How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

@BFCElvis

can speak for himself, thanks. I'll defer to our hosts of course, but this topic is a highly relevant part of this awful war, and proscribing any rational discussion of it seems silly, even if it doesn't interest you personally. This thread takes in a lot of angles.

Absolutely, I'm not pretending to speak for BFC. But I'm not opposed to the subject, but the borderline ad hominems, eg.

Quote

...If that is not in fact our friend's view, I'd like to hear him deny it, because he hasn't. He merely cites Russian war crimes, or the Middle East.  No, this isn't righteous anger at this point, it's deflection.

And to prove that I agree the subject (post-war internal politics) is very relevant and worth discussing:

A few weeks ago my mum started a Masters in History at home, in Cork Ireland. Soon after she attended a documentary  screening and talk on the Irish Civil War (Brendan Gleeson was a speaker!). She was surprised that no one mentioned what she called the "Fourth Army" - the Irish Catholic Church (the other Armies were the IRA, the Free State Army and the British Army). I personally would call them all factions but Armies works also, as the CC was pretty hierarchal, organised, disciplined, had a dogma (doctrine), personnel (priests etc) and a supreme commander (ze Pope, yes) and was absolutely a primary political force in the country.

Early during the War of Independence the IRA often came into conflict with the Church on the morality of killing and violence; however the arrival and depredations of the British Auxillaries, the "Black & Tans", made all the arguments the IRA would ever need.¹ 

But it was about the aftermath of the Civil War where my Mum felt the talk in Cork missed a beat. She felt they skipped past how the Church was a significant factor in why there was almost no violence after the Civil War, which is a very unusual occurance in terms of civil conflict. Not unheard of, but definitely not the usual course, and to the Irish Church's credit.

She said that the as the Church was deeply embedded in the culture, psyche and psychology of Irish society that it was able to say, "Enough Now; 'tis Done. Forgive, forget and move on..." - and it was actually listened to and obeyed. The opinion of the Church carried enormous moral weight²  at all levels of Irish society, for decades. So there was no real 'aftermath' to the Civil War - very few lynchings, burnings, mob violence, rejection of State authority, terrorist outrages, last gasp attacks etc. The Church was unanimous and extremely vocal in its condemnation of further violence and counted for a lot, especially in the countryside³. This overtly pacific opposition to further killing, lead by the one institution that existed before, during and after the War of Independence and Civil War, allowed the country to hold violence free elections and accept the results, to talk about the future and the nature of our new society without fear of intimidation, to take our first steps forward as a new, sovereign nation. It allowed political discourse without the threat of armed violence - and prevented the rise of a fascist ideology (which is fundamentally violence based).

So,

Ref Ukraine, I'm curious if there is an institution, or alliance of, that could do the same. Obviously the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is strong, but is it active in the same way I've described above? Is it pushing hard for the end of violence once the fighting stops? Is its presence felt soon after the Army liberates a town? Do Priests carry much weight, locally?

Does the UOC carry enough moral weight, that if it came right out and said, "Enough, 'tis done. No (more) Killing Of Collaborators.", that it would be listened to?

Or would that work better in tandem with a declared Army decision - "the killing/violence stops once we've captured a location - and the Church agrees with us. So stop."

I guess I'm fundamentally asking, would the OUC be a top-tier player in the post-war politics, as a force for non-violence?

 

¹ The 'Tans were overtly anti-Catholic (although to be more accurate, they were really anti-priest, as they correctly identified local Irish priests as critical organizational and morale nodes for the rebellion. It just happened that the priests were Catholic. I guess.).

² It's been argued that the Irish War of Independence really only kicked into gear when local Bishops began to tilt pro-independence. There was already strong support amongst grassroots priests but Bishops, who by nature were locked into the established order of things, were a harder sell. Once some of them joined in though, the self-mobilization of the populace gathered pace. There were still several who were anti-violence etc but eventually there many who felt it was the presence of the BA that guaranteed violence - and then the overtly Protestant Black & Tans made it way worse.

³ Ireland was still very rural (p.109).

Edited September 21, 2022 by Kinophile

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'm not opposed to the subject, but the borderline ad hominems, eg.

Yup, fully agreed we need to move away from those, hence my edit. Folks here can speak for themselves.

