"a naive western war against Russia" Topic

35thOVI +1

I agree with the earlier comments that we should try to understand what motivated the Russian leadership to choose to invade Ukraine in 2014 with (almost) plausible deniability and openly last year.

I'm not at all convinced that the Russian leadership believe any of the things they say for public consumption. In particular, I don't believe invaded Ukraine because they felt it was a military threat by itself or a potential launchpad for an invasion by NATO and genetically engineered gay Nazis. Russia may be paranoid – having been fed fantasies of Western Russophobia and aggression by state media but that doesn't mean that the leaders believe this, just that they find it convenient to keep the population in line and justify their oppressive regime.

Unlike the general Russian population, the leaders have access to real information on what goes on in the west. They understand perfectly well that NATO, especially European NATO has been disarming itself since the end of the Cold War, and has spent the last 30 years on COIN operations in sandy places. They also know that Western public opinion would never stand for launching an attack on Russia and that their nuclear arsenal is a real deterrent to countries that actually care whether their citizens live or die.

So what are their real concerns?

One is that they want to be treated as an equal to the USA, like in the good old days of the USSR. They aren't scared of Western aggression but Western indifference and lack of interest. The reality that a country of 140 million people with an economy the size of southern England isn't one of the two super-power arbiters of world events is painful.

Another factor is concern about the demographics of Russia – a falling population, especially of Slavic / Eastern Orthodox / ‘ethnic Russians'. Bringing Ukraine (at least the Eastern parts) and Belarus back into the fold would offset that.

A bigger factor, I think, was concern that Ukraine might actually make a success of its attempt to move closer to the West and eventually join the EU. Seeing a large Slavic neighbour reducing corruption, increasing democracy and respect for human rights, and improving the living standards of its people might make Russians ask awkward questions about why they can't have some of that too.

Midlander also all true. They are a weird assortment of many cultures and paranoias. They are not western, they are not eastern. Some might say they are possibly not always sane or logical, in their foreign policies.

Midlander65, Your last paragraph says it all. The Chinese are having that problem, folk who have a decent standard of living don't want oppressive and corrupt governments. Russia would kick Putin out if he made it rich. Hes already scared of Moscow as the folk there see him for what he is. That's why it's a special operation not a war.

Heh, yes, they were easier to understand when they were Commies.

But the question NOW is how it ends.

And THAT is a good question…but there is NO answer. Once you start a war you don't control how it evolves or how it ends. When the allies went to war in Europe over Poland, did anyone foresee the occupation of eastern Europe by Russia? Poland wound up occupied, not by Germany, but by Russia (keeping in mind that Russia joined the Germans in the invasion of Poland).

Oh, and that's why NATO is supporting Ukraine. The Baltic nations, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and even Hungary don't want Russia controlling them again.

So we are being required to sign a blank check with no limits.

You are surely right that war acquires a momentum of its own, and often results are unanticipated and even unwanted even by the winners. And we are supposed to be OKAY with that?

And the possible results this time include nuclear destruction.

That's a conundrum, isn't it. Any nation with nuclear weapons now gets a blank check for doing what it wants just because others are afraid of nuclear weapons. That's an incentive for nuclear proliferation.

Another conundrum is that you don't want a blank check with no limits. But when do you cut the support and let the Russians advance to Poland etc?

These are the hard decisions leaders must make. And they make those decisions not knowing what the right answer is until years down the road. Personally, I think we're a ways from having to let Russian win.

Myself. I think when making big decisions on the basis of very limited data, caution is warranted, especially when the stakes include nuclear war. There are times when one has to roll the dice, but this time the pot is dreadfully big, and we aren't really sure what a winning roll looks like.

Tenaha, Timpson, Bobo, and Blair.

(Anybody get the reference without looking it up? I've BEEN to Tenaha.)

link

raylev +1

a proxy war between social liberalism vs social conservatism.

That conflict exists but I'm struggling to get my head around it in a global context. Which would Putin be?

