The Invasion of Ukraine

[WFJ]

Putin's strength comes from the "at least he saved us from the nineties" belief - that's not something that will last under the kind of sanctions Russia is under. As for "strong arm tactics", I was talking about supplying Ukraine with a few dozen surplus jet fighters, so that they can win this war themselves, or is arming the people of Ukraine to defend themselves against this invasion too "strong-arm" to be applied to Putin?

It was your call for Nato involvement, comparisons to 30s appeasement and aims for breaking up the Russian federation that I was questioning. Giving the planes to Ukraine makes sense. Although it would be better if not done via the US, I can understand Poland's reluctance to send them directly.

A rapid loss in Ukraine will do nothing to affect Putin's popularity. And if Nato is more directly involved in it, it can only have the opposite effect.

It is too late now to give Ukrainian pilots aircraft they're unfamiliar with. Polish ex-Soviet aircraft would be familiar.

And Poland would need to not deplete its own aircraft as these would (obviously) no longer be available to Poland, which, if not replaced, would be a defence cut.

I was talking about the MiG-29s.

[EACLucifer]

A rapid loss in Ukraine will do nothing to affect Putin's popularity. And if Nato is more directly involved in it, it can only have the opposite effect.

This is where I profoundly disagree. Strongmen look awfully weak when they lose, and civil unrest often follows defeats - eg Galtieri's fall after his Falklands misadventure, and the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 both followed military catastrophe.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand Putin's popularity in Russia. He is neither a monarch nor the head of a military junta. Trump/Johnson/Modi/Bolsanaro would be a better comparisons. Only a much more popular version with almost total control of the press and judiciary. A loss that can be framed as being blamed on malign outside influences only strengthens him.

Have you any idea how Russians typically viewed the Czar pre-revolution? They didn't immediately seek the overthrow of the Czar - the "Little Father - far from it. They sought to petition him. They sang the national anthem - God Save the Tsar - as they marched to present their petition at the palace. They were massacred in the square before the palace - the Revolution of 1905 came after that.

[lpm]

I think the west can choose, to a limited degree, how Putin loses his disastrous war.

Which we never expected two weeks ago.

There must be some combination that gives him pain on the home front and losses on the Ukraine front, that destroys his strongman image but doesn't worsen the view of Russians that the evil west is out to get them.

My guess is that there'll be a good ol' Russian purge or two, with Putin putting a few scapegoats in a Siberian camp, before we get to any genuine pressure on Putin. But who knows. With Galtieri it was literally days. With Ceausescu he was giving a speech one minute, up against a wall the next.

[Allo V Psycho]

I was talking about the MiG-29s.

Poland has about a dozen SU-22s, and air to ground missiles for them. I don't know if there are servicing and flying similarities to the SU-24s the Ukrainian air force operates/operated. But I think a key question is bases and servicing. If the Ukrainian air bases and ground facilities are destroyed, then the aircraft would be 'cut flowers in a vase', to quote Churchill - limited operating life without proper repair and resupply. Basing the aircraft in a NATO country invites Russian retaliation into that country.

[WFJ]

This is where I profoundly disagree. Strongmen look awfully weak when they lose, and civil unrest often follows defeats - eg Galtieri's fall after his Falklands misadventure, and the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917 both followed military catastrophe.

Then you fundamentally misunderstand Putin's popularity in Russia. He is neither a monarch nor the head of a military junta. Trump/Johnson/Modi/Bolsanaro would be a better comparisons. Only a much more popular version with almost total control of the press and judiciary. A loss that can be framed as being blamed on malign outside influences only strengthens him.

Have you any idea how Russians typically viewed the Czar pre-revolution? They didn't immediately seek the overthrow of the Czar - the "Little Father - far from it. They sought to petition him. They sang the national anthem - God Save the Tsar - as they marched to present their petition at the palace. They were massacred in the square before the palace - the Revolution of 1905 came after that.

But how does a loss in Ukraine, especially one that can be blamed on the evil Nato, cause anything like that. Sanctions and a decimated economy may do it, but this will be a years-long process.

[Pishwish]

Good grief. Putin isn't comparable to populist politicians elected by democratic governments in reasonably fair elections with actual opponents who are not in jail or recovering from being poisoned.
It is true that he can't easily be removed because he is "elected" (unlike previous soviet leaders or party leaders in a Westminster system).

Also:
Losses are always bad news for a leader who isn't a complete totalitarian. Soldiers and coffins coming back from a military disaster can lead to discontent. Happened to Russia after ww1 and the USSR after Afghanistan.

[EACLucifer]

I see Britain is talking about sending Starstreak MANPADS. It's a good idea in principle, it's supposed to be a very effective weapon against helicopters and low flying planes, and it can also be used against lightly armoured and unarmoured ground vehicles, however, because of how it works, with the operator guiding the weapon directly onto the target, it likely requires more training than something like a Stinger.

