Russia invades Ukraine

[DustyBin]

Russia was already rewarded 8 years ago when they took it and we did nothing - that’s a sunk cost.

The caveat is that they currently have an unstable region on their hands, and we/Ukraine would be giving them a stable one. But I think improving stability is good for the world (specifically its citizens).

I do see your point of view though — I too am uneasy with “borders can shift by force” as those days should absolutely be behind us; however a settlement with Russia is not necessarily a good option but merely the least-bad option compared to continued death, destruction and risk.

I agree. We also need to consider what constitutes a "reward" in this context. If Ukraine were to concede Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014, what has Putin actually gained by launching a full-blown invasion? It's been a disaster for Russia economically, militarily, and geopolitically; I don't think we can overestimate how damaging it's been. Even if Russia's annexation of Crimea were to be effectively legitimised, I find it very difficult to believe Putin will sit back and think it was all worthwhile.

And while it might *feel* like pre-WW2 in terms of appeasement, I reiterate - nuclear weapons change everything.

If we allow the threat of nuclear weapons to be used as leverage, a precedent would be set that actually increases the chances of nuclear war in future. Any negotiations will be around Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine so nuclear weapons don't come into it; nobody wants to invade Russia itself.

 

[ainsworth74]

And while it might *feel* like pre-WW2 in terms of appeasement, I reiterate - nuclear weapons change everything.

They do but then if we just buckle when someone starts waving nuclear weapons around then we just allow anyone with a nuclear weapon to blackmail anyone else. Which I rather suspect will have the opposite effect you intend for global security and the survival of the race in general. It will mean that every dictatorship or national with colonial ambitious will immediately start to try and gain nuclear weapons. It will mean that every country that's worried about possible invasion from a neighbour will seek nuclear weapons.

I appreciate the risks and I don't particularly like them either. But if we do just make it so that a nuclear weapon state can carve of chunks of non-nuclear weapon states the result won't be increased security and reduction in the chance of nuclear war. But it'll be make sure every Tom Dick and Harry wants one.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

It does? Novorossiysk is already a large port and is ice free all year round. It also has the advantage of being within Russian territory rather than occupied Ukraine. No particular reason they couldn't establish that as the main base of operations for the Black Sea Fleet.

When I first started thinking about the issue of Russian naval access to the Black Sea I ended up asking the same question. The problem with just about the whole eastern shore of the Black Sea is a hilly/mountainous hinterland making overland communication/transport more difficult though less so in more modern times. The nearest airport is at Gelendzhik reached from Novorossiysk only by a very twisty road where the hills come right down to the coastline. Other more accessible airports are further away to the north-west.

OTOH in pre-1989 days Sevastopol was not only more readily accessible it was also conveniently close to the heavy industry of Mariupol and the Donbass. If you take a strategic view with little care for the consequences for actual people it's easy to understand why Putin has invaded in the way he has. Whatever the outcome of the current conflict any settlement will only last if a solution can be found to Russia's perfectly legitimate desire for practical military access to the Black Sea. There are no easy answers!

 

[DustyBin]

They do but then if we just buckle when someone starts waving nuclear weapons around then we just allow anyone with a nuclear weapon to blackmail anyone else. Which I rather suspect will have the opposite effect you intend for global security and the survival of the race in general. It will mean that every dictatorship or national with colonial ambitious will immediately start to try and gain nuclear weapons. It will mean that every country that's worried about possible invasion from a neighbour will seek nuclear weapons.

I appreciate the risks and I don't particularly like them either. But if we do just make it so that a nuclear weapon state can carve of chunks of non-nuclear weapon states the result won't be increased security and reduction in the chance of nuclear war. But it'll be make sure every Tom Dick and Harry wants one.

My thoughts exactly. Like you I'm not totally relaxed about the situation, but the pretext for negotiations can't be nuclear threats. And whilst the risk needs to be taken seriously, there's no reason to think that we're anywhere near the point where nuclear weapons could be used.

