How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Yet]

On 2/7/2023 at 8:31 PM, Battlefront.com said:

On 2/7/2023 at 10:46 AM, Yet said:

When in 2060 we are looking back  the RU army and industry are restored, we trade again and looking back, they institutionalised Crimea being part of RU. 

on the long term; isnt this still a Russian win considering pre-2014?

Germany is stronger than than it was in 1939.  I still consider they lost WW2 pretty soundly.

not comparable. 

- Every inch of Germany was conquered 

- WW2 Germany didnt get away with gaining land. 

- Germany's leadership (system) didnt stay in place

- Germany was rebuild (in different ways) by its conquerors to build a new culture/ way of thinking to prevent falling in the pit again.

 

Crimea was in 2014 insitutionalised by RU, but not by the international community. 

If RU gets away now with Crimea, it was an expensive few acres, but still it can be an incentive to Ru (or any other country) to try it again to invade, forced migrate inhabitants, wait, get agressive, negotiate, institutionalise. 

[Vet 0369]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:15 AM, cyrano01 said:

Indeed. I am pretty sure I have seen both The Marquis of Argyle's Royal Regiment and Monck's Regiment of Foot on duties around London at one point or another. These PMC's take a long time to get rid of...

If I’m not mistaken, there is only one “private” Regiment left in Scotland, it is based at Atholl Castle. It was authorized by Queen Victoria. I saw it on a show called “Great Railroads of Scotland” or something close to that.

[The_Capt]

10 minutes ago, Yet said:

Crimea was in 2014 insitutionalised by RU, but not by the international community. 

If RU gets away now with Crimea, it was an expensive few acres, but still it can be an incentive to Ru (or any other country) to try it again to invade, forced migrate inhabitants, wait, get agressive, negotiate, institutionalise.

Not sure I follow the logic.  If Russia loses Crimea will they still not be likely to "try it again" anyways?  I mean the only way that seems to work is to draw a NATO line somewhere and dare Russia to cross it overtly - this is why this all happened in Ukraine and not on the Baltics.  Russia will definitely still do dirty in the subversive space but has been deterred from stuff like sending in 200k troops and bombing the hell out of things.

So Crimea does not really seem as pivotal as establishing collective deterrence mechanisms that encompass Ukraine.  The issue with Crimea and Donbass is that if they are retaken, but Ukraine winds up with a resistance or worse and insurgency in these areas it could cause problems with that that whole collective deterrence mechanisms part. For example, if Ukraine is seen as heavy handed or failing to enfranchise these populations - and insurgencies really are good at making this happen - that could insert some uncertainty into all this.

Ukraine has every right to the Crimea as a sovereign state (Russia does not get to play "backsies"), however it is a potential open wound, along with the Donbas (which may be worse) that could act as a spoiler for what follows.  The aggression of Russia is a given no matter what unless there is a dramatic political and social change within that country.

Edited February 9, 2023 by The_Capt

[Lethaface]

9 minutes ago, Yet said:

not comparable. 

- Every inch of Germany was conquered 

- WW2 Germany didnt get away with gaining land. 

- Germany's leadership (system) didnt stay in place

- Germany was rebuild (in different ways) by its conquerors to build a new culture/ way of thinking to prevent falling in the pit again.

 

Crimea was in 2014 insitutionalised by RU, but not by the international community. 

If RU gets away now with Crimea, it was an expensive few acres, but still it can be an incentive to Ru (or any other country) to try it again to invade, forced migrate inhabitants, wait, get agressive, negotiate, institutionalise. 

RU already had Crimea before the current hot war erupted. Imo the probabilities of a new war on the horizon aren't necessarily decided by the control of Crimea at the end of the current hostilities. There might be some scenario's in which it will be, but there are also scenario's in which it won't. 
Factually Russia being forced back to their January 2022 borders would mean that the whole war didn't give them any inch of terrain. How is that a win? 

