How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[DerKommissar]

What's preventing NATO intelligence services from precipitating a regime change, now?

Today, I heard about a gunman who shot up a draft office, in Siberia. Why not train, arm, fund and coordinate a Russian Opposition?

Obviously, it would be hard to fight rebels and Ukraine, at the same time. And if they succeed, we'll have our people in charge of the next regime(s).

[Grigb]

2 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

What's preventing NATO intelligence services from precipitating a regime change, now?

Today, I heard about a gunman who shot up a draft office, in Siberia. Why not train, arm, fund and coordinate a Russian Opposition?

Obviously, it would be hard to fight rebels and Ukraine, at the same time. And if they succeed, we'll have our people in charge of the next regime(s).

Because Russian opposition (as organized movement and not few crazy gunmen) ready to fight does not exists. 

[Artkin]

Well shooting ppls up probably isnt the best way to go about it, that is pretty much terrorism. I understand what you mean, the partisans would have to combat real military targets. We aren't at the point of total warfare, like the war of hate that we saw 80 years prior.

[akd]

18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am very confident that reparations and war crimes prosecution are going to be a critical condition for lifting of sanctions and re-normalization.

As to "another Ukraine in 5-10", I am not sure what you are arguing - if Russia removes Putin it will still start another war?

That is basically what happened in Chechnya, and in that case there were even reparations paid.

Edited September 26, 2022 by akd

[danfrodo]

I was sitting here in my comfy basement office, working from home like I do 90% of the time.  Then I pictured being dragged out of this nice gig and thrown into a brutal, completely uncaring military.  Then sent to some trench in a Ukrainian winter.  I am miserable, cold, wet, scared, sometimes shelled.  And I've also lost my paychecks from my job.  How do I pay for my house, etc?

I am thinking I am not a model patriotic soldier in that situation.  And if that LT is telling me to attack or to hold at all costs else I'll be shot?  I am going to shoot him first chance I get.

 

[Letter from Prague]

12 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Well shooting ppls up probably isnt the best way to go about it, that is pretty much terrorism. I understand what you mean, the partisans would have to combat real military targets. We aren't at the point of total warfare, like the war of hate that we saw 80 years prior.

Two things happened - some guy shot up a school in Russia and killed himself afterwards  (while wearing shirt with swastika and having "hatred" written on his guns or something) and some other guy shot a mobilisation commissar.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the latter, and mobilisation office is a valid military target.

But yeah, why not deliver some guns and radios to Dagestan now?

_______

 

[DerKommissar]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Because Russian opposition (as organized movement and not few crazy gunmen) ready to fight does not exists. 

Just so. Which means one can start with a blank slate and build it on proper foundation, to establish lasting peace.

Organization is key here, you're right. I think there's quite a few disgruntled people there, just not working together.

Alone they are insignificant. If they're united and coordinated, by an alphabet agency or two: then we can talk of all-out rebellion.

13 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Well shooting ppls up probably isnt the best way to go about it, that is pretty much terrorism. I understand what you mean, the partisans would have to combat real military targets. We aren't at the point of total warfare, like the war of hate that we saw 80 years prior.

The main goal here is to install a responsible regime, and prevent all out warfare. Which we may see if this goes nuclear.

I agree that it's unreasonable to expect them to hit military targets, right away. The first step here is to get the snowball rolling, the right way.

[Haiduk]

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

As to "another Ukraine in 5-10", I am not sure what you are arguing - if Russia removes Putin it will still start another war?

We in Ukraine believe, that if Russians overthrone Putin, that not because he started all of this, but because he failed and didn't meet expectations of "deep nation". Putinism and Russians is symbiothic system. Most of Russians want such leader with such ideas like Putin and Putin in own turn feeds Russians with that they want to hear. You can take out Putin, but "deep nation" put on the throne next Putin. Even so-called Russian liberals indeed hidden Russian chauvinists (I don't like the term "Russian nationalists", because they are not nationalists but just chauvinists and imperialists). "Liberal" Navalnyi initially supported the war on Donbas in 2014 (but later started to criticize it) and on the question "Would you return Crimea to Ukraine if you became the president?" He answered "Crimea is not a sandwich to transfer it there and back again". You can recall Putin started as enough liberal politic in 1999-2000. Why we have to believe Navalnyi will not turn to new Putin through 10-20 years? 

