The Invasion of Ukraine

[secret squirrel]

So it's war then. How far will this go?

Since 1945 nuclear armed states and their allies have avoided all out war with each other. Instead they fought wars in and over proxies (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Angola, Nicaragua etc). Despite supporting separate sides, Russian and Nato members' forces in Syria mostly avoided direct contact with each other.

If all sides continue with that unwritten rule and Ukraine continues fighting it'll probably mean that:

a) States in Europe and north America provide Ukraine with aid (financial and military) but don't directly attack Russian units.
b) Russia retaliates against states supporting Ukraine by using measures short of war, for example 'anonymous' cyber attacks or other acts of sabotage, such as damaging undersea cables or pipelines without admitting responsibility, and spreading disinformation.
c) Trade will be disrupted. There may be sustained high prices and shortages of cereal crops (Ukraine and Russia are major exporters), gas in Europe, oil everywhere, and of minerals exported by Russia or Ukraine.

But we should still be worried about the prospect of a nuclear war. People make mistakes, leaders miscalculate, conflicts can escalate. As Carl Sagan pointed out many years ago, confrontation between nuclear armed states is like "two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five".

[Edited to fix spelling and syntax]

Yes. It's worth bearing in mind that during the Cold War we came extremely close to nuclear war. To the point where on several occasions decisions on the ground by minor officials that could easily have gone the other way made all the difference. Based on my reading around many of these events, I personally think we beat the odds to come out the other side of it. Anything that takes us a step back in that direction should be a massive concern. War in Europe seems like it may do that.

[secret squirrel]

Another thing is that during the Soviet years, despite fears in the West, the USSR had no interest in expansion after WW2, and was very wary of antagonizing the US*, as the archive material now available apparently demonstrates (see for example 'A Failed Empire' by Vladimir Zubok). Putin on the other hand seems eager to expand and create confrontation.

As an aside, the Bush Jr. administration can take some of the blame for this situation, as they adopted a policy of 'freezing out' of Russia that undid a lot of the mutual good will that developed during the 90s.

* With some notable exceptions, e.g. Krushchev's extremely dangerous game with Kennedy.

[Trinucleus]

Another thing is that during the Soviet years, despite fears in the West, the USSR had no interest in expansion after WW.

Hang on, a lot of very important people very carefully explained to me that in the 50s onwards, we needed all those troops and expensive weapons in Germany to hold back the Soviet forces who would otherwise have taken over all of Europe....

The point there is that Russia had a buffer zone against the West with all the Eastern European states. Now it doesn't, and the paranoia is showing (see also USA vs Cuba)

[sTeamTraen]

But we should still be worried about the prospect of a nuclear war. People make mistakes, leaders miscalculate, conflicts can escalate. As Carl Sagan pointed out many years ago, confrontation between nuclear armed states is like "two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline, one with three matches, the other with five".

I had reason to translate that quote a few years ago and the respective numbers of matches were 9000 and 7000. I'm not sure how 3 and 5 got to be so popular (those numbers dominate the quote sites on the Web) but here's the original: https://youtu.be/PdYMLq7NY_M (05:00)

(Apologies for the pedantry, but I think that that and some silly banter are probably all I'm going to be up for in the next few days.)

[EACLucifer]

Pathetic individuals and organisations at both extremes of the political spectrum, from Jacobin to Tucker Carlson and others are trying to both-sides this, or downright supporting Russia.

Treat them as you would treat neo-nazis.

A small fringe of Labour MPs linked the reprehensible and deceptively named "Stop the War" signed a letter blaming NATO, when this is the fault of Putin's Russia alone. Those that do not immediately retract that ridiculous claim should not be welcome in an internationalist, anti-racist party.

[lpm]

These individuals and organisations are making it clear who and what they are.

They should be excluded from every sphere. But I bet the f.cking BBC both sides it and still invites the apologists to "balance the debate". Starmer should act. And Conservatives should act, but obviously Johnson is compromised.

[lpm]

Militarily, there's less blowing the sh.t out of everything than we're used to? No bombardment from the air to destroy every visible military installation before land forces engage.

And a dawn attack when western forces prefer night.

Kharkiv being bypassed, can be scooped up later as will be completely cut off? Coming south from Belarus/Russia on the east side of the Dnieper, heading towards Chernihiv?

And in the south only north from Crimea, nothing west of the Dnieper?

[JQH]

Another neutral perspective:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK-yJD_fAtk

[jimbob]

Another thing is that during the Soviet years, despite fears in the West, the USSR had no interest in expansion after WW.

Hang on, a lot of very important people very carefully explained to me that in the 50s onwards, we needed all those troops and expensive weapons in Germany to hold back the Soviet forces who would otherwise have taken over all of Europe....

The point there is that Russia had a buffer zone against the West with all the Eastern European states. Now it doesn't, and the paranoia is showing (see also USA vs Cuba)

That was a reasonable belief based on the Soviet behaviour. For example its support of the invading North Koreans.

[Woodchopper]

The point there is that Russia had a buffer zone against the West with all the Eastern European states. Now it doesn't, and the paranoia is showing (see also USA vs Cuba)

There are still buffer states between Russia and NATO members - Finland, Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia.

During the Cold War the Soviet Union had a border with two NATO members - Norway and Turkey. In the present day the border with Norway remains, and there is a new border with Estonia and Latvia (Poland as well if you count the enclave in Kaliningrad). But there is no longer a border between Turkey and Russia (Georgia is in between).

So there is a bit more of a border now, but it’s not a huge difference and the great majority of the border is not with NATO members.