Regardless … back OT … I don't think we should make Putin's invasion more complex than it is. One state invaded another, not anything anymore than that. I don't see this as a clash of ideologies, etc. Someone wanted something, so he tried to take it by force … But the targeted "victim" did not let it happen. With a little help from his "friends" …

With the lack of investigation of war crimes the abduction of children, sactioned rape and pilage and an unprovoked invasion, its more a purge to get rid of child molesting perverts sanctioned by Putin. Social conservatism is as far as I am concerned not a euphemism for pervert. And if anybody thought it will stop at Ukraine think again, Boris Johnsom UK (then UK PM) was threatened by Putin.

I agree with Legion that it is not ideological, but ordinary power struggles for territory and prestige etc.

The terms "social conservatism" or "social liberalism" require definition. I know what they mean in an American context, but that does not seem applicable here.

UshCha, I am unclear as to what you mean. Is the purge sanctioned by Putin or the perverts? And "sanctioned" can mean opposite things. ???

@Midlander "I agree with the earlier comments that we should try to understand what motivated the Russian leadership to choose to invade Ukraine in 2014 with (almost) plausible deniability and openly last year."

It's not hard to understand. The US under Obama and the West in general signaled a combination of disinterest and weakness in the face of Russian actions.

1. When Russia invaded Georgia at the end of Bush's term, incoming President Obama did nothing about it, neither did Europe. Obama didn't want to deal with a foreign policy crisis and Europe just wanted cheap Russian gas, and didn't care.

2. Then there was a long and painful series of US foreign policy blunders that further reduced US credibility in Putin's eyes – the Arab Spring saw the US actively topple a US ally (Mubarak of Egypt), the disastrous war in Libya started by the US and Europe, the failed US coup attempt in Syria against Russia's pet dictator, the failure of the US to back a popular uprising in Iran against the theocracy. The fiasco of Iraq where a premature withdrawal led to a power vacuum filled by the brutal and genocidal ISIS Caliphate.

3. When Russia overtly influenced things to its benefit in the 'Stans, the US also did not object or take action.

So with the US showing global ineptitude and weakness, and with Europe more interested in cheap oil and gas than anything else, why wouldn't Putin think he could carve off some of Ukraine and get his Black Sea Fleet Port under his own control rather than renting from Ukraine?

So Putin played the same game that it had done to justify the invasion and annexation of territory in Georgia. Russia gave out Russian passports and then declared it was taking action to protect Russian citizens, who held bogus referendums to join Russia and all that.

And you know what the US under Obama did about that? NOTHING. Both the US and Europe made meaningless diplomatic noises, passed some pro forma sanctions without much substance and then tried to forget about as quickly as possible.

We probably could have stopped the 2022 War if we'd taken serious action in 2014.

And we probably could have prevented the 2014 annexation of Ukrainian territory if the US and Europe had taken serious action in response to the 2008-2009 Russian invasion and annexation of Georgian territory.

SB also good points.

Did 20 posts disappear?

a proxy war between social liberalism vs social conservatism.

No, Ukraine can hardly be considered a poster child of liberal progressive values – nor can the EU if you drill down into the policies of many of the component nations – even those who might commonly be considered to bastions be of such things. Ukraine is a country facing an existential threat. May be not Final Solution-level but extremes of violent subjugation, cultural depredation and multiple credible reports of crimes against humanity.

Putin may slot neatly into the conservative bracket but his own country can hardly be seen as some monolithic proponent of conservatism. Does Putin even believe his own positions or its just all a part of the big lie that Russia is under extensional from the liberal West?

ROU. Putin a conservative?

Okay, let me ask you this. Was Burke a conservative? (Yes, one of the key intellectual figures.)

So explain to us what he and Putin have in common.

ROU. Putin a conservative?

Only in the most general, politically neutral sense. A Conservative in general is one who wants to preserve the status quo or the original system. It means different things in different nations and circumstances.