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

First we will likely be investing billions into Ukraine as part of reconstruction, and we like our investments to be secure.  Second, it is the one way to put Russia squarely back in a box, which is a major strategic aim for the West. And finally, it sends a very strong signal to China that we mean business.  If we dither and hand-wring for a decade all we are doing is signaling disunity, risking investments and leaving ourselves wide open for a follow on dislocation from Russia.

My point being that Ukraine entry into NATO has a lot of momentum behind it, particularly from the US, and NATO being a military body - slow as it is - will be reading the wind direction as well.  So I do not think we can apply normal metrics here, is my point.

Yes, 1st point would appeal to most Europeans if they indeed do such heavy investment in ukraine. 2nd and 3rd seems rather far-fetched and superflous from point of view of some Western European states.

From possible objectors, Hungary could be supressed, Turkey bargained, but Germany will simply not allow it. Or worse, try never ending scholzing, perhaps even under successive new chancellors. Unless there would be an earthquake in German internal political scene of Wagnerian proportions, and more balsy politicians would take the lead. Some other countries (Italy, France to a point) would happily hide behind DE backs in such case and provide silent support. It would demand massive knee-whipping on behalf of USA to negotiate Ukrainian access in reasonable time.

Well, we are writing on water in this case anyway, and I don't want another Germany-finger pointing blame game. But that seem to be harsh political reality for now. Perhaps peception will change with time.

[Sekai]

2 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Wagner going kaput?  There is so much crazy weirdness in that whole thing I am not even sure what to think.  But looks like Putin used Prigozin's wonderful little moneymaker as cannon fodder & now Prigozin has nuthin' left.  As was said above, he should stay on the ground floor for a while.  

On a similar topic:

Pre-war thread on Stalin, the USSR, and now Putin's dread of the military is still very pertinent today

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Sekai

[Vet 0369]

On 2/8/2023 at 10:00 AM, DesertFox said:

Yeah, polititians and their statements. Who are we to believe what they tell us?

How can you tell wen politicians are lying? Their lips are moving.

The term “politics” is from two words, Poly, which is derived from a Greek word that means “many,” and ticks, which are “blood-sucking insects.”

[Lethaface]

5 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Yes, 1st point would appeal to most Europeans if they indeed do such heavy investment in ukraine. 2nd and 3rd seems rather far-fetched and superflous from point of view of some Western European states.

From possible objectors, Hungary could be supressed, Turkey bargained, but Germany will simply not allow it. Or worse, try never ending scholzing, perhaps even under successive new chancellors. Unless there would be an earthquake in German internal political scene of Wagnerian proportions, and more balsy politicians would take the lead. Some other countries (Italy, France to a point) would happily hide behind DE backs in such case and provide silent support. It would demand massive knee-whipping on behalf of USA to negotiate Ukrainian access in reasonable time.

Well, we are writing on water in this case anyway, and I don't want another Germany-finger pointing blame game. But that seem to be harsh political reality for now. Perhaps peception will change with time.

It is rather finger pointy though. How much of it is perception on the observer and how much is factual? Various countries / people which were against Ukraine joining NATO did that because they thought it would prevent a war. Times have changed, although probably some people will still think that way. Joining EU would also give security guarantees. Anyway my outlook is not so negative, nor is my perception about certain countries. All EU countries have their issues (and non EU).

 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Beleg85 said:

Yes, 1st point would appeal to most Europeans if they indeed do such heavy investment in ukraine. 2nd and 3rd seems rather far-fetched and superflous from point of view of some Western European states.

From possible objectors, Hungary could be supressed, Turkey bargained, but Germany will simply not allow it. Or worse, try never ending scholzing, perhaps even under successive new chancellors. Unless there would be an earthquake in German internal political scene of Wagnerian proportions, and more balsy politicians would take the lead. Some other countries (Italy, France to a point) would happily hide behind DE backs in such case and provide silent support. It would demand massive knee-whipping on behalf of USA to negotiate Ukrainian access in reasonable time.

