Ukraine War Watch Thread

[caltrek]

We Asked Ukrainians Living on the Front Lines What Was an Acceptable Peace – Here’s What They Told Us
by Gerard Toal and Karina V. Korostelina
September , 2022

Introduction:

(The Conversation) Ukraine’s recent counteroffensive success against Russian troops in the Kharkiv region has raised hopes that a larger rollback of occupying troops is at hand. But this remains a daunting task: Russia continues to occupy roughly one-fifth of the territory of Ukraine, including Crimea, which it unilaterally incorporated into the Russian Federation in 2014.

Victory, not peace, is the priority for Ukraine’s leadership, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy declaring Ukraine will not give up any of its territories to end the war. But a time will come when peace will have to be made. And any agreement will need to be accepted not only by the leaders but by the Ukrainian people if it is to hold. As such, it is important to know what terms of settlement are acceptable – and perhaps more importantly, unacceptable – to ordinary Ukrainians, especially those living in front-line areas or displaced by Russia’s invasion.

To understand what an acceptable peace looks like to significantly war-affected Ukrainians, we organized a face-to-face survey of over 1,800 Ukrainians. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology administered the survey for us in July 2022. Around half of respondents were local residents in three Ukrainian-controlled towns close to active front-line fighting: Dnipro, Zaporizhzhia and Poltava. The other half comprised people internally displaced by the war who were sheltering in these towns.

Here are three key takeaways from the survey:

1. Having a strong state that can defend territory is a top priority…

2. Ukrainians reject concessions on self-determination, territory…

3. When it comes to negotiations, the messenger matters…

Read more here: https://theconversation.com/we-asked-u ... us-190397

[joe00uk]

The irony is that within Russia, Putin is seen as a moderate. Whoever replaces him will probably make that terrifyingly clear to the West.

[Yuli Ban]

Imagine Aleksandr Dugin replacing Putin. Heck, he'd even have an actual blood vendetta reason to pursue revenge nowadays.

[raklian]

If someone worse replaces Putin and makes clear threats against NATO, the United States will have to change its approach to the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a way that may make us very nervous. It might spook the more moderate factions of the Kremlin to stage a quiet coup. There is a very good reason Putin didn't want to come across as too threatening to the United States. So yeah, in all things considered, Putin is a moderate in Russia's sphere of politics.

[caltrek]

Russia Doing ‘The Dirty Dozen’ Recruiting Inmates to Fight in Ukraine
by Dan Parsons
September 14, 2022

Introduction:

It's a scene straight out of the Dirty Dozen or Suicide Squad. A close confidant of Vladimir Putin pitches combat duty to a prison yard full of inmates, promising clemency for service in Russia's floundering invasion.

Yevgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch and Putin confidant with links to the country's GRU military intelligence agency, can be seen in the video...recruiting Russian prison inmates to serve with the Wagner Group, an ostensibly private military company. Wagner, which is also tied to the Kremlin and the GRU, and other similar organizations have seen duty in all of Russia’s recent wars of choice.

Prighozhin’s pitch to the inmates may be a bit misguided. According to one online translation, he says the “war is heavy,” and “nothing like Chechnya.” At one point he claims that more artillery shells are being fired than at the legendarily brutal 1943 Battle of Stalingrad in which more than a million Soviet troops were lost. The Nazis and their allies suffered 800,000 or so casualties.

In Hollywood, these scenes play out as fringe, sometimes maverick or disgraced, officers are tasked with molding hardened criminals into a team willing to undertake impossible missions with the prospect of unbelievable rewards. In The Dirty Dozen, 12 men were asked to infiltrate and destroy a chateau hosting a gathering of the Nazi high command in France just before D-Day in exchange for pardons. The missions are always top secret and almost certainly one-way tickets for the recruits.

Here we have that very scenario played out in daylight, filmed, and posted to social media.

Read more here: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/r ... in-ukraine

[Water]

The irony is that within Russia, Putin is seen as a moderate. Whoever replaces him will probably make that terrifyingly clear to the West.

The real irony is that the more Russia puts effort into becoming "terrifying to the West", the less it manages to do so. How long will they try to keep up that downward spiral? They previously did manage to make us think that they're the 2nd most powerful army in the world. Now they've been almost completely humiliated by their smaller neighbor for the entire world to see, and their few "allies" now only see them as a potential vasal state rather than a respectable ally.

But ok, apparently now we're about to see "someone who will be less moderate than Putin". And he'll do what exactly? And literally with what army? And how much rust will he be able to scrape off those ancient weapons they've got left?

I babysit from time to time, and there's this kid I sometimes put on the naughty bench until she calms down, and she'll threaten me that she'll only calm down if I get her off the bench and give her the candy she demanded. That kid lately reminds me of Putin, thinking there's leverage when simply there's none. Fortunately, the kid will grow up to understand how the modern world works and how to cooperate with each other to make it an actual better place. Question is, when will Russia?

