Butschi

Everyone said war with Russia was inevitable during the Cold War too. I spent 10 years as an Army officer during the 70s-80s. We pretty much expected that we'd never grow old.
Yet I just turned 65 and retired. War with Russia never happened, despite numerous proxy wars and some (many?) close calls.
This is in no way to minimize Ukraine's plight at the moment, but I think the inevitability and doom predictions are not a new thing. 
I'm not in any way an expert, (give me a target list and I can blow it up, but grand strategy, international relations is above my pay grade) but I believe the aid being provided coupled with the sanctions Russia is coming under will do the job, without increasing the possibility of US/NATO forces coming into direct conflict with Russian forces. That's the thing that during the Cold War, both sides went to lengths to avoid. 
Dave

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

One the one hand the Bundeswehr has a so totally incopetent purchasing management, on the other hand it wasn't really changed from all the way from conscription based to professional. It is in kind of a limbo state, conscription is only paused and apart from some embarassing commercials no measures were taken to make the Bundeswehr an attractive employer. Back when conscription was still a thing, no one with halve a brain went there but instead did civilian service - few with higher education wanted to get yelled at but people who know that you are smarter and who want to punish you for it. Nowadays the Bundeswehr has a reputation for attracting Nazis which really doesn't make it any more attractive for everyone else.

I'm not much of a fan of this "things never change" talk. All in all I think the world is a much better place than, say, 100-200 years earlier. Still, some good points there. What really strikes me is the bigotry of the so called Western World (Not saying the Autocrats are any better but maybe we should put our own house in order before pointing on others). We kind of have this narrative that because we are democracies we are the good guys. While on average living in the western world is probably much better than elsewhere, from that we kind of derive the narrative that we are also morally better in our relations towards the rest of the world. And that is plain wrong, I think.

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

I am hoping that this is something that comes out of this war.  Corruption happens when finances are not transparent and banking regulations are weak.  EU membership for Ukraine has not been held up by any fear of Russia, but by corruption in Ukraine.  The unity Ukrainians have found and the willingness to sacrifice for their nation needs to be harnessed post conflict.  It should become a national effort and a national security concern to resolve this regardless of EU membership or not.  And this goes not only for Ukraine but for all.  Deutsche Bank has a long history of managing Russian funny money that has to stop.  There are states in the US becoming versions of the Cayman Islands.  That has to stop.  London and US real estate as havens for oligarch money - has to stop.  Want to make it difficult for authoritarian leaders - stop the cash flow that enables them or at a minimum make it visible.  This is supposedly the information age.

@kraze& @Haiduk et al
Could you please elaborate (in an unbiased manner) what drives the ethnic/racial animus between Russia and Ukraine? If I understand correctly, you refer to “ethnic cleansing” as being a prominent motivating factor for the typical Russian soldier, regardless of the overarching geopolitical dynamics between Russia and “the West”. In short, from your perspective, what is the origin of all this hatred and to what end does it serve?
Lastly you speak of the disintegration of Russia as being necessary. What does that look like in terms of re-divided nation states; governments etc.? ...Disclaimer…I don’t want to derail the thread or inflame emotions so if a dry, calculated answer is not possible then please refrain. Thanks

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

I'm not much of a fan of this "things never change" talk. All in all I think the world is a much better place than, say, 100-200 years earlier. Still, some good points there. What really strikes me is the bigotry of the so called Western World (Not saying the Autocrats are any better but maybe we should put our own house in order before pointing on others). We kind of have this narrative that because we are democracies we are the good guys. While on average living in the western world is probably much better than elsewhere, from that we kind of derive the narrative that we are also morally better in our relations towards the rest of the world. And that is plain wrong, I think.

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

Well EU had to make itself dependent on someone, at least until we could get enough renewable energy up and running and gas was supposed to be at least not as bad as oil or coal. So, Russia and the US were candidates.
Now, you really have to understand just how much trust both George W. Bush and Donald Trump shattered over here. During G.W. Bush's presidency German chancellor Schröder laid the foundations for our even further commitment to Russian gas. And Mr. Trump openly tried to blackmail the EU. Several times. Up until now, while everyone knew that Putin is far from being the "Flawless Democrat" former Chancellor Schröder once called him, he never tried that (with the EU). Also worth mentioning (something that came up over here quite often), the Soviet Union and later Russia was always a reliable supplier. Did we trust Putin? Not really. Trump & Co showed us, however, that the USA also were far from being the reliable partner they supposedly used to be.
Personally, I still have trouble believing that the USA support Ukraine because they are a democracy defending western values and not because Ukraine is of geostrategic interest against one the (at least nuclear) superpowers undermining US dominance.
Last but not least. At least German foreign policies was based on Change through Trade. It worked rather well back in the 70s and 80s and so somehow we tricked ourselves into thinking that through trade we could slowly kind of change the autocratic countries around the world towards our values. And also make money while we are at it...

