Europe Backdrop to the war in Ukraine

[Gethelred]

This is the thread for the geopolitics, history and framework around the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If you want to discuss the events of the war, head over to this thread:

Europe - War in Ukraine - Thread 4 - thread rules updated

This is the thread for discussing the War in Ukraine. Should you want to discuss the geopolitics, the history, or an interesting tangent, head over here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/backdrop-to-the-war-in-ukraine.1302028/ If a post isn't directly concerning the events of the war or...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Zidane98]

I've made my point multiple times comrade. The only way ukraine 'win', ie retain their lost territory, is if NATO puts boots on the ground and planes in the sky. To do so would risk nuclear war, that's why they aren't doing it, not that complicated

Nope.

Ukraine wins when Russia cannot continue to maintain its invasion and withdraws. By Reality is Russians are dying purely in the name of Putin's thoroughly deluded ideology of a new Russian empire. Ukrainian are fighting for their future, their culture & identity. These are the main reasons why Russia is getting nowhere.

NATO won't need to send troops. At most individual states directly threatened by Russian fascism may send troops (Poland, Baltics, Finland) eventually further making Putin's invasion futile.

Nyet risk of nuclear war either no matter what happens in Ukraine.

 

[Chief]

It's kinda funny the dual narrative that people keep, where's the cognitive dissonance. Russia is useless, using WW2 tech, throw men into the meat grinder for incremental gains etc vs If we don't stop they'll be in Berlin before you can say clean wehrmacht

So let's go back to your straw man, which you built to then claim cognitive dissonance.

The strategy of hurling meat waves can have the effect of draining the economies and political will of the target.

For example, Putin is currently using desperate refugees to attempt this on multiple fronts.

In Ukraine he is using citizens from Russia and those lured in from other countries with false promises of work and high pay.

So "they'll be in Berlin" was your invention.

Although, politically, they already are via bot farms and the like.

Probably why Bannon and Trump love Putin. He knows how to flood the zone to cause chaos.

 

[jatz14]

I've made my point multiple times comrade. The only way ukraine 'win', ie retain their lost territory, is if NATO puts boots on the ground and planes in the sky. To do so would risk nuclear war, that's why they aren't doing it, not that complicated

It's simple, Ukraine keeps fighting, Russia loses, it's not hard.

Name a place where an invader didn't overwhelm the defenders, didn't crush them, but stayed, fighting, indefinitely?

Even where invaders did overwhelm the defenders, entrenched opposition often eventually forces them out anyway.

To win, and keep substantial Ukrainian territory, Russia has to overwhelm, AND pacify Ukrainian resistance.

I don't think either of those things are happening. And in their absence, Russia cannot win.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barreness]

So let's go back to your straw man, which you built to then claim cognitive dissonance.

The strategy of hurling meat waves can have the effect of draining the economies and political will of the target.

For example, Putin is currently using desperate refugees to attempt this on multiple fronts.

In Ukraine he is using citizens from Russia and those lured in from other countries with false promises of work and high pay.

So "they'll be in Berlin" was your invention.

Although, politically, they already are via bot farms and the like.

Probably why Bannon and Trump love Putin. He knows how to flood the zone to cause chaos.

I mean nah.

If we don't stop then now then they'll keep going through eastern Europe, this is a pretty common argument for continuing war yes?

The Russians are so useless they can't overcome their much smaller neighbour, also a common argument in this war.

You don't see the cognitive dissonance?

 

[barreness]

Nope.

Ukraine wins when Russia cannot continue to maintain its invasion and withdraws. By Reality is Russians are dying purely in the name of Putin's thoroughly deluded ideology of a new Russian empire. Ukrainian are fighting for their future, their culture & identity. These are the main reasons why Russia is getting nowhere.

NATO won't need to send troops. At most individual states directly threatened by Russian fascism may send troops (Poland, Baltics, Finland) eventually further making Putin's invasion futile.

Nyet risk of nuclear war either no matter what happens in Ukraine.

So how do they stop losing territory?

 

[barreness]

It's simple, Ukraine keeps fighting, Russia loses, it's not hard.

Name a place where an invader didn't overwhelm the defenders, didn't crush them, but stayed, fighting, indefinitely?