Edited September 21, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[chuckdyke]

5 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Catholic Church

Not only in Ireland the end of the Marcos regime in the Philippines would be unthinkable without the Catholic Church there. Once the Anti-Tank Nuns (The local press called them that) prayed the rosary in front of AFV's it was game over. Pinoys think twice at shooting at them when they were confronted. 

[FancyCat]

23 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Sure, although some (not me) might claim that is a naive Western bourgeois point of view.

...but let's say some Ukrainian official decides that a Russian-speaking family with Ukrainian passports has a nice dacha overlooking the ocean. And wouldn't it be nice to make that vacant, and auctioned by the state. Reparations, you know, and security risk.  You can't be too careful.

That's where things go, fast, when one applies a 'fifth columnist until proven loyal' kind of screening.

Isn't it that the vast majority of Ukrainians are bilingual?

[dan/california]

50 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I was offline for most of the heated discussion about what happens after Ukraine regains control of its territory.  I agree with LLF and Billbindc that this is a valid topic and of vital importance to postwar Ukraine's new identity as a free, Western leaning nation.  It would be good to see the discussion continue, but only if it can be done mostly dispassionately.  If that can be done, then great.  Otherwise I am going to ask that it stop.

From my perspective there are three things that must be acknowledged before any discussion about "what next" can be had:

1. A lot of people betrayed their country and contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands, the suffering of millions, the worry of billions.  The destruction of a hundred years of infrastructure, the environmental damage, and burdens upon resources for decades is also shared by these traitors.
2. Treason is not something that can, nor should be, easily put aside.  Those who participated in treason should pay the price for doing so.  Within acceptable parameters of Western style justice, sure, but no forgiveness for those caught.
3. The Russian language is NOT an indicator of loyalty to Ukraine as a nation state.  Treasonous behavior towards Ukraine as a nation state is not limited to Russian speaking Ukrainians, nor ia loyalty and bravery exclusive to Ukrainian speakers.  Therefore, the Russian language is *NOT* an indicator of loyalty of disloyalty.  Period, end of story.

Here is how I see it playing out:

Forced migrations are not within acceptable boundaries, but I also don't think pro-Russians should feel welcome in Ukraine.  Most already are smart enough to know that, so the bulk will likely relocate to Russia.  Good riddance.  Russian citizens who came in since 2014 need to be escorted to the border with whatever they can carry in their own two hands.  They are in Ukraine illegally and deserve no hearings before being deported.

Those that remain... figure out which ones committed crimes and punish them.  For the rest, attempt reconciliation as long as there is a mutual understanding that any signs they don't want to reconcile means being reduced options for continued life in Ukraine.  No public service, no voting, no tolerance for further transgressions against Ukraine's national identity.  A probationary period is more than fair, as are ramifications.

Steve

The single biggest fact that is going to help is the AWFUL way Russia has treated the Republics. Among other things they tried to get every male of military age killed, and they have succeeded in a vast number of cases. The ones that aren't dead or crippled for life have still had the harshest possible lesson what mother Russia thinks of them. This going to matter a great deal in my humble opinion. Just rule of law and the tiniest hint of peace and, not even prosperity, just not desperation is going to go a long way. And the guiltier the conscience, the better Rostov on Don is going to look. Throw in the fact that Zelensky is just good at this and will probably settle for the trials of relatively small number of people who utterly deserve it, and I have hope.

Crimea is different, More Russian, and less abused, but I still have hope for a generally decent outcome. Harder to take in the first place, too. Although I am becoming ever more certain the Ukrainians can take almost anything with enough HIMARS pods.

Edited September 21, 2022 by dan/california

[dan/california]

19 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Absolutely, I'm not pretending to speak for BFC. But I'm not opposed to the subject, but the borderline ad hominems, eg.

And to prove that I agree the subject (post-war internal politics) is very relevant and worth discussing:

A few weeks ago my mum started a Masters in History at home, in Cork Ireland. Soon after she attended a documentary  screening and talk on the Irish Civil War (Brendan Gleeson was a speaker!). She was surprised that no one mentioned what she called the "Fourth Army" - the Irish Catholic Church (the other Armies were the IRA, the Free State Army and the British Army). I personally would call them all factions but Armies works also, as the CC was pretty hierarchal, organised, disciplined, had a dogma (doctrine), personnel (priests etc) and a supreme commander (ze Pope, yes) and was absolutely a primary political force in the country.

