FancyCat

If you want a glimpse into how Russians might rationalize Ukraine as at fault in this mobilization or indeed, the entire war. We should not underestimate the ability for Russia to blame Ukraine, especially with unmatched dominance over the TV in Russia. Instead of relying on internal dynamics or wishful collapse scenarios, the West needs to go with the proven winner, Ukraine, give it everything it needs to win, and support it till total victory (the reclamation of all internationally recognized borders). Russia does not fear NATO, the removal and emptying of the Western Military District, and the defenses around the capital and St. Petersburg attest to that. Putin thinks the West is weak, that we can be swayed by nuclear rhetoric without the backing of actions, that Russia is stronger, that it will survive. Depending on Russia to falter is therefore a mistake, we need to make it so Ukraine can match Russia and make it so that Russia needs to fall back under battlefield pressure. Why the condition of total Ukrainian victory? Its obvious, Russia escalated first, by seeking to seize all of Ukraine, in a war of aggression and genocide. Anything less than the total liberation of all territories in the face of genocide, in the face of complete naked aggression by a permanent member of the UN Security Council is a defeat for the rules based international order. If total Ukrainian victory is achieved, not only will the West gain a ally that is stronger militarily than most of it, it gains one with a vibrant society, democratic and idealistic, one that is a shining example worldwide, a society that has both navigated great change thru revolutions and war always with both eyes intent on their freedom. Why do i sound so idealistic? Well, nothing less should be given in response to Ukraine who this entire time has been seeking EU membership, even with total war as the condition for entrance. It would be a crime for me (or the West) to ignore such a aspiration in a world where autocracy seems unstoppable.

Something else to keep in mind, Russia is escalating diplomatically as well. Actions like snubbing the UN Security Council, continued violations of IHL, Russia is illustrating the uselessness of the international order, and as a permanent member of that Council, it should have been first in keeping it intact. If Russia has decided to throw it away like trash, it substantially increases the chances it collapses overall, especially if not punished. If Russia is going to escalate, it clearly at this point, does no good to not match him.

Thread, for a contrast to the rosier takes that the mobilization may actually backfire on Putin.

Recall that 2014 was not just the one off red line crossing event, we had the red lines in Syria for chemical weapons, we had Russian interference in Europe and the U.S since then, Putin has been running rampant with multiple European governments acting largely like business is usual in addition to the U.S. including assassinations and bombings on EU territory. Why I insist the West needs to not let Putin get away with anything has precisely to do with the fact he launched this invasion in the first place, he clearly has not taken anything away from the West's resolve that isn't defined as "weak".

https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/08/08/georgia-nato-eu-russia/ Georgia is not a Western client state.

I had saw a article but i didn't click on it, suggesting that Putin and the Russian government's admiration for the Great Patriotic War, had seeped deeper than one would assume, and that essentially it has decayed the Russian military's ability to operate as a modern military. Sadly I did not click on it.

You know, there was a way the Russian Government could have mobilized that might have kept the entire population of Russia from panicking, but whether due to incompetence and the inability for a mafia state to function properly, or due to deliberate chaos, they absolutely cut short the timeline of Russian collapse by quite a bit of time.

If the situation on the front was that dire, then it would partially explain the deployment of mobilized as cannon fodder. Did Russia miss the deployment of ZSU units or did Russia miss that it's units in the Izyum region are woefully defended?

Wouldn't it be best for Ukraine to take the lead in any psyops with NATO providing assistance as needed? Not sure the U.S is up to it, and Ukraine having fought Russia since 2014 should be way more tuned to how to deal with Russian forces.

Good to see this messaging is ongoing (been repeated over several days) and at the highest levels of state.

Piece coming out in the Times, https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1573772034181668867.html Interesting perspective, what happens as units mix, will Russia divide the mobilized from the recently occupied regions from those in the LPR and LNR? And with the recent Ukrainian offensive and Russian mobilization, how will Russia keep them from running? Russia will need lots of personnel for blocking troops and what happens if the majority of Russian troops are mobilized themselves?