Even where invaders did overwhelm the defenders, entrenched opposition often eventually forces them out anyway.

The United states vs Native Americans, most colonial conflicts tbh. Most border conflicts too, Azerbaijan and Armenia

WW1 changed borders.

This isn't the US in Vietnam/Afghanistan. There is a sizeable amount of ethnic and language Russians all throughout Ukraine(particuarly in the south east and Odessa), has been a part of the Russian empire and the USSR, This why many look to the nazi puppet regime and Bandera for their nationalist goals(it's basically the only time it existed as a state bar a year or so in the Russian civil war)

Conditions under occupation are unlikely to be vastly different under Russia, that's the difference

To win, and keep substantial Ukrainian territory, Russia has to overwhelm, AND pacify Ukrainian resistance.

Is there much record of partisan resistance in the occupied territory?

I don't think either of those things are happening. And in their absence, Russia cannot win.

Fair enough

 

[Seeds]

I mean nah.

If we don't stop then now then they'll keep going through eastern Europe, this is a pretty common argument for continuing war yes?

The Russians are so useless they can't overcome their much smaller neighbour, also a common argument in this war.

You don't see the cognitive dissonance?

That and ukrainians will lose their democracy, freedom and livelihoods. But who cares about that?

 

[Chief]

That and ukrainians will lose their democracy, freedom and livelihoods. But who cares about that?

Not to mention the frequent child r*pe and murder. But ignore that and think of the geopolitical reality!

 

[Cap]

I mean nah.

If we don't stop then now then they'll keep going through eastern Europe, this is a pretty common argument for continuing war yes?

The common thread is they will look to retake sovereign countires that formally were trapped in the USSR, Putin has form in this.

But these are all small countries usually <5m with small armies.

The Russians are so useless they can't overcome their much smaller neighbour, also a common argument in this war.

You don't see the cognitive dissonance?

Russia has proved its self to be a far less of a military power than what we were all led to believe.

But in your simplified argument you failed to recall that the invasion was never intended to fight the whole Country, it was meant to be a quick decapitation of the countries elected officials and an installation of a puppet Govt.

The reason we are here is because of their incompetence which has now cost many lives of innocent Ukranian civilians

 

[Andre]

I mean nah.

If we don't stop then now then they'll keep going through eastern Europe, this is a pretty common argument for continuing war yes?

The Russians are so useless they can't overcome their much smaller neighbour, also a common argument in this war.

You don't see the cognitive dissonance?

Russia's next target would be the Balkan's. Which are tiny compared to Ukraine, let alone Russia. The worry isn't they'll try to drive tanks to Berlin, but do a false flag operation, claiming one of them is killing Russians in a border city/town, then send troops to 'protect ethnic Russians being oppressed' (sound familiar?). If Russia sees the West lacking the will to provide Ukraine with enough equipment to defeat Russia, then Putin will think the likes of Germany and the US won't have the will to directly attack Russians rolling into NATO countries 'for non-war purposes' and see NATO Article 5 become meaningless. If NATO doesn't respond with military force it becomes worthless.

Where Western leaders, having to face elections, when faced with defeat militarily, don't (in recent decades), decide the best way to turn a losing hand into a winning one, is to risk it all by attacking an even stronger opponent. Putin realises his fortunes are now tied to on-going military actions (of some sort). He's now very much into 1984 territory of 'War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength'.

Russia won't stop until Putin is gone, and that's only happening with a military defeat. Even most of us horrified at Russia's actions, wish they could be trusted enough to keep to a peace treaty. If we (here and the broader West and I'd suggest even many Ukrainians) could trust they'd abide by it, we'd be supportive of one. The only way a peace treaty with Russia could work is if Ukraine (minus whatever they ceded to Russia), was able to join NATO and Russia (Putin) will never accept that (because Russia knows they couldn't then attack again in 2-5 years when they've regenerated their military).

 

[jatz14]

So how do they stop losing territory?

They don't need to stop losing territory.

What about this are you having trouble understanding?

Russia has had a comparatively good few months, and if we ignore the territory they lost back to Ukraine, they will have conquered the whole country in about 350 YEARS, if, they can keep it up.

