6 ms·

> ... it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Beating the Russian Air Force in the air isn't the primary issue, we can do that. The bigger issu

> ... it would mean engaging with, guess what, the air force. Beating the Russian Air Force in the air isn't the primary issue, we can do that. The bigger issue is that a no-fly-zone must be secured, i.e. bombing radar and SAM installations in Ukraine/Belarus/Russia. > ... they carved themselves a situation where they can't really _lose_, ... Quite the opposite, what does a Russian "win" look like here? A huge portion of the population doesn't want them there, a puppet government won't be internationally recognized, and the resulting insurgency would make Chechnya look quaint. Not to mention the humiliation that Russia has already suffered. It's lunacy to think that Russia is gaining anything out of this. It's not even certain that Russia can beat Ukraine anymore, and it's already a pyrrhic victory if they do.

polotics 5y ago
I am beginning to think that behind the apparent lunacy, a new & old kind of war is rearing its ugly head: A pure resource-grab for arable land and natural gas & coal reserves, with no intention to preserve the existence of the local population beyond what's needed for forced labor, and no care for any international opinion...
- SubjectToChange 5y ago
  There are so many issues with what you're suggesting that it's difficult to know where to start. Put simply, your worry is unfounded.
  - zasdffaa 5y ago
    Please post useful information rather than blanket 'nope'. If there are so many, name the top 3 (say) or I can't learn anything.
- phtrivier 5y ago
  Intuitively say, I would say it's a "kill two birds with one missile", situation: you get a buffer state with NATO _and_ some resources (water / minerals.) By a very naive reading, this maps [1] seems to scream: "Dombass has all the mines. It's the mines, stupid !" ; but I could not find any resource on the topic (neither to tell it's the real casus belli, nor if they're nothing else to grab there.) [1] https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-field-png-favpng-pthZUXzG7eKaaKZxcHD2bRF0k.jpg https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-...
- newby 5y ago
  It would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to extract and transfer those resources under constant attacks by Ukrainian resistance. To suppress that resistance would require so much money (and soldiers) that it would probably bankrupt Russia. At the same time, the extraction of natural resources is threatened in Russia itself, because they use western financing and tech to do that, western companies are now leaving and it is not so easy to switch to China.
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    That is one strategic mistake Russia made. They are economically at the mercy of China, if they somehow manage to circumvent their economy being destroyed with China's help. China will squeeze them hard. China is much more subtle when it comes to taking over, using soft power, letting the money talk. Just take a look at Africa and other places of a new silk road.
    - dzhiurgis 5y ago
      Russia is only 4% of China's trade. Couple of sanctions from west can easily make very very bad deal for China.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > It would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to extract and transfer those resources under constant attacks by Ukrainian resistance I've always heard a lot of talk about that (even before the war), especially by Western leaders trying to puff up the effectiveness of their support, but is that resistance actually materializing in Russian-controlled areas?
    - newby 5y ago
      I would estimate that they made even the Russian-controlled areas much less stable. So if their plan was to extract natural resources... they seem to have torpedoed their own plan? I don't know, it does not make any sense to me. But honestly, the whole invasion does not make any sense. I fail to see any "rational" (however immoral) explanation that would seem believable and I tend to view it in terms of ideology gone haywire, perceived grievances, humiliation and revenge... those models seem to fit better than "rational" models like access to natural resources, protection from NATO etc. Just my $0.02.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  I hope Ukraine does not lose its will to fight, so that they do never allow another land grab by Russia in the east. Russia has already spent lots of resources on this, not to speak of the many lives they ended, but in the long run, if they manage to "get the international community to the table" and try to have "peace talks" while holding a gun in their other hand, the west might cave in and allow them taking the whole east of the country, if only Putin pinky swears to stop the war. I hope that this is somehow unrealistic and that the Ukrainians do not stop until they got back all their territory. However the price is probably high in blood.