History in the Making: Russian Invasion

In reply to RX Reven' :

I know it's not the desired course of action and I suspect I will receive a very, predictable response from one person in particular, but at what point do we say, "OK, enough with the war crimes and level the Russian Army and the Kremlin."

In reply to z31maniac :

I don't see us going much farther than we are. Not the first time we let bad thing happen since wwii. 
 

But we will probably keep sending arms for a long time. Long enough to add more to nato, even if we don't want expansion. It's crazy to me that one of the original reasons was to keep nato in check, to the opposite actual outcome. 

RX Reven' said:

02Pilot said:

Morality questions firmly aside, there are clear operational reasons to maximize the resources necessary for Ukraine to deal with the aftermath of the dam being blown. Just as wounding soldiers rather than killing them is tactically beneficial, in that it requires the injured to be removed from the battlefield quickly, whereas the dead can be left for a time when combat has stopped, or at least the danger has lessened. Some weapons, notably some types of antipersonnel mines, have been designed specifically for this purpose, using small charges to injure rather than kill the target. Further, wounded personnel require medical resources, transportation resources, and manpower that the dead do not, at least not in a timely fashion. Impeding those rendering aid is naturally a component of this approach. With a Ukrainian offensive looming, and limited resources to confront it symmetrically, it is not surprising that Russia has moved to take advantage of the possibilities of blowing the dam.

It should be noted that while the outcomes have some broadly similar elements, large civilian losses of life and property among them, this is operationally different from the famous Operation Chastise, the raid by RAF 617 Squadron on the Ruhr dams in 1943, commonly known as the Dambusters Raid. There, the primary objective was economic - Ruhr coal production, electric generation, and industry - rather than military (some still question the effectiveness of the raid). Nonetheless, an estimated 1,650 people died in the subsequent flooding; ironically, the majority were Soviet prisoners of war.

I appreciate everything you've said and I'm fully aware that you're much more knowledgeable than I on this subject.

Having said that, how can morality be set aside???  The gratuitous display of barbarism with civilian areas being intentionally flooded and then the rescuers being shot at (are-you-F'ing-kidding-me) is going to instill outrage in the free world.

We ultimately control how this thing ends...pi$$ us off enough and the threats of retaliation stop mattering.

I didn't get that 02 was setting aside his morality.  He was just discussing the military objectives of the flooding without letting the emotions of morality affect the discussion.  Most of us obviously are horrified at the war crimes being committed by the Russians and want nothing more than this to be over in favor of a full Ukrainian state.

In reply to Stampie :

I'm sorry if I gave the wrong impression...I realize that 02 was just providing an emotion free assessment.  My point was that the outcome of this conflict is going to be decided in part by emotion.  Winning and winning by means of barbarism are two different things and will invoke two different responses from the free world.

I don't remember what the term is but O2 said there's a name for people like me...people that think, WTF, it's 2023, we don't do things like this any more. 

RX Reven' said:

02Pilot said:

Morality questions firmly aside, there are clear operational reasons to maximize the resources necessary for Ukraine to deal with the aftermath of the dam being blown. Just as wounding soldiers rather than killing them is tactically beneficial, in that it requires the injured to be removed from the battlefield quickly, whereas the dead can be left for a time when combat has stopped, or at least the danger has lessened. Some weapons, notably some types of antipersonnel mines, have been designed specifically for this purpose, using small charges to injure rather than kill the target. Further, wounded personnel require medical resources, transportation resources, and manpower that the dead do not, at least not in a timely fashion. Impeding those rendering aid is naturally a component of this approach. With a Ukrainian offensive looming, and limited resources to confront it symmetrically, it is not surprising that Russia has moved to take advantage of the possibilities of blowing the dam.

It should be noted that while the outcomes have some broadly similar elements, large civilian losses of life and property among them, this is operationally different from the famous Operation Chastise, the raid by RAF 617 Squadron on the Ruhr dams in 1943, commonly known as the Dambusters Raid. There, the primary objective was economic - Ruhr coal production, electric generation, and industry - rather than military (some still question the effectiveness of the raid). Nonetheless, an estimated 1,650 people died in the subsequent flooding; ironically, the majority were Soviet prisoners of war.

I appreciate everything you've said and I'm fully aware that you're much more knowledgeable than I on this subject.

Having said that, how can morality be set aside???  The gratuitous display of barbarism with civilian areas being intentionally flooded and then the rescuers being shot at (are-you-F'ing-kidding-me) is going to instill outrage in the free world.

We ultimately control how this thing ends...pi$$ us off enough and the threats of retaliation stop mattering.

Setting morality aside comes down to one thing: training. Put simply, emotions get in the way of rational and objective assessment and decision-making. I've been associated with the detached, academic approach to these sorts of situations for more than two decades. It's not a natural, instinctive way to confront difficult situations such as this, but I would argue it is more useful in determining how to deal with them. When you're doing things like calculating nuclear exchange strategies where shifting from one approach to another means potentially killing another 50 million people in the initial exchange, you recognize that emotions are not helpful. What achieves the policy objective most effectively is all that matters, because without it, the whole exercise is pointless.