If we factor in the reversals, were they lose some of the territory back to Ukraine, it's longer.

Russia cannot fight in Ukraine for the next century, and it's unlikely they can win in the next century, and I don't think Ukraine quits in the next century.

So, you see the position this leaves Russia in?

This ends with negotiations.

What they have offered (and they haven't come down, so it's not an ambit claim, it's just their position), is not at all something Ukraine is interested in.

So Russia has 2 options, increase the pain for Ukraine to force Ukraine to accept those conditions, or offer a more attractive proposal.

Ukraine is dangling option 2 in front of them, because option 1 isn't working.

You interpret this as Ukraine weakening and being more ready to accept Russia's proposal.

A far more realistic interpretation is Ukraine is fishing for a sweeter deal, because it knows Putin is getting desperate for a way out.

Remember, if your trying to drive a nasty from your house, you need to leave it a route to the exit.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[jatz14]

The United states vs Native Americans, most colonial conflicts tbh. Most border conflicts too, Azerbaijan and Armenia

WW1 changed borders.

This isn't the US in Vietnam/Afghanistan. There is a sizeable amount of ethnic and language Russians all throughout Ukraine(particuarly in the south east and Odessa), has been a part of the Russian empire and the USSR, This why many look to the nazi puppet regime and Bandera for their nationalist goals(it's basically the only time it existed as a state bar a year or so in the Russian civil war)

Conditions under occupation are unlikely to be vastly different under Russia, that's the difference

Is there much record of partisan resistance in the occupied territory?

Fair enough

Nope.

Most colonial conquests were one sided affairs.

Including in the US.

They often took a long time, but that was because they were dismantled piece meal, like Russia had been doing in Ukraine.

Border conflicts are like it, and are still ongoing to this day, which suggests you completely missed the point.

Can Russia treat this like an ongoing border conflict, whilst under international sanctions, keeping 4 or 5 hundred thousand troops within range of the million+ drones a year Ukraine is already producing? For decades?

I mean, all this is speculation, maybe war weary Ukraine elects a peace at all costs leader at some point, who signs a shitty peace deal.

Maybe NATO throws it's hands in the air and says, that's it, no more aid for you.

But I can only extrapolate on what I am seeing now.

Russia's progress is so substantialy immaterial as to be irrelevant.

Ukraine seems as resolved to fight now as they did 2 years ago.

European leaders have become more hawkish as time has gone on, not less.

There has always been those objecting to the cost of supporting Ukraine, but they have not become louder, or more influential. Spending money to support Ukraine has not become a political liability, and it's not looking like it will either.

So, I see no military success, on either side, any time soon.

I see no collapse in will, any time soon.

The only give point I can see is in what Russia wants for peace. And if that give point doesn't give, the fight goes on, endlessly.

Russia is the aggressor, for a military outcome, they need a decisive victory.

Ukraine only needs to avoid a decisive defeat.


On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[barreness]

The common thread is they will look to retake sovereign countires that formally were trapped in the USSR, Putin has form in this.

But these are all small countries usually <5m with small armies.

That's why I mention Berlin in the comment I was replying to

Russia has proved its self to be a far less of a military power than what we were all led to believe.

But in your simplified argument you failed to recall that the invasion was never intended to fight the whole Country, it was meant to be a quick decapitation of the countries elected officials and an installation of a puppet Govt.

The reason we are here is because of their incompetence which has now cost many lives of innocent Ukranian civilians

Sure, I agree. You see why the former is a little silly? Or at the least the two arguments are incompatible

 

[barreness]

Russia's next target would be the Balkan's. Which are tiny compared to Ukraine, let alone Russia. The worry isn't they'll try to drive tanks to Berlin, but do a false flag operation, claiming one of them is killing Russians in a border city/town, then send troops to 'protect ethnic Russians being oppressed' (sound familiar?). If Russia sees the West lacking the will to provide Ukraine with enough equipment to defeat Russia, then Putin will think the likes of Germany and the US won't have the will to directly attack Russians rolling into NATO countries 'for non-war purposes' and see NATO Article 5 become meaningless. If NATO doesn't respond with military force it becomes worthless.