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > If [Russia] manage[s] to "get the international community to the table" and try to have "peace talks" while holding a gun in their other hand, the west might cave in and allow them taking the whole east of the country, if only Putin pinky swears to stop the war. IIRC, that's currently the expected best case outcome of this. The Ukrainians are fighting with everything they have, but the Russian Army is just plain bigger and better equipped, so they've only bee able to slow it down, not meet it and defeat it. I don't really see that changing unless the West stops tiptoeing around (at least) and offers more than halfhearted military support to Ukraine. To be clear: the West's support is less halfharted than it was before the war, but it's still halfharted (e.g. the nonsense with the Polish jets, only supplying "weapons of a defensive character," etc.).
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  With climate change coming, and only so much land usable for things like wind and solar -- which is to say, optimal for wind and solar -- yea, fights over land will be a thing. I think the DoD and CIA put out a white paper a few years back re: how they think that's gonna become more common due to climate change. Arguably, the Arab Spring was the first in these wars, since failed harvests and grain prices are what kicked off a lot of unrest to begin with. "War, war never changes"
  - phtrivier 5y ago
    By the way, if you enjoyed "Arab Spring", you'll love season 2 [1] ! Or maybe there will be a remake, but with white actors [2] ? [1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-the-invasion-of-ukraine-will-spread-hunger-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/21808072 https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-the-inv... [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/food-price-inflation-eastern-europe-poland-romania/ https://www.politico.eu/article/food-price-inflation-eastern...
  - harambae 5y ago
    >I think the DoD and CIA put out a white paper a few years back re: how they think that's gonna become more common due to climate change. Do you have a link to this? I'd be interested.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      There are many such studies, both inside and outside the defense industry. It's one of the more common predictions of the impacts of climate change. I think the IPCC includes it in their reports, which is probably the best starting place - the IPCC's job is to integrate research into one periodic report.
lucozade 5y ago
A Russian win would be formal secession of Crimea and Donbas to Russia, secure water supply to the Crimea and a puppet government for the rest. The government doesn't need to be internationally recognised, just beholden to Russia and act as the buffer to the West that Putin wants. If he takes Kyiv and deposes the current government, getting a treaty that achieves that probably won't be that hard. I don't know enough about Ukrainian demographics to know if a puppet government could be stable without a huge Russian military presence. If the latter is needed then it would probably count as a failure.
- SubjectToChange 5y ago
  They will need an impressive military presence to prop up a sham government. Anyone who wants to fund partisans will have ample opportunities to do so. And there's no reason to believe that the Ukrainian government will give up once kyiv is taken, it's not a video game. In fact, western Ukraine is so terrifically safe I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of government operations are being run from there already.
  - lucozade 5y ago
    > there's no reason to believe that the Ukrainian government will give up once kyiv is taken I agree. But they don't need to give up for a puppet government to be in place. They need to lose control of the military and communications infrastructure. If the government is far to the west or in exile, it's hard to see how they would maintain control. And I also agree that a new government would need a substantial Russian military presence. It wasn't that long ago though that a substantial voting bloc supported pro-Russian parties. It's likely that Putin calculated that they'd only get problems with western Ukraine. That's likely been badly misjudged.
    - SubjectToChange 5y ago
      > It wasn't that long ago though that a substantial voting bloc supported pro-Russian parties. It'd be really interesting to get some polling data on those people. It's hard to imagine that they don't feel betrayed. After all, the russian speaking population has been subjected to the harshest and most violent portions of this conflict, albeit incidentally.

