritate the Russians too much). My understanding is that they've been able to get timely updates the the Ukrainians pretty quickly.
> Please elaborate on what else the West can do? No fly-zone is a non-starter
No fly-zones. It's pretty clear that falls into the category of something the West can do, but chooses not to out of fear. Because the West is afraid, Putin isn't.
Stepping down from that: have Zelensky invite the west to bomb certain Ukrainian roads and bridges in Ukrainian territory that the Russians are using, then do it. Maybe even be funny about it and post a notice of emergency demolition due to unsafe conditions on some Ukrainian DOT-equivalent site. Or supply the Ukrainians with advanced weaponry like anti-ship and cruise missiles (perhaps in-fact secretly operated by Western advisors) to attack Russian landing ships and supply lines.
No fly-zones. It's pretty clear that falls into the category of something the West can do, but chooses not to out of fear. Because the West is afraid, Putin isn't.
Stepping down from that: have Zelensky invite the west to bomb certain Ukrainian roads and bridges in Ukrainian territory that the Russians are using, then do it. Maybe even be funny about it and post a notice of emergency demolition due to unsafe conditions on some Ukrainian DOT-equivalent site. Or supply the Ukrainians with advanced weaponry like anti-ship and cruise missiles (perhaps in-fact secretly operated by Western advisors) to attack Russian landing ships and supply lines.
> No fly-zones. It's pretty clear that falls into the category of something the West can do, but chooses not to out of fear.
NATO shooting down Russian planes is war between nuclear powers. This isn't Libya. This isn't the West being afraid, it's the West acting like adults.
NATO shooting down Russian planes is war between nuclear powers. This isn't Libya. This isn't the West being afraid, it's the West acting like adults.
> NATO shooting down Russian planes is war between nuclear powers. This isn't Libya. This isn't the West being afraid, it's the West acting like adults.
That is the West being afraid, specifically of Russian escalation. They're so afraid, they've pretty much explicitly told Russia it can do whatever it wants.
That is the West being afraid, specifically of Russian escalation. They're so afraid, they've pretty much explicitly told Russia it can do whatever it wants.
Bring back the old lend-lease program. It was basically a way to remain officially neutral while arming your allies.
The U.S. isn't officially neutral, so lend-lease is pointless in this case. The west is already overtly arming Ukraine.
I agree. I fear Ukraine will “win” when Russia retreats from the scorched, destroyed-to-rubble ruins of their nation.
Getting rid of the Russian interference forever would be still pay back. We must remember that Germany was fully destroyed to rubble also and now is the largest economy in the EU.
Under the correct environment things can recover surprisingly fast.
Under the correct environment things can recover surprisingly fast.
The west can do for the Ukrainians what Pakistan has been doing for decades for the Taliban: provide safe havens, supplies and weapons to small insurgent groups doing guerilla strikes against the Russians. The Ukraine is so large that to keep it occupied would take hundreds of thousands of troops and Russia cannot afford to keep up such mobilisation for long. They have a few months at most and properly beating an insurgency takes years if not decades.
I don't really buy the Chernobyl argument either. If the NATO starts shooting the Russians already have nuclear weapons to act directly. No need to crack open an old nuclear plant and hope the wind doesn't change.
I don't really buy the Chernobyl argument either. If the NATO starts shooting the Russians already have nuclear weapons to act directly. No need to crack open an old nuclear plant and hope the wind doesn't change.
> The west can do for the Ukrainians what Pakistan has been doing for decades for the Taliban: provide safe havens, supplies and weapons to small insurgent groups doing guerilla strikes against the Russians.
This would be a great tactic to reduce Ukraine to a pile of smoking rubble over a couple of decades of war. I'm not sure that's a great outcome for Ukrainians.
This would be a great tactic to reduce Ukraine to a pile of smoking rubble over a couple of decades of war. I'm not sure that's a great outcome for Ukrainians.
What the West does is what will be the best for them, not necessarily what will be the best for Ukrainians. I'm sure there are a couple of foreign policy officials somewhere that would love the idea of Russia being tied up in the Ukraine for decades instead of using that capacity for bothering other countries.
Why would Russia stay in Ukraine for decades?