Early during the War of Independence the IRA often came into conflict with the Church on the morality of killing and violence; however the arrival and depredations of the British Auxillaries, the "Black & Tans", made all the arguments the IRA would ever need.¹ 

But it was about the aftermath of the Civil War where my Mum felt the talk in Cork missed a beat. She felt they skipped past how the Church was a significant factor in why there was almost no violence after the Civil War, which is a very unusual occurance in terms of civil conflict. Not unheard of, but definitely not the usual course, and to the Irish Church's credit.

She said that the as the Church was deeply embedded in the culture, psyche and psychology of Irish society that it was able to say, "Enough Now; 'tis Done. Forgive, forget and move on..." - and it was actually listened to and obeyed. The opinion of the Church carried enormous moral weight²  at all levels of Irish society, for decades. So there was no real 'aftermath' to the Civil War - very few lynchings, burnings, mob violence, rejection of State authority, terrorist outrages, last gasp attacks etc. The Church was unanimous and extremely vocal in its condemnation of further violence and counted for a lot, especially in the countryside³. This overtly pacific opposition to further killing, lead by the one institution that existed before, during and after the War of Independence and Civil War, allowed the country to hold violence free elections and accept the results, to talk about the future and the nature of our new society without fear of intimidation, to take our first steps forward as a new, sovereign nation. It allowed political discourse without the threat of armed violence - and prevented the rise of a fascist ideology (which is fundamentally violence based).

So,

Ref Ukraine, I'm curious if there is an institution, or alliance of, that could do the same. Obviously the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is strong, but is it active in the same way I've described above? Is it pushing hard for the end of violence once the fighting stops? Is its presence felt soon after the Army liberates a town? Do Priests carry much weight, locally?

Does the UOC carry enough moral weight, that if it came right out and said, "Enough, 'tis done. No (more) Killing Of Collaborators.", that it would be listened to?

Or would that work better in tandem with a declared Army decision - "the killing/violence stops once we've captured a location - and the Church agrees with us. So stop."

I guess I'm fundamentally asking, would the OUC be a top-tier player in the post-war politics, as a force for non-violence?

 

¹ The 'Tans were overtly anti-Catholic (although to be more accurate, they were really anti-priest, as they correctly identified local Irish priests as critical organizational and morale nodes for the rebellion. It just happened that the priests were Catholic. I guess.).

² It's been argued that the Irish War of Independence really only kicked into gear when local Bishops began to tilt pro-independence. There was already strong support amongst grassroots priests but Bishops, who by nature were locked into the established order of things, were a harder sell. Once some of them joined in though, the self-mobilization of the populace gathered pace. There were still several who were anti-violence etc but eventually there many who felt it was the presence of the BA that guaranteed violence - and then the overtly Protestant Black & Tans made it way worse.

³ Ireland was still very rural (p.100).

 

9 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Not only in Ireland the end of the Marcos regime in the Philippines would be unthinkable without the Catholic Church there. Once the Anti-Tank Nuns (The local press called them that) prayed the rosary in front of AFV's it was game over. Pinoys think twice at shooting at them when they were confronted. 

You learn things on this forum!

 

[FancyCat]

Wasn't Zelensky considered in the West, the more moderate of the two candidates in regards to the conflict? Russian slander usually made him either a puppet that would like to make peace but is denied by nationalists and the West.

 

[Battlefront.com]

11 hours ago, Grigb said:

Ok, guys, big article of RU opposition media regarding Kremlin decision on referendums and mobilization (I ma getting vibes that Kremlin is scared ****less - something is really wrong in RU).

 

That was interesting insights into some of the conditions of this strange speech event.

I think it is quite clear Putin is extremely unsure of his footing, which has caused him to side with one group while thinking that was the one to listen to.  Then he found out it wasn't so clear cut and flinched.  The speech could wind up being cancelled tomorrow, but I would be surprised.  Worst case he'll make up something that is not going to get him deposed and say that instead of whatever got him into trouble.

What I don't get is the change in plans was not because of some mild disagreement or new fact.  What difference is a few hours delay going to do?

I think the RU Nats ("pro-war" group, as labeled by Medusa) pushed Putin into something he quickly found reason to regret.  But by whom?  Certainly not the common people because they are not out there in the streets, yet.  Kadyrov maybe sent signals with the supposed peace protests?  Maybe he sensed the Chechen population isn't really up for it and Kadyrov would then be forced into either shielding them from FSB or cracking down on them himself (and therefore taking all the blame).  If Putin suddenly got word from Kadyrov that unconditional support from him wasn't guaranteed.

