Ukraine War Watch Thread

[erowind]

.

[joe00uk]

Through "pscyhoanalysing" Putin, as you put it, I'm really trying to explore the national consciousness of Russia. Putin is the undisputed leader. His ideas dictate domestic and foreign policy.

Yes, the definition of fascism I am applying to Russia is national authoritarianism. I agree that Trump's administration was fascist.

I doubt that return of a few thousand or so disgruntled foreign fighters from Ukraine is gonna have that effect.

You seem to be more interested in the direct security implications of this, more than economic or humanitarian arguments.

Today, Russia and China want to upend our order of liberal democracies. Ukraine could be the first domino. Next is Taiwan in all likelihood, and I've made my thoughts clear on Russia's plans to advance further into Europe.

Russia does have a lot resources, which Europe does need to sustain itself. Canada and the US are more fortunate in that regard. So yes, Europe is vulnerable to Russian backlash, but that will also be short-term. Europe can find oil and gas elsewhere, perhaps for greater prices.

Russia on the other hand is mainly a resource-based economy, or as put by some politician I can't recall, a "gas station with nuclear weapons". It's not a high tech economy, and Western sanctions will prevent it from becoming one.

He may be the undisputed leader, but he's in that position because for two decades he's represented the interests of enough of the elite classes of Russia that they've given him their support. That's why I think it's important not to just focus on one man. It's the same with feudal monarchies. Sure enough, the personality of the monarch is important, but you have to look at the wider interests and strategies of the various elite factions at the top of society. And just because a certain course of action is forceful, and even radical, doesn't necessarily mean that the planning behind it was really insane or irrational. Aggressive? Sure. Risky? Most certainly. But beyond that, how can anyone really say that this is totally irrational?

The reason a lot of people in the West are coming to that conclusion is because they're uncritically accepting classic war propaganda coming from the Ukrainian army and Western governments which are trying to make out like Ukraine is winning the war and the Russians have had half their army wiped out. What we're hearing from the media is often totally inaccurate. I'm not talking here about who committed what war crime against whom, but just about the condition each army is in and who really has which advantages. Of course mainstream media in the West isn't going to allow any sort of defeatist narrative so early in the war. Eventually, that may change, but for now there's compulsory (and even delusional) optimism. The Russian strategy here, whilst it has suffered setbacks and losses (just like any side in any war that's ever been fought), is still advancing and has the upper hand. It's the same in terms of the 'economic war' being waged by the West. We're drowning in a hysterical flood of reports about how Russia will certainly be plunged into a new Dark Age within months, but in reality that's extremely unlikely to happen, and it totally ignores the blowback we'll suffer here in the West. We just don't have much access at all to balanced or reasonable coverage.

Okay, well I disagree that Trump's administration was fascist. I think it was far too chaotic, vague and unsure of itself to really qualify as being composed of committed fascists. I would say when it came to real policies, they were much closer to typical American neoconservatives, aside from their lack of military adventurism abroad. I see Russia's situation as being more similar to a traditional European empire, or aspirational empire at least. It isn't really governed by the same rigid ideological dogmas as classical fascism. It's just a generally authoritarian state which has much more in common with regimes of the 19th Century than the modernist dictatorships which replaced many of them. Now, I don't think the arrival of classical fascism in the rest of Europe is even that likely. I just said it was a possibility made more likely by the return of embittered Ukraine veterans. I would still put the chances at less than 20%. What I do see as highly likely over the next 20-30 years, however, are some rather abrupt disturbances to the neoliberal West - perhaps something similar to what happened in Eastern Europe in the period from 1989 to 1991. I definitely think we're seeing the same stagnation, mismanagement and popular disillusionment that spread throughout the Eastern bloc in the 1970s and 80s.

Well of course I can see how the economics affect us, but so far in that regard, most of what we're seeing is caused by the West's own response to the war. Here, it seems our leaders are choosing to make a bad situation even worse for ideological reasons. Yes, the humanitarian situation is certainly serious, I'll have to concede that one. Ultimately, though, states intervene in wars when it suits their interests to do so. The US entered WW1 and WW2 because it had tried to stay neutral and get the best of both words (trading relationships with the British Empire and Germany at the same time), but as both wars progressed, they realised they had to choose one or the other and chose Britain because they decided their relationship with us was more critical to them. WW2 was more complicated because of the US relationship with Japan, which provided even more economic reasons to go to war. But the humanitarian and idealistic justifications for war seem fairly ad-hoc to me, and devised after the fact. Antisemitism and other forms of racial discrimination were hardly unique to Germany before WW2, for example.