In Russia preserving the status quo or system means "conserving" an authoritarian despotism that's allied with certain traditional power factions like the Orthodox Church, and so on.

In the United States preserving the status quo or system means "conserving" Constitutional Classical Liberalism. However, one could as easily argue that given the steady successful march of Leftism through the halls of American power such that what once was Radical is now the Establishment, that term "Conservative" in the US is a misnomer. Perhaps those espousing Classical Liberalism should be termed Radical and Revolutionary since the new Status Quo, aka "Conservatives" are hostile to the founding principles of the US.

Burke? Read the the thread twice and can't see the name. So absolutely no idea. My WAG would Edmund Burke.

Putin is clearly happy to enact and enforce socially conservative legislation. His approach to government could be described as 'conservative', or more euphemistically "democracy with Russian characteristics", but that's probably being unkind to conservatives since he's simply a dictator – though arguably one with considerable plausible deniability. And very much doubt whether those who would describe themselves as conservative libertarians would identify in anyway shape of form with the man. Putin himself appears to identify as socially conservative and nationalist but the only person who truly knows is Putin himself. He sort of fits in the politically conservative pigeonhole but that's as far as it goes. Start unpacking many peoples politics and it can get all fractal very quickly.

I used to know what liberal and conservative meant, but they don't mean much now in the blamer era. I used to know what facist and communist meant before I read some of the threads on the semantics here. These terms are evolving, or maybe revolving. I just put Putin in the brutal authoritarian group and leave it at that.

doc mcb
Dictinary definition of sanction but not the only one.
official permission or approval for an action.
"he appealed to the bishop for his sanction"

Okay, so why is the US imposing sanctions on Iran? It can mean DISapproval or discouragement.

LOL:
Is Putin a conservative? Err.. no. Wow… that is one of the reasons why we are at war with him. If he were a "conservative" (Classical Liberal) we would be fine with him.

Putin is a reactionary. He is against the Enlightenment. He is against Liberalism. That is why the Great American Empire must destroy him.

The end of this is the destruction of Putin and his regime and the institution of a liberal Western democracy in Russia. This is what Putin fears.

Putin is right to fear this. He has seen the fruits of part of this thinking in the first destruction of Russia.

The war in Ukraine is to build a buffer state and to severe relations from the West (and get a land bridge to Crimea). He hopes that this will protect Russia from being gradually subsumed into the West. He is wrong. He doesn't understand the real problem, but that is another discussion for another platform.

Joe Collins

LOL reactionary is conservatism. The desire to go back to some idolized past. In this case a strong Russia with an equally strong man at the helm.

If that is true, then liberalism did them no good in 1917.

dapeters:
Yes, a desire to return to a system that has ruled for thousands of years.

That is not Conservatism BTW. Conservatism is on your side. You just don't know it. Modern propaganda has blinded many.

LOL indeed…

Search a bit deeper.

Joe Collins

Reactionary is not conservative. We are concerned with preserving the vital things without which there is no civilization.

We moved as the Spirit listed.
They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne
like the Gods of the Market-Place;
But they always caught up with our progress,
and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield,
or the lights had gone out in Rome.

"The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time". Except it is not just Europe; no USA waiting to swoop in and save everyone and rebuild, not this time.

I do love Kipling…

But I do wonder if those "vital things" we try and preserve are nothing but the "Gods of the Market Place". Is our attempt to emulate that which is spiritual doomed to fail? The answer is of course, yes. Is this a sin? I am unsure. I would argue that all good men strive towards it… though it is unobtainable. The line however between this desire to strive and pride is thin indeed.

What I do know is that Putin sees the problem, but not the root cause. He sees the problem as spiritual. He sees the problem as the Enlightenment. He is correct on both accounts. What he does not see is the class struggle underneath it all. This is what doomed Communism and will doom our liberal Democracy as well.

The gods of copy book headings will return… with slaughter and terror.

Ooosh… that was very black-pilled.