You might point out that Finland, Ukraine and Georgia are all aligned with Washington and Brussels. That’s correct but the responsibility for that is due to Russia’s actions (attacking Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014 etc).

[EACLucifer]

Another thing is that during the Soviet years, despite fears in the West, the USSR had no interest in expansion after WW.

Hang on, a lot of very important people very carefully explained to me that in the 50s onwards, we needed all those troops and expensive weapons in Germany to hold back the Soviet forces who would otherwise have taken over all of Europe....

The point there is that Russia had a buffer zone against the West with all the Eastern European states. Now it doesn't, and the paranoia is showing (see also USA vs Cuba)

That was a reasonable belief based on the Soviet behaviour. For example its support of the invading North Koreans.

Also reasonable belief based on the sheer number of troops and equipment the Soviets had pointed at Western Europe. Secret Squirrel seems to be as utterly wrong as he usually is, ie the ridiculous claim that the west was too hard on Yeltsin, when the truth of the matter was the west ignored things like his violence against Moldova.

[lpm]

What a weak speech by Johnson, in terms of language and rhetoric. Not exactly Churchill.

Strip away the waffle and there's nothing of substance, except that the UK will join in sanctions.

[secret squirrel]

Also reasonable belief based on the sheer number of troops and equipment the Soviets had pointed at Western Europe. Secret Squirrel seems to be as utterly wrong as he usually is, ie the ridiculous claim that the west was too hard on Yeltsin, when the truth of the matter was the west ignored things like his violence against Moldova.

I'm going by books written by some of the world's leading experts on the period, such as the one by Zubok I mentioned in my post. What are you going by?

[EACLucifer]

What a weak speech by Johnson, in terms of language and rhetoric. Not exactly Churchill.

Strip away the waffle and there's nothing of substance, except that the UK will join in sanctions.

We were never going to get anything better than waffle from that bastard anyway. As for sanctions, the devil's in the details. A lot of people seem to think the role of sanctions is to be a swat on the nose rolled up newspaper, a rebuke meant to dissuade. We should be viewing them more as a sledgehammer to the kneecaps, a blockade meant to cripple Russia's ability to prosecute war, because if they succeed here, they'll do it again and again and again.

[Vertigowooyay]

These individuals and organisations are making it clear who and what they are.

They should be excluded from every sphere. But I bet the f.cking BBC both sides it and still invites the apologists to "balance the debate". Starmer should act. And Conservatives should act, but obviously Johnson is compromised.

If they do, every caption for Farage or Banks needs to read ‘collaborator’.

[jimbob]

What a weak speech by Johnson, in terms of language and rhetoric. Not exactly Churchill.

Strip away the waffle and there's nothing of substance, except that the UK will join in sanctions.

We were never going to get anything better than waffle from that bastard anyway. As for sanctions, the devil's in the details. A lot of people seem to think the role of sanctions is to be a swat on the nose rolled up newspaper, a rebuke meant to dissuade. We should be viewing them more as a sledgehammer to the kneecaps, a blockade meant to cripple Russia's ability to prosecute war, because if they succeed here, they'll do it again and again and again.

The US sanctions on Japan in 1941, for example?

[lpm]

Rumours of an airborne assault on Hostomel Airport, which is on the north west edge of Kyiv. Helicopters ferrying in troops. Presumably armour would head that way to link up.

[Tessa K]

When Johnson describes the attacks as 'hideous and barbaric ' and calls Putin a dictator, he's probably already told him he doesn't really mean it, mate, and please don't stop the massive 'donations'.

[EACLucifer]

What a weak speech by Johnson, in terms of language and rhetoric. Not exactly Churchill.

Strip away the waffle and there's nothing of substance, except that the UK will join in sanctions.

We were never going to get anything better than waffle from that bastard anyway. As for sanctions, the devil's in the details. A lot of people seem to think the role of sanctions is to be a swat on the nose rolled up newspaper, a rebuke meant to dissuade. We should be viewing them more as a sledgehammer to the kneecaps, a blockade meant to cripple Russia's ability to prosecute war, because if they succeed here, they'll do it again and again and again.

The US sanctions on Japan in 1941, for example?

Yes

[EACLucifer]

When Johnson describes the attacks as 'hideous and barbaric ' and calls Putin a dictator, he's probably already told him he doesn't really mean it, mate, and please don't stop the massive 'donations'.

Would he even need to tell him directly? Surely he could just rely on the fact that he's Johnson, and everyone knows there's no correspondence between what he says and reality.

[lpm]

The Russian forces coming north out of Crimea have taken Kakhovka, which is on the Dnieper.

[Gfamily]

Bellingcat are tracking stories / videos that might represent disinformation activities
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02 ... rontlines/
Spreadsheet here

Thanks to nefi on twitter for the heads-up.

[EACLucifer]

Bellingcat are tracking stories / videos that might represent disinformation activities
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02 ... rontlines/
Spreadsheet here

Thanks to nefi on twitter for the heads-up.

Bellingcat are good, not least because they don't demand you trust them, they show you how to verify for yourself, too.

Meanwhile, Russia is deploying mobile crematoria, which is disturbing as hell.

[Tessa K]

How would sanctions against a country as big as Russia with so many of its own resources have any effect?

[Gfamily]

How would sanctions against a country as big as Russia with so many of its own resources have any effect?

It's a matter of how much they need/want the things they don't have.
Could be tricky though.

Removing access to the Swift Banking System and applying sanctions to Russian assets held overseas has a chance of making life significantly less pleasant for their people at home and over here.