[ibm9000]

The real irony is...

Like the British Empire by the minuteman?
Like the USA by the VC?
Another "humiliation" in Human History, any government learned anything?

(BTW, the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr doesn't agree with you).

[Xyls]

Russia accuses Ukraine of targeting pro-Moscow officials

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... are_btn_tw

Poor Russia.

These "officials"... or should I say collaborationists have been responsible for overseeing huge amounts of atrocities in their occupied areas. They are fair game and have it coming. If they don't want to be treated as a military target, then they should go back to Russia where they actually can be rewarded for their criminality.

Some more "voluntary mobilization" from Luhansk...

[Xyls]

Oop- more genocide in Izyum you say?

Ukraine begins recovering bodies from mass burial site said to contain 445 graves

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-i ... -1.6584718

[weatheriscool]

Putin should be judged and hung for his actions.

[joe00uk]

The real irony is that the more Russia puts effort into becoming "terrifying to the West", the less it manages to do so. How long will they try to keep up that downward spiral? They previously did manage to make us think that they're the 2nd most powerful army in the world. Now they've been almost completely humiliated by their smaller neighbor for the entire world to see, and their few "allies" now only see them as a potential vasal state rather than a respectable ally.

But ok, apparently now we're about to see "someone who will be less moderate than Putin". And he'll do what exactly? And literally with what army? And how much rust will he be able to scrape off those ancient weapons they've got left?

I babysit from time to time, and there's this kid I sometimes put on the naughty bench until she calms down, and she'll threaten me that she'll only calm down if I get her off the bench and give her the candy she demanded. That kid lately reminds me of Putin, thinking there's leverage when simply there's none. Fortunately, the kid will grow up to understand how the modern world works and how to cooperate with each other to make it an actual better place. Question is, when will Russia?

Apparently the West was terrified enough to fall into the complete hysteria of imposing backfiring sanctions because we "forgot" that Russian resources exist (how's that for no leverage?). As for completely humiliated, well that's just not true. If Ukraine was able to recover its 2013 territory, then sure, I'd agree. Until that happens, however, the "complete Russian humiliation" narrative is just a cope. Russia actually has a lot of allies and countries willing to do even more trade with them than ever before. Only 15% of the world's population lives in countries which have joined in with the sanctions insanity. 85% of the world's population lives under governments with more sense. Another ironic thing about the "Russian army destroyed" meme is that Russia's setbacks and failures so far have been precisely due to a lack of willingness to deploy enough troops - their army hasn't been destroyed because the vast majority of it hasn't even left Russia yet! That's in large part due to Putin's moderation (within a Russian context), which we can't - or choose not to - see in the West. Someone less moderate would have unleashed far more of their capabilities as soon as the invasion began, and we'd all know about it. From a purely strategic perspective, Russia's problems in this war aren't really military and certainly not economic: they're political.

[ibm9000]

Ukraine takes/occupies Kupiansk. ISW.

It has been a long 72 hours...

[Time_Traveller]

Ukraine takes/occupies Kupiansk. ISW.

It has been a long 72 hours...

The only 4 i'm interested in is Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk and Mariupol.

[wjfox]

the complete hysteria of imposing backfiring sanctions

[...] the sanctions insanity.

So we should just allow a country to break international law, invade and destroy a neighbouring sovereign country, torture and kill civilians, and cause the biggest military crisis in Europe since WW2, without any consequences?

Another ironic thing about the "Russian army destroyed" meme is that Russia's setbacks and failures so far have been precisely due to a lack of willingness to deploy enough troops - their army hasn't been destroyed because the vast majority of it hasn't even left Russia yet! That's in large part due to Putin's moderation (within a Russian context), which we can't - or choose not to - see in the West. Someone less moderate would have unleashed far more of their capabilities as soon as the invasion began, and we'd all know about it. From a purely strategic perspective, Russia's problems in this war aren't really military and certainly not economic: they're political.

If the latest reports are accurate then Russia has lost, at minimum, more than 6,000 troops (confirmed by name), and possibly 10 times that figure based on satellite imagery and communication intercepts. If the latter is correct, it would be around 1/3rd of Russia's total forces, and more troops than the U.S. lost during the 20-year Vietnam War. Either way, the Russian losses are unsustainable. This also includes more and more of its generals.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has a steady supply of new equipment and superior technology flowing in from the West, as well as better training and higher morale compared to large swathes of the Russian forces, many of whom are kids barely older than 20, who don't even want to be there, and often lack basic equipment and logistics. The tide has clearly turned against Russia and in favour of Ukraine.

The sanctions will further limit Russia's ability to mount a comeback, and its longer-term future is even bleaker as the world shifts away from its primary exports.

[ibm9000]

So we should just allow a country to break international law, invade and destroy a neighbouring sovereign country, torture and kill civilians, and cause the biggest military crisis in Europe since WW2, without any consequences?