The dominoes of Pax Americana are indeed falling down, you're right. But that's what happens when empires decline. At this stage, I don't think it's really wise to get tempted by any sort of military or even economic adventurism to try and reverse what I think is ultimately an inevitable process (for better or worse). You might call that defeatist, but an empire in decline simply can't afford to risk everything it has with such recklessness. The best outcome for us is a managed retreat from global commitments which we can actually control to some extent. Trying to suddenly reverse imperial decline now would lead to disaster and defeat, and a much more sudden disintegration of Pax Americana than we could cope with. The Western world order is stuck between rock and a hard place. Empires in decline always do eventually find themselves having to choose the lesser of multiple evils on their way out.

Yes, but if Europe has to find oil and gas elsewhere at greater prices, that will increase an already worsening inflation situation, plunge millions more into poverty, and accelerate the general deterioration of Europe. These things do matter. Fossil fuels are the only sources of energy with such a high energy-on-investment return, and they are the only sources which can effectively power a modern industrial economy. Nuclear only ever survives on massive government subsidies - it never pays for itself - and the electricity that renewables produce is just too expensive per unit to support the lifestyles we've become accustomed to until now. And without a combination of government subsidies and fossil fuels involved in their production and distribution, renewables would be yet more expensive. That's the reason I've said in other posts elsewhere that the best strategy is to conserve what we have and learn to live on less - but give ourselves as much time to do that as we can. Playing around with sanctions against Russia unnecessarily destabilises our own situation.

Sure enough, Russia may become China's gas station once they take over as global hegemon. But for as long as China can afford it, I don't think their preference would be to share a border and a deep alliance like that with a half-starved backwater. They're much more likely to provide substantial support to Russia (including with their own high-tech capabilities) that will allow Russia to recover a lot of whatever it loses from the West. And it remains to be seen just how much they really will lose.

[Maximus]

He may be the undisputed leader, but he's in that position because for two decades he's represented the interests of enough of the elite classes of Russia that they've given him their support. That's why I think it's important not to just focus on one man. It's the same with feudal monarchies. Sure enough, the personality of the monarch is important, but you have to look at the wider interests and strategies of the various elite factions at the top of society. And just because a certain course of action is forceful, and even radical, doesn't necessarily mean that the planning behind it was really insane or irrational. Aggressive? Sure. Risky? Most certainly. But beyond that, how can anyone really say that this is totally irrational?

The reason a lot of people in the West are coming to that conclusion is because they're uncritically accepting classic war propaganda coming from the Ukrainian army and Western governments which are trying to make out like Ukraine is winning the war and the Russians have had half their army wiped out. What we're hearing from the media is often totally inaccurate. I'm not talking here about who committed what war crime against whom, but just about the condition each army is in and who really has which advantages. Of course mainstream media in the West isn't going to allow any sort of defeatist narrative so early in the war. Eventually, that may change, but for now there's compulsory (and even delusional) optimism. The Russian strategy here, whilst it has suffered setbacks and losses (just like any side in any war that's ever been fought), is still advancing and has the upper hand. It's the same in terms of the 'economic war' being waged by the West. We're drowning in a hysterical flood of reports about how Russia will certainly be plunged into a new Dark Age within months, but in reality that's extremely unlikely to happen, and it totally ignores the blowback we'll suffer here in the West. We just don't have much access at all to balanced or reasonable coverage.

Okay, well I disagree that Trump's administration was fascist. I think it was far too chaotic, vague and unsure of itself to really qualify as being composed of committed fascists. I would say when it came to real policies, they were much closer to typical American neoconservatives, aside from their lack of military adventurism abroad. I see Russia's situation as being more similar to a traditional European empire, or aspirational empire at least. It isn't really governed by the same rigid ideological dogmas as classical fascism. It's just a generally authoritarian state which has much more in common with regimes of the 19th Century than the modernist dictatorships which replaced many of them. Now, I don't think the arrival of classical fascism in the rest of Europe is even that likely. I just said it was a possibility made more likely by the return of embittered Ukraine veterans. I would still put the chances at less than 20%. What I do see as highly likely over the next 20-30 years, however, are some rather abrupt disturbances to the neoliberal West - perhaps something similar to what happened in Eastern Europe in the period from 1989 to 1991. I definitely think we're seeing the same stagnation, mismanagement and popular disillusionment that spread throughout the Eastern bloc in the 1970s and 80s.