Those Russian liders, who really could led of Russian moving on democracy way already dead - Nemtsov, for example. Or Novodvorskaya. Rest, whom Putin "spared" like Yavlinskiy or Khakamada turned into nothingness.

 

Here is an article about general Zaluzhnyi in the "Time":   https://time.com/6216213/ukraine-military-valeriy-zaluzhny/

And his words: For his part, Zaluzhny is girding for a long and bloody slog. “Knowing what I know firsthand about the Russians, our victory will not be final,” he told TIME. “Our victory will be an opportunity to take a breath and prepare for the next war.”

 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Haiduk

[Artkin]

Just now, Letter from Prague said:

Two things happened - some guy shot up a school in Russia and killed himself afterwards  (while wearing shirt with swastika and having "hatred" written on his guns or something) and some other guy shot a mobilisation commissar.

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the latter, and mobilisation office is a valid military target.

But yeah, why not deliver some guns and radios to Dagestan now?

I really don't think this is the correct way to do things. You're getting people to shoot up the streets? Ehhh, maybe times were different in WW2 when this was unheard of. Every sort of shooting or whatnot that happens will be taken as a "terrorist" act. I guess there really isn't anyone in the world left to judge the Terroristees, I doubt anyone from the West would find it as much of a big deal if it happens in Russia. 

I do think a mobilisation office is riding a line between being the right and wrong place. Sure you have uniforms working there, but is that all? You have civilians who are probably present. Burning the place down is a little different, and seems to usually happen at night when the place is vacant anyway. The end goal is about sending a message.

Idk, just seems wrong to me.

[Artkin]

3 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

I agree that it's unreasonable to expect them to hit military targets, right away. The first step here is to get the snowball rolling, the right way.

Well take for instance the assassination of Nikolai Vatutin, A successful Soviet general who was killed by partisans. That would be the right way to do it, though the level of difficulty is probably much more difficult now.

[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.

 

[Battlefront.com]

A Tweet above raised an interesting point.  Grigb, myself, and others have mentioned that the average Russian is deliberately ignorant of what the war in Ukraine means for them.  The Tweet mentioned that the average Russian thinks there's some huge mass of trained men ready to take up the flag and defeat Ukraine, when in fact there is no such thing.  When they see their villages, factories, and local shops emptied of men to fight the war then they will realize how bad this is.  Because they have no imagination, they have to experience it first hand before they can even start to comprehend what is going on.  Denial and ignorance take time to correct for.

Steve

[kraze]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am very confident that reparations and war crimes prosecution are going to be a critical condition for lifting of sanctions and re-normalization.

As to "another Ukraine in 5-10", I am not sure what you are arguing - if Russia removes Putin it will still start another war?

Russians, that just "removed putin and his circle" will never agree to prosecuting their own or, god forbid, paying back for crimes. Did they pay back much of lend-lease that saved them?

And yes - Russia will start another war. Because putin is not the problem. Russia is the problem.

When USSR fell - Russia immediately started not one, not two, but three wars of aggression (Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan) to cut the disintegration short - that West oh so conveniently turned the blind eye on. Russia cannot exist without wars because wars make its people glued together. Losing a war and then not starting any new ones for long enough leads to disintegration - and this no "diplomatically switched" russian government will ever have.

Russia must cease to exist if you don't want new, barbaric wars in this region.

Or are you telling me next guys will ever agree to remove russian troops not only from Ukraine, but from Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan, which they still occupy - and pay reparations to 4 countries at once? Or even to Armenia, a parliament of which was brutally murdered by russian spetsnaz back in 1999 (when there was no putin yet)?

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

We in Ukraine believe, that if Russians overthrone Putin, that not because he started all of this, but because he failed and didn't meet expectations of "deep nation". Putinism and Russians is symbiothic system. Most of Russians want such leader with such ideas like Putin and Putin in own turn feeds Russians with that they want to hear. You can take out Putin, but "deep nation" put on the throne next Putin. Even so-called Russian liberals indeed hidden Russian chauvinists (I don't like the term "Russian nationalists", because they are not nationalists but just chauvinists and imperialists). "Liberal" Navalnyi initially supported the war on Donbas in 2014 (but later started to criticize it) and on the question "Would you return Crimea to Ukraine if you became the president?" He answered "Crimea is not a sandwich to transfer it there and back again". You can recall Putin started as enough liberal politic in 1999-2000. Why we have to believe Navalnyi will not turn to new Putin through 10-20 years? 