Sorry, are you talking about the invasion of Iraq?

[wjfox]

Sorry, are you talking about the invasion of Iraq?

A textbook example of whataboutism.

[joe00uk]

So we should just allow a country to break international law, invade and destroy a neighbouring sovereign country, torture and kill civilians, and cause the biggest military crisis in Europe since WW2, without any consequences?

What do you mean "allow"? This isn't 1900, we don't have the power anymore to "allow" or "not allow" other countries to do these things. And what did we do when America did the same thing to Iraq in 2003? Not only did we "allow" it, we actively joined in with it. I know you think it's "whataboutism", but I think it's absolute hypocrisy to ignore it. In any case, imposing these sanctions has only impoverished our own countries. Tell all the people who won't be able to pay their heating bills this year (even with recent measures) that they have to make the sacrifice just so Ukraine can remain independent from Russia. Surely you don't actually expect them to care. When severe poverty clamps its jaws around this country's throat, don't be surprised if vast swathes of the public become a little sceptical of these sanctions.

If the latest reports are accurate then Russia has lost, at minimum, more than 6,000 troops (confirmed by name), and possibly 10 times that figure based on satellite imagery and communication intercepts. If the latter is correct, it would be around 1/3rd of Russia's total forces, and more troops than the U.S. lost during the 20-year Vietnam War. Either way, the Russian losses are unsustainable. This also includes more and more of its generals.

"If the latter is correct" - well sorry, but the latter is probably highly exaggerated in order to boost Ukrainian morale. You can't just read pro-Ukraine war propaganda and accept it as an accurate assessment, just like you can't with pro-Russian propaganda. There simply isn't any evidence that Russia has lost a third of its forces, and you seem be ignoring the fact that Ukraine has also taken extremely heavy and unsustainable casualties.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has a steady supply of new equipment and superior technology flowing in from the West, as well as better training and higher morale compared to large swathes of the Russian forces, many of whom are kids barely older than 20, who don't even want to be there, and often lack basic equipment and logistics. The tide has clearly turned against Russia and in favour of Ukraine.

The equipment Ukraine receives really isn't any sort of game changer (its superiority is questionable), and is more than made up for by the masses of equipment Russia can produce itself and buy from friendly countries like China and Iran. Ukraine, on the other hand, has very little capability for domestic production, which is why it is utterly dependent on NATO countries who don't have unlimited capabilities themselves. Even Germany is now talking about how they've depleted their armouries for Ukraine, and have nothing left to give.

It's also a bit like the situation in WW2 when the German army spent a lot of resources on producing what was supposed to be "superior equipment", but it couldn't produce as much, and was defeated by the supposedly lower quality but far more numerous Soviet armoury. As for the "higher morale", that's been variable across both sides throughout the war. There have been plenty of times when Ukrainian morale has been disastrously low, such as when Russia completed its takeover of Luhansk oblast. The Ukrainian army has suffered from its fair share of desertions and defections too. The situation with Russians "lacking basic equipment" also doesn't seem to be much of a concern compared to March, when it could have been debated (but certainly not conclusively) to be the case in some places like the Kiev and Sumy oblasts. Now, however, there just isn't evidence for that anymore. As for the tide turning against Russia, whilst it's true that Ukraine has scored a major victory in the Kharkiv oblast, you can't assume this is some permanent turning point. Back when Russia captured Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, the tide turned in their favour for a while. Such is the nature of an ongoing conflict.

The sanctions will further limit Russia's ability to mount a comeback, and its longer-term future is even bleaker as the world shifts away from its primary exports.

The sanctions aren't limiting anything in Russia - but they sure are in the West. Most of the world is eager to get their hands on as many Russian resources as they can, and will continue to be so for as long as those resources are there. Fossil fuels will eventually run out, we all know that, but there's something else in Russia's favour. As climate change warms the world, more and more land in Russia will become available for agricultural use. As the world deindustrialises, fertile land like that will gradually become the new fossil fuels.

[Nero]

Give it a rest man, they lost their flagship to a nation without a functioning navy, and have lost tens of thousands of soldiers to a war that has lasted 6 months. The Soviet Union collapsed after a much less costly Afghanistan conflict to act otherwise to consume only Russian propaganda and nothing other.

[joe00uk]

to act otherwise to consume only Russian propaganda and nothing other.

LOL nope, it's called only accepting what can so far be objectively established, and not giving in to either pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian hype. If I was only consuming Russian propaganda, as you say, I'd be frothing at the mouth over how total Russian victory is coming any week now, and that you all just have to "trust the plan" because Russia has some genius trick up their sleeve that they'll unleash any time. FYI, that's not what I believe at all. I actually do think the Russian leadership has made some stupid decisions. On the other hand, most pro-Ukrainians populating the internet can't tolerate any criticism or even shadows of doubt that total victory is theirs any week now. They literally have the same disposition as QAnon.

[erowind]

.