Joe Collins

A bleak prediction:
link

Russia's industrial age economy is apparently well suited for a war of attrition, as Russia has the ability to produce both food and other necessities for her people, while also producing tanks, endless kamikaze drones, and an order-of-magnitude more artillery shells than its opponent. Meanwhile, Ukraine's economy is destroyed, with its government payroll and military budget entirely dependent on Western subsidies.

Not only can Russia produce more than Ukraine, but it turns out, at least for now, that it can produce more arms and ammunition than the entire West. Having offshored much of its dual-use industrial infrastructure to China in service to globalization over the last 20 years, the West's military industrial complex is now only optimized for profits. Western leaders mistook economic activity measured by GDP with productive capacity.

Thus, the United States and NATO can produce very sophisticated weapons systems like the F-35 and the Patriot missile, but can only do so slowly and expensively. Like German industry producing sophisticated, but delicate and expensive tanks during World War II, the western arms industry is not optimized for either speed or volume. It will take years to catch up.

By contrast, Russia has followed its successful World War II practice of producing many good (but not great) weapons, which are simple and reliable, like the T-90 tank. Moreover, Russia appears to possess domestic factories and techniques to produce mountains of artillery shells, which are now pulverizing the large numbers of Ukrainian forces gathered in Bakhmut.

Trying to provide a qualitative advantage, the West has showered Ukraine with its most advanced weapons. Any initial reluctance to provoke Russia has been reduced piecemeal. After earlier supplying HIMARS, artillery pieces, anti-tank missiles, and armored personnel carriers, this week, the United States promised to provide Ukraine some of its M1 Abrams tanks—widely regarded as the best tank in the world. America's commitment of the Abrams tank encouraged the Germans to provide their own Leopard 2 tanks. In all, it appears a little over 100 modern tanks will be sent to Ukraine from NATO countries.

For all of the ways this move has provoked Russia, and for all the optimism and excitement that has stirred in the pro-Ukraine press, it is questionable whether these tanks will change the outcome of the war. There is at present a several-hundred-mile-long front, with several hundred thousand men and thousands of tanks and armored vehicles deployed on opposite sides. The promised modern tanks are sophisticated, require intensive maintenance, and lengthy training of crews, and the West can only supply a handful of them.

Dragon Gunner- I just filed a complaint on your false sock puppet claim and asked that it be investigated. In the spirit of comity, I will rescind my complaint if you delete your post and apologize.

Must everything devolve to personal attacks when someone doesn't agree with involvement in the Ukraine war?

Apparently Mr Roach has never heard of Albert Speer, nor the German production figures for the last year of the war. The Germans ran out of people to fight. They ran out of infrastructure. They ran out of fuel. And of course, they had no industrial allies. He is right that the Russians are resourceful under pressure. But there is no way they could have done what the did against the Germans without massive material help from the Allies throughout the war. Just a goofy comparison by the author, inviting further argument. The Soviets in WW2 got a ton of material help to defeat Hitler. Sound familiar?

Tanks and the skills and commitment of the Ukranian soldiers are a good fit as I understand it. They will be operational without too much difficulty in that sense.

Paul Kennedy's long ago book needs an update.It's assessment of the US and the Soviet Union is dated and could not possibly have taken into account the massive changes in war and production technology, led by the US and later China, or changes in the distribution of wealth, or the Soviets bogging down in Afghanistan and then collapsing altogether, etc.

The snarky comment on the media makes no sense. We are treated to nightly in country reports from most news outlets, including viewing endless piles of rubble, embedded reporters, and spectacular drone footage in a way we never saw in the Gulf Way.

"American Greatness" is political agenda driven. Mr Roach is a lawyer with no other stated credentials. His other listed writings are for similar publications. He is entitled to his opinion.

Apparently you don't like Roach's warning not to spike the football before you've reached the endzone??? Oh, and he's calling for a peace deal. How did it come to pass that the Democrats have become Warhawks while the majority of the average Republicans and Independents want a peace deal?