Those Russian liders, who really could led of Russian moving on democracy way already dead - Nemtsov, for example. Or Novodvorskaya. Rest, whom Putin "spared" like Yavlinskiy or Khakamada turned into nothingness.

 

Here is an article about general Zaluzhnyi in the "Time":   https://time.com/6216213/ukraine-military-valeriy-zaluzhny/

And his words: For his part, Zaluzhny is girding for a long and bloody slog. “Knowing what I know firsthand about the Russians, our victory will not be final,” he told TIME. “Our victory will be an opportunity to take a breath and prepare for the next war.”

 

 

Ah, ok very clear now thanks.  Whew, well Ukraine joining NATO should defuse a lot of this.  If the next war occurs under Article 5, well it will be a very different war.

Then we risk manage a rogue state - frankly not much else we can do beyond some shaping ops in the subversive warfare space.  The Cold War strategy was containment and enticement, not sure if that will work based on your assessment.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, kraze said:

Russia must cease to exist if you don't want new, barbaric wars in this region.

So what are you proposing here?  We have talked at length of the risks of Russia collapsing - you may very well wind up with a rogue WMD in Kyiv (I am sure there will be those with a grudge).

Even if you could break Russia up into sub-states, how can you guarantee one or more of them won't start another war if it is so deeply embedded in the Russian state as you suggest. 

[DerKommissar]

8 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

We in Ukraine believe, that if Russians overthrone Putin, that not because he started all of this, but because he failed and didn't meet expectations of "deep nation". Putinism and Russians is symbiothic system. 

Just so. Hence, the only lasting victory here, involves a pro-West puppet regime to keep this under control.

10 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Well take for instance the assassination of Nikolai Vatutin, A successful Soviet general who was killed by partisans. That would be the right way to do it, though the level of difficulty is probably much more difficult now.

Maybe skip military targets for now. Focus on taking out pro-Putin supporters and getting the message out.

1 minute ago, kraze said:

Or are you telling me next guys will ever agree to remove russian troops not only from Ukraine, but from Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan, which they still occupy - and pay reparations to 4 countries at once? Or even to Armenia, a parliament of which was brutally murdered by russian spetsnaz back in 1999 (when there was no putin yet)?

They will if they owe their existence to the West, and with a axe over their head -- if they want to think otherwise.

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

We in Ukraine believe, that if Russians overthrone Putin, that not because he started all of this, but because he failed and didn't meet expectations of "deep nation". Putinism and Russians is symbiothic system. Most of Russians want such leader with such ideas like Putin and Putin in own turn feeds Russians with that they want to hear.

This is all very true.  However, we have to keep in mind that desire and capability are not the same thing. 

Russia has been building up to this war for 20+ years.  40-50+ years if we factor in Soviet production that is being used in this war.  The end of this war will be the destruction of all of this effort and for what?  A strategic defeat.

Even if sanctions disappeared immediately, there is no way Russia would be ready to fight Ukraine again in 5-10 years.  Or 10-20 for that matter.  And sanctions will remain in place for a long time.

Think about this... Russia tried and failed to defeat Ukraine even though it had decades of war production at the ready.  It failed mostly because it was a corrupt, horribly inept government with an even worse military.  If Russia gets another Putin for it's next leader, then guess what?  Russia will have another horribly corrupt and inept government making yet another incompetent and under funded military.  Especially because it won't have the economic resources to make a real military.

On the other side, Ukraine's military will be counted amongst the best in the world.  Not the scrappy mixed bag that Russia got defeated by, but a truly professional military with the most modern equipment of any nation outside of NATO.

In short, if Russia tries to attack Ukraine in 5-10 years I don't think it will make it over the border before being defeated.  This gives Ukraine and the West all kinds of time to figure out ways to change Russia's natural state into something less dangerous.

Steve

[kraze]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

So what are you proposing here?  We have talked at length of the risks of Russia collapsing - you may very well wind up with a rogue WMD in Kyiv (I am sure there will be those with a grudge).

Even if you could break Russia up into sub-states, how can you guarantee one or more of them won't start another war if it is so deeply embedded in the Russian state as you suggest. 

Because a 140 mln empire attacking a smaller country is much more dangerous than a 10 mln region attacking a full-fledged country it has 0 chance of ever occupying, while also being busy fighting other neighbors.