 

[takno]

Russia's perfectly legitimate desire for practical military access to the Black Sea

If they don't have a workable coastline for it then they don't have a perfectly legitimate desire. It's really no more legitimate than Britain saying they'd really rather like a military port on the Black Sea

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we allow the threat of nuclear weapons to be used as leverage, a precedent would be set that actually increases the chances of nuclear war in future. Any negotiations will be around Russia's withdrawal from Ukraine so nuclear weapons don't come into it; nobody wants to invade Russia itself.

If we're waiting for full withdrawal including Crimea, the war will carry on forever.

 

[najaB]

If they don't have a workable coastline for it then they don't have a perfectly legitimate desire. It's really no more legitimate than Britain saying they'd really rather like a military port on the Black Sea

Desire is always legitimate. I desire a date with Halle Berry. What they don't have is a sound case for it. (Nor do I, unfortunately).

 

[DustyBin]

If we're waiting for full withdrawal including Crimea, the war will carry on forever.

As I said upthread, I suspect the future of Crimea may be negotiable but only once the Ukrainians have decided they can't liberate it by force, or that the cost would be unpalatable. Or Putin makes them an offer they can't refuse with Crimea being the only concession required on the part of Ukraine (highly unlikely I know).

 

[Yew]

How can anyone negotiate with a scumbag that has caused the death of thousands, ripped families apart, employed a ragbag army that rapes and pillages, in order to satisfy his ludicrous ideology ? There was a message draped over a building in Vilnius recently saying: Putin, The Hague is waiting for you. Hear hear, let's hope that comes to fruition.

At the end of the first world war, men sat around a table in a railway carriage and negotiated for peace.

 

[Trackman]

As I said upthread, I suspect the future of Crimea may be negotiable but only once the Ukrainians have decided they can't liberate it by force, or that the cost would be unpalatable. Or Putin makes them an offer they can't refuse with Crimea being the only concession required on the part of Ukraine (highly unlikely I know).

I reckon NATO membership will be at the top of the list.

 

[Spamcan81]

At the end of the first world war, men sat around a table in a railway carriage and negotiated for peace.

Hmm, more like the western allies dictating terms to Germany. Terms which laid the foundations of WW2.

 

[takno]

Hmm, more like the western allies dictating terms to Germany. Terms which laid the foundations of WW2.

I was taught that at GCSE too. Doesn't make it well-considered or right. Most of the provisions were just about reversing 100 or so years of German expansion, or sensible and broadly uncontroversial demilitarisation. The reparations were quite strong, but even then were broadly affordable.

What caused a problem was a global financial crisis 10 years later, combined with an unwillingness on the part of the recipients to take a flexible approach on repayments. Well, and that crisis leading to the appointment of a government full of pathetic entitled opportunists who were not ashamed to blame anybody apart from themselves for literally everything.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There are claims on Twitter that the Russians are in a state of panic. The Antonovskiy Bridge is apparently getting blasted with artillery fire, and some claims suggest that there's between 18-22,000 Russian soldiers still in the right bank and that the Russian defences are simply collapsing.

While we've been here before with the talk of large numbers of soldiers trapped, if the Dnipro is within reach of Ukrainian artillery, then it's going to be a long and horrible night for the Russian forces there.

 

[Annetts key]

Crimea…

But the real question is not what we or the West want, but rather what Ukraine wants. If Ukraine wants Crimea, it does not matter what others say, they will keep fighting until they get it. And if the West cuts off military supplies and support (unlikely I think), they will just continue using what they have.

It’s not in Ukraines interests to let Russia keep Crimea and the port of Sevastopol. And why would Ukraine, given a choice, let the Russians continue to use Sevastopol so that the Russian Black Sea fleet can continue to be a threat to Ukrainian shipping routes?

Ukraine would love it if there were no Russian military ships in the Black Sea. And I can’t see any of the other countries that also have a coast along the Black Sea being upset if Russia is no longer a threat in this ocean.

Update Friday 11th November 2022 at 13:14

According to the Deep State Map web site, the Russians have essentially completed their withdraw of the north western bank of the river.