It can not be underscored that mobilization and the referendums and the nuclear escalation threat to include the pending annexation lands require escalation by the West. Luckily, it seems Scholz is getting near the point of folding. https://www.politico.eu/article/german-government-faces-domestic-pressure-to-send-tanks-to-ukraine/

The West and Ukraine are not one side, with the same goals and motivations. Once Russia nukes Ukraine, the only response is to punish Russia via conventional means in order to ensure the total Ukrainian victory. You must show that nuclear warfare is taboo. If you effectively tell Ukraine to stop advancing, if you decide to sacrifice Ukraine's security for "the West", you get no security for anyone. Russia's red lines are bull****. End stop. We have seen time and time again, Russia acting with crazier and crazier escalation, in a bid to keep her seizures. Normalizing annexations, normalizing aggression is NOT how you enable greater world security. If you force Ukraine to not gain total Ukrainian victory, you let Putin win, you enable him to flick the nuclear button every time he wants another chunk of Ukraine. So let's think about it. Say Ukraine tries to take Kherson and Russia declares nuclear weapons are on the table for defend Russian territory. I.e, Ukraine must stop it's offensive. (Putin's speech 3 days ago declared that a threat to Russian's territory would be met with a potential nuclear response) What keeps Russia from saying that the people of Kharkiv must be liberated to join the Russian Federation and Putin declares that nukes are on the table? Ukraine must cross the red line and the West needs to stand behind Ukraine or you are going to embolden Putin to feel that the West will fold, and that Ukraine is not important enough to risk brinkmanship with.

Eastern Europe has long seen trade offs between Western and Central Europe vs Russia occur with them as the punching bag. That’s why the investment by the Eastern flank of NATO in Ukraine is as significant as it is. If you think they won’t take lessons regarding future Russian conflict with NATO that suggests NATO isn’t strong enough to defend against Russia, then I’ll just point the amount of people in the Baltics and the amount of people in the Ukraine parts seized are the same.

NYT says that Putin has forbid the retreat of Russian forces from Kherson. Thanks for the interesting discussion on the post war, I don't have much to hash over, all we can do is wait and see if Ukraine ever gets to the point of seeing the liberation of the Crimea and pre February lands be viable. I hope the West can finally escalate to the next step due to the referendums.

There are pro-Ukrainian Russians and pro-Russian Ukrainians. As for Crimea, there will be a crisis but I'm not sure it would be a risk to Ukraine's PR. As we have seen, Ukraine holds the majority of sympathy, especially in the West who will be mainly providing funds. Germany is a bad example, resistance collapsed after the surrender. I'm sure there will be some sort of insurgency, but clampdown of the border should keep it down. Is this a ethnic war? More a imperial/colonialist war i think.

It's deeply ironic we are discussing insurgencies, potential unrest, the validity and worth of liberating the LNR and DPR, meanwhile the same sort of sham referendums that occurred in 2014 in the Donbas are occurring again in 2022 except with even more shamelessness. (God forbid Ukraine can't liberate her lands wholly, will we be discussing insurgencies and unrest and wondering if Ukraine should actually liberate Melitopol 8 years down the line as we do now with Luhansk and Donetsk?) Something to ponder as we consider escalation. I already brought up the pattern of escalation from 2014 till now and the lack of response from the West essentially green lighting Putin till now. In our review of the mobilization, the referendums, while focusing on the desperation, I think it's time to once again reflect on the escalatory climb Putin is making, and for me to emphasize that climbing down the ladder in the face of such bull**** isn't just being "unfair to Ukraine", it's green lighting the way for a more painful future for everyone. (again, I've gone on about how Ukraine is getting so much destruction)(it's time to reflect even tho nothing should take away from the suffering of Ukraine, if the West put it's foot down in 2014, there would also be tens of thousands of Russians not dead due to this invasion so when you warn about nuclear bombs and escalating against Russia, do well to remember de-escalation is the legacy we see playing out right now, so you very strongly need to ask yourself is letting Putin win going to safeguard everyone or not? Gotta bring up Azov here, if there was a way to tell the RU Nats, I'm the boss, I'm listening cause not only did he release them, the population didn't care and part of RU Nat hope is blowback to emphasize Putin made the wrong decision, in fact the population cares much more about the mobilization that RU Nats seek to try and win the war and that he seemingly has tried his best to not undertake. Hmmmm. On one hand, if he himself is a hardliner, wouldn't he have mobilized to better ensure the war would win or at least stalemate? Now he's no military man but I'm assuming he has advisors. Hardliner or not, he did mess up in Ukraine, that is his fault ultimately. Someone needs to get the axe for the impending defeat. Maybe a series of warnings to the RU Nats to not think just cause he screwed up, that he isn't out and you better not get funny business, and your hope of bottom up anger towards me is baseless. (Mobilization, well he needs the troops, but I'm really unsure why he waited)(maybe he was hoping too much in the faulty optimism of the Russian General Staff?)

