Russia Invades Ukraine

[NDdomer2]

Interesting dialogue coming out of Russia.

lol reads as they were surprised their actions would have consequences. derp

 

[ShamrockOnHelmet]

Garry Kasparovs feed is interesting…

https://twitter.com/kasparov63?s=21

 

[Irish#1]

Interesting dialogue coming out of Russia.

What idiots. Do they really think they are above reproach?

 

[GATTACA!]

Let's hope we never find out.

Yes, because Article 5 of NATO requires we do so. If a NATO member got invaded and we did nothing, the international order we've spent decades building would fall to pieces immediately.

Not true. Ukraine borders Russia, which is the nuclear-armed (former) great power that NATO was created to contain. That's one of many reasons why they're not presently a member of NATO or the EU. To grant Ukraine the same security guarantees we've extended to Poland would require putting American missiles on a Russian border, which would be a hugely provocative act.

There are a lot of options between "appeasement" and "regime change". But our media is certainly presenting everything in terms of that false dichotomy.

North Korea already has nukes. What it lacks is the technology to create ICBMs that could threaten American cities. But they were primarily interested in keeping us from invading, which they've accomplished, because we can't do that without watching Seoul get vaporized.

And why do preemptive strikes to stop a rogue regime from acquiring nukes seem out of the question to you? I'd argue that's one of the few cases where aggressive action could clearly be justified. Israel has already done this several times against Iran. And the only reason we haven't done this to North Korea already is because they're a Chinese protectorate.

We're not tacitly endorsing anything. We've done everything short of direct military engagement.

When you're holding the world's biggest hammer, there's a temptation to see every problem as a nail. I understand the frustration with seeing conventional military aggression that we could easily stop and being unable to use that awesome hammer. But nukes simply take certain options off the table. We've made it almost 80 years in the nuclear age without destroying the planet, and there's an argument to be made that the Pax Americana has been so effective precisely because WMDs prevent great powers from engaging in the sort of super-destructive conflicts that marred the first half of the 20th century.

As far as this debate goes, I'd suggest reconciling yourself to the fact that NATO will never willingly initiate a conventional war against a nuclear power, and focus instead on how to minimize casualties, undermine Putin and bring Russia back into the fold. Some of the options currently on the table run the risk of driving Russia into the arms of China and causing them to create a separate monetary union. If the $USD ceases to be the reserve currency for the world economy, that will destabilize things far more than whatever is happening in Ukraine.

We won’t defend any non NATO country because that will risk having to engage with Russia. We won’t admit anyone into NATO because that will risk having to engage with Russia. Seems like a vicious cycle where we just have to play mental gymnastics to justify the West looking the other way while human atrocities are carried out.

How much you want to bet the goalposts move again if Putin decides he wants Romania?

 

[IrishLax]

 

[greyhammer90]

Interesting dialogue coming out of Russia.

Interesting but unsurprising if, like me, you assume that about 75% of people on Twitter calling for/bemoaning cancel culture are Russian bots.

 

[Sea Turtle]

We won’t defend any non NATO country because that will risk having to engage with Russia. We won’t admit anyone into NATO because that will risk having to engage with Russia. Seems like a vicious cycle where we just have to play mental gymnastics to justify the West looking the other way while human atrocities are carried out.

How much you want to bet the goalposts move again if Putin decides he wants Romania?

It's difficult. Russia is already demanding security guarantees from Sweden and Finland after invading Ukraine.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Maybe we just need to offer Russia the same deal that was offered to Ukraine back in the day. You give up your nukes and we promise not to invade your country.

 

[greyhammer90]

As others have said... no, there isn't. This is important because war requires five factors in order to be considered just:

1. Just cause;
2. Last resort;
3. Declared by a proper authority;
4. Possessing right intention; and
5. Reasonable chance of success.

Ukraine undoubtedly has 1-4 here, but 5 is a problem. It's tempting to romanticize heroic last stands, but when faced with an overwhelming force and the prospect of massive civilian casualties, the right thing to do is often to surrender in the interest of saving as many lives as possible. I was pleasantly surprised to see how quickly most of the world rallied behind Ukraine's cause, but I worry that the distortions of social media may be causing many to overestimate their odds of successfully fending off the Russia invasion.

Even if they likely cannot prevent Russia from taking Ukraine, successfully holding it thereafter is a totally different game. And it's not one that Russia is equipped to win.

Biggest issue with this logic is that it attempts to treat the "immoral because cannot be successful" current open warfare and the "moral because potentially successful" future resistance movement as though each exists in a vacuum. The current war fought by the Ukrainian military will likely weaken the ability and willingness of their oppressors in the future.