From the end of the article:

There is still the prospect for diplomacy and negotiation to resolve the war in Ukraine. But nothing about Joe Biden or his administration suggests either the wisdom or restraint to take such a course. Further, Republicans are not interested in restraining Biden because of their own militarism and the lingering influence of the neoconservatives. Beyond a little grumbling about the price tag, Americans from both parties also do not appear terribly interested in the matter.

This is all ominous. But it would not be the first time a great power sealed its fate through hubris, historical illiteracy, and self-destructive leadership.

Lend-Lease provided Stalin with lots of Ford trucks, which no doubt hastened the advance across eastern Europe to Berlin. But I have not heard that Stalin replaced his T34s with Shermans. German collapse has little bearing on Russian collapse. One is a relatively small area, the other a continental hinterland. The lawyer-author's point is that the Russian war machine is relatively unsophisticated, which in certain circumstances is a good thing. We all remember Clarke's "Superiority" story. German inability to outlast the converging Soviets and Anglo-American armies has little bearing on Russian ability to grind down Ukraine.

SB, yes, that reversal in attitude towards war is noteworthy. The populists have lost patience with the Uniparty's Eternal War.

Much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks and by 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3⁄4-ton and Studebaker 2+1⁄2-ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical.[43] Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941–45).[35] Most tank units were Soviet-built models but about 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks (plus more than 5,000 British tanks) were used by the Red Army, eight percent of war-time production.

-Wiki article on Lend-Lease

@Graybear

My assessment stands.

The 'Russia's strong because its awash in basic equipment and manpower versus the weak West that can only produce a handful of doom-spiral military industrial boondoggles per year' has been widely taken apart.

For a start the T-90 =/= T-34. And the T-34 wasn't all that. For a start the T-90 has been in production since the early 90s and total production is circa 1,000. Sure new batches are rolling off the production lines but the numbers don't look that much different from Western MBT donations to Ukraine. The back bone of the Russian tank arm is probably going to be refurbished vehicles from their deep stockpiles. Russia's military industrial complex like the Wests is no longer a volume producer of many things.

The Estonian intelligence estimate of Russian shell production, I repeat estimate, may be 2 million rounds per year but that is all calibers not just 152mm! And the Russians are reported as using tanks for indirect fire support. I don't know what Russia's tank barrel manufacturing capacity is but that sounds like a great way to max it out…

HIMARs and a few other things aside the majority of what the West has handed to Ukraine is actually not much younger than the Soviet designs they are facing off against.

The argument that the West is dragging things out has some distance in it but not in the direction many of those making that specific argument would want to go. With 20:20 hindsight we should have seen Putin's posturing and redlines as the empty threat it was and just opened up the stockpiles. The Ukrainians would probably have had their borders back by now. And these arguments would be more comfortably academic.

Joe Collins and Doc I would ask you to look up the definition of conservative and it's root word (preserving is conserving or were you talking about Jam?) But Joe you are partially correct there are movements in history that thought of themselves as progressive but were actually reactionary and not progressive.

I AM a conservative and have been for 60+ years, and do not need any dictionary to tell me what I believe. Contemporary American conservatives are primarily the old style liberals before the Left became so tainted with Progressivism. We believe in individual liberties which are antecedent to government, We believe government is a necessary evil and needs to be kept as small and as limited as possible. We believe power corrupts and checks and balances are essential. We believe America, for all of its flaws, has been a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. We spent a lifetime (mine) fighting Communism and similar totalitarian systems and ideologies. We are deeply suspicious of any who want great power in order to achieve what they say are great goals. Utopias never are. And politicians excel in creating problems that they then demand the power to 'solve." "Troubling waters they mean to fish in."

Wunderwaffen Won't Save Ukraine.
"The officials insist the German pressure is not going to work."
They were wrong.

