Russia-Ukraine conflict


LDSGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been involved with some related items recently.  I imagine I may be involved with it for a while as things are going. 

Some of the items I read in this thread are particularly discouraging...

Be happy that you are not yet really affected by the War in Europe.

Pray for those that are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2022 at 8:32 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Y'all remember what you were thinking and saying in 2008, when Russia did this the first time, but with Georgia?  I guess more to the point, does anyone remember anything about it, or even that it happened?   The first European war of the 21st century?  First time the post-USSR Russia invaded a sovereign nation?  There was some talk about Nato's lack of response then, too.

Granted, it was a quicker and smaller conflict, with only ~80,000 invading troops and less than 400 killed/1600 wounded total, and "only" displaced less than 200,000 people.  And it only took about a week before the ceasefire, because the Russians were able to occupy pretty much everything they wanted with not too much blood.  Ukraine numbers are between 2-4x as large, with the refugee crisis being a lot bigger.

I'm hardly an expert, and I'm sort of wondering why Ukraine has the whole world's attention, while Georgia got basically zilch.  I'm thinking it's at least partially due to Ukraine deciding to fight, while Georgia sort of rolled over.  Not sure how much US politics and media wishes have to do with it, but I do find it interesting that 2008 had us all excited about hope and change, and 2022 is full of inflation and a scary democrat midterm election forecast.  

I'll take a stab at this one and I'll be blunt about it.  The two most contributing factors are 1) Georgians have more in common (culturally/ethnically) with Middle Eastern peoples than they do with European peoples, and 2) Georgia is on the wrong side of the Black Sea.  (Chechnya even more so on both counts). It isn't a comfortable truth, but I don't really doubt these are the primary contributors.

The other thing working very well for Ukraine has been the fact that their government has entertainers placed throughout a lot of key parts of the government (I can't locate the article I had read about this, but it was a longer piece in one of the more prestigious news organizations (not cable news)) . Zelensky actually took some heat for this given his anti-corruption platform, but he put a handful of his entertainment industry friends throughout the government. They weren't necessarily running major parts of government, but they were pretty well connected to the goings on.  As a consequence, the government got a lot better at telling a story. This isn't your traditional government, and it's been plagued by a lot of inefficienies and failures, but it comes across as genuine and scrappy, and that wins hearts.

The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine.  There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

....

The last major contributor, and this probably has more weight than I'm giving it, is that most geopolitical strategy experts didn't really expect a full on invasion of Ukraine.  There was expectation that Luhansk and Donbass would get swallowed up, but strategically, it doesn't make sense to try to take all of Ukraine. The fact that Putin did so anyway indicates a less rational threat than was expected--a mad man with nukes. I've talked about this before, so I won't rehash, but this dimension is a pretty scary thing to be looking at.

The talking point of a "mad man with nukes" is starting to appear more and more in discussions about Putin.  In essence that thought is that we should avoid a mad man with nukes at all costs.  Obviously this is a self contradicting statement and plays directly into what makes such a mad man with nukes think their are unrivaled, unmatched and undefeatable.   But first off - if Putin was a mad man with nukes he would have already demonstrated his madness.  He has nukes but it appears to me he will not use them unless absolutely necessary.  The concern is is what is absolutely necessary to him.  For the record, I am of the opinion that it is not a matter of if we will eventually become engaged in war with Putin (or his allies) as it is a matter of when.  Unless they are convinced that they will be meet with overwhelming force.   It appears to me that Putin's strategy is to convince all those that oppose him will be met with overwhelming force. 

I will not pretend that I am an expert in war - I know better because I was in the army during the Vietnam war.  From my experience - I am of the opinion that many in the USA (including this forum) do not comprehend the reality of war - thinking that there are are somehow well defined "rules" of war.  The initial decision to kill another human being does something to otherwise common citizens that become soldiers.  However, it is my personal belief that the only thing worse than the creating of citizen soldiers in a war is a society thinks fighting a war should be done with an exclusive soldier class.  I am of the opinion that war will always have some insane and disconnected level of tolerance in the minds of people that are somehow convinced that someone else will fight it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, Ukraine is desirable primarily for its wheat output.  If you’re Putin, and you’re planning to recoup your war costs through the sale of Ukrainian grain—people need to not be worried that the grain may be radioactive.