Without going into details, I've experienced the effects of war close-up, and I'm not without my own reactions to them. But emotions and morality tend to be luxuries that get in the way of understanding.

Also note that the Free World is only about 15% of the world's population. Outrage here does not equal outrage everywhere.

RX Reven' said:

I don't remember what the term is but O2 said there's a name for people like me...people that think, WTF, it's 2023, we don't do things like this any more. 

I don't recall using a specific term, but having digested over the years a steady diet of Hobbes, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Clausewitz - among others - I would argue that man has done, does, and will continue to do things like this as long as the species exists.

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

So go to work and speak what you want about everything. See what happens. Last I noticed, bans to social media by very prominent people got allowed in court  

Sorry that you don't get it.

But lashing out does not bolster your argument. 

Looks like the latest batch of Russian cruise missiles targeted the western part of Ukraine.  I would guess logistics nodes.  I will be curious to see how many they managed to launch.  The numbers seem to be getting ever smaller.  

Glad we're getting great info and analysis here on the ongoing war, please ignore the troll.

I used to participate in a forum with a lot of high-powered brains who were generally antagonistic to my political positions. But they were intellectually honest. I wrote carefully considered viewpoints that often got slammed back in my face. But sometimes they'd concede something, and that felt very good. I wouldn't say that I changed minds necessarily,  but I got smart people to admit to faults in their logic. That seems so much more satisfying than dive-bombing into an argument like a driver overcooking a corner in the hope that they can intimidate someone into giving up a position. And we know how we feel about people who drive like that.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

johndej said:

Glad we're getting great info and analysis here on the ongoing war, please ignore the troll.

I think that blowing up the dam just ratcheted things up a couple of notches. Hopefully we give Ukraine the means to reach out and really touch a bunch of Russian assets in occupied Ukraine. That bridge sure shouldn't still be standing.

(Edit: since we are following some strange kind of Medieval code.)

I guess I don't look at Ukraine as life long best friends. The country was attacked and hold strategic value for Russia. The USA doesn't want Russia to gain anymore strategic gains as they just got greedy. They already got a pathway to the sea years ago and now just seem to be following old scripts of every (not new) country in expanding by force. 

The west and Russia may make an Afghanistan or post WW1 Germany out of Ukraine, I have no illusion regarding that potential outcome. 

(Edit: overwrite this last sentence while cleaning up spelling. )

I still think it is worth a try to stop Russia and maybe turn the tide in Ukraine to make it a better country.

Advan046 said:

I guess I don't look at Ukraine as life long best friends. The country was attacked and hold strategic value for Russia. The USA doesn't want Russia to gain anymore strategic gains as they just got greedy. They already got a pathway to the sea years ago and now just seem to be following old scripts of every (not new) country in expanding by force. 

The west and Russia may make an Afghanistan or post WW1 Germany out of Ukraine, I have no illusion regarding that potential outcome. 

(Edit: overwrite this last sentence while cleaning up spelling. )

I still think it is worth a try to stop Russia and maybe turn the tide in Ukraine to make it a better country.

The point of view you describe is consistent with the US/Western perspective, but the Russians see things very differently. After the Bush and Obama Administrations started to extend their influence into Ukraine and Georgia, Russia felt as though it was the US that was getting greedy and taking advantage of Russian weakness. It didn't involve force, but diplomatic initiatives that included the potential of those countries joining NATO - a military alliance - certainly presented the potential of a future military threat. This piece from CATO (I'm aware of the political leanings of the source, but the article is factual and well-supported) discusses the above argument in greater detail.

The conduct of the war has been brutal and savage, and this has naturally become the major talking point among Ukraine's supporters (and very strongly emphasized by Zelensky and other Ukrainian leaders), but the underlying political and diplomatic realities remain, no matter how ugly the fighting gets.

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

I used to participate in a forum with a lot of high-powered brains who were generally antagonistic to my political positions. But they were intellectually honest. I wrote carefully considered viewpoints that often got slammed back in my face. But sometimes they'd concede something, and that felt very good. I wouldn't say that I changed minds necessarily,  but I got smart people to admit to faults in their logic. That seems so much more satisfying than dive-bombing into an argument like a driver overcooking a corner in the hope that they can intimidate someone into giving up a position. And we know how we feel about people who drive like that.  

One good thing about that forum was that they weren't afraid to deploy the ban hammer when people got too troll-ish without actually backing up what they were saying. Not sure what it takes around here....

In reply to 02Pilot :

I may be wrong about how I see things, but to me, the region was looking toward useful leadership- one that could make the country a better place to live and thrive in. For some reason, Russia never really offered that, they had no choice but to turn west. 
 

The west saw economic opportunity and took it. 
 

Vlad has had plenty of time to make an economic system for the former empire, but never has. And now the bullying is resulting in the opposite effect as intended. 
 

I don't see Ukraine being besties of the west, just another area to grow a lot of food. Which is security for them and much of the world. 

At this point, is there any kind of a "win" scenario for Russia? 
 