Steve

[FancyCat]

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

That was interesting insights into some of the conditions of this strange speech event.

I think it is quite clear Putin is extremely unsure of his footing, which has caused him to side with one group while thinking that was the one to listen to.  Then he found out it wasn't so clear cut and flinched.  The speech could wind up being cancelled tomorrow, but I would be surprised.  Worst case he'll make up something that is not going to get him deposed and say that instead of whatever got him into trouble.

What I don't get is the change in plans was not because of some mild disagreement or new fact.  What difference is a few hours delay going to do?

I think the RU Nats ("pro-war" group, as labeled by Medusa) pushed Putin into something he quickly found reason to regret.  But by whom?  Certainly not the common people because they are not out there in the streets, yet.  Kadyrov maybe sent signals with the supposed peace protests?  Maybe he sensed the Chechen population isn't really up for it and Kadyrov would then be forced into either shielding them from FSB or cracking down on them himself (and therefore taking all the blame).  If Putin suddenly got word from Kadyrov that unconditional support from him wasn't guaranteed.

Steve

Wartranslated said it was just a call to prayer, unless we get more info that it's a anti-war protest, I'm not sure the tweets are to be trusted.

[Kinophile]

26 minutes ago, dan/california said:

The single biggest fact that is going to help is the AWFUL way Russia has treated the Republics. Among other things they tried to get every male of military age killed, and they have succeeded in a vast number of cases. The ones that aren't dead or crippled for life have still had the harshest possible lesson what mother Russia thinks of them. This going to matter a greta deal in my humble opinion. Just rule of law and the tiniest hint of peace and, not even prosperity, just not desperation is going to go a long way. And the guiltier the conscience, the better Rostov on Don is going to look. Throw in the fact that Zelensky is just good at this and will probably settle for the trials of relatively small number of people who utterly deserve it, and I have hope.

Crimea is different, More Russian, and less abused, but I still have hope for a generally decent outcome. Harder to take in the first place, too. Although I am becoming ever more certain the Ukrainians can take almost anything with enough HIMARS pods.

Crimea has a critical strategic weakness - lack of water.

I guarantee you, hitting the water supply will be the signal that Operation Tartar Sauce has begun.

[LongLeftFlank]

21 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

You learn things on this forum!

 

Yep, General Fidel Ramos who refused orders to open fire (RIP) was a neighbour of mine, and wrote a weekly homily in the village newsletter well into his 90s. As old school Catholic as they come.

And while 'Social Justice Warrior' is a term of derision in the US, in a country where sugar barons and the like still routinely murder peasants and tribal peoples, a lot of the nuns here do in fact need to be all three.

[billbindc]

An interesting look at Russian reactions on Telegram: https://meduza.io/en/brief/2022/09/21/the-real-russia-today

 

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, billbindc said:

An interesting look at Russian reactions on Telegram: https://meduza.io/en/brief/2022/09/21/the-real-russia-today

 

"She teases Moscow, asking why the Kremlin isn’t calling for a nationwide referendum in Ukraine, given that Russia is apparently comfortable to move forward with these plebiscites, despite the fact that its troops don’t control all the territories that formally comprise the four regions in question."

Classic

Steve

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

IThose that remain... figure out which ones committed crimes and punish them.  For the rest, attempt reconciliation as long as there is a mutual understanding that any signs they don't want to reconcile means being reduced options for continued life in Ukraine.  No public service, no voting, no tolerance for further transgressions against Ukraine's national identity.  A probationary period is more than fair, as are ramifications.

Steve

Could do something like the US 14th amendment after the Civil war.

[LongLeftFlank]

10 minutes ago, sburke said:

Could do something like the US 14th amendment after the Civil war.

This is the face of someone who has fought long and hard for the People, without caring much for any of 'em

[Offshoot]

Reinforcing some context for the recent discussions

 

[Peregrine]

Because of discussions re annexation and referendums this was part of the ISW summary 19 Sept. "Partial annexation at this stage would also place the Kremlin in the strange position of demanding that Ukrainian forces unoccupy “Russian” territory, and the humiliating position of being unable to enforce that demand."

If you have zero credibility or respect I guess you can't get lower so why not keep walking down the path of absurd idiocy.

[sburke]

21 minutes ago, Offshoot said:

Reinforcing some context for the recent discussions

 

I disagree with her.. that IS a cartoonish movie villain.

