Putin's War With Ukraine (and democracy, freedom, self-determination, etc.)

this is what worries me. Much like Trump’s apparent malignant narcissism, Putin seems to have some ego-connected character traits that make him want to dominate everything regardless of the resulting destruction.

 

^
"Stepbear help me I'm stuck."

(the only perspective I'm seeing)

 

An urban warfare expert said a defensive situation where prepared defenders are underground in a city turned to rubble requires attackers to have a 5:1 advantage, which would be approximately the numeric advantage the Russians had over the Ukrainians initially, discounting all the other hardware, which again, doesn't help you much with taking a city after you've leveled it. Coupled with the low morale, resistant public, and inferior intelligence gathering, Sun Tzu is Michael Jackson eating popcorn right now.

How much and who is what worries me. We've discussed how logically the use of WMD's is counter-productive to Putin's goals but recall that the USA used nuclear weapons in Japan to force a surrender rather than a costly invasion. Yes, there was no risk of nuclear retaliation back then, but Putin's "Escalate to De-Escalate" doctrine doesn't work like Cold War nuclear deterrence strategy. Unlike that scenario, which threatens 0 to 60 massive retaliation, Putin potentially could see limited use of nuclear weapons as a progressive option. Officially, from what I've read, recent Russian troop exercises have included tactical nuclear weapons and they are an option "if the existence of the state is threatened," although 10 years ago the doctrine allowed use if it simply suited national objectives. Nuking Ukraine a couple times would force their surrender, and if Putin believes the west would not respond to avoid wider strategic nuclear conflict, that could be his final move.

I'll also add, Putin's "Escalate to De-Escalate" is conceptually identical to the Martingale betting strategy where one doubles a bet when they lose and re-doubles until they win. As anyone familiar knows, the strategy is flawed and always eventually results in a total loss for the gambler.

 

I wrote something the other day in frustration with how Putin is being handled. I didn't post it, but it ended with this.

[Re. Putin's escalations] Belaruse is about to invade, they're bringing 16,000 volunteer troops in from the middle east, shelling humanitarian corridors, attacking nuclear powerplants, and now creating a pretext for chemical weapons. Not to mention threats of nuclear attack and crashing the International Space Station.

Biden, NATO, may want to avoid escalation. But at the same time they're also supporting escalation by showing Putin where they won't act. Signalling to Putin what he can get away with.​

I just read Tony Blair's take on the situation, I think he's on the money. He ended on the same point, with more nuance.
https://institute.global/tony-blair...imum-pressure-combined-structured-negotiation

But we should be clear-eyed about what Putin is doing. He is using our correct desire not to provoke escalation alongside his willingness to escalate as a bargaining chip against us. When he is threatening NATO, even stoking fears of nuclear conflict, in pursuit of his attempt to topple by force a peaceful nation’s democratically elected president and wage war on its people, there is something incongruous about our repeated reassurance to him that we will not react with force.

I accept the reasoning behind our stance. But suppose he uses chemical weapons or a tactical nuclear weapon, or tries to destroy Kyiv as he did Aleppo in Syria, without any regard to the loss of civilian life – is it sensible to tell him in advance that whatever he does militarily, we will rule out any form of military response? Maybe that is our position and maybe that is the right position, but continually signalling it, and removing doubt in his mind, is a strange tactic.

​

Biden/NATO are advertising weakness to a predator.

 

We should be covertly sending Javelins and Stingers to the Belarussian opposition IMO. Those poor oppressed people are a preview of what Putin wants Ukraine to look like and we have been ignoring them. As much as I hate to advocate for more war, another serious uprising in Belarus would certainly complicate Putin's plan. They will never have a better shot at freedom than while Putin is occupied elsewhere and could be forced to split his support between propping up Lukashenko and capturing Ukraine.

I think Tony Blair says it well. Not sure how Ukraine wins unless we all play Putin's game better than him.

 

Sidebar:
Note lack of infantry flushing out any anti-tank threats. Conscripts unwilling to close with the enemy?

 

Mykolaiv Chamber of Commerce Russian Welcoming Committee

 

I saw this yesterday and I hope that the attackers got away. Looks like the Russians returned fire with some tank rounds and maybe some 20mm or equivalent rounds.

 

looks like they were just spraying and praying as they rushed to the other side of the road... hoping that more rockets didn't come for their APV's

 

I want one of those BMW gun mounts to put aside for the upcoming SARS3 / nuclear war / zombie apocalypse.

 

Maybe they’ll do a kickstarter.

 

I hope it works well and they will be able to.

 

Ha! The man who took the Socialism out of British Socialism. Thatcher Lite. Not one of my favourite people.

But...

Yes, he's spot on there.

I find it just too hard to think that NATO/EU should join in with Ukraine, the potential consequences are just too awful. But I'm finding it almost as hard to think that they shouldn't.

 

Thoughts?

 

And if we get to that red part, Putin blames NATO because they wouldn't just let him take the Ukraine.

 

If we get to the red part who's to blame isn't going to matter anymore.



Looking at that image also reveals the power vacuum that would be left. China would become dominant.

 

According to a fellow parishioner who is a captain in the national guard (artillery), USA military is 15% combatants, 85% logistics. Russia's military is the mirror opposite (85% combatants, 15% logistics), because their doctrine is that they will only ever be fighting on their own borders - they don't act as the worlds policeman.

Even with our logistical nous, it still took us 3 weeks to take Baghdad during our invasion of Iraq. His opinion is that Russia still underestimated the logistical effort (+ corruption + lack of experience, etc.) , and it will take them 3-6 months to take Kyiv.

So I would wager:

5.2%: Ukraine holds out for a stalemate (Donbas, etc. will remain Russian) which they and some others will call a "win"
43.7%: Russia takes all of Eastern Ukraine, and cede some of Western Ukraine to an "independent" government
41.2%: Russia takes all of Ukraine, though a nasty gorilla resistance will wage for a decade or so
???%: USA (euphemistically called "NATO") will wade into a hot war over next 12 months and a nuclear exchange of unknown size will result