Well, we are writing on water in this case anyway, and I don't want another Germany-finger pointing blame game. But that seem to be harsh political reality for now. Perhaps peception will change with time.

I think Europe is going to agree wholeheartedly on #2 - I mean c’mon guys this is your backyard, if you want to keep a rabid bear in a cage this is the cost.  Superfluous?  Russia just invaded a neighbour illegally and killed a few hundred thousand people…I mean how apathetic can Western Europe get if it lets this one slide.

As to China…well the US is likely the most benign empire in the history of the planet, but I would not test them on that too far.  The level of arm twisting that can be applied by the worlds last superpower can be epic.  And China matters very much to US, more than Russia.  Take it from a nation who just got pulled into this, and China is our second largest trading partner, the US will demand at some point that people pick a side in this thing and start playing ball.

And considering stuff like this: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/220627-def-exp-2022-en.pdf

I am pretty sure who is going to blink first.  This will be a test for NATO and frankly Europe. Is this a massive and bloated military bureaucracy, or is it actually going to defend the western world?

Regardless, I think that Ukrainian entry in NATO or some sort of binding collective defence mechanism will be interesting to say the least but it basically has to happen sooner than later.

[Beleg85]

1 minute ago, Lethaface said:

It is rather finger pointy though. How much of it is perception on the observer and how much is factual? Various countries / people which were against Ukraine joining NATO did that because they thought it would prevent a war. Times have changed, although probably some people will still think that way. Joining EU would also give security guarantees. Anyway my outlook is not so negative, nor is my perception about certain countries. All EU countries have their issues (and non EU).

Ok, here we go again. It isn't finger pointing at anyone, simple assessment of up-to-date knowledge about behaviour of various possible state actors and their attitudes/strategic interest. I have very serious doubts that after war is over and vanish from out TV's, some western audiences will be more than happy to forget about whole issue. We see it already in case of EU partnership for Ukraine, after initiall wave of support. Albeit NATO is different, and may be more available.  You may be right though, times are changing and perhaps UA will have a faster track.

[Lethaface]

2 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, here we go again. It isn't finger pointing at anyone, simple assessment of up-to-date knowledge about behaviour of various possible state actors and their attitudes/strategic interest. I have very serious doubts that after war is over and vanish from out TV's, some western audiences will be more than happy to forget about whole issue. We see it already in case of EU partnership for Ukraine, after initiall wave of support. Albeit NATO is different, and may be more available.  You may be right though, times are changing and perhaps UA will have a faster track.

Zelensky was in Brussel today, doing the parade with the officials ;-). 
Anyway I think the more interesting question is whether negotiations can be even started up in a meaningful way after most of the shooting stops. There is already a LOT of investment in Ukraine, economically / militarily / politically from EU and most countries in EU, DE as well. I don't see DE going alone against the grain with regards to security guarantees for Ukraine when/if that issue gets on the table. Neither France. Why support now and abandon when the 'good times' are there? If a Le Pen rises to power, perhaps. 
At the same time I'm not saying that full membership formalities will go very speedy. But indeed some kind of security guarantee will need to be made after hostilities cease and negotiations start. Full NATO membership on day 1 isn't the only way.

[danfrodo]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think Europe is going to agree wholeheartedly on #2 - I mean c’mon guys this is your backyard, if you want to keep a rabid bear in a cage this is the cost.  Superfluous?  Russia just invaded a neighbour illegally and killed a few hundred thousand people…I mean how apathetic can Western Europe get if it lets this one slide.

As to China…well the US is likely the most benign empire in the history of the planet, but I would not test them on that too far.  The level of arm twisting that can be applied by the worlds last superpower can be epic.  And China matters very much to US, more than Russia.  Take it from a nation who just got pulled into this, and China is our second largest trading partner, the US will demand at some point that people pick a side in this thing and start playing ball.

And considering stuff like this: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/220627-def-exp-2022-en.pdf

I am pretty sure who is going to blink first.  This will be a test for NATO and frankly Europe. Is this a massive and bloated military bureaucracy, or is it actually going to defend the western world?