Just to clarify, in case anyone gets confused, the clock is not turned back to 1991. It is turned back to January 2014. I'm sure you understand "by 1991 borders" we didn't mean some far away lines from a long time ago, we don't mean rolling back 31 years of changes. It is 8 years of changes. And again, the initial rebellion in the Donbas was going to end had Russia not invaded and reinforced their "little green men". So when reviewing the notion that the Donbas or Crimea might not want to be liberated, where you state that it is good to "Retaking the lost territory just to discourage Russia (or other imperialists out there) from trying to invade other countries - a good reason too." The Donbas and Crimea would fall under this notion. The loss of both was mainly due to Russian intervention. It is essential to note, this has been a war since 2014. This is not a scenario where the LNR and DPR got to exist in 2014, been stalemated vs Ukraine in the Donbas till now, and then Russia ran in to assist in 2022, invading the rest of Ukraine. Russia invaded in 2014, set up three occupation governments, and screwed up enough in Ukraine in 2022 that those occupation governments may fall soon enough. You know, despite hearing the arguments of Ukraine, despite endorsing the view that Ukraine should regain her 2014 borders, I don't think I've really contextualized the entirety of it till now. Has there ever been a election in the DPR or LNR certified as fair and valid since 2014? I think the answer is no. I think its fair to say the LNR or DPR are occupation governments without democratic legitimacy and therefore, acting like they are expressions of sentiment of the population is incorrect.

How are you going to occupy Russia to enforce those reforms? German reconstruction occurred under its absolute division into 4 parts, and then 2 parts, lest we not forget, Germany was utterly defeated and turned into a occupation zone.

I don't think anyone is really suggesting Zelensky and the ZSU plan only for taking Crimea and the Donbas. Long way to go. But it's worth some planners, there is a reintegration ministry. Now, you make a good point that I've been saying a lot, Ukraine can't knock Russia out, its impossible, the scenario of 1991 is the best scenario, war crime trials are a pipedream, money is possible, maybe some of the deported citizens can be found and sent back to Ukraine, but the threat of Russia returning in some capacity will always be there, Ukraine in NATO and EU or not (alliances fall apart, Empires do too) If the next round of Russia vs Ukraine comes again, which scenario benefits Ukraine more, Crimea within Russian control, or Crimea under Ukrainian control? (Sealanes!) You know if the next time comes around and there isn't a EU to financially support Ukraine, those sealanes are going to be essential for keeping the economy afloat. 30k is a lot of casualties but I think ensuring the economy of Ukraine isn't placed on life support every time Russia aims a anti-ship missile in the Black Sea is well worth it. It's also worth noting that if you take the Donbas and not Crimea, you still lose the Sea of Azov. For rebuilding the Donbas region, opening the Sea of Azov is essential. Regarding the nuclear risks, I just want to point out that if nuclear warfare is legitimized in any scenario, that is a loss worldwide. That it might happen over Crimea, would legitimize nuclear use to keep non-recognized territory only 8 years old? That is catastrophic. China's position on use of nuclear devices is no first strike, and no use at all. China's intervention in the Korean War nearly resulted in the U.S launching nukes on mainland China (not even in Korea!) to stop the Chinese advance. Consider the modern scenario of Taiwan, and Taiwan or the U.S seeking out a nuclear response to prevent a successful Chinese annexation. China does not want that. India facing Pakistan, does not want that as well. I suspect the little nudges of positions that occurred are in no small part a warning to Russia that nuclear escalation is not supported by them. So let us zoom out, and look at the risks of nuclear escalation over Crimea. China won't support Russia, India won't either, the West has a lot of incentive to let Ukraine do what should to retake it. Ukraine's position, I think I've laid out clearly why Crimea being retaken is more important to instead letting Russia keep it. Russia has a strong reason to pretend Crimea is a loss it cannot accept, mainly cause they got little else to pull off in the event of militarily squaring off in Crimea. When Russia says that the anger of the people of Russia over losing Crimea makes it politically infeasible for Russia to give it up, I think its probably more bull**** than truth.