The will to commit Russia's military in Ukraine is pretty much Putin's alone. His narrative around the invasion was proven completely untrue within days. The sanctions are making life extremely difficult for both ordinary Russians, and for the wealthy oligarchs. Ordinary Russians are being asked to go die in a war against their Ukrainian brothers and sisters, who keep telling their Russian brothers and sisters to stop the madness and get the fuck out. And finally, Putin is 70, how much longer is he going to stay in control?
The will to commit Russia's military in Ukraine is pretty much Putin's alone. His narrative around the invasion was proven completely untrue within days. The sanctions are making life extremely difficult for both ordinary Russians, and for the wealthy oligarchs. Ordinary Russians are being asked to go die in a war against their Ukrainian brothers and sisters, who keep telling their Russian brothers and sisters to stop the madness and get the fuck out. And finally, Putin is 70, how much longer is he going to stay in control?
Nuclear fallout in Ukraine is going to affect Russia more than it affects "the west". It makes zero strategic sense to start bombing nuclear plants.
[deleted]
Russia can't do that. They have no way of moving supplies from Russia into Ukraine. That means Russia's operational capabilities are limited to five days, at which point their troops are stranded.
> In the case that NATO starts shooting, the sarcophagus over Chernobyl can be bombed (Putin can blame Ukrainians here).
Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.
Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.
> Bombing Chernobyl would make zero strategic sense.
OTOH, starting a nuclear WW3 would also make zero strategic sense, and still the West is worried about him doing that. So maybe worrying about this is also valid.
OTOH, starting a nuclear WW3 would also make zero strategic sense, and still the West is worried about him doing that. So maybe worrying about this is also valid.
how much of this was contributed to banning all reporting from the Russian side of things? right now the atmosphere is like if you even remotely suggest that Russia is actually making slow progress despite losses you are viewed as supporting Russia!
Yet what the fixation on Kyiv is doing is it's pulling resources away from the south and Donentsk/Lukansk area where the Ukraine army is in real danger of being completely surrounded.
There is heavy propaganda and disinformation from both Russia and Ukraine but what we've done in the West is effectively ban impartiality. Never before have we seen this level of zealous emotions since WW2.
@JominiW on twitter does a very good explanation of various political and military objectives and the strategic movement of the Russian forces and he's repeatedly called out the dangers of believing the enemy is a paper tiger.
We've seen all sorts of incompetence from the Russian side and Ukrainian forces have done a good job of defending Kyiv but we forget that Ukraine is not just Kyiv, it is slowly being swallowed up from all directions.
This is called target fixation and it's going to shock a lot of people who only follows one side. Best thing to do in an unpredictable and volatile situation is to not fixate on one view.
We will shortly know in the coming weeks what will happen, if Putin makes significant grounds, he has more chips to gamble/make demands. If Putin fails here, he has no choice to escalate in ways that was previously thought unimaginable.
It doesn't help that US/NATO alliance is adamant on not escalating to WW3 yet they sanction every Russian, despite their objections to war and Putin, in some extremely liberal naivete that the Russians will rise up against an authoritarian government who is ready to use small scale nukes if need be.
Yet what the fixation on Kyiv is doing is it's pulling resources away from the south and Donentsk/Lukansk area where the Ukraine army is in real danger of being completely surrounded.
There is heavy propaganda and disinformation from both Russia and Ukraine but what we've done in the West is effectively ban impartiality. Never before have we seen this level of zealous emotions since WW2.
@JominiW on twitter does a very good explanation of various political and military objectives and the strategic movement of the Russian forces and he's repeatedly called out the dangers of believing the enemy is a paper tiger.
We've seen all sorts of incompetence from the Russian side and Ukrainian forces have done a good job of defending Kyiv but we forget that Ukraine is not just Kyiv, it is slowly being swallowed up from all directions.
This is called target fixation and it's going to shock a lot of people who only follows one side. Best thing to do in an unpredictable and volatile situation is to not fixate on one view.
We will shortly know in the coming weeks what will happen, if Putin makes significant grounds, he has more chips to gamble/make demands. If Putin fails here, he has no choice to escalate in ways that was previously thought unimaginable.
It doesn't help that US/NATO alliance is adamant on not escalating to WW3 yet they sanction every Russian, despite their objections to war and Putin, in some extremely liberal naivete that the Russians will rise up against an authoritarian government who is ready to use small scale nukes if need be.