But who gets to decide who is a traitor and who isn't? Shoting marauders, while harsh, is maybe understandable, at least that is something you have to consider under martial law. I don't know the situation, just really read this one post, so maybe the mayor really just wanted to betray his people.
But remember, this happend quite often in 1945: Some mayor wanted to spare his village/city and wanted to hand it over to the allies before they bombarded it - and was shot by the Nazis as a traitor. Saying Nazis were evil but the Ukrainians are the good guys (even if while true) so in their case it is justified is a really slippery slope.

This 'military' thread has taken a rather bloodthirsty turn of late, hasn't it? Could we possibly get back to the operations and tactics, other than terror bombardments and Leviticus?
1. Once both sides declare no quarter, the (unarmed) civilians in occupied lands fare the worst. Those would be Ukrainians.
2. Anyhoo, once the firebases are set up, they will have ample perimeter security. Even RA conscripts can handle that. The cutthroat commandos might be better served whacking the ammo supplies (that's what the Viet Cong and Iraqi resistance found).

I don't mention any names, but an ex dissident president thinks that Putin is a smart guy and still enjoys considerable support. Anywhere else he would be behind lock and key. Putin is sinister but he is not stupid. 

in the instance where the post that started this particular topic occurred, the town was still in Ukrainian hands.  You can call it what you want but it is still murder.  They could very simply have arrested him, turned him over to legitimate authorities... who could then execute him.  extrajudicial killings where your authorities are still exercising control is just a bad idea.

Sorry, I no longer manage to keep up with this thread. It was probably discussed over and over. I just don't get all the glee here. Or well, I get it, I'm routing for the Ukrainian Army and I hope they can hold until all the promised help arrives. But while I see that it seems like the Russian offensive doesn't work as planned - though, who knows what the plan really was? - and logistics appear chaotic and all... I keep looking at the map and for me it looks like the Russians are making quite some progress towards the Dnepr. Maybe that was the goal all along? Or at least Plan B? Occupy Eastern Ukraine with the Dnepr as a border? Once the Russians are there they will be very hard to dislodge. Politically it would be possible to sell this as something like a buffer zone for Donetsk/Luhansk and Crimea. Attacks on Kiev and from Kherson west/north would serve the purpose of binding Ukrainian reinforcements. Just a thought and maybe someone with more than just wargame experience can correct me if I'm wrong.
I also keep thinking about what Putin himself said back in 2014 or 2015. "If I really wanted to invade Ukraine I'd be in Kiev in 2 weeks." (not 48 hours, mind you - btw. where did that number estimate come from, does anyone know?)

It's all Greek to me ...

Long time forum lurker here. Very interesting discussion and also a good source for informations, thank you for that.
I too wonder what Putin's end game could be. A week ago I would have been willing to bet good money on that Putin is just bluffing. Not even that, so far I actually had the impression that he is more into Chess than Poker. More or less everything he did so far was rather rational or calculated. Georgia and Eastern Ukraine were obvous consequence of both countries being considered NATO candidates by some. Keeping some kind of frozen conflict going is an "easy" way to prevent a country from joining NATO. The intervention in Syria meant the West had to talk to Russia again, meaning it was a major power again not some regional power as Obama once called the country. And because NATO and especially the US did not exactly behave like saints during the last decades, Putin had made good progress in deviding Europe and the US along several fault lines.
Now this... I don't know. Playing a bit smarter Putin would certainly have been able to gain a lot of concessions. So it seems, gaining anything via negociations seems to never have been his goal. What I find really disturbing is this: If he is really playing poker and still seeks to destroy or at the very least severly weaken NATO, he could go all in. Attacking Poland is out of the question, I think. But the Baltic states... Having Ukraine and Belarus, Russia would be in a very good position to cut off reinforcments for the Baltic or at least make the effort costly. Combined with a threat that any intervention would immediatly be answered with all out nuclear war (remember also, the latest generation of Russian nuclear missiles is causing NATO some headache), the ball would be firmly in NATO's court: Risk nuclear annihilation for waging war that would be difficult to win even if the war stayed conventional? Mourir pour Dantzig (or Riga, for that matter)? Of course, what would NATO be worth, then?
Sounds way too Tom Clancy or Larry Bond, I would have said a week ago, but now...

Why nuclear weapons are not allowed in Cuba? And if UKR joins NATO, nothing stops UKR has nuclear weapons as Turkey already has.

Yeah, I totally agree that any country has the right to deploy weapons they see fit. However, US didn't think so in Cuban Crisis and now Putin doesn't think so either. 