Or maybe, being so small and broken up, they will be too busy dying from hunger to even care about attacking someone.

I'd take a risk of unknown over a guarantee of known any day - because Russia coming back for revenge is absolutely, 100%, guaranteed. It's set in stone. It's been like that for 300 years and nothing ever changes. And this time it will be Russia that learned its mistakes.

Russia not being there also means other countries all around them get a chance at being free. Or are you telling me it's OK for Moldova and Georgia to keep suffering after 30 years of it - because an illusion of "business as usual" is more important?

[FancyCat]

You cannot "manage" a nuclear state. Influence it sure, maybe leverage internal tensions to be a kingmaker, but at the end of the day, if they get out of your control, there is nothing you can do to get it back due to the nuclear control, and I think Ukraine understands that better than anyone, which is why undoubtedly, despite NATO and EU membership, Ukraine will retain faith in their armaments rather than completely in alliances. 

Since Russia is eternal, we might as well go for total victory in Ukraine, since it will be impossible to ensure Russia does not come back. 

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This gives Ukraine and the West all kinds of time to figure out ways to change Russia's natural state into something less dangerous.

"natural state" imo, if there is a lesson to take from the experiences in the Middle East, nation building is impossible. Nation changing is near impossible. Nation changing a nuclear power is also impossible. The contrast that lots of people who advocate nation building miss is the two shining examples of it being successful, Japan and Germany both were nations, and therefore we were not "nation building" but revitalizing. 

A ignorance of Ukraine is probably contributing to the idea that Western aid to Ukraine is "nation building", no Ukraine has its own nation and society and structure that we are merely revitalizing and assisting. Big differences. 

[kraze]

8 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

They will if they owe their existence to the West, and with a axe over their head -- if they want to think otherwise.

1991 knocked and said hello.

They did it once because it worked, they will do it again because it will work.

Because you want peace and russians want war. That's a huge and a very important difference.

[Bulletpoint]

Also, a new Russia will not be able to count on oil and gas revenues much longer for building up another army. I don't see Europe returning to the "wandel durch handel" policy anytime soon, and demand for fossil energy is decreasing daily in general.

[Artkin]

Advocating for terrorist activities is not how you maintain a reputable post war position. It's my opinion that events like that would quickly make things spiral out of control.

Take for instance the German U-Boat raids on shipping and subsequent conflicts of 1941, pre December. The US and Germans exchanged blows a couple times on the sea. When an American ship was finally sunk (A destroyer?) it was enough to help convince the public to advocate for war. The ship wasn't necessarily an active military target, blurring the lines, since neither side was at war.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Artkin

[kraze]

11 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Japan and Germany both were nations, and therefore we were not "nation building" but revitalizing. 

Japan and Germany are also both absolutely great examples of what happens when you merely want to make empires "owe their existence to you". They do not feel grateful or intimidated - but they certainly feel like punching you in the face once they get the chance - and that's literally what they did.

Heck even Russia post-WWI is just as great of an example. In twenty years it started a new World War together with those two butthurt empires - because the West tried to "diplomacy" it into obedience.

And similarly to an axis of evil of the yore (Nazi Germany - Imperial Japan - USSR) today we have an embryo of a new one - Iran - Russia - China.

Edited September 26, 2022 by kraze

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It really comes down to one thing:

Is there a set of circumstances where Putin might believe that his only chance of personal survival is using a tac nuke?

Thanks Steve. Agreed! Indeed, there must be. Those and his beliefs must be *the* fundamental, underlying questions of this war. We here speculate about his state of mind and make projections onward from our various favored assumptions. I do think there is at least one place where the West’s very best understanding of Putin’s mindset exists: CIA and DIA. Profiles developed over years of varying circumstances and results have honed their best estimates. I am *guessing* that the use of the previously unused term “catastrophic” was carefully chosen with all that in mind.

 

As always, to what effect only time will tell. And not forgetting Putin’s KGB background, and as others have mentioned, Nixon’s use of the “I am unbalanced and might do *anything*” tactic.

[DerKommissar]

9 minutes ago, kraze said:

1991 knocked and said hello.

1991 wasn't as well-guided as 2023 could be. Instead of clowns like Gorbachev/Yeltsin/Putin, we could put in (pun unintended) trained operatives.

Use the propaganda machine and repression like Pinochet, to ensure that they swallow the medicine.