Even if Russia manages  to kill every man, woman and child in Ukraine, I don't see where the Russian nation will have a better future than before they invaded. Dropping out of humanity will have that effect. Demographically Russia has been dropping out of humanity for some time and I do not see where the war will reverse that reality regardless of outcome. In a world that is about to be turned on its head due to technology and AI, Russia will become obsolete within a decade.

Any win scenario that I can think of is based on a situation where Russia ends up in a position to tell the world that they must deal with Russia,on Russia's terms, "or else...". Will the nukes be enough?

alfadriver said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I may be wrong about how I see things, but to me, the region was looking toward useful leadership- one that could make the country a better place to live and thrive in. For some reason, Russia never really offered that, they had no choice but to turn west.

The west saw economic opportunity and took it.

Vlad has had plenty of time to make an economic system for the former empire, but never has. And now the bullying is resulting in the opposite effect as intended.

I don't see Ukraine being besties of the west, just another area to grow a lot of food. Which is security for them and much of the world. 

It's important to distinguish between the ways in which states affiliate. You mention economic opportunity, which is certainly one factor, and it's clear that Ukraine produces products that have value in the global market. The Western economy is often the most desirable option for states wanting to profit from their exports, and to have access to products from those highly developed partners. That said, Ukraine's largest trading partner prior to the war was China, and it maintained a multibillion dollar trading relationship with Russia, so I'm not sure the economic argument holds terribly strongly (see here for much more detail).

My point is political, with the military and diplomatic implications in the forefront. Both Bush and Obama administrations focused their engagement on developing political linkages with security exchanges and discussions on joining multilateral, Western-led organizations. I would argue that this was more important to both Ukraine and Russia than the economic question. From independence, Ukraine certainly recognized Russia as a regional hegemon capable of dominating it, and when Russia became concerned with Western movement into the region, Ukraine naturally gravitated toward any possible support to counteract it. The hypothetical, unanswerable of course, is to ask what the situation would have looked like if the US and EU had not sought to develop deeper political bonds with Ukraine and Georgia in the early 2000s. Would Russia have felt pressure to protect and assert its regional dominance in the absence of increasing Western political influence?

NOHOME said:

At this point, is there any kind of a "win" scenario for Russia? 
 

Even if Russia manages  to kill every man, woman and child in Ukraine, I don't see where the Russian nation will have a better future than before they invaded. Dropping out of humanity will have that effect. Demographically Russia has been dropping out of humanity for some time and I do not see where the war will reverse that reality regardless of outcome. In a world that is about to be turned on its head due to technology and AI, Russia will become obsolete within a decade.

Any win scenario that I can think of is based on a situation where Russia ends up in a position to tell the world that they must deal with Russia,on Russia's terms, "or else...". Will the nukes be enough?

Russia "wins" (more on that in a minute) if Ukraine ends up outside a Western security alliance. Russia is already moving to reorient itself eastward, and deeper engagement with India, Iran, and of course China, will enable it to retain a position of economic and political security. Influence operations in Africa may offer further opportunities. It will no longer be the dominant force it was during Soviet times, but it is far from spent.

The definition of victory at the end of a conflict rarely resembles the terms envisioned at the start. Just like war itself, victory is a dynamic process, shifting constantly. If you had asked Putin the day before the invasion what victory looked like, he would have likely told you that it would be a Russian-dominated Ukraine with a compliant government in place. This would have allowed Russia to squash any notion of Ukraine reorienting Westward, and maintained security in the Black Sea region. Today, this is obviously not a likely outcome. If you went back to Putin today (and could get a candid answer based on actual facts), I suspect he would be willing to accept terms that allowed some sort of political settlement of territorial questions (internationally-validated elections to determine territorial control within a year or two, perhaps, along with rights of movement across frontiers before that) and an ironclad treaty that kept NATO out of Ukraine in perpetuity.

In reply to 02Pilot :

It takes two to tango. I doubt Obama would have tried hard had Bush's efforts done nothing. 
 

But I also see the economic and political tied almost as one. Ukraine wanted more than what Russia and china were giving them, so turning west made sense. Especially when you look at other former Warsaw block counties make big steps to real stability. 
 

People want to be comfortable, so when given the chance, more often than not, they will vote with their money. So given a choice to follow Russia or Poland, which would you take?  
 

The US is so dominant in world politics because of our economy. And it's why china has a small window to do something similar. Poor counties follow china not because of communism, it's because of money. 

alfadriver said:

The US is so dominant in world politics because of our economy. And it's why china has a small window to do something similar. Poor counties follow china not because of communism, it's because of money. 

This may be getting off-topic, but the only thing communist about China is that the word still appears in the ruling party's name. They're in the same ballpark of the capitalist spectrum as Russia or the US. The Chinese government actually persecutes people with any sort of far-left ideologies, hilariously including Maoist communists specifically:

https://chinaworker.info/en/2022/11/22/33652/

Whenever I see a talking head on TV make a forceful assertion that China is a communist country, I just see that as hitting the self-destruct on their own credibility to anyone who can rub two clues together.