I hope your friends in Ukraine are fine, @akd, but let's discuss the facts on this issue.
Biden didn't offer to negotiate on arms control in a way that would reasonably settle Russian concerns. Let's look at his letter, which can be found here:

Note all the qualifiers. First, it specifies offensive missile systems, which excludes Aegis Ashore (since the US will say it's a defensive system, and it will be - if you exclude the possibility of deception). Second, it distinguishes between Permanent and Non-Permanent Forces, and Combat and Non-Combat Missions.
Which means according to this, the US can have a "Temporary" force on "Training" missions in the territory of Ukraine, even if said force is quite large. Also,

The US also offers a "transparency mechanism" to check Aegis Ashore sites at two locations - Romania and Poland. Already in principle, if there's a third site, say in Turkey or Ukraine now or in the future, the US is not obliged to include them in the "transparency mechanism".
Such are the facts. Let's compare it with Putin's proposal.
First, it rejects the idea of permanent deployments of any kind on the new NATO members by the old NATO members, except by mutual consent. This avoids un-necessary disputes on Offensive v Defensive. The US can, under this framework, negotiate for Aegis Ashore (at least in theory and according to the text), under suitable conditions.
The implication is that this is about "offensive" missiles, but it makes the main criteria a more objective one - whether that missile can physically reach the other party's territory. SAMs can carry nukes.
is actually correctly written in its context. It just obliges countries to use their rights in NATO a certain way.
Note the care taken in this part. It actually allows NATO to continue small to medium scale exercises with Lithuania while limiting excess. So despite the screams of the Western press, at least as written out it's not asking for a wholesale abandonment of the new NATO members, Russia's feelings on them notwithstanding.
Note the care here. Once 15 NATO states (of 30) plus Russia ratifies this, the treaty enters into force ... BUT it won't bind 15 NATO states that didn't ratify. Don't be stupid - the 15 states must include the US, but it does mean NATO can strategize and have up to 15 states helping Ukraine.
One reason why there are "Kremlin fanboys" in this is that frankly from a third party view, the Russian proposals at least make sense and are not a "Trust Us" plan.

Long time forum lurker here. Very interesting discussion and also a good source for informations, thank you for that.
I too wonder what Putin's end game could be. A week ago I would have been willing to bet good money on that Putin is just bluffing. Not even that, so far I actually had the impression that he is more into Chess than Poker. More or less everything he did so far was rather rational or calculated. Georgia and Eastern Ukraine were obvous consequence of both countries being considered NATO candidates by some. Keeping some kind of frozen conflict going is an "easy" way to prevent a country from joining NATO. The intervention in Syria meant the West had to talk to Russia again, meaning it was a major power again not some regional power as Obama once called the country. And because NATO and especially the US did not exactly behave like saints during the last decades, Putin had made good progress in deviding Europe and the US along several fault lines.
Now this... I don't know. Playing a bit smarter Putin would certainly have been able to gain a lot of concessions. So it seems, gaining anything via negociations seems to never have been his goal. What I find really disturbing is this: If he is really playing poker and still seeks to destroy or at the very least severly weaken NATO, he could go all in. Attacking Poland is out of the question, I think. But the Baltic states... Having Ukraine and Belarus, Russia would be in a very good position to cut off reinforcments for the Baltic or at least make the effort costly. Combined with a threat that any intervention would immediatly be answered with all out nuclear war (remember also, the latest generation of Russian nuclear missiles is causing NATO some headache), the ball would be firmly in NATO's court: Risk nuclear annihilation for waging war that would be difficult to win even if the war stayed conventional? Mourir pour Dantzig (or Riga, for that matter)? Of course, what would NATO be worth, then?
Sounds way too Tom Clancy or Larry Bond, I would have said a week ago, but now...

You know this is what I can’t get past either.  Up until now Putin has been pretty careful and demonstrated nuance and sophistication in his strategies.  The list of successes is quite long, all based on careful manipulation of narrative, subversive tactics and a brilliant divide and conquer effort aimed at the west, US specifically.   Georgia, Estonia, Crimea, Donbas v1.0, Syria, the Arm-Azer conflict, democratic interference  and even in far flung corners like Africa Russia has been pulling off a string of wins by getting inside our calculus and leaving us in the west unable to decide what to do.
Then suddenly Putin wakes up one morning and says to himself, “hell let’s see if all out war will work”…?  Does not add up.  Further, what is the crisis worth risking all this?  Some say Ukraine entry into NATO but it was not like they were having the induction ceremony this week.  There was plenty of rumbling in the west to slow roll Ukraine entry for this exact reason.  So why the sudden need for extreme escalation?  
From a political and strategic perspective this does not make a lot of sense.  The risks are very high, the long term costs also high, so what is the pay off here?  It is too easy to say “he is crazy”, but he has not demonstrated this level of irrationality before.  It like there has been a glitch in the Matrix.  I am sure they will be trying to figure this one out for some time.