Screenshot attached

 

[Killingworth]

View attachment 123683Crimea…

But the real question is not what we or the West want, but rather what Ukraine wants. If Ukraine wants Crimea, it does not matter what others say, they will keep fighting until they get it. And if the West cuts off military supplies and support (unlikely I think), they will just continue using what they have.

It’s not in Ukraines interests to let Russia keep Crimea and the port of Sevastopol. And why would Ukraine, given a choice, let the Russians continue to use Sevastopol so that the Russian Black Sea fleet can continue to be a threat to Ukrainian shipping routes?

Ukraine would love it if there were no Russian military ships in the Black Sea. And I can’t see any of the other countries that also have a coast along the Black Sea being upset if Russia is no longer a threat in this ocean.

Update Friday 11th November 2022 at 13:14

According to the Deep State Map web site, the Russians have essentially completed their withdraw of the north western bank of the river.

Of course demilitarising the Black Sea is not an option but it might be a good one, not least because Turkey effectively controls access to it. If there were no Russian ships Ukraine wouldn't need any either.

If Ukraine wants to fight for every last corner of the 4 oblasts Russia has annexed this will be a very long war. Slow burning diplomacy may achieve more. The Soviet Union seemed to have total control over both Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, but lost it without any more shots being fired after the Berlin Wall had come down in 1989. Belarus is near to breaking away now given half a chance.

 

[DC1989]

Of course demilitarising the Black Sea is not an option but it might be a good one, not least because Turkey effectively controls access to it. If there were no Russian ships Ukraine wouldn't need any either.

If Ukraine wants to fight for every last corner of the 4 oblasts Russia has annexed this will be a very long war. Slow burning diplomacy may achieve more. The Soviet Union seemed to have total control over both Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, but lost it without any more shots being fired after the Berlin Wall had come down in 1989. Belarus is near to breaking away now given half a chance.

I disagree - Russia's military is collapsing. This will be over in months

 

[Killingworth]

I disagree - Russia's military is collapsing. This will be over in months

I agree, Russia's military direction has been disastrous. Taking Kherson was part of the drive to take the entire Black Sea coast and that clearly failed months ago. Retreat or strategic withdrawal was the only logical plan for a sane commander. It seems they now have one. How effective he'll be elsewhere is open to question.

How far orher parts of the military have collapsed we'll soon know. Large rivers provide barriers to quick advances. Russia still has long range weapons to cause great destruction to infrastruture if they want wthout trying to advance. They've held their 2014 positions for a long time.

Over in months? Maybe and hopefully by the Spring. Recovered all the territories in the 4 oblasts? That would be a very big achievement.

The situation within Russia will be crucial. Collapse of the military seems desirable but having the various armed units potentially wandering around fighting each other is a real risk. Shades of 1917-23?.

 

[Roast Veg]

I disagree - Russia's military is collapsing. This will be over in months

Months is optimistic. Winter tends to put pause to any ground conflict, and that gives time for both sides to bed in.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Months is optimistic. Winter tends to put pause to any ground conflict, and that gives time for both sides to bed in.

I'm not sure that Russia is able to keep their troops going over winter. Their lack of supplies is already well documented, and winter could be a very miserable time for Russian forces on the frontline.

I don't expect much to happen in the next few weeks however. We seem to be settling into a pattern where the Ukrainian side just continues to hammer Russian positions repeatedly until it becomes too much for them, then they move forward slowly. Crossing the Dnipro will be a tremendous challenge for the Ukrainian forces, and they might prefer to come from the direction of Zaporizhzhia instead, especially if they don't have to worry about Russia being able to cross the Dnipro.

 

[Roast Veg]

Crossing the Dnipro will be a tremendous challenge for the Ukrainian forces, and they might prefer to come from the direction of Zaporizhzhia instead, especially if they don't have to worry about Russia being able to cross the Dnipro.

I agree with this analysis. I think Russia will just about manage to keep supplies coming in this winter, and Ukraine will effectively be fighting against concrete more than personnel come spring.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't expect much to happen in the next few weeks however. We seem to be settling into a pattern where the Ukrainian side just continues to hammer Russian positions repeatedly until it becomes too much for them, then they move forward slowly. Crossing the Dnipro will be a tremendous challenge for the Ukrainian forces, and they might prefer to come from the direction of Zaporizhzhia instead, especially if they don't have to worry about Russia being able to cross the Dnipro.

