Russian invasion of Ukraine

greg_mp wrote:

Economical counter-measure never stopped a war. And actually Russia is the second world 2nd oil and first gas producer. In any case they will recover.

That is not entirely correct…. There have been studies on this by some well respected institutions that show that they are contributing factors in avoiding deadly conflict.

From the study :
’’ In this paper, I make one general argument about the effectiveness of sanctions for preventing deadly conflict and two specific arguments about using financial sanctions (freezing assets and multilateral political aid conditionality) for that purpose. The general argument is that economic sanctions will enjoy some success at preventing deadly conflict and should be used for that purpose. This argument rests on conclusions drawn from the sanctions literature, an assessment of the post-cold war environment, an evaluation of the costs associated with imposing economic sanctions, and the nature of the task. I also assess two factors that work against successfully using sanctions to prevent deadly conflict: the problem of identifying and isolating targets of sanctions and the difficult nature of the conflict prevention task.

The first specific argument is that freezing assets is an under-used and under-studied sanction. Freezing assets has the advantage of being a “precision guided” sanction that can be crafted to cause the target state’s political leaders and elites to suffer economic pain while not similarly injuring innocent civilians. This distinguishes asset freezes from other more common types of economic sanctions such as trade embargoes and aid cut-offs.

Second, I argue that political aid conditionality by international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the IMF and the World Bank, is a promising tool whose potential is only just starting to be realized. Political aid conditionality means that IFIs would only provide economic assistance to states that meet certain political criteria. The conditions could include respect for human rights, democracy, military spending levels, etc.5 Many countries depend on assistance from IFIs. Thus, those states have a clear incentive to obey the conditions set by the IFIs including conditions that may help to prevent deadly conflict.6’’

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/using-economic-sanctions-prevent-deadly-conflict

Malibuflyer wrote:

How do you conquer a city with tanks? Obviously you can drive into it but what next? Tanks are great to destroy things – they are not so great to govern things.

Russia tried that with Grozny in 1994-95 during the first Chechen war. It didn’t work at all, so instead they bombed the city to rubble. The question is if they want to do that with Kyiv, being the “birthplace of Russia.”

Economical counter-measure never stopped a war.

They do, this war will cost Russia an arm & leg (Europe will lose a lot as well) but it’s a matter of timing, also the sanctions were too late and are nowhere near where it hurts…

I heard another old retired army general 2 days ago, that told about NATO should have been dismantled as they more or less agreed at the ending of USSR, because it wasn’t really needed

The West (US & EU) had all the cards in 1990, the USSR as Super Power Empire did fall appart in (relatively) manageable & peaceful way (there were civil wars here and there) but it’s exceptional in history that such Empire would fall as such without wrecking everything around, it was unprecedented…

Clinton administration tried to rebrand NATO as “Partnership For Peace” that would include Russia, however, the other US administrations needed NATO support for “20 wars” that were way unrelated to “Cold War”, the only exceptions were Bosnia & Kosovo & Syria which were NATO vs RU, now Georgia & Ukraine, next? Moldova?

greg_mp wrote:

And actually Russia is the second world 2nd oil and first gas producer. In any case they will recover.

As one can see in Irak, Kuwait, Nigeria, etc. Oil money doesn’t necessarily help to stabilize a country politically.

Also do not overestimate the Russian Gas Exports: They “only” export about twice the volume as Norway – but their population is almost 30 times the size.
So short to mid term some European countries (esp. those who base their heating mainly on gas and shut down their nuclear power plants…) have a huge issue w/o Russian gas – in the longer run, it is not enough for full recovery of Russia.

172driver wrote:

However, now they’re shelling a nuclear power plant.

If they do manage to set free radiation, in the current met situation, it would blow back straight to Russia. That is how irrational things are right now.

Malibuflyer wrote:

Why would you attack a convoy of tanks that is stranded in the middle of nowhere for fuel starvation?

Ask General Schwarzkopf if you could. It worked for him in Iraq 91.

Malibuflyer wrote:

How do you conquer a city with tanks? Obviously you can drive into it but what next? Tanks are great to destroy things – they are not so great to govern things.

Have a look at Grosny after the Russians were done with it.

Snoopy wrote:

Thanks. Can I get some more?

There is ample precedence how Russia conducts such campaigns. The difference is, Ukraine is much bigger than most countries they have done this against. If you look at the current state of occupancy, only a tiny but very relevant fraction of Ukraine is occupied or even involved in battles, while the remainder is yet untouched.

There are several possible scenarios. If the precedences of Chechnia and similar are anything to go by, Russia will fight until they either achieve their objectives or until they run out of money and ressources.

So the core question is what are the objectives. I think, this is not as clear as it could be. For the purpose of determining that, it is necessary to look at the developments in Ukraine from a purely Russian perspective. In that, it is pretty clear that the current conflict started with the Madan Revolution which deplaced President Yanukovych who had previously scuttled an assiociation agreement with the EU, on Russias request. His successor, Petro Poroshenko, led Ukraine on a more western oriented course and ditched a non-alignement agreement with Russia in 2014. Indirectly this led to the Annexation of Crimea as well as the Donbass conflict, which has been going on for many years.

So the main objective of this enterprise appears to be the deplacement of President Selenski and to scuttle any further attempts by Ukraine to align itself further to the West, particularly with NATO. In that pretext, the drive would most probably end if the Selenski administration was ousted or arrested or killed, freeing the space for a government and President who would at the very least abandon any and all attempts to join NATO and the EU. Putin apparently thought this could be done within a few days.

Now that it has become clear to him that it is not that easy, there are several scenarios, all of them unpleasant. The most likely for now will be that he continues besieging Kiew and try to occupy it to achieve his main goal. He will also try to take as many other cities as possible. The war could go the same direction as Chechnya and similar engagements have gone, long, massive death and destruction. In my opinion, in the current state of affairs, this is the most likely scenario for now.

Should Ukraine fall, Putin will immediately put a regime in place, most likely led by former President Viktor Yanukovich.

If a peace agreement could be reached, possibly brokered by someone like China, Ukraine would have to be declared neutral, disallowed to forge any ties with any side, so neither Russia nor the EU and NATO. At the very least, Putin will retain control over Donbass and most probably the coastline from Crimea to the East. This would leave Odessa as the main port of Ukraine.

The other scenarios don’t bear thinking about, namely the involvement of NATO and the consequent all our war between Russia and NATO.

arj1 wrote:

There could be other scenarios – attacking Moldova, Finland and Sweden. These are countries are not in NATO.

Sweden is not a buffer zone. I don’t see any reason — even irrational — for Putin to attack Sweden except as preparation for an actual war with NATO. OTOH, in that case I do see a rational reason for Russia to try to occupy Gotland.

Very nice and articulate synopsis @ mooney_driver and I happen to agree with you.

arj1 wrote:

There could be other scenarios – attacking Moldova, Finland and Sweden. These are countries are not in NATO.

These countries have not been taken over by far right nazi sympathisers. I just love selective amnesia by almost everyone in the West and the MSM. The evening of their ’’coup’’ Captain Ukraine and his followers daubed Keeeeve in nazi propaganda and swastikas. There is evidence everywhere of total racism against non whites/ethnics throughout Ukraine but of course this is defo not on message….And before y’all pile in I do not condone war but at least be honest

We have “plenty” of Neo-Nazi in Europe, Germany, Austria, France, Hungry…no need to look further NS131, EDL & Scottish Dawn…should we get worried about Russian tanks & nukes coming “to help” ?

You gotta be kidding to think that VP war is about this “very noble cause” !

I think there are better alternative narratives on the cause of the war