Well of course I can see how the economics affect us, but so far in that regard, most of what we're seeing is caused by the West's own response to the war. Here, it seems our leaders are choosing to make a bad situation even worse for ideological reasons. Yes, the humanitarian situation is certainly serious, I'll have to concede that one. Ultimately, though, states intervene in wars when it suits their interests to do so. The US entered WW1 and WW2 because it had tried to stay neutral and get the best of both words (trading relationships with the British Empire and Germany at the same time), but as both wars progressed, they realised they had to choose one or the other and chose Britain because they decided their relationship with us was more critical to them. WW2 was more complicated because of the US relationship with Japan, which provided even more economic reasons to go to war. But the humanitarian and idealistic justifications for war seem fairly ad-hoc to me, and devised after the fact. Antisemitism and other forms of racial discrimination were hardly unique to Germany before WW2, for example.

The dominoes of Pax Americana are indeed falling down, you're right. But that's what happens when empires decline. At this stage, I don't think it's really wise to get tempted by any sort of military or even economic adventurism to try and reverse what I think is ultimately an inevitable process (for better or worse). You might call that defeatist, but an empire in decline simply can't afford to risk everything it has with such recklessness. The best outcome for us is a managed retreat from global commitments which we can actually control to some extent. Trying to suddenly reverse imperial decline now would lead to disaster and defeat, and a much more sudden disintegration of Pax Americana than we could cope with. The Western world order is stuck between rock and a hard place. Empires in decline always do eventually find themselves having to choose the lesser of multiple evils on their way out.

Yes, but if Europe has to find oil and gas elsewhere at greater prices, that will increase an already worsening inflation situation, plunge millions more into poverty, and accelerate the general deterioration of Europe. These things do matter. Fossil fuels are the only sources of energy with such a high energy-on-investment return, and they are the only sources which can effectively power a modern industrial economy. Nuclear only ever survives on massive government subsidies - it never pays for itself - and the electricity that renewables produce is just too expensive per unit to support the lifestyles we've become accustomed to until now. And without a combination of government subsidies and fossil fuels involved in their production and distribution, renewables would be yet more expensive. That's the reason I've said in other posts elsewhere that the best strategy is to conserve what we have and learn to live on less - but give ourselves as much time to do that as we can. Playing around with sanctions against Russia unnecessarily destabilises our own situation.

Sure enough, Russia may become China's gas station once they take over as global hegemon. But for as long as China can afford it, I don't think their preference would be to share a border and a deep alliance like that with a half-starved backwater. They're much more likely to provide substantial support to Russia (including with their own high-tech capabilities) that will allow Russia to recover a lot of whatever it loses from the West. And it remains to be seen just how much they really will lose.

Well the implications of that are even more terrifying; if the entire Russian elite thought a war in Ukraine and threatening the West with nuclear warfare was a rational choice, then I have little hope anyone surrounding Putin can control him enough to stop him from launching nukes as an offensive tactic.

A lot of us realize there is propaganda on both sides. The Russians are trying to obscure the fact they are waging war on a sovereign country. The Ukrainians are lying about Russian losses to boost morale and survive, and also perhaps exaggerating their own casualties in order to encourage NATO intervention. I agree our media is portraying a bit too rosy of a picture for Ukraine's outlook in this war, and Russia for sure has the upper hand. It's going to cost them a lot to actually win this war through brute force though, Ukrainian resistance is there and it is strong.

Well I don't know what you want to call Trump's administration, but they were pretty far right and tried to overthrow democracy in the US. That's a step beyond the classic neocons.

Ukraine is an important supplier of food for many countries already, so Russia invading it alone is already an economic threat to many countries. Food security is no joke, it could have serious destabilizing effects, and then who knows what other civil conflict erupts somewhere. But I will concede the backlash to Western countries will be mostly self-inflicted here. What can I say, ideals matter and they always have. Not alone, but they are part of what makes countries act. Again, what's the alternative here? We sit back in comfort while Russia and China hack up democracies around the world, and moreover actively work to subvert and divide us? Russia declared hybrid war on the West long ago. Like I said, at some point you need to rip the band-aid off. The world is becoming multipolar, but a united West will still be a major player. Perhaps we will have to cut our losses at some point, and let Russia and China carve their spheres of influence out of free and democratic countries, but I don't agree that day is here yet.