I would agree. I think I was a Ukraine commander, I'd be thinking in terms of keeping just enough forces in Kherson to make the Russians worried that I might be thinking of trying to cross the Dnipro, without having any serious intention of doing so - just in the hope of tying down more Russian forces there.

I wonder if the most sensible next step for Ukraine would be to try to advance South from somewhere around Zaporizhzhia to the coast - either to Mariupol or to Berdyansk, ignoring most of Donetsk and Luhansk. If Ukraine could succeed in doing that, it would make it extremely difficult for Russia to supply its forces anywhere in Crimea or the area between Crimea and Ukraine-held territory.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I wonder if the most sensible next step for Ukraine would be to try to advance South from somewhere around Zaporizhzhia to the coast - either to Mariupol or to Berdyansk, ignoring most of Donetsk and Luhansk. If Ukraine could succeed in doing that, it would make it extremely difficult for Russia to supply its forces anywhere in Crimea or the area between Crimea and Ukraine-held territory.

There is part of me that wonders what the next Russian move might be. They seem to be adopting a 'let's throw everything we have at the area around Donetsk' approach right now, and there are reports of some units suffering appalling levels of loss there. I'm wondering if they aren't doing what I predicted earlier: throwing so many men at the front line in the hope that something breaks. They've managed to secure the entirety of Donetsk Airport for the first time in many years, so clearly they're having some very, very limited success there.

One thing I'd like to return to: has this war shown that cyberwarfare is of limited use in prolonged conflicts? I remember how people were really throwing their efforts into causing as much trouble as they could for Russia, but several months later, can we really say that there were any huge successes? Anonymous went very quiet after the first few weeks as well.

 

[Annetts key]

Cyberwarfare was always likely to have limited effects.

Systems that use hardwired logic are virtually impossible to interfere with remotely.

Remote interference of critical systems that are isolated from the internet (either physically separate networks or behind secure firewalls) are extremely difficult to upset.

And for other systems, once the operator has identified the weaknesses and sorts these out, it becomes harder to take them down.

And denial attacks on web sites just stops ordinary people from using it. Which Russia does not really care about.

 

[gingerheid]

Belarus is near to breaking away now given half a chance.

I think one of the untold stories of this war is that Belarus, which has for decades struck a very careful middle ground between the EU and Russia and done just enough to keep them both just enough on side, has been pretty conclusively invaded by Russia. It may have been all nice and friendly when they were told they were welcome to come, but I am pretty certain it would not be if they told them to leave again!

Cyberwarfare was always likely to have limited effects.

[snip]

And denial attacks on web sites just stops ordinary people from using it. Which Russia does not really care about.

Yeah, I think we are much more vulnerable to cyberwar than a country that still uses so much paper...

There is part of me that wonders what the next Russian move might be. They seem to be adopting a 'let's throw everything we have at the area around Donetsk' approach right now, and there are reports of some units suffering appalling levels of loss there. I'm wondering if they aren't doing what I predicted earlier: throwing so many men at the front line in the hope that something breaks. They've managed to secure the entirety of Donetsk Airport for the first time in many years, so clearly they're having some very, very limited success there.

They seem to be adopting the tactic of hoping that Ukraine runs out of bullets before they run out of men

I imagine that there will be a Russian response to the loss and that it will, as usual, be unspeakably evil

How far orher parts of the military have collapsed we'll soon know. Large rivers provide barriers to quick advances. Russia still has long range weapons to cause great destruction to infrastruture if they want wthout trying to advance. They've held their 2014 positions for a long time.

Over in months? Maybe and hopefully by the Spring. Recovered all the territories in the 4 oblasts? That would be a very big achievement.

The situation within Russia will be crucial. Collapse of the military seems desirable but having the various armed units potentially wandering around fighting each other is a real risk. Shades of 1917-23?.

Some maps are showing a small but tremendously significant liberation of a tiny amount of land within "2014 borders" near Horlivka. This could develop into something very significant both psychologically and in demonstrating capability to potential international donors!