Regardless, I think that Ukrainian entry in NATO or some sort of binding collective defence mechanism will be interesting to say the least but it basically has to happen sooner than later.

China starting a war would go down in history as the absolute stupidest thing in history.  China went from third world bottom status to rich, prosperous nation based on leveraging western capitalist market for cheap labor & free pollution, then started actually making lots of their own stuff.  China is incredibly intertwined w the world economy, as is the US, et al, and a war would wreck that.  What are chinese workers gonna do for a living if foreign companies pull manufacturing out?  That work would take a lot of time to move, but Vietnam et al would be very pleased to take it.  I know I sound like a broken record on this but how can anyone be so insane as to want a war between trading partners over things that are not worth 1% of the trade that would be lost??

[Battlefront.com]

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

A Russian is an individual who calls himself Russian and speaks Russian as his mother tongue. Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Moldavians, Georgians, Bessarabia etc etc didn't call themselves Russian. The moment they could declare independence they did exactly that. Compare it with Great Britain, Scotch and Welsh will never call themselves English.

The thing is, Russians take credit for ALL of this as if they alone did it.  Putin, on the other hand, probably knows the truth and that's why he has worked so hard to bring the former Soviet Republics back under Russian domination.  He must be pretty disappointed with how well that's going!

Steve

[Yet]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Not sure I follow the logic.  If Russia loses Crimea will they still not be likely to "try it again" anyways?  I mean the only way that seems to work is to draw a NATO line somewhere and dare Russia to cross it overtly - this is why this all happened in Ukraine and not on the Baltics.  Russia will definitely still do dirty in the subversive space but has been deterred from stuff like sending in 200k troops and bombing the hell out of things.

So Crimea does not really seem as pivotal as establishing collective deterrence mechanisms that encompass Ukraine.  The issue with Crimea and Donbass is that if they are retaken, but Ukraine winds up with a resistance or worse and insurgency in these areas it could cause problems with that that whole collective deterrence mechanisms part. For example, if Ukraine is seen as heavy handed or failing to enfranchise these populations - and insurgencies really are good at making this happen - that could insert some uncertainty into all this.

Ukraine has every right to the Crimea as a sovereign state (Russia does not get to play "backsies"), however it is a potential open wound, along with the Donbas (which may be worse) that could act as a spoiler for what follows.  The aggression of Russia is a given no matter what unless there is a dramatic political and social change within that country.

that makes sense. 

though this triggers: 'if you have a strong neighbour, make sure the inhabitants near the border hate them or you'll end up losing that part to annexation' 

I assumed we are (partial, at least for the crowds) helping UA because we dont like big bears playing with internationally recognised borders of a democratic country in our backyard (Europe). -and not just to poke around. 

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

Factually Russia being forced back to their January 2022 borders would mean that the whole war didn't give them any inch of terrain. How is that a win? 

You assume the war started in 2022. Imo the war started 2014 and this is just the 2nd battle.

since 2014 there was no peace declaration, no mutually (or internationally) agreed new borders and no leadership (system) change during the ceasefire with drastic different intentions.

if after this battle (or any following battle) there are new recognised borders (incl Crimea with RU) and the war ends; you might argue that RU won the first battle (2014) lost the 2nd battle (2022/23) and walked away with a bone, (international recognised strategic territory expansion).

this doesn't give an incentive not to do this again, just to play it different next time (with lower losses, if RU cares about that at all). 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Yet

[Butschi]

7 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Ok, here we go again. It isn't finger pointing at anyone, simple assessment of up-to-date knowledge about behaviour of various possible state actors and their attitudes/strategic interest. I have very serious doubts that after war is over and vanish from out TV's, some western audiences will be more than happy to forget about whole issue. We see it already in case of EU partnership for Ukraine, after initiall wave of support. Albeit NATO is different, and may be more available.  You may be right though, times are changing and perhaps UA will have a faster track.