polotics 5y ago

I am beginning to think that behind the apparent lunacy, a new & old kind of war is rearing its ugly head: A pure resource-grab for arable land and natural gas & coal reserves, with no intention to preserve the existence of the local population beyond what's needed for forced labor, and no care for any international opinion...

SubjectToChange 5y ago
There are so many issues with what you're suggesting that it's difficult to know where to start. Put simply, your worry is unfounded.
- zasdffaa 5y ago
  Please post useful information rather than blanket 'nope'. If there are so many, name the top 3 (say) or I can't learn anything.
phtrivier 5y ago
Intuitively say, I would say it's a "kill two birds with one missile", situation: you get a buffer state with NATO _and_ some resources (water / minerals.) By a very naive reading, this maps [1] seems to scream: "Dombass has all the mines. It's the mines, stupid !" ; but I could not find any resource on the topic (neither to tell it's the real casus belli, nor if they're nothing else to grab there.) [1] https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-field-png-favpng-pthZUXzG7eKaaKZxcHD2bRF0k.jpg https://img.favpng.com/24/9/15/ukraine-natural-resource-map-...
newby 5y ago
It would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to extract and transfer those resources under constant attacks by Ukrainian resistance. To suppress that resistance would require so much money (and soldiers) that it would probably bankrupt Russia. At the same time, the extraction of natural resources is threatened in Russia itself, because they use western financing and tech to do that, western companies are now leaving and it is not so easy to switch to China.
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  That is one strategic mistake Russia made. They are economically at the mercy of China, if they somehow manage to circumvent their economy being destroyed with China's help. China will squeeze them hard. China is much more subtle when it comes to taking over, using soft power, letting the money talk. Just take a look at Africa and other places of a new silk road.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    Russia is only 4% of China's trade. Couple of sanctions from west can easily make very very bad deal for China.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to extract and transfer those resources under constant attacks by Ukrainian resistance I've always heard a lot of talk about that (even before the war), especially by Western leaders trying to puff up the effectiveness of their support, but is that resistance actually materializing in Russian-controlled areas?
  - newby 5y ago
    I would estimate that they made even the Russian-controlled areas much less stable. So if their plan was to extract natural resources... they seem to have torpedoed their own plan? I don't know, it does not make any sense to me. But honestly, the whole invasion does not make any sense. I fail to see any "rational" (however immoral) explanation that would seem believable and I tend to view it in terms of ideology gone haywire, perceived grievances, humiliation and revenge... those models seem to fit better than "rational" models like access to natural resources, protection from NATO etc. Just my $0.02.
zelphirkalt 5y ago
I hope Ukraine does not lose its will to fight, so that they do never allow another land grab by Russia in the east. Russia has already spent lots of resources on this, not to speak of the many lives they ended, but in the long run, if they manage to "get the international community to the table" and try to have "peace talks" while holding a gun in their other hand, the west might cave in and allow them taking the whole east of the country, if only Putin pinky swears to stop the war. I hope that this is somehow unrealistic and that the Ukrainians do not stop until they got back all their territory. However the price is probably high in blood.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > If [Russia] manage[s] to "get the international community to the table" and try to have "peace talks" while holding a gun in their other hand, the west might cave in and allow them taking the whole east of the country, if only Putin pinky swears to stop the war. IIRC, that's currently the expected best case outcome of this. The Ukrainians are fighting with everything they have, but the Russian Army is just plain bigger and better equipped, so they've only bee able to slow it down, not meet it and defeat it. I don't really see that changing unless the West stops tiptoeing around (at least) and offers more than halfhearted military support to Ukraine. To be clear: the West's support is less halfharted than it was before the war, but it's still halfharted (e.g. the nonsense with the Polish jets, only supplying "weapons of a defensive character," etc.).
blaser-waffle 5y ago
With climate change coming, and only so much land usable for things like wind and solar -- which is to say, optimal for wind and solar -- yea, fights over land will be a thing. I think the DoD and CIA put out a white paper a few years back re: how they think that's gonna become more common due to climate change. Arguably, the Arab Spring was the first in these wars, since failed harvests and grain prices are what kicked off a lot of unrest to begin with. "War, war never changes"
- phtrivier 5y ago
  By the way, if you enjoyed "Arab Spring", you'll love season 2 [1] ! Or maybe there will be a remake, but with white actors [2] ? [1] https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-the-invasion-of-ukraine-will-spread-hunger-in-the-middle-east-and-africa/21808072 https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-the-inv... [2] https://www.politico.eu/article/food-price-inflation-eastern-europe-poland-romania/ https://www.politico.eu/article/food-price-inflation-eastern...
- harambae 5y ago
  >I think the DoD and CIA put out a white paper a few years back re: how they think that's gonna become more common due to climate change. Do you have a link to this? I'd be interested.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    There are many such studies, both inside and outside the defense industry. It's one of the more common predictions of the impacts of climate change. I think the IPCC includes it in their reports, which is probably the best starting place - the IPCC's job is to integrate research into one periodic report.

lucozade 5y ago

A Russian win would be formal secession of Crimea and Donbas to Russia, secure water supply to the Crimea and a puppet government for the rest. The government doesn't need to be internationally recognised, just beholden to Russia and act as the buffer to the West that Putin wants. If he takes Kyiv and deposes the current government, getting a treaty that achieves that probably won't be that hard. I don't know enough about Ukrainian demographics to know if a puppet government could be stable without a huge Russian military presence. If the latter is needed then it would probably count as a failure.

SubjectToChange 5y ago
They will need an impressive military presence to prop up a sham government. Anyone who wants to fund partisans will have ample opportunities to do so. And there's no reason to believe that the Ukrainian government will give up once kyiv is taken, it's not a video game. In fact, western Ukraine is so terrifically safe I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of government operations are being run from there already.
- lucozade 5y ago
  > there's no reason to believe that the Ukrainian government will give up once kyiv is taken I agree. But they don't need to give up for a puppet government to be in place. They need to lose control of the military and communications infrastructure. If the government is far to the west or in exile, it's hard to see how they would maintain control. And I also agree that a new government would need a substantial Russian military presence. It wasn't that long ago though that a substantial voting bloc supported pro-Russian parties. It's likely that Putin calculated that they'd only get problems with western Ukraine. That's likely been badly misjudged.
  - SubjectToChange 5y ago
    > It wasn't that long ago though that a substantial voting bloc supported pro-Russian parties. It'd be really interesting to get some polling data on those people. It's hard to imagine that they don't feel betrayed. After all, the russian speaking population has been subjected to the harshest and most violent portions of this conflict, albeit incidentally.