This neatly brings us onto another area Western countries can help with - they can directly train Ukrainians and the rapidly growing International Brigade outside of Ukraine.

[WFJ]

Good grief. Putin isn't comparable to populist politicians elected by democratic governments in reasonably fair elections with actual opponents who are not in jail or recovering from being poisoned.
It is true that he can't easily be removed because he is "elected" (unlike previous soviet leaders or party leaders in a Westminster system).

Morally it is not comparable, but I am talking about his popularity. Putin is not a cartoon megalomaniac who rules a fearful populace. He is an incredibly popular populist politician. Yes he maintains that popularity through control of the press and by jailing or poisoning opposition that might become harmful, but the popularity is real.

His whole brand is that he his a supporter of the Russian people from outside influences who want to destroy Russia. He launched a special military operation stop a Russian genocide being committed by Nazis in the Ukrainian government with the support of the USA. The more obvious US/Nato help in preventing Russia from stopping this genocide, the stronger Putin becomes in Russia.

That is why it would have been better if Poland were to send its planes directly, rather than via the USAF in Germany (although Poland's reluctance to do this is understandable). Even better would be if non-Europe or Nato countries were seen to be involved in supporting Ukraine.

Also:
Losses are always bad news for a leader who isn't a complete totalitarian. Soldiers and coffins coming back from a military disaster can lead to discontent. Happened to Russia after ww1 and the USSR after Afghanistan.

A long drawn out war damages Putin—win or lose. But conversely a short war strengthens him. It's not result that matters. (ETA: As woodchopper says below. A "loss" can be spun many ways)

[Woodchopper]

For everyone assuming that Putin will be forced out after losing a war:

a) Russia hasn't lost yet. A president who controls the media could portray minor gains as a victory (eg Ukraine recognizing Russian sovereignty of Crimea and independence of the Donbas).

b) Saadam Hussein lost in Kuwait in 1991, and remained in power until he was ousted by an invasion. Muammar Gaddafi lost wars against Egypt and Chad, and remained in power until he was defeated in a civil war with NATO assistance. Slobodan Milošević lost to Croatia, Bosnia and the West in 1995, and he stayed in power until shortly after the 1999 NATO bombing of Kosovo and Serbia. There's no guarantee that Putin won't remain in power for many years after a defeat in Ukraine. This isn't a rule of authoritarian politics,

[lpm]

1) Palace coup. The individual gets shot by his allies, the structures of power aren't touched. Ceausescu.

2) Revolution. The palace is stormed and all previously in power get shot eventually. New power structures created through Revolutionary Committees. Louis XVI.

3) Military coup. A general or junta of generals seize power. Exercise control through martial law. General al-Sisi in Egypt.

4) Invitation. A section of government invites in external forces to install a new leader. 1688 Glorious Revolution.

5) Civil War. An area of a country declares independence or otherwise goes to war on the leader. Country partitioned into zones of control. Libya.

6) Decay. Government loses coherence, economy fails and no longer has resources to react to events. USSR.

7) Enforced retirement. Dictator is "invited" to name a successor and live out his life in luxury with some fake honorary title. Mugabe.

8 ) External assassination. CIA with exploding cigars. I can't actually think of any examples, assassinations are usually done internally as step one of a coup. Lebanon maybe? Or Rwanda/Burundi.

[lpm]

I see Britain is talking about sending Starstreak MANPADS. It's a good idea in principle, it's supposed to be a very effective weapon against helicopters and low flying planes, and it can also be used against lightly armoured and unarmoured ground vehicles, however, because of how it works, with the operator guiding the weapon directly onto the target, it likely requires more training than something like a Stinger.

This neatly brings us onto another area Western countries can help with - they can directly train Ukrainians and the rapidly growing International Brigade outside of Ukraine.

I suspect the things that will really help Ukraine are the endless supplies of non-glamour stuff like rations, medical supplies, rifles and ammo, secure communications gear. Plus the hidden gift of real time intelligence.

Stingers and Javelins are vital at this early stage of the war, but later on need skill and need to be got to occupied territory.

A fleet of drones might be worth more than a fleet of MIGs.

It could become an unprecedented conflict - we've never had insurgents equipped with communications and full real time intelligence, plus drones and high tech weapons.

[jimbob]

1) Palace coup. The individual gets shot by his allies, the structures of power aren't touched. Ceausescu.

2) Revolution. The palace is stormed and all previously in power get shot eventually. New power structures created through Revolutionary Committees. Louis XVI.

3) Military coup. A general or junta of generals seize power. Exercise control through martial law. General al-Sisi in Egypt.

4) Invitation. A section of government invites in external forces to install a new leader. 1688 Glorious Revolution.