NATO? I do admit that I wouldn't bet money on Germany being overly enthusiastic about admitting Ukraine. But this is not 2008 and I think we'd agree in the end. Well, if it doesn't mean we have to station an entire division in Ukraine - just because we don't have it...

EU? Eventually, I think. But not in the next 5 or so years. I mean, really, despite all the nice speeches, does anyone think EU will admit Ukraine sometime next year just because Zelensky he wants it and Ukraine deserves it? Not when other countries have waited and worked towards that goal for decades already. Btw. if we play the finger pointing and unfounded accusation game: Are you certain that Poland is really behind this? I don't think the net payers are going to substantially increase their payments and more EU bonds are unlikely to be well received (not only by Germany, mind you). So the money for Ukraine will mean less EU money for the other current net receivers.

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

As to China…well the US is likely the most benign empire in the history of the planet, but I would not test them on that too far.  The level of arm twisting that can be applied by the worlds last superpower can be epic.  And China matters very much to US, more than Russia.  Take it from a nation who just got pulled into this, and China is our second largest trading partner, the US will demand at some point that people pick a side in this thing and start playing ball.

Don't count on Europe for a confrontation with China. Europe simply can't afford it. And this time it isn't just Germany being overly dependent but most of the other countries, too. Think the Netherlands will want to mess with China when a large chunk of Rotterdam's port belongs to China? Greece, anyone? If you think European countries were reluctant about sanctions against Russia imagine the same for China but ten times worse.

[Butschi]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The thing is, Russians take credit for ALL of this as if they alone did it.

To be fair, listening to some of you Americans one can get the same impression.

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

I know I sound like a broken record on this but how can anyone be so insane as to want a war between trading partners over things that are not worth 1% of the trade that would be lost??

Do some reading on pre-WW1 economies and I think it will become clear that just about anyone can “be so insane”.  Clausewitz got a lot right but he missed the boat on all war being a rational political exercise.  A lot of times is it personal or relatively rational.

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Full NATO membership on day 1 isn't the only way.

What it WOULD do is make it politically possible for Ukraine to let go of Crimea and/or the Donbas, maybe. Zelensky might be able to sell that, if the all the treaties were signed by same people, on the same day, at the same table. NATO & EU membership effective immediately, the next Russian platoon to stick a tank tread into Ukraine gets greeted by a U.S. Air Force F15E. What is peace worth to Scholz?

[Beleg85]

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think Europe is going to agree wholeheartedly on #2 - I mean c’mon guys this is your backyard, if you want to keep a rabid bear in a cage this is the cost.  Superfluous?  Russia just invaded a neighbour illegally and killed a few hundred thousand people…I mean how apathetic can Western Europe get if it lets this one slide.

Perhaps as old colonial , you still tend to view Europe too much as one entity, while it was always deeply divided by various interest. Really it's just a cluster of very different actors joined (up to a point) by common negotiated goals. United Europe is beautiful project in myriad ways (if this word can be uncynically applied to political constructs), but there is a ceiling of shared interests. Europe is not a nation and not a state; security and econimic concerns are simply widely different. So there will be a rift in both NATO and EU as what to do with Ukraine, I am sure of that; note that Germany just managed to enforce on USA serious concessions on delivered tanks. That's perhaps why we buy these 500 Himars.

But a lot of it depends on ending of this conflict of course and future shapa eof Ukraine, so discussion is rather futile for now.

28 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am pretty sure who is going to blink first.  This will be a test for NATO and frankly Europe. Is this a massive and bloated military bureaucracy, or is it actually going to defend the western world?

100% agree, China will be even more divisive and true test. I remember Joseph Borell with his soft voice of an aging clerk announcing delivery of fighter jets circa 3rd day into conflict; hell, almost jumped in my seat in that moment. A lot of people reacted the same way, but this was emotional move that lasted only for some time. Would be good if United Europe in the end would come out as senior and grown up player in global scene on itself, without coercion on behalf of US.