 

[takno]

I think one of the untold stories of this war is that Belarus, which has for decades struck a very careful middle ground between the EU and Russia and done just enough to keep them both just enough on side, has been pretty conclusively invaded by Russia. It may have been all nice and friendly when they were told they were welcome to come, but I am pretty certain it would not be if they told them to leave again

Belarus haven't been treading any kind of line at all. It's been absolutely in Russia's pocket for years, and it's been absolutely dependent since the last set of "elections". Immediately before the war they were encouraging refugees to come in their thousands and virtually forcing them over the border into Poland.

 

[gingerheid]

Belarus haven't been treading any kind of line at all. It's been absolutely in Russia's pocket for years, and it's been absolutely dependent since the last set of "elections". Immediately before the war they were encouraging refugees to come in their thousands and virtually forcing them over the border into Poland.

There's a little more to it than that. In 2008 they were part of the Eastern Partnership and relations were really surprisingly warm. Even after the 2010 elections they usually got most sanctions imposed lifted again, didn't overtly support the 2014 invasion, and even got as far as getting Lukashenko's travel ban imposed after an earlier set of dodgy elections lifted!

They were very much the unctrollable child in the class that can get rewarded for being less horrible than average this week!

 

[DustyBin]

I would agree. I think I was a Ukraine commander, I'd be thinking in terms of keeping just enough forces in Kherson to make the Russians worried that I might be thinking of trying to cross the Dnipro, without having any serious intention of doing so - just in the hope of tying down more Russian forces there.

I wonder if the most sensible next step for Ukraine would be to try to advance South from somewhere around Zaporizhzhia to the coast - either to Mariupol or to Berdyansk, ignoring most of Donetsk and Luhansk. If Ukraine could succeed in doing that, it would make it extremely difficult for Russia to supply its forces anywhere in Crimea or the area between Crimea and Ukraine-held territory.

This is what I think they’ll do. I don’t see any reason for the Ukrainians to amass a large force in Kherson ready for some kind of offensive across the Dnipro, when they could advance from the north and avoid what would probably be a blood bath. This is what I suggested may happen the other day; my only concern is that it seems almost too obvious, although having said that I’m not sure Russia could do much about it at this stage anyway.

There's a little more to it than that. In 2008 they were part of the Eastern Partnership and relations were really surprisingly warm. Even after the 2010 elections they usually got most sanctions imposed lifted again, didn't overtly support the 2014 invasion, and even got as far as getting Lukashenko's travel ban imposed after an earlier set of dodgy elections lifted!

They were very much the unctrollable child in the class that can get rewarded for being less horrible than average this week!

Lukashenko tried to play both sides (and did), but eventually ran out moves and had to throw his lot in with Putin in order to stay in power. I expect that when the war is over he’ll be very quick to point out that his forces weren’t actually involved in the fighting, and that he had to let the Russians invade Ukraine via Belarus because of big nasty Vlad etc. etc. Personally I don’t think it will wash but that’s what I expect he’ll try to argue. He’s a survivor if nothing else, but if (when) Putin goes he’ll almost certainly soon follow.

 

[Lost property]

I reckon NATO membership will be at the top of the list.

Along with EU membership....the unintended consequence of Putin's barbarity could be he's exposed the frailties of the Russian military hitherto regarded as being potentially formidable.

 

[Roast Veg]

Along with EU membership....the unintended consequence of Putin's barbarity could be he's exposed the frailties of the Russian military hitherto regarded as being potentially formidable.

EU membership for Ukraine is going to be challenging for a few reasons. The huge grain production would break the current subsidy arrangements in the Common Agricultural Policy, and Ukraine's large population would put them over the self-imposed limit of 751 MEPs.

Of course accession to the EU takes decades anyway, so change on the EU side can happen concurrently with Ukraine harmonisation, but we don't know which nations will be negatively impacted by Ukraine's entry or how yet.

 

[35B]

Months is optimistic. Winter tends to put pause to any ground conflict, and that gives time for both sides to bed in.

Tell that to Napoleon.