[kraze]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

In spite of the strong passions roused here, a discussion of this war, and how to end it, is not complete without including the topic of how to handle Russian speakers in the liberated territories.  It's an elephant in the room, it's why 2014 happened in the first place.

I have Empire Loyalist ancestors in Canada, Americans who departed or were forced from the former Colonies following the Revolution. That was only a small subset, however, of the actual Loyalist population. Most simply pledged allegiance to the new Republic and went about their business. There was no wider 'cleansing' or purging.

Whether we like it or not, Crimea's 2.4 million people are 90% Russian speaking. Following a Ukrainian reoccupation of Crimea, the vast majority of those would choose to stay as Ukrainian citizens, regardless of when they arrived. Some will not, and will depart.

There are millions of Russian speakers throughout Ukraine, especially in Odesa. Many have lived there for centuries. Many are fighting and dying today, as Ukrainians, for the Blue and Gold.

...But there are hardliners in Ukraine who say, no! Russian residents of Ukraine are inherently disloyal fifth columnists, vipers in our bosom, and must be expelled en masse. 

And in any case, *somebody* must pay the price for Putin's war.  As if there was some economic value in vacant homes and farms.

And as far as I'm concerned, in spite of Russia's war crimes, the justifiable anger at Russians in general for supporting, actively or tacitly, Putin's war, and at their local collaborators, this is a legitimate area for discussion under this topic.

How can Ukraine win (or lose) the peace?

Ukraine will not get away today with what Croatia did in deporting all Serbs from the (wait for it!) Krajina region in 1994, in retaliation for Serbian ethnic cleansings and mass murders in Vukovar, etc. But that didn't make it any less cruel, or evil.

Russia is not Serbia. And this isn't 1994.

The consequences of Ukraine ethnic cleansing Russians will, in the eyes of much of the world, seem to confirm what Russia has been claiming since 2011 at least.  And it will end terribly for Ukraine.

That's some amazing lack of knowledge about the topic at hand.

[FancyCat]

Partial mobilization.

Ongoing translation of his speech.

 

[Gpig]

How did the West push Ukraine to go to war with Russia? This is a new one to me.

And this other one about Ukraine seeking Nuclear weapons? Seriously?

Desperation reeks

[Aragorn2002]

12 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

Partial mobilization.

Ongoing translation of his speech.

 

According to ISW:

"Putin’s illegal annexation of occupied Ukrainian territory will broaden the domestic legal definition of “Russian” territory under Russian law, enabling the Russian military to legally and openly deploy conscripts already in the Russian military to fight in eastern and southern Ukraine. Russian leadership has already deployed undertrained conscripts to Ukraine in direct violation of Russian law and faced domestic backlash.[5] Russia’s semi-annual conscription cycle usually generates around 130,000 conscripts twice per year.[6] The next cycle runs from October 1 to December 31. Russian law generally requires that conscripts receive at least four months of training prior to deployment overseas, and Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly denied that conscripts will be deployed to Ukraine.[7] Annexation could provide him a legal loophole allowing for the overt deployment of conscripts to fight."

[FancyCat]

9 minutes ago, Gpig said:

How did the West push Ukraine to go to war with Russia? This is a new one to me.

And this other one about Ukraine seeking Nuclear weapons? Seriously?

Desperation reeks

NATO blah blah. Ignore the fact we moved everything to Ukraine including air defense and troops from the Western Military District and Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Zelensky made a line about how Ukraine needed to keep their nukes or such such. God I hope he dies soon. (Putin)

**** this man. God willing we get to see within a month a Leopard 1 blow a T-72 turret skyhigh.

I will repeat again, accommodating Western states who want to give Putin climbdowns works beacuse Putin for whatever idiotic, delusional reason is intent on swallowing and choking to death on Ukraine, ensuring those Western states who wish to turn Ukraine into a NATO fortress the escalation response is united as everyone must conclude Putin is just plain stubborn.

 

Edited September 21, 2022 by FancyCat

[LongLeftFlank]

16 minutes ago, kraze said:

That's some amazing lack of knowledge about the topic at hand.

Other than ad hominems (which I think we agreed are not constructive), what other knowledge do you have to contribute? Pray enlighten us.

[Letter from Prague]

The view of

Russian-speaking = Russian-ancestry = Russian-supporting = Wants to be part of Russia

is just entirely wrong. We have talked about it for months again and again. Arguing this is not just Russian propaganda, but bizarre at this point.