Had the West told Russia to get the hell out of Ukraine, and backed up Ukraine in 2014, in hindsight, this whole freaking conflict could have never occurred. Instead, we sat back on the sidelines, let Russia think it could do what it wanted in Ukraine, and prolonged a conflict that today we see the shameful results of Western inaction where in 2022, Russia thought it had the ability to swallow one of the largest European states without regard for international outcry. The initial aggression by Russia was in Ukraine in 2014. Instead of actually slamming the brakes shut, we let two puppet republics entrench themselves in the Donbas and Putin enjoy the fruits of his Crimean seizure. Had we actually cared about the principles of territorial integrity, those republics should have been ended via force of arms and for its trouble of promoting the uprising and filling the ranks of the separatists with men and equipment, Russia should have gotten back the body bags containing Girkin and the rest of those "separatists" to be buried in Russia. Instead, now cannon fodder Russian citizens are about to join their fellow cannon fodder of the republics to give their lives wholesale simply for Putin to try and hold some part of Ukraine forevermore. Why Ukraine must be made whole boils down that this conflict started in 2014, in Crimea and Donbas, and Russia has used them to be a cancer on Ukraine and its people, nearly killing both a few months ago. (please, let us not get caught up in me referring to Russia and the republics as a cancer considering Putin, who's power only grew more and more since 2014, is currently prepping to pile the bodies of poor Russians in a bid to choke Ukraine in Russian blood) It does not sit right with me we "need" to acknowledge these 8 year old conquests as deserving a special place and special consideration (nuclear red line or any other red line or any division between 2014 and 2022 borders) when the West refused to acknowledge Soviet legitimacy over the Baltic states for 51 years until they finally restored themselves in 1991. I mean, imagine a scenario where Ukraine does not get to the February 2022 borders (still quite possible), is there a imagery 8 year timer before Russia gets to lump them together with the republics and Crimea and tell Ukraine "this is ours now"? and the West needs to caution Ukraine to not rock the boat, or we get nuked? Can we not make the connections between the West's collective actions since 2014 to now, and not recognize the pattern of accommodation of Putin and Russia that has led to this invasion, this outright attempt to place a country of 44 million under Russian boots? With such disdain towards the UN that they barely bothered to set up the pretexts needed to invade (no apartment bombings here...), where they probably spent more time making sure that all the missiles they fired after Putin's speech declaring war did so while the UN Security Council meeting was ongoing. I mean look at Azov, they spent years calling them war criminals, nazis, people who tortured the Russian speakers of the Donbas, touted their crimes, pledged to have their heads, to bring holy justice on these Nazis....and Putin ****ing sends Denys Prokopenko and co to Turkey with barely a acknowledgement to the criticism and outcry of outraged Russians. A tower of lies and slander promising only righteous death to true enemies of the Russian people and it just tumbled to the ground like nothing. I'm not promising Crimea will be the same, I'm just saying we don't need to bring up nukes every time someone suggests landing some troops on a Crimean beachhead or entering the pre-war borders of the LNR and DPR or that Crimean Russians will shoot from every open window, I'm saying there is a context to Russia and Ukraine and the West, it began in 2014, and I may be bold in saying, acting like the West can be good and happy for helping Ukraine get to the 2022 borders, no, that is not enough, 2014, restoring the complete territorial integrity of a state is still something the West can do today. (im preempting any nuclear escalation comment by noting its only been 8 years, are you really saying Russia gets to wave a nuke to keep non-internationally recognized territory by waiting only 8 years? Sorry there's nothing deeculatory about that.)