Which makes me wonder about that invasion plan of Moldova that Lukashenko let slip—maybe the plan is to pick a fight with Moldova, nuke them (or any non-NATO country that gets involved), and then hope the Ukrainians get scared and surrender themselves and their still-edible grain crops.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2022 at 7:32 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Y'all remember what you were thinking and saying in 2008, when Russia did this the first time, but with Georgia?  I guess more to the point, does anyone remember anything about it, or even that it happened?   The first European war of the 21st century?  First time the post-USSR Russia invaded a sovereign nation?  There was some talk about Nato's lack of response then, too.

There are two levels to this.

FIRST:

The primary thing to remember is that we make a fuss when politicians and the talking heads make a fuss.  So, why didn't they make a fuss with Georgia?

  • Georgia was not interested in being part of NATO.
  • Georgia was not the lynchpin nation between east and west (militarily, economically, sociologically).
  • Georgia was not a strong military nation with ties to the US.
  • Georgia was not a critical nation with navy access to the Black Sea.

We're making judgements about this war as it if is simply the act of a madman.  It is much bigger than that.  While I wouldn't want to be locked in a room with Putin, he's not the man the media and several politicians are making him out to be.  This is entirely calculated to counter the expansion of NATO, and to provide strategic military positioning by the Russians.

The very fact that the world economy is able to cripple Russia without firing a single bullet is evidence that they may have waited too long.  They knew this was coming.  And Ukraine joining NATO was simply the last straw.

Basically, it is a proxy war.  

SECOND:

I absolutely believe in secret combinations nudging here and there, without actually having to expose anything.

  • We the people simply see a nation waging an "unprovoked" war against an innocent freedom loving people.
  • The world leaders are well aware of the strategic positioning between nations.
  • What the world leaders are NOT aware of is that they, too, are being manipulated.  The whole reason why we're in this situation to begin with was that when there was not enough information to truly know what to expect, the right person was in the right place to whisper into the ear of a willing dupe.  And this began a long time before our current President.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/11/2022 at 2:08 PM, Ironhold said:

I'm trained in psychological warfare. 

A few other people here have likewise had training or other experience in fields that touch on mental illness and mental health. 

Quite a few posters have also had their own personal struggles with mental illness, either themselves or caring for someone else. 

This isn't a judgment rendered out of the blue. 

I fit the bolded line above.

I don't consider myself an "expert" on this matter.  I do consider myself more informed than the average person.

My father had a gradual decline.  Now, he's just "gone". 

Early on in the process,. my oldest brother simply stated "he's completely lost his marbles."  But at the time, he just seemed a little "out of it" like he was completely exhausted.  Physically, he seemed to have energy.  He just had the mental awareness of someone who was very tired -- unable to focus, seemed to forget quickly a phase someone just said several times in as many minutes.  It could have very well been that he was merely tired all the time.  But for my brother, that was enough.  He was willing to say what no one else was willing to.  And as far as I know, he had never had any previous experience with it.  He just happened to observe him enough to know that this was more than simple fatigue.

Eventually, it got bad enough that several siblings and my mother decided to have him examined.  But by that time -- even before the doctor looked at him -- they all pretty much knew "that child ain't right."  And he's gotten a lot worse since then.  And he's also lost his wife since then.

  • I don't need to be an expert to see that what I see Biden doing now vs. how I saw him 6 to 10 years ago is very different.
  • I don't need to be an expert to see that what I see in Biden is very similar to that early stage when only my brother was ready to declare my father "lost his marbles."
  • I don't need to be an expert to see behavior that resembles a slap-stick comedy about an old man who is getting senile.
  • I also don't claim I know for sure exactly what is going on with Biden.  Sometimes I think I see real thought behind his actions.  Other times I don't.  So, I really don't know.
  • I also believe that IF it really is dementia, we won't have to wait long to see on a very public stage that he truly is "gone".
Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Tuesday said it is "clear that Ukraine is not a member of NATO," a fact that "must be acknowledged."