Transnistria? They'll have to take Odessa first which would require a wholesale collapse of Ukrainian forces

'The Balkans' this is a pretty nebulous term, some would include Ukraine. Do you think they'll try to reform Yugoslavia or greater Serbia.

So by calling a peace, NATO will not defend a NATO country in the future? Quite a leap

Where Western leaders, having to face elections, when faced with defeat militarily, don't (in recent decades), decide the best way to turn a losing hand into a winning one, is to risk it all by attacking an even stronger opponent. Putin realises his fortunes are now tied to on-going military actions (of some sort). He's now very much into 1984 territory of 'War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength'.

I really don't understand this, can you rephrase. Nice token '84 reference though

Russia won't stop until Putin is gone, and that's only happening with a military defeat. Even most of us horrified at Russia's actions, wish they could be trusted enough to keep to a peace treaty. If we (here and the broader West and I'd suggest even many Ukrainians) could trust they'd abide by it, we'd be supportive of one. The only way a peace treaty with Russia could work is if Ukraine (minus whatever they ceded to Russia), was able to join NATO and Russia (Putin) will never accept that (because Russia knows they couldn't then attack again in 2-5 years when they've regenerated their military).

The irony of you referencing Orwell and then saying war is in fact peace

 

[barreness]

They don't need to stop losing territory.

What about this are you having trouble understanding?

Russia has had a comparatively good few months, and if we ignore the territory they lost back to Ukraine, they will have conquered the whole country in about 350 YEARS, if, they can keep it up.

If we factor in the reversals, were they lose some of the territory back to Ukraine, it's longer.

Russia cannot fight in Ukraine for the next century, and it's unlikely they can win in the next century, and I don't think Ukraine quits in the next century.

So, you see the position this leaves Russia in?

This ends with negotiations.

What they have offered (and they haven't come down, so it's not an ambit claim, it's just their position), is not at all something Ukraine is interested in.

So Russia has 2 options, increase the pain for Ukraine to force Ukraine to accept those conditions, or offer a more attractive proposal.

Ukraine is dangling option 2 in front of them, because option 1 isn't working.

You interpret this as Ukraine weakening and being more ready to accept Russia's proposal.

A far more realistic interpretation is Ukraine is fishing for a sweeter deal, because it knows Putin is getting desperate for a way out.

Remember, if your trying to drive a nasty from your house, you need to leave it a route to the exit.

On SM-A346E using BigFooty.com mobile app

This is legit what I've been saying for a year.

I do interpret Ukraine's negotiating position as weakening(bar the last few days, we'll see how this ends up). You see this as some 4d bait or something, idk man

 

[Cap]

That's why I mention Berlin in the comment I was replying to

Sure, I agree. You see why the former is a little silly? Or at the least the two arguments are incompatible

Yeah but they aren't.

Russia is incompetent, that's why Ukraine still exists.

Had they not veen incompetent they'd be aiming at other countries.

just because they are incompetent that also doesn't mean they can prevail. Its just at what cost.

 

[barreness]

Nope.

Most colonial conquests were one sided affairs.

Including in the US.

They often took a long time, but that was because they were dismantled piece meal, like Russia had been doing in Ukraine.

Border conflicts are like it, and are still ongoing to this day, which suggests you completely missed the point.

Can Russia treat this like an ongoing border conflict, whilst under international sanctions, keeping 4 or 5 hundred thousand troops within range of the million+ drones a year Ukraine is already producing? For decades?

I mean, all this is speculation, maybe war weary Ukraine elects a peace at all costs leader at some point, who signs a shitty peace deal.

Zelensky was elected as a peace candidate, he had to go back on it due to fascist elements and Russia's full scale invasion

Maybe NATO throws it's hands in the air and says, that's it, no more aid for you.

But I can only extrapolate on what I am seeing now.

Russia's progress is so substantialy immaterial as to be irrelevant.

Ukraine seems as resolved to fight now as they did 2 years ago.

Ukranian peace negotiation polling has them at 42% in nov 23, from a low in jan 23 of 29%
https://theconversation.com/what-la...o-remain-optimistic-amid-the-suffering-221559

European leaders have become more hawkish as time has gone on, not less.