This is why, as I've said before, Europe should not ban Russian and oil gas, to spare the worst of the economic backlash. Far better for Europe to wean itself off Russian gas and oil gradually. Climate change also comes into play here. If Europe (and others) cannot divest themselves of heavy consumption of fossil fuels eventually, at a reasonable cost to their citizens, then we will have much bigger problems in a few decades.

[Maximus]

Fascists. Every Russian, and every Russian apologist and detractor (welcoming back another certain user) who thinks this unilateral war is justified bears this kind of blood on their hands. These people will sit here and tell you this invasion is justified for this reason, and that reason. Fascists. Murderers. Nothing they say is of any value, they are snakes who should not be trusted. They do not argue in good faith. Both should be banned.

As you quoted my post, I'm going to assume you're including me in this. Why could you not have just read my whole post before freaking out like this? I literally said I was against the invasion. I guess I'm just different here because this isn't the only invasion I'm against? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do explain.

After more of our discussions, I see I was wrong to lash out at you like this, so I want to apologize. I misread your intentions with that post, but it I can see now I had the wrong impression.

[Yuli Ban]

The war's getting awfully "political" now, I noticed. Not saying that it isn't going on because I'm not an invalid, but discussions about it, news reports, the works all seem to be focusing more and more on the powerful men and women in suits talking politics and economics and less on the ground realities. I wonder how long it's going to take for this to fall off the Western news cycle and become a larger-scale version of the Donbas War for us.

I'd much rather this, mind you, than the excitement and horror of that first week.

[wjfox]

Which companies are pulling out of Russia?

By Michael Race & Lucy Hooker
Business reporters, BBC News

Published 2 hours ago

Thirty years ago when communism collapsed in the Soviet Union, Western firms stepped up their presence in Russia.

The arrival of big Western companies symbolised the start of a new era with Russians becoming eager consumers of brands ranging from fast-food chain McDonalds to Levi jeans and luxury goods.

Now, in the wake of President Putin's invasion of Ukraine, a growing number of firms have suspended activities in Russia.

So which firms, in which sectors, are exiting and why have others held back?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60571133

[wjfox]

[wjfox]

[R8Z]

Seems like what we've been saying is becoming more and more true every day: average Russians are taking a lot of damage due to this war with the sanctions that keep on coming (and that's a good thing).

[raklian]

I can't vouch for its validity at this point, so beware.

[Xyls]

Meta being a cesspit of garbage? Say it ain't so?

[caltrek]

Nuclear only ever survives on massive government subsidies - it never pays for itself - and the electricity that renewables produce is just too expensive per unit to support the lifestyles we've become accustomed to until now.

While you make a lot of good points in your recent posts, I think you miss the mark here. I recently posted this https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/ ... or%202019. in the Energy and Environment thread. To keep this thread from derailing, you may want to address any response you have in that thread.

[raklian]

[raklian]

Eh?

[andmar74]

A third Russian major general has been killed in the fighting in Ukraine, Western officials said.

They did not confirm the name of the deceased, but an hour earlier, Ukraine’s armed forces said that Maj Gen Andriy Kolesnikov had been killed in the fighting.

Western intelligence estimate that around 20 major generals would have been committed to the invasion of Ukraine, implying a relatively high casualty rate during the two-week long invasion, which they suggested was because they were deployed unusually close to front lines.

That could, in the words of one official, indicate that Russian troops in the front line “are unable to make decisions on their own, lack situational awareness or...are fearful of moving forward”.

Kolesnikov was the commander of Russia’s 29th Combined Arms Army.

It sounds like the Russian army is not working very well, to say the least. The reports that the Russians are coming closer to Kyiv doesn't necessarily mean much. Maybe the Ukraines can go on offensive soon, with the goal of running the Russians out.

[andmar74]

‘My plan is there is no plan’: the foreign fighters flocking to Ukraine
Thousands of people from around the world have joined the war effort, unsure when or if they will return home

Many ex elite soldiers are going to Ukraine. If the weapons keep flowing to Ukraine, surely this will make a difference.

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

[andmar74]

I wonder what Nato will do if the Russians use biological weapons. Nothing? You are right.
We have to say enough is enough..Let's do a no-fly zone and tell the Russians to get the hell out.

[caltrek]

Joe00uk: Sure enough, the personality of the monarch is important, but you have to look at the wider interests and strategies of the various elite factions at the top of society. And just because a certain course of action is forceful, and even radical, doesn't necessarily mean that the planning behind it was really insane or irrational. Aggressive? Sure. Risky? Most certainly. But beyond that, how can anyone really say that this is totally irrational?