> we forget that Ukraine is not just Kyiv, it is slowly being swallowed up from all directions
Except we haven’t forgotten, news orgs are reporting on things happening outside of Kyiv. Russia seems to have really overplayed their hand because they were barely able to take Kherson after like a week, and can’t even take bigger cities like Kharkiv, even with intense shelling.
Russia may not be a paper tiger, but they sure can’t do much against an enemy many times smaller than them.
Except we haven’t forgotten, news orgs are reporting on things happening outside of Kyiv. Russia seems to have really overplayed their hand because they were barely able to take Kherson after like a week, and can’t even take bigger cities like Kharkiv, even with intense shelling.
Russia may not be a paper tiger, but they sure can’t do much against an enemy many times smaller than them.
> they sure can’t do much against an enemy many times smaller than them.
Neither could the US.
Another factor here is that Ukraine isn't Afghanistan or Vietnam where natural barriers offer chance for insurgency to hide out, regroup.
Russia here can absolutely level cities and buildings and it is impossible to construct underground tunnels in flat lands known for its ability to soak up water (the tunnels would not be structurally safe), and it is far too late now in this stage of the war.
An incompetent large army vs a competent large army makes little difference when the fighting environment is against the defenders (no mountains or jungles to hide out in).
The best chance at insurgency would be to start digging but again the soil in Ukraine makes this a challenge, my prediction is that we could see something similar to what Hamas is doing in Palestine in the form of human shields, swaying public media through casualties, urban warfare at best but unlike IDF which does to a certain degree exercise in minimization of collateral damage (ex. calling occupants in the apartment building to evacuate before bombing Hamas launching rockets) where as Putin/RF has zero qualms about collateral damage.
The Western sanctions have only esclated tensions, have emboldened Putin even more, as they've given him nothing to lose. When you corner a wild animal like Putin you will get bitten.
There's just no way out for him except to escalate from what I can see since Ukraine has rejected giving up DNR/LNR/Crimea. Neither side is willing to budge so this will simply continue to lead to human suffering on both sides.
Neither could the US.
Another factor here is that Ukraine isn't Afghanistan or Vietnam where natural barriers offer chance for insurgency to hide out, regroup.
Russia here can absolutely level cities and buildings and it is impossible to construct underground tunnels in flat lands known for its ability to soak up water (the tunnels would not be structurally safe), and it is far too late now in this stage of the war.
An incompetent large army vs a competent large army makes little difference when the fighting environment is against the defenders (no mountains or jungles to hide out in).
The best chance at insurgency would be to start digging but again the soil in Ukraine makes this a challenge, my prediction is that we could see something similar to what Hamas is doing in Palestine in the form of human shields, swaying public media through casualties, urban warfare at best but unlike IDF which does to a certain degree exercise in minimization of collateral damage (ex. calling occupants in the apartment building to evacuate before bombing Hamas launching rockets) where as Putin/RF has zero qualms about collateral damage.
The Western sanctions have only esclated tensions, have emboldened Putin even more, as they've given him nothing to lose. When you corner a wild animal like Putin you will get bitten.
There's just no way out for him except to escalate from what I can see since Ukraine has rejected giving up DNR/LNR/Crimea. Neither side is willing to budge so this will simply continue to lead to human suffering on both sides.
> When you corner a wild animal like Putin you will get bitten.
In this analogy, doesn't the wild animal then typically get killed?
In this analogy, doesn't the wild animal then typically get killed?
>Russia may not be a paper tiger, but they sure can’t do much against an enemy many times smaller than them.
How long did it take for the US to take Afghanistan?
How long did it take for the US to take Afghanistan?
The logistics of taking a country that is thousands of miles away are very different from taking one you share a border with.
It took 47 days to take Kabul, counting from the first day the CIA agents were sent to prepare the invasion. Furthermore, the objective was to find bin Laden, not to take cities.
The war in Ukraine isn't really comparable to Afghanistan. The US mostly "softened" strategic objectives with air strikes, whereas Russia can't/won't do that in Ukraine.
It took 47 days to take Kabul, counting from the first day the CIA agents were sent to prepare the invasion. Furthermore, the objective was to find bin Laden, not to take cities.