Have they? Seeing a rise in right wing candidates with more pro russian/non interventionist policy

There has always been those objecting to the cost of supporting Ukraine, but they have not become louder, or more influential. Spending money to support Ukraine has not become a political liability, and it's not looking like it will either.

So, I see no military success, on either side, any time soon.

Largely agree, just think Russia will last longer

I see no collapse in will, any time soon.

The only give point I can see is in what Russia wants for peace. And if that give point doesn't give, the fight goes on, endlessly.

Russia is the aggressor, for a military outcome, they need a decisive victory.

Ukraine only needs to avoid a decisive defeat.

Yeh look, I think negotiations should reopen, there has been some promising signs lately. This has taken a change in Zelensky's position

 

[barreness]

Yeah but they aren't.

Russia is incompetent, that's why Ukraine still exists.

Had they not veen incompetent they'd be aiming at other countries.

just because they are incompetent that also doesn't mean they can prevail. Its just at what cost.

Ok kinda fair. So the argument is at what cost to Ukranians are they willing to take to wear down Russia to save eastern Europe. I get shat on for mentioning 'to the last Ukranian' is NATO(US) policy

 

[barreness]

Interesting talk on Ukrainian nationalism and it's roots and shoots, even a point on Australia at ~34min
Fascists never really give up

 

[Cap]

Ok kinda fair. So the argument is at what cost to Ukranians are they willing to take to wear down Russia to save eastern Europe. I get shat on for mentioning 'to the last Ukranian' is NATO(US) policy

Nato is a defensive institution, that always seems to be misunderstood. Ukraine is not NATO, it is european though.

But i don't believe US policy is to the last Ukrainian, they want the EU to do more and they desperately don't want to be seen as not being emgaged in the war by their domestic audience.

 

[Zidane98]

Interesting talk on Ukrainian nationalism and it's roots and shoots, even a point on Australia at ~34min
Fascists never really give up

Mobbs can dismantle this in a few paragraphs.

Russia are the fascists, not Ukraine.

 

[jatz14]

Its very very revealing, this latest Ukrainian attack.

Russia had 2 defensive lines behind the border, and Ukraine has breached both of them.

They could only do that because these defensive lines are like Northern Australia, lots of military positions, very few actual soldiers. Difference being of course, Australia isn't at war with Indonesia.

Russia had almost no defences, along a border they shared with a country they are at war with.

Who does that?

A country with no choice.

I suspect Ukraine doesn't quite know what to do now. They are past Russia's defences, nothing but villages fields and forest in front of them. Are they going to want to go much further? Capturing more territory now is territory harder to defend, and puts their soldiers further from Ukraine.

Capture some Russian villages and towns, then fortify them like mad, and make the Russians waste lives, equipment and time trying to take back what will inevitably be, completely destroyed towns.

Then pull out, and threaten to do the same somewhere else along the border. I suspect that was the goal, Not sure how driving 50 km into Russia helps that plan.

If Russia could man and defend that border while fighting in Ukraine, it would have.

As they say, don't give your enemy problems, give them dilemmas. A problem has a potential solution, but a dilemma forces you to choose between bad options.

 

[barreness]

Nato is a defensive institution, that always seems to be misunderstood.

That's never done a defensive action, a few aggressive ones though

Ukraine is not NATO, it is european though.

By region? yes, so is Russia

But i don't believe US policy is to the last Ukrainian, they want the EU to do more and they desperately don't want to be seen as not being emgaged in the war by their domestic audience.

If they wanted Ukraine to actually reclaim territory they'd put troops on the ground, but they don't

 

[barreness]

Mobbs can dismantle this in a few paragraphs.

Russia are the fascists, not Ukraine.

Possibly they both have fascist nationalist elements?

It's great you outsource your debunking, they need to up their rates

 

[Cap]

That's never done a defensive action, a few aggressive ones though

The point is to deter, you'll notice Russia hasn't been brave enough to attack.

By region? yes, so is Russia

Russia doesn't agree.

If they wanted Ukraine to actually reclaim territory they'd put troops on the ground, but they don't

Given your whole narrative is about less people dying, if the US goes on that's a lot of dead Russians.

don't get me wrong, the Uas is not perfect. The US should have provided and allow others to provide better tech quicker and should remove all restrictions on their use to let Ukraine tegain its territory.