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Don't count on Europe for a confrontation with China. Europe simply can't afford it. And this time it isn't just Germany being overly dependent but most of the other countries, too. Think the Netherlands will want to mess with China when a large chunk of Rotterdam's port belongs to China? Greece, anyone? If you think European countries were reluctant about sanctions against Russia imagine the same for China but ten times worse.

Way ahead of you…

https://wits.worldbank.org/CountrySnapshot/en/CAN
 

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Perhaps as old colonial , you still tend to view Europe too much as one entity, while it was always deeply divided by various interest. Really it's just a cluster of very different actors joined (up to a point) by common negotiated goals.

Yeesh went straight for the “colonial” card.  Ya we get it, Europe is a complex tapestry of cats, to which applying the action of herding is nearly impossible.

Well I guess we will see.  Sometimes the best way to herd cats is with a shotgun and dynamite.  I do know the US has zero interest in dealing with what is coming shackled to corpses (and likely why China is keeping Russia at arms length), so a collision is in the works.  

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Yet said:

not comparable. 

- Every inch of Germany was conquered 

- WW2 Germany didnt get away with gaining land. 

- Germany's leadership (system) didnt stay in place

- Germany was rebuild (in different ways) by its conquerors to build a new culture/ way of thinking to prevent falling in the pit again.

You seem to be missing the point.  Saying Russia might "win" this war because it retained something it got in a previous war (I consider 2014/2015 a separate, but related, war) is not the way historians think of things.  For example, Russia won the 2nd Chechen War by incorporating Chechnya back under Russian control.  Does this mean the Chechens lost the 1st Chechen War because they were not able to stay independent?  No.

1 hour ago, Yet said:

Crimea was in 2014 insitutionalised by RU, but not by the international community. 

If RU gets away now with Crimea, it was an expensive few acres, but still it can be an incentive to Ru (or any other country) to try it again to invade, forced migrate inhabitants, wait, get agressive, negotiate, institutionalise. 

Sure, which is why relations should never return to "normal" until Crimea is settled to Ukraine's satisfaction.  That's separate from this war.

Steve

[Butschi]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Way ahead of you…

https://wits.worldbank.org/CountrySnapshot/en/CAN
 

You mean Canada is just more self-destructive than Europe?

Seriously, FWIW, I agree that on a grand scale China will be the real test. If have been telling people for what seems like decades that China nowadays is capable of far more than doing cheap copies of our stuff. I think by now this begins to dawn on most but it doesn't translate into anything useful. Just a few weeks ago the company I work for has announced that it is building a huge research campus in China. When I asked if it is smart to do that when we can watch live and in color what over-dependence on autocrats leads to I was criticized by a lot of colleagues because this was supposedly all about business and there was already too much politics involved with the sanctions against Russia. Those colleagues are of cause the ones who approach retirement and want to make good money until then. Who cares what happens afterwards, right?

[Yet]

yes i argue here that after 2014 Crimea wasn't Russian yet. 

yes it is under RU control, but it is still contested by UA and the international community. 

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, Yet said:

You assume the war started in 2022. Imo the war started 2014 and this is just the 2nd battle.

Conceptually, the two are related.  However, militarily Crimea is not.  The fact is that if Russia had not launched this war then it is very doubtful that Ukraine would have any chance of getting Crimea back even if Russia withdrew from the Donbas because it grew tired of it.

23 minutes ago, Yet said:

since 2014 there was no peace declaration, no mutually (or internationally) agreed new borders and no leadership (system) change during the ceasefire with drastic different intentions.

if after this battle (or any following battle) there are new recognised borders and the war ends; you might argue that RU won the first battle (2014) lost the 2nd battle (2022/23) and walked away with the bone, (international recognised strategic territory expansion).

Politically?  Sure, but there are hundreds of examples of territory held by countries for decades, even hundreds of years, that are never politically settled.  If you start using your definition about this, then there's only been one war between Pakistan and India, one war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, one war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, etc.  It's not useful to look at history that way.

Steve