Zelensky made his remarks while virtually addressing leaders of the U.K.-led Joint Expeditionary Force initiative. "For years we have been hearing about how the door is supposedly open [to NATO membership], but now we hear that we cannot enter," Zelensky said, adding that he is "glad that our people are beginning to understand this and rely on themselves and on our partners who assist us."

https://news.yahoo.com/zelensky-says-understands-ukraine-likely-030049754.html

This was really an important turning point for giving Putin an "out".  This was the primary concern of Russians.  Putin could declare victory and say that he obtained the objective.

Quote

Leading up to the invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded that Ukraine be permanently barred from joining NATO, saying the country's membership would threaten Russia's security.

Most people didn't pay much attention to this.  But this was the real reason behind the invasion to begin with.

When Zelensky publicly announced this, I thought that the war could end soon.  But then...

Quote

The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people in defense of the NATO alliance.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/16/kamala-harris-tweet-mistakenly-suggests-ukraine-is-part-of-nato/

Under any normal time, this would have been of no consequence.  But these are not normal times.  This was basically a declaration of war as far as Putin is concerned.

So, be prepared for a longer war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am coming to the conclusion that the US should reduce its NATO commitments.  An expansive NATO was necessary against an ideological foe bent on global domination; but in the absence of such a foe a vast network of alliances and commitments among dozens of countries only increases the possibility of a world war breaking out over some petty border dispute initiated by a local strongman with limited territorial ambitions.

To maintain stability and act as a check against expansionist bullies, I am wondering if the better plan is a series of regional defensive alliances each anchored by a trustworthy nuclear power:  a Central European alliance that checks Russia and is centered around Ukraine, Finland, and a nuclear Poland (or perhaps with additional nuclear security guarantees from France, if we don’t trust Poland with nukes); an East Asian alliance that checks China and is centered on India and a newly-nuclear Japan; and maybe a middle eastern alliance countering Iran that’s centered around a non-nuclear Saudi Arabia (and subtly backed by a nuclear Israel, as well as the threat that if Iran gets nukes the US will make sure that Saudi Arabia gets them too).

A stripped-down NATO might continue on with the US guaranteeing security for English-speaking nations that actually border on the North Atlantic, and the US might look at also organizing a separate defensive alliance with Central and South American countries to deter Chinese meddling (if China or its local vassals get too aggressively exploitive on the African continent, a Western European alliance of France, Spain, and Germany may look at offering support to free nations there).

The US, either through or independently of NATO, could also offer training and matériels and intelligence to the other alliances; but would make it very clear that it was not offering any security guarantees to members of those other alliances.  The fact that the US was no longer committed to involve itself in a regional war against Russia/China/North Korea would hopefully mean that, if a nuclear war did break out, at least we wouldn’t necessarily be the inevitable targets. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am coming to the conclusion that the US should reduce its NATO commitments.

You make a persuasive and reasonable argument.  But it's running smack into my concept of a quality of human nature - "grab power, increase power".  Yes, it's tempting, since we're here watching week 3 of Ukrainians laughing at Russia's attempts to take it over.   But if we weaken NATO and the US removes itself further as the powerhouse of the world, there are always other nations waiting in the wings, willing to be emboldened in a heartbeat.  "If we invade and take over, what's the rest of the world going to do, look to the US?  What's the US going to do, the same thing it did with Ukraine (and Georgia, and Chechnya, and Hong Kong)?"

China has been eyeing Taiwan for a long time.  Imagine what an opinion of American weakness and noninvolvement will do to their willingness.  And if "meh, it's just a border skirmish" becomes the new normal, one might foresee China taking it's place as global superpower, with a hazy outlook about the US maintaining the title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

You make a persuasive and reasonable argument.  But it's running smack into my concept of a quality of human nature - "grab power, increase power".  Yes, it's tempting, since we're here watching week 3 of Ukrainians laughing at Russia's attempts to take it over.   But if we weaken NATO and the US removes itself further as the powerhouse of the world, there are always other nations waiting in the wings, willing to be emboldened in a heartbeat.  "If we invade and take over, what's the rest of the world going to do, look to the US?  What's the US going to do, the same thing it did with Ukraine (and Georgia, and Chechnya, and Hong Kong)?"