 

[IrishLax]

Biggest issue with this logic is that it attempts to treat the "immoral because cannot be successful" current open warfare and the "moral because potentially successful" future resistance movement as though each exists in a vacuum. The current war fought by the Ukrainian military will likely weaken the ability and willingness of their oppressors in the future.

Exactly. A Ukraine win or devastating impact to Russia makes it less likely that something similar happens to, say, Taiwan.

 

[tussin]

How can I get in on this?

 

[GowerND11]

How can I get in on this?

I heard local fire companies are going to be selling raffle tickets and will draw the winner on Facebook Live.

 

[Irish#1]

Well if nothing else stops Putin in his tracks, this should.

International Cat Federation bans Russian felines from competitions​

Marlene Lenthang
42m ago / 2:21 PM EST
The International Cat Federation has banned Russian cats from international competitions, condemning the invasion of Ukraine as an "unprecedented act of aggression."

Fédération Internationale Féline (FIFe), a group which considers itself "the United Nations of Cat Federations" with members from over 40 counties, said in a statement on its website that "it cannot just witness these atrocities and do nothing."

Starting this week, no cat bred in Russia can be imported or registered in any FIFe pedigree book outside Russia and no cat belonging to exhibitors living in Russia may be entered at any FIFe show outside of the country.

The group said the new regulations will last though May 31 and "will be reviewed as and when necessary."

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Interesting but unsurprising if, like me, you assume that about 75% of people on Twitter calling for/bemoaning cancel culture are Russian bots.

The trucker convoy social media posts seem to have died down right about the time Russia invaded. Sure it’s a coincidence.

 

[ACamp1900]

Well if nothing else stops Putin in his tracks, this should.

Proud of my people

 

[Rogue219]

Garry Kasparovs feed is interesting…

https://twitter.com/kasparov63?s=21

Read his book a few years back.

He called a lot of what we've seen from Putin spot on. It was published in 2015.

 

[Irish#1]

The Russian Football Union (RFU) announced that it will appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the ban imposed by FIFA and UEFA on its national and club teams.

 

[Wild Bill]

We won’t defend any non NATO country because that will risk having to engage with Russia. We won’t admit anyone into NATO because that will risk having to engage with Russia. Seems like a vicious cycle where we just have to play mental gymnastics to justify the West looking the other way while human atrocities are carried out.

How much you want to bet the goalposts move again if Putin decides he wants Romania?

NATO has expanded quite and that's the reason we're here right now. There was nothing Russia could do about it for the last fifty years so they sat back and ate shit while America swung their military's giant dick across the globe. America is still the world's superpower, by far, but our ability to impose order onto the world has diminished and will continue to diminish given the domestic issues we're having. I'd go as far as saying we're completely dysfunctional. Maybe that's being overly dramatic but I think most people would agree that we're a deeply divided nation. We're asshole deep in debt, lack direction and have had a series of catastrophic foreign policy and military blunders over the last two decades.

With that in mind, let's assume we disregard Russia's nuclear capablities, like many here have suggested, and Putin doesn't use his nuclear arsenal. What next? Do we fight a proxy war for the next decade? If that doesn't work, do we send troops?

I think we're kidding ourselves to believe that we'd swiftly and easily finish off the Russians or that we have the will to fight a long costly war that has zero benefit to your average American for a piece land that has negligible strategic value for our wonderful leaders. I understand that people here just want to help out Ukrainians and save lives. I do too, and I think the path to getting that done is through diplomacy rather than military engagement.

 

[TorontoGold]

The trucker convoy social media posts seem to have died down right about the time Russia invaded. Sure it’s a coincidence.

No, they are patriots who are standing up for freedoms. They have taken up support for Ukraine, and very anti-Putin. Nope, none of them are Putin sympathizers.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Garry Kasparovs feed is interesting…

https://twitter.com/kasparov63?s=21

Kasparov HATES Putin and has long warned anyone and everyone about what a dangerous, power-hungry POS he is. Putin had Garry jailed a few years ago for speaking out, opposing him, and constantly pointing out his evil ways. Kasparov can sometimes be an arrogant ass, but he's smart as hell and he's not wrong about Putin.

 

[tussin]

I understand that people here just want to help out Ukrainians and save lives. I do too, and I think the path to getting that done is through diplomacy rather than military engagement.

You can successfully argue that we are hurting Russia. But what are we "getting done" to actually help the Ukrainians?

 

[GATTACA!]