"Trying to provide a qualitative advantage, the West has showered Ukraine with its most advanced weapons."
This is just not true, as ROU pointed out most of the stuff the USA has sent is old. Is calling it Wunderwaffen just click bait?
Is Roach arguing that because the M1 Abrams is the best tank in the world it should not be sent? This article is really an argument for sending very large numbers of MBTs and IFVs etc from the USA's storage to Ukraine rather than the small amounts being sent.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

link

Hopefully this link will allow you to read this quick photo and text article about a couple of old munitions factories in Scranton PA and Iowa turning out tens of thousands of artillery shells, mostly for Ukraine, every month. I have a feeling it would not be too hard to expand production. The Scranton factory dates back to the Korean War.

Is Roach arguing that because the M1 Abrams is the best tank in the world it should not be sent? This article is really an argument for sending very large numbers of MBTs and IFVs etc from the USA's storage to Ukraine rather than the small amounts being sent.

No. It's a warning that is no outright military victory over Russia that ends this war. Russia also has yet to do a general mobilization of its some 15 MILLION fighting age men. Russia will not surrender to Ukraine or NATO, nor will Putin submit to be hanged by a war crimes tribunal – RUSSIA HAS NUKE! I wish Ukraine hadn't given up its nukes in the 1990s, always thought it would end like this.

But that's where we are. They only way out is a negotiated peace deal of some sort. I think that would mean that Ukraine cedes most or part of Crimea that's controlled by Russia, including Sevastopol (Russia will never willingly part with it), and Russia cedes back all other territory and ends all support for the Russian-backed militias that remain. Maybe some other things can be worked out -- agreement to an international tribunal to investigate and prosecute war crimes on both sides, some kind of Russian reparations or aid, perhaps energy guarantees, etc.

IF (big IF) this is true, would it be a good move by the US, or not?

link

The Swiss-German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) reports that Joe Biden offered Russian President Vladimir Putin 20% of Ukraine in exchange for a peace treaty. The offer was made by CIA Director William Burns during a top-secret trip to Moscow in January.

doc mcb+1 – and I find it truly bizarre that the Democrats who spent most of my life appeasing Russia during the Cold War, even to the point of Presidential nominee Ted Kennedy trying to cut a deal with the Soviets to become president!, for them to now become uber warhawks seeing Russians under every rock and bush in a self-manufactured frenzy of war hysteria.

Doc, if the WW2 analogy has "little bearing" on the Ukraine situation why did Roach make a big thing out of it?

SB, the other side of that coin is equally bizarre, some think it would even include its own election deal! Where did all the right wing tough guys go? I cannot imagine Reagan not wanting to support Ukraine against Russia. "Mr. Putin, just get out! "

Doc, I am interested in your take on whether it's a good thing. I don't know anything about this offer from any other source right now, but it sounds like it is moot at this point anyway. But isn't this what the right wants?

SB, the other side of that coin is equally bizarre, some think it would even include its own election deal! Where did all the right wing tough guys go? I cannot imagine Reagan not wanting to support Ukraine against Russia. "Mr. Putin, just get out! "

Your "toughness" is measured by your goal. You're not just tough because you want to posture, which is the danger I see with a lot of posturing Democrats who truly seem to think they can control the outcome of war to their own political advantage at zero cost to them except spending other people's money and lives.

So, sure, be "tough." But what do you intend to accomplish by your "toughness?" What is the desired outcome?

Regarding the Cold War, the US was in an existential conflict with the USSR, it could ultimately only end with the defeat of one party, ideally without nuclear war. I saw it as pretty binary and the need to stay "tough" and resolved, while many leading Democrats saw accommodation as the path ahead. They were wrong. Tough was appropriate, tough worked.

So what do you see as the path ahead, Tortorella? What does "toughness" look like to you, and how does this war end? Do you think a US-NATO Army is going to march to Moscow and hang Putin for war crimes? Do you see Ukraine militarily defeating Russia, and Russia just surrendering to Ukraine?