China has been eyeing Taiwan for a long time.  Imagine what an opinion of American weakness and noninvolvement will do to their willingness.  And if "meh, it's just a border skirmish" becomes the new normal, one might foresee China taking it's place as global superpower, with a hazy outlook about the US maintaining the title.

I totally agree with you.

But the trouble is that I think the history of this century indicates that American presidents, regardless of party, cannot be trusted to stand by the security commitments that previous administrations have made (and in fairness to those presidents, that’s probably reflective of the American people’s general unwillingness these days to risk the sacrifices of war—especially nuclear war—for the sake of something so abstract as “national honor” or “making the world safe for democracy”). 

In a perfect world American presidents would always cowboy up and stand by our friends.  But since they clearly don’t (and won’t), the next-best option is to let our friends know that they are free to create new defensive alliances with local neighbors who will keep their promises.  Our fecklessness has already created local power vacuums; the question is whether we will get out of the way of the local good guys who want to fill it before the local bad guys come crashing in.  And if that realignment means we spend a few billion per year less on defense, and/or that Chinese nukes are by default aimed at Tokyo rather than Los Angeles and Russian nukes are aimed at Helsinki rather than New York, and the Russians retire their ballistic missile submarines—so much the better.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A3387B32-A727-43AA-8C10-E6F1A07270B5.thumb.png.f171a600d961b7444db19e14b5f1016e.png

Still listening to this.  Highly recommend it.

We will not defeat socialism and ignorance with our military.

The internet and wholesome information about what liberty and self determination can provide will conquer the world.

My Father and this book both displayed a very important truth about America that is devastating to our enemies.

Supermarkets - yup thats it.

My Dad who purchased shoes from Asia for the military, was in charge of taking one of the shoe factory executives back to the States to show him our facilities.

When they arrived my Dad took him to a simple grocery store and picked up a few things.  The man was awed.  He thought that the store was a political prop.  My dad then challenged him to point in any direction where he would then drive to the next store.  When they showed up at the 3rd store the business executive started to cry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, mikbone said:

A3387B32-A727-43AA-8C10-E6F1A07270B5.thumb.png.f171a600d961b7444db19e14b5f1016e.png

Still listening to this.  Highly recommend it.

We will not defeat socialism and ignorance with our military.

The internet and wholesome information about what liberty and self determination can provide will conquer the world.

My Father and this book both displayed a very important truth about America that is devastating to our enemies.

Supermarkets - yup thats it.

My Dad who purchased shoes from Asia for the military, was in charge of taking one of the shoe factory executives back to the States to show him our facilities.

When they arrived my Dad took him to a simple grocery store and picked up a few things.  The man was awed.  He thought that the store was a political prop.  My dad then challenged him to point in any direction where he would then drive to the next store.  When they showed up at the 3rd store the business executive started to cry.

Putin isn’t a socialist, he’s the rough equal of a fascist mafia Don running a country. In fact, he jails socialists and communists frequently. https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.as.com/en/2022/02/25/latest_news/1645789440_659365.amp.html


The grocery store thing was true. Many years ago. When LG and I hosted two Chinese exchange students, we took them to the grocery store on the first night and both weren’t terribly surprised by it. It’s fairly normal there except in the really rural parts. 
 

To be clear, both socialism and communism are plagues on society and repulsive belief systems. But not every Russian leader is Stalin 2.0, and not everyone from a communist country will fall on their knees and weep when they see a grocery store. That was the case in 1983, not 2022. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mikbone said:

A3387B32-A727-43AA-8C10-E6F1A07270B5.thumb.png.f171a600d961b7444db19e14b5f1016e.png

Still listening to this.  Highly recommend it.

We will not defeat socialism and ignorance with our military.

The internet and wholesome information about what liberty and self determination can provide will conquer the world.

My Father and this book both displayed a very important truth about America that is devastating to our enemies.

Supermarkets - yup thats it.

My Dad who purchased shoes from Asia for the military, was in charge of taking one of the shoe factory executives back to the States to show him our facilities.