NATO has expanded quite and that's the reason we're here right now. There was nothing Russia could do about it for the last fifty years so they sat back and ate shit while America swung their military's giant dick across the globe. America is still the world's superpower, by far, but our ability to impose order onto the world has diminished and will continue to diminish given the domestic issues we're having. I'd go as far as saying we're completely dysfunctional. Maybe that's being overly dramatic but I think most people would agree that we're a deeply divided nation. We're asshole deep in debt, lack direction and have had a series of catastrophic foreign policy and military blunders over the last two decades.

With that in mind, let's assume we disregard Russia's nuclear capablities, like many here have suggested, and Putin doesn't use his nuclear arsenal. What next? Do we fight a proxy war for the next decade? If that doesn't work, do we send troops?

I think we're kidding ourselves to believe that we'd swiftly and easily finish off the Russians or that we have the will to fight a long costly war that has zero benefit to your average American for a piece land that has negligible strategic value for our wonderful leaders. I understand that people here just want to help out Ukrainians and save lives. I do too, and I think the path to getting that done is through diplomacy rather than military engagement.

I would have agreed with you before seeing the pathetic performance Russia has displayed during this invasion. Without nukes I think the US dusts Russia easily in conventional warfare.

 

[Sea Turtle]

I guess Kramer was wrong:

 

[Whiskeyjack]

We won’t defend any non NATO country because that will risk having to engage with Russia. We won’t admit anyone into NATO because that will risk having to engage with Russia. Seems like a vicious cycle where we just have to play mental gymnastics to justify the West looking the other way while human atrocities are carried out.

How much you want to bet the goalposts move again if Putin decides he wants Romania?

Our line in the sand has been clear ever since NATO was created in 1949. So no, I don't think the goalposts move if Putin invades a NATO member. Letting him cross that line with impunity would mean completely abandoning the post-war system we've worked so hard to build and maintain.

It's easy to impugn those in favor of military restraint as cowards, but I'm glad we're not willing to put Putin's nuclear backstop to the test unless absolutely necessary. It's praise-worthy to put your own life on the line for a worthy cause, but not to gamble with the millions (or billions?) of other lives that would be at stake in even the smallest of nuclear exchanges.

Biggest issue with this logic is that it attempts to treat the "immoral because cannot be successful" current open warfare and the "moral because potentially successful" future resistance movement as though each exists in a vacuum. The current war fought by the Ukrainian military will likely weaken the ability and willingness of their oppressors in the future.

They're obviously connected, but the costs of the former are being counted in human lives right now, whereas the future resistance is mostly an unknown variable because we don't yet know how this crisis will resolve. If Putin decides to withdraw from western Ukraine in exchange for guarantees of neutrality, then all of this media hype encouraging Ukrainian civilians to resist at all costs may end up have gotten a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

And yes, GATTACA, given the sorry state of its military, the US would absolutely roll Russia in a conventional war. The integrity of their nuclear strike capabilities are probably in even worse shape than their conventional forces, simply because they're harder to maintain and less likely to be used. But if you want to get to the point where direct military action against Russia is feasible, we'll need a plan for neutralizing their strategic weapons first. Without that, any such action is unacceptably risky.

 

[AllTimeIrish]

Risking the end of the world is a BFD.

Let's hope we never find out.

Yes, because Article 5 of NATO requires we do so. If a NATO member got invaded and we did nothing, the international order we've spent decades building would fall to pieces immediately.

Not true. Ukraine borders Russia, which is the nuclear-armed (former) great power that NATO was created to contain. That's one of many reasons why they're not presently a member of NATO or the EU. To grant Ukraine the same security guarantees we've extended to Poland would require putting American missiles on a Russian border, which would be a hugely provocative act.

There are a lot of options between "appeasement" and "regime change". But our media is certainly presenting everything in terms of that false dichotomy.

North Korea already has nukes. What it lacks is the technology to create ICBMs that could threaten American cities. But they were primarily interested in keeping us from invading, which they've accomplished, because we can't do that without watching Seoul get vaporized.

And why do preemptive strikes to stop a rogue regime from acquiring nukes seem out of the question to you? I'd argue that's one of the few cases where aggressive action could clearly be justified. Israel has already done this several times against Iran. And the only reason we haven't done this to North Korea already is because they're a Chinese protectorate.

We're not tacitly endorsing anything. We've done everything short of direct military engagement.

When you're holding the world's biggest hammer, there's a temptation to see every problem as a nail. I understand the frustration with seeing conventional military aggression that we could easily stop and being unable to use that awesome hammer. But nukes simply take certain options off the table. We've made it almost 80 years in the nuclear age without destroying the planet, and there's an argument to be made that the Pax Americana has been so effective precisely because WMDs prevent great powers from engaging in the sort of super-destructive conflicts that marred the first half of the 20th century.