I suppose I shouldn't pick on Joe so much, especially as he has made a lot of good points. Still, I think this is a nice counterpoint to his argument as cited above:

Vladimir Putin Has 'Completely Lost Interest in the Present': Russian Journalist Examines Putin's Thinking
by Brandon Gage
March 11, 2022

https://www.alternet.org/2022/03/vladim ... t-present/

Introduction:

Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine has triggered worldwide curiosity about what is really going on inside his head, and by extension, within the secretive walls of the Kremlin.

Putin has put forth no qualms about his ambitions – he has made it his life's mission to reexpand Russia's sphere of influence to the former borders of the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But his behavior over the last few years has strained his relationships with the most influential people in his inner circle, who now have little if any access to the 69-year-old autocrat.

Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar speculated in an editorial in Thursday's New York Times about how Putin's paranoia and self-imposed isolation will affect Russia's malevolence toward and interactions with the West.

"What I have heard about the president’s behavior over the past two years is alarming," Zygar said of Putin. "His seclusion and inaccessibility, his deep belief that Russian domination over Ukraine must be restored and his decision to surround himself with ideologues and sycophants have all helped to bring Europe to its most dangerous moment since World War II."

Putin's acute remoteness was amplified during the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

caltrek's comment: I think this demonstrates the old truism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The inability of the Russian system to effectively impose checks and balances has led to where we now find ourselves. A Russian neo-Czar who is increasingly losing touch with reality. Moreover, one who is imitating the totalitarian leaders of old. We can see that in his attempts to further clamp down on any opinions that run counter to promoting Putin as a sort of Big Brother. A glorified leader portrayed as essential to maintaining a Russia that is not "corrupted" by Western ways. Ways such as science, charity, love of peace, tolerance of minorities, etc.

[caltrek]

I wonder what Nato will do if the Russians use biological weapons. Nothing? You are right.
We have to say enough is enough..Let's do a no-fly zone and tell the Russians to get the hell out.

Well, I think that NATO and its member countries are doing is little bit more than "nothing."

Whether what they are doing will be enough is very much open to question. Here is an article that ties the theme of your comments quite nicely together with my observation of Putin as a neo-Czar:

Can Russian Oligarchs Influence Putin’s War?
by Whizy Kim
March 10, 2022

https://www.vox.com/recode/22971179/rus ... ons-limits

Introduction:

(Vox) Sanctions are one of the key ways the US and Europe are retaliating against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. These sanctions are throttling the Russian economy, and they’re particularly making life and business difficult for Russia’s oligarchs, an elite group of uber-wealthy people who began wielding enormous influence on Russian politics as they got rich during the privatization of the post-Soviet state.

Foreign governments around the world are seizing many oligarchs’ assets and yachts, banning them from travel, and cutting them off from doing most business with the US and Europe. The goal is to squeeze Russia’s wealthiest citizens, to censure and compel them to pressure Russia’s President Vladimir Putin to end his campaign against Ukraine.

“It’s the trillion-dollar question,” said Oliver Bullough, a journalist who writes a newsletter about oligarchy at Coda. “Can these people restrain Putin?”

But it’s important to realize that since Putin was elected in 2000, the oligarchy in Russia doesn’t work the way it used to; its members have a lot less power and influence than they once did. These punishing sanctions have so far prompted only muted comments about Ukraine from a few oligarchs, many of whom are based outside of Russia.

“Putin has brought oligarchy in-house,” Bullough told Recode. “And now we’ve got much more of a system akin to the Tudor court of Henry VIII, with a king and then a number of aristocrats around him who own their property as long as he’s prepared to tolerate them.”

[weatheriscool]

Putin approves Russian use of Middle East fighters against Ukraine
Source: The Guardian

Vladimir Putin has given the green light for up to 16,000 volunteers from the Middle East to be deployed alongside Russian-backed rebels fighting in Ukraine, doubling down on an invasion that the west says has been losing momentum.

The move, just over two weeks after Putin ordered the invasion, allows Russia to deploy battle-hardened mercenaries from conflicts such as Syria without risking additional Russian military casualties.

At a meeting of Russia’s security council, the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, said there were 16,000 volunteers in the Middle East who were ready to fight alongside Russian-backed forces in the breakaway Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.

Putin said: “If you see that there are these people who want of their own accord, not for money, to come to help the people living in Donbas, then we need to give them what they want and help them get to the conflict zone.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... st-ukraine