5) Civil War. An area of a country declares independence or otherwise goes to war on the leader. Country partitioned into zones of control. Libya.

6) Decay. Government loses coherence, economy fails and no longer has resources to react to events. USSR.

7) Enforced retirement. Dictator is "invited" to name a successor and live out his life in luxury with some fake honorary title. Mugabe.

8 ) External assassination. CIA with exploding cigars. I can't actually think of any examples, assassinations are usually done internally as step one of a coup. Lebanon maybe? Or Rwanda/Burundi.

Yes

1 would be the most likely to me. 6 is the next

There are small cracks that "Putin in his prime" would not have let pass. He's starting to show weakness, as well as poor judgement to his inner circle. If a strongman shows he's losing his grip, it's only threat of their peers that prevent any one in the inner circle from trying to take over. But equally, that threat is reason why sometimes one feels forced to act.

[EACLucifer]

I see Britain is talking about sending Starstreak MANPADS. It's a good idea in principle, it's supposed to be a very effective weapon against helicopters and low flying planes, and it can also be used against lightly armoured and unarmoured ground vehicles, however, because of how it works, with the operator guiding the weapon directly onto the target, it likely requires more training than something like a Stinger.

This neatly brings us onto another area Western countries can help with - they can directly train Ukrainians and the rapidly growing International Brigade outside of Ukraine.

I suspect the things that will really help Ukraine are the endless supplies of non-glamour stuff like rations, medical supplies, rifles and ammo, secure communications gear. Plus the hidden gift of real time intelligence.

Absolutely, and they are being donated.

Stingers and Javelins are vital at this early stage of the war, but later on need skill and need to be got to occupied territory.

A fleet of drones might be worth more than a fleet of MIGs.

But both is better, and they are getting - and using to deadly effect - the Turkish Bayraktar TB2

It could become an unprecedented conflict - we've never had insurgents equipped with communications and full real time intelligence, plus drones and high tech weapons.

At the moment it is a semi-symettric conflict, with elements of insurgent type combat and also more conventional combat. Another way to look at it would be elastic defence on a grand scale. It might end up as an insurgency, but that depends on how things go in terms of city defence and similar, and one thing a lot of people are missing is just how unbelievably hard it is to actually take and hold a defended city.

[Woodchopper]

1) Palace coup. The individual gets shot by his allies, the structures of power aren't touched. Ceausescu.

2) Revolution. The palace is stormed and all previously in power get shot eventually. New power structures created through Revolutionary Committees. Louis XVI.

3) Military coup. A general or junta of generals seize power. Exercise control through martial law. General al-Sisi in Egypt.

4) Invitation. A section of government invites in external forces to install a new leader. 1688 Glorious Revolution.

5) Civil War. An area of a country declares independence or otherwise goes to war on the leader. Country partitioned into zones of control. Libya.

6) Decay. Government loses coherence, economy fails and no longer has resources to react to events. USSR.

7) Enforced retirement. Dictator is "invited" to name a successor and live out his life in luxury with some fake honorary title. Mugabe.

8 ) External assassination. CIA with exploding cigars. I can't actually think of any examples, assassinations are usually done internally as step one of a coup. Lebanon maybe? Or Rwanda/Burundi.

You could addd what is probably the most common outcome: wait until the autocrat dies of natural causes.

If Putin is to be ousted IMHO it'll be a militray coup. But they don't have a very good record for producing democratic peace loving states. Russia run by a junta might be worse.

[lpm]

Opinion poll of views inside Russia:

https://twitter.com/alexey_minyaylo/sta ... 4858029067

[EACLucifer]

Opinion poll of views inside Russia:

https://twitter.com/alexey_minyaylo/sta ... 4858029067

The short version is that yes, there is support for the war, but that that support is based on the idea the invasion is what the Russian state media apparatus claims it is, not what it actually is. People support the war in the belief it is going the way the US claimed Iraq would go before they invaded.

Also worth pointing out that there is substantial fear of Putin, and Russia is taking a hard turn towards totalitarianism; surveying people is extremely difficult.

[EACLucifer]

Then you fundamentally misunderstand Putin's popularity in Russia. He is neither a monarch nor the head of a military junta. Trump/Johnson/Modi/Bolsanaro would be a better comparisons. Only a much more popular version with almost total control of the press and judiciary. A loss that can be framed as being blamed on malign outside influences only strengthens him.

Have you any idea how Russians typically viewed the Czar pre-revolution? They didn't immediately seek the overthrow of the Czar - the "Little Father - far from it. They sought to petition him. They sang the national anthem - God Save the Tsar - as they marched to present their petition at the palace. They were massacred in the square before the palace - the Revolution of 1905 came after that.

But how does a loss in Ukraine, especially one that can be blamed on the evil Nato, cause anything like that. Sanctions and a decimated economy may do it, but this will be a years-long process.