As far as this debate goes, I'd suggest reconciling yourself to the fact that NATO will never willingly initiate a conventional war against a nuclear power, and focus instead on how to minimize casualties, undermine Putin and bring Russia back into the fold. Some of the options currently on the table run the risk of driving Russia into the arms of China and causing them to create a separate monetary union. If the $USD ceases to be the reserve currency for the world economy, that will destabilize things far more than whatever is happening in Ukraine.

The dedollarization has already begun, quite some time ago. Russia, China, and rest of BRIC nations. Also China's belt and road initiative linking about 73% of the worlds economies together via trade routes.

Russia and China have already developed an alternative to SWIFT, the western wire system. It's just that they don't have a ton of banks involved in it yet.

 

[AllTimeIrish]

It does surprise me a bit that Russia's military doesn't appear to be as strong as we may have thought. Former US generals were criticizing Russia's reluctance to use their air force. They used at one point only 75 planes instead of the hundreds that were expected.

Also Russia did not plan well logistics in getting their armor into the fray early. I would argue a lot of this has to do with logistical issues and planning, and not the quality of their equipment. I am sure they will learn from it and make adjustments for next time as all militaries do.

Still worried about potential use of hypersonic missiles. That was supposed to be a thing but not sure if Russia is holding those back or they are not as dependable/ready for prime time as they stated.

 

[Wild Bill]

You can successfully argue that we are hurting Russia. But what are we "getting done" to actually help the Ukrainians?

Absolutely nothing will be done to help them unless it happens to align with the interests of our policy makers. Our reckless behavior in Ukraine has been embarassing and demonstrates how little we give a shit about the well being of Ukrainians. I understand many would consider this a Russian talking point, nevermind the fact that our idiot leaders were caught on a tapped phone discussing their plan to overthrow elected officials.

Right now we're playing make believe on social media and trying to convince ourselves that Russia is "losing". Meanwhile, Ukrainian citizens without any training whatsoever are being urged to arm themselves and throw molotov cocktails at Russian tanks. Is that a winning strategy or a death sentence?

When we stop playing make believe, I think we'll be left with two options: America can engage the Russians and cross our fingers nukes aren't involved or the assholes in DC can call the assholes in Kiev and compel them to capitulate to the assholes in Moscow. I'll go with the second option because Ukraine has little strategic value to America. Something we probably should have considered a few years ago.

I would have agreed with you before seeing the pathetic performance Russia has displayed during this invasion. Without nukes I think the US dusts Russia easily in conventional warfare.

I disagree but dusting Russia will still require piles of money we don't have, American blood and most likely a decades long occupation so the puppet regime we place into power maintains control.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Has Biden done enough now to right the wrongs of his early presidential decisions on Ukraine?

He invites Zelensky to the White House to present a deal on behalf of Germany in summer of 2021. Biden drops sanctions against companies doing the work for Nord Stream 2 and tells Germany will pay him for the lost revenue from the current transportation of fuels through their borders. Zelensky declines saying it's tantamount to "Giving into Russia". Then Biden decides to withhold aid until Ukraine has "military reforms".

Fast forward and we have an invasion and massive penalties levied against the Kremlin. I have a hard time with this equation because Biden was incredibly short-sighted until it was too late but then ponied up repeatedly to continue to tighten the straightjacket on Moscow.

And before people want to compare him to the prior president, save yourself. I also was not a fan of the abuse of power with Trump's quid pro quo requests of Zelensky. He's no longer the president and is no longer worth my air.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Love to get downvoted because I don't think it's worth risking the end of the world in order to punch Putin in the face.

 

[Ndaccountant]

It does surprise me a bit that Russia's military doesn't appear to be as strong as we may have thought. Former US generals were criticizing Russia's reluctance to use their air force. They used at one point only 75 planes instead of the hundreds that were expected.

Also Russia did not plan well logistics in getting their armor into the fray early. I would argue a lot of this has to do with logistical issues and planning, and not the quality of their equipment. I am sure they will learn from it and make adjustments for next time as all militaries do.

Still worried about potential use of hypersonic missiles. That was supposed to be a thing but not sure if Russia is holding those back or they are not as dependable/ready for prime time as they stated.

I am probably the furtherest thing from an expert on this as you can get. But I wonder how much urban warfare enters the equation here? I also saw that a propaganda article that was written about the quick victory before the war started was mistakenly posted on-line the day after the invasion. Which leads me to also believe that if they had that capability, they didn't think they needed it and it could still come. Who knows. But with every passing day, more and more lives are ended or ruined over one man's nostalgia. Humans suck.