The war in Ukraine isn't really comparable to Afghanistan. The US mostly "softened" strategic objectives with air strikes, whereas Russia can't/won't do that in Ukraine.
Differences are: USA never planned to invade and anexate (e.g. USA never bombed cities to terrorize people), and supply lines were waaaay worse for the USA.
Also, the terrain is very favourable to create a quagmire in Afghanistan (resistance can retreat to the mointains) while Ukraine is mainly open terrain.
Also, the terrain is very favourable to create a quagmire in Afghanistan (resistance can retreat to the mointains) while Ukraine is mainly open terrain.
Iraq was on the other side of the world from us, not next door, and we took that over in a matter of days.
Just to correct the info: the invasion of Iraq (a much weaker country) by the combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland lasted just over one month … but it’s not really comparable situation here for the reasons you pointed.
Not to be too picky about the details, but it took about three weeks to finally get to Bagdad. The Ukrainian conflict has not been going quite that long.
Never.
The accounts I follow (like @OSINTtechnical) are careful to point out that Russia is doing relatively well in the south of Ukraine but I’ve never seen a believable analysis that they actually are doing well, and I’ve looked. The ones out there are base contrarianism, usually disproven in the next day or two. In particular they assume Russia somehow controls land by driving straight past it so it gets marked red on the map.
Still, it doesn’t change their ability to flatten any city they want. And the lack of any good successor government in Russia to allow the current one to collapse, so they have nothing to lose.
In the end it’s all Larry Summers’ fault, like everything else in the world.
Still, it doesn’t change their ability to flatten any city they want. And the lack of any good successor government in Russia to allow the current one to collapse, so they have nothing to lose.
In the end it’s all Larry Summers’ fault, like everything else in the world.
I think you're overreacting. There is literally an article on the homepage of The Guardian today that explicitly talks about the over-focus on Kyiv https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/kyiv-deadlock-...
yeah fog of war makes understanding the situation as a 3rd party cumbersome. I've essentially given up and just going to wait and see what falls out.
I just checked and you can access Russian state media, so have at it please https://ria.ru - I don't speak Russian but from my research this is state owned media, please if others know better can we prove that if you really want to read Russia propaganda it is still possible, you just need a bit more effort then opening FB or twiiter or your TV
I understand Russian. Looking at ria.ru over the past few days there is barely any mention of the war, certainly no details, there's much more mention of sanctions but only some weird stories about their origin and motivation.
> right now the atmosphere is like if you even remotely suggest that Russia is actually making slow progress despite losses you are viewed as supporting Russia!
Only on Twitter and Reddit. Look at conventional media and they are mostly discussing Russian gains in the south, while occasionally mentioning that their advance has ground to a halt in the north.
Only on Twitter and Reddit. Look at conventional media and they are mostly discussing Russian gains in the south, while occasionally mentioning that their advance has ground to a halt in the north.
> what we've done in the West is effectively ban impartiality.
WTF is there to be "impartial" about?
WTF is there to be "impartial" about?
If Putin fails in Ukraine, he'll be forced from power in Russia. He has no reason to give up and every reason to continue until he can claim at least some sort of victory.
What is clear is that Putin is highly paranoid and has been since taking power and he's willing to commit crimes against humanity to stay in power.
He's already announced he is willing to use nukes if threatened and NATO will not respond unless multiple re-entry vehicles carrying nukes rain on their cities. He could do a lot here by using small scale nukes that don't create huge fallouts even.
If you were Putin, does it not make sense that his least trusted, potentially disloyal officers, generals would be on the frontlines and hope they don't come back?
He's already announced he is willing to use nukes if threatened and NATO will not respond unless multiple re-entry vehicles carrying nukes rain on their cities. He could do a lot here by using small scale nukes that don't create huge fallouts even.
If you were Putin, does it not make sense that his least trusted, potentially disloyal officers, generals would be on the frontlines and hope they don't come back?
Putin is not that unrealistic, he knows very well that even just one nuke would make Russia a pariah state for the next 100 years at least. Even China would turn their back on them. Turning Russia into a second North Korea was never Putin's plan.
> ban impartiality
What ban was impartial?
What ban was impartial?