When they arrived my Dad took him to a simple grocery store and picked up a few things.  The man was awed.  He thought that the store was a political prop.  My dad then challenged him to point in any direction where he would then drive to the next store.  When they showed up at the 3rd store the business executive started to cry.

Wasn’t a visit to an American grocery store also what convinced Yeltsin that communism was done for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Wasn’t a visit to an American grocery store also what convinced Yeltsin that communism was done for?

I’ve heard that it was Khrushchev who said it in the 1960’s. 

Russia has grocery stores. This is the big chain: 

https://www.magnit.com/en/

Last I heard it has something like 4200 stores. China even has Wal Marts I think. 

Showing Russians a grocery store is like shaking your car keys at a 9 year old. It entertained them when they were six months old, now they’ll just look at you funny and wonder what you are doing.
 

 A North Korean would absolutely break down if you threw them in a Publix, but there’s a huge difference between a Russian and a North Korean. 
 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Putin isn’t a socialist, he’s the rough equal of a fascist mafia Don running a country. In fact, he jails socialists and communists frequently

Didn’t say he was.

The Russians are different then we are though.

They believe that the state is more important than the individual  - generally.

They were ok with losing 20M casualties during WWII.  

When we see a single death of an innocent we are moved and angered.  Pretty sure the 7,000 Russian deaths upset us more than Putin.

When the Russians recognize that life is more important then the state we will have made a significant difference.

Elon Musk’s star link will likely cause much more harm then our threat of Nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mikbone said:

Didn’t say he was.

The Russians are different then we are though.

They believe that the state is more important than the individual  - generally.

They were ok with losing 20M casualties during WWII.  

When we see a single death of an innocent we are moved and angered.  Pretty sure the 7,000 Russian deaths upset us more than Putin.

When the Russians recognize that life is more important then the state we will have made a significant difference.

Elon Musk’s star link will likely cause much more harm then our threat of Nukes.

If I misunderstood, I apologize. We agree totally on everything else you said in this post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mikbone said:

They were ok with losing 20M casualties during WWII.  

Wow - that's a pretty dang harsh demonization of an entire people.  I'm not sure it's the tiniest bit justified.  I'm more certain the traumatic memories of the siege of Leningrad (and others) have traveled through generations, and are a prime motivator for Russia to seek to expand into it's old buffer zones, as a calculated play to do whatever it takes to never have to lose another 20M casualties in a war.

Y'all know where St. Petersburg is, in relation to Ukraine?  How close Moscow is to NATO?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Wow - that's a pretty dang harsh demonization of an entire people

It’s an oversimplification, but he’s not wrong @NeuroTypical. The awful truth is that it’s called “Bloody Russia” for a reason. They’ve had front row seats to WWI, the revolution, WWII, and 85 years of communism, not to mention their own awful history pre-1900.  You’d be jaded too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

and are a prime motivator for Russia to seek to expand into it's old buffer zones, as a calculated play to do whatever it takes to never have to lose another 20M casualties in a war.

Thats why we can rest assured that Putin will not push the Nuke button, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mikbone said:

Thats why we can rest assured that Putin will not push the Nuke button, right?

 The Russians certainly took enormous losses in WWII—but they didn’t really have a choice.  The Nazis looked at Slavs and other Eastern Europeans as sub-humans only a few steps above Jewry; the Russians knew they were going to die whether they fought or not and so they figured they may as well fight.  But Russians don’t like dying in stupid wars any more than anyone else:  when they lost a war they thought they should have won in 1905, and then got bogged down in WWI, they killed their own tsar and sued for peace; they withdrew from Afghanistan after suffering at least 14,000 dead over ten years (and they’ve just lost at least half that amount again in the last three weeks).

As for whether Putin used nukes, I still think the  million dollar question is:  against whom?  The US would shoot back, and he’s not formally at war with us.  Nuking Ukraine would sour the investment he’s put into subjugating the country.  If Putin wants to use a nuke in a way that won’t elicit an immediate counterstrike from us (or the UK or France) (any one of which could well result in Putin’s own death), it seems to me that he’s going to have to find a way to drag another non-nuclear, non-NATO country into the war on Ukraine’s side and then nuke them—hoping that fears of “holy crap, we could be next” will lead the Ukrainians to surrender en masse.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share