The need for MiGs is to answer what Russia is doing now, in Ukraine - the latest one is bombing a childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. They do this sh.t deliberately, as their conduct in Syria showed.

So I don't really give a sh.t what someone who thinks that Putin has a stronger cult of personality than a literal Czar of Imperial Russia thinks. Military aid is needed. We're already giving a lot - better part of four thousand anti-tank rockets from Britain alone so far - upping to include MiGs isn't going to cause WWIII, or rather, if WWIII happens supposedly in response to the provision of a few dozen jets, it's because Putin was always planning it.

[WFJ]

The need for MiGs is to answer what Russia is doing now, in Ukraine - the latest one is bombing a childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. They do this sh.t deliberately, as their conduct in Syria showed.

Who is arguing against sending MiGs? Certainly not me. I have stated they should be sent at least twice. It was your suggestions that Nato should actively engage Russian forces and aim for the break up of the Russian federation that I said was crazy.

So I don't really give a sh.t what someone who thinks that Putin has a stronger cult of personality than a literal Czar of Imperial Russia thinks.

Seriously, grow up. It's one thing to disagree with me but resorting to this childish nonsense is ridiculous.

[Herainestold]

In the past ten days, plenty of rationalizations have been offered for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—everything from “Russia needs a buffer state to keep NATO at a distance” (just about every Kremlin apologist) to “Russia is trying to ‘denazify’ Ukraine” (just about no one except Putin and his minions). But in a Sunday sermon, Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, offered a startling new explanation that is sure to resonate with the Sohrab Ahmari wing of the modern American right: It was to save Eastern Ukraine from the gays.

https://www.thebulwark.com/blaming-russ ... ch-kirill/

[EACLucifer]

The need for MiGs is to answer what Russia is doing now, in Ukraine - the latest one is bombing a childrens/maternity hospital in Mariupol. They do this sh.t deliberately, as their conduct in Syria showed.

Who is arguing against sending MiGs? Certainly not me. I have stated they should be sent at least twice. It was your suggestions that Nato should actively engage Russian forces and aim for the break up of the Russian federation that I said was crazy.

Looks like we're both misreading each other. I think the breakup of the Russian Federation - aka the Prison of Nations - would be a good thing, but I've not argued at any point that NATO should actively engage Russian forces, I've argued that NATO should facilitate the transfer of MiGs because their ability to defeat Russia in conventional warfare would be an effective deterrent to a conventional-warfare retaliation in response to supplying the MiGs., so you're pushing back against a position I don't hold, and so I misread it as pushing back against a position I do hold - that NATO should facilitate the delivery of the MiGs.

So it looks like we've both got the wrong end of the stick and should move on.

[headshot]

It's well known that Nazis love hosting gays in their country.

Anyone here Maria Butina on Today on R4 this morning? She did not present a cogent argument. Evan Davies cut the interview short.

[Martin Y]

"West fears Russia could use non-conventional weapons"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60683248

Do you suppose this is why everyone's gone all shy-bladder about the Polish Migs? Can't do it while everyone's watching in case it's a provocation too far and Putin escalates so the damage is worse than the benefit?

[EACLucifer]

"West fears Russia could use non-conventional weapons"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60683248

Do you suppose this is why everyone's gone all shy-bladder about the Polish Migs? Can't do it while everyone's watching in case it's a provocation too far and Putin escalates so the damage is worse than the benefit?

Putin's puppet escalated to gassing civilians in Syria without any particular provocation. He escalated to radiological and nerve agent assassinations within Britain, too. He doesn't need provocation, because he does what he does unprovoked. He doesn't need a pretext, he'll fabricate one if he wants one.

[jimbob]

It's well known that Nazis love hosting gays in their country.

Anyone here Maria Butina on Today on R4 this morning? She did not present a cogent argument. Evan Davies cut the interview short.

Yes, I commented to Dad that it would be like interviewing Joseph Goebbels

[monkey]

It's well known that Nazis love hosting gays in their country.

Anyone here Maria Butina on Today on R4 this morning? She did not present a cogent argument. Evan Davies cut the interview short.

I did. It was Nick Robinson wasn't it? That's what I remember, anyway. I'm going with that. But that doesn't really matter.

Found it jaw droppingly horrible.

Isn't the reason they control their media so that people don't ask questions? But there she was, trying to answer them and failing. I get the feeling that the average R4 listener wasn't the intended target - wouldn't be surprised if a heavily edited version is spun to the Russian people as "look how the Western media treat us when we try to tell them the truth".

A lowlight for me was when She was claiming that Russia is not bombing civilians, along with suggesting that it's really the Ukrainians doing it. At one point Nick Robinson said something like "Are you serious? I was in Kyiv the other day and you started dropping bombs on us".

Starts around 1:50 in, if anyone wants to give it a go - clicky