Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[VorZakone]

Zelenskyy on trying to save both people and territory: "This is difficult. But what's important is that the decision is made together with the people.

Just take a look at the people in Kherson who waved their hands in the middle of the streets in order to stop tanks. They decided to stand up. I could not have ordered them not to do it or to throw themselves under the tank treads. I will support the people's decisions."

So he is trying to understand what the people want by the people's actions and keeps that in mind/lets it guide him while making decisions.

 

[Raoul]

Zelensky ready to discuss neutral status, approved via referendum and with third party guarantees.

It would need to be put to a referendum, which is highly unlikely during wartime. Even if it was somehow possible, the Ukrainian public would reject it given they are on the cusp of putting the Russians on the back foot.

 

[TMDaines]

What would you do in that situation exactly?

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, but I would advocating intervening if necessary, whilst managing the risk of escalation as much as possible. You can’t just allow nuclear powers to carry out genocides and wipe out whole segments of European people. That’s a sickening thought.

 

[MadMike]

It would need to be put to a referendum, which is highly unlikely during wartime. Even if it was somehow possible, the Ukrainian public would reject it given they are on the cusp of putting the Russians on the back foot.

Neutral in what sense? Militarily, politically or both? He has repeatedly said he doesn’t see a NATO membership in the foreseeable and NATO would not have Ukraine while there’s disputed territories. But why would Ukrainians waive away their right to join a political union like EU? That’s what started it all with Euromaidan in 2014.

 

[matherto]

Same as what we did? Why is this a question?

That doesn't make sense, given Hitler didn't have nukes, that's why it's a question.

Obviously because he didn't we intervened.

If Putin didn't we'd be in Red Square celebrating his death right now.

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert, but I would advocating intervening if necessary, whilst managing the risk of escalation as much as possible. You can’t just allow nuclear powers to carry out genocides and wipe out whole segments of European people. That’s a sickening thought.

It's exactly what we've done for 77 years.

Do whatever horrible shit you want to everyone else but if we go to war we're destroying everything and everyone. Or are you suggesting MAD isn't a thing?

Doesn't make it any less shit, but it's prevented nuclear annihilation.

 

[spiriticon]

Not doing your plan and ‘paralyzed into inaction’ are two very different things.

No boots on the ground, no planes in the sky, no missiles being intercepted near our borders despite a possibility of them being a threat to millions... We're not doing too much really. Yes, we have armed Ukraine to the teeth but we certainly haven't given them everything they need either. There is a clear limit to our willingness to get involved.

Is it the fear of nuclear war? I don't know. But I'm curious to know where the break to this limit is. Specifically bombing civilians is so far not that limit. Chemical weapons? Let's find out soon.

But, it does make me laugh that in light of all we are witnessing, there are some who believe that all it takes is a single Russian boot over a NATO borderline and we would suddenly abandon all fear of nuclear annihilation.

 

[Raoul]

Neutral in what sense? Militarily, politically or both? He has repeatedly he doesn’t see a NATO membership in the foreseeable but why would Ukrainians waive away their right to join a political union like EU? That’s what started it all with Euromaidan in 2014.

I think its complete nonsense given that the concept of neutrality is little more than a concession to Putin so he can continue fomenting unrest within Ukraine in the absence of third party involvement. If on the other hand, Putin wants to withdraw to pre 24 Feb 2022 lines, then the Ukrainians should take that, since it would mean the Russians are out of Ukraine with the exception of pre 24 Feb Donbas troops. Putin will obviously not accept that since it would humiliate him domestically. This is why the Ukrainians should continue fighting while the sanctions continue to corrode the Russian economy from within. This will eventually result in the Russians running out of weapons, troops, and logistical capacity, with no domestic capability to replenish lost war hardware because of the sanctions. This will eventually bring Putin to his knees.

 

[Krakenzero]

The threat of 7.6 billion killed is not going anywhere, nevermind the actions taken by NATO or any other involved. Even world peace won't eliminate the technology and knowledge from existing and being available.

I understand NATO's position: they're esentially a deffensive alliance, their red lines are intact, and actually going to war (particularly against another superpower with nukes at their disposal) is an extremely costly decission (economically, geopolitically, in lives, in internal politics, etc). But I think their messaging has been inconsistent so far and that they removed too soon from the discussion any option of being military involved.

Even in a non-civilian-rescuing situation and if we consider pure geopolitical egoism, you could argue that A) a big enemy of NATO's worldview and mere existence has revealed itself, B) it has also revealed to be too weak for challenging NATO, at least for the moment, C) it has foolishly exposed itself and seem to be there for the taking, D) There's an option to gain the gratitude of an important ally that has proven itself worthy in the battlefield and happens to have a lot of oil, gas and cereal, and E) there's an option to stop and intervene this weak enemy to eventually becoming a vassal, provider state to the Big, strong future enemy a little more to the east. But yeah, that would also mean that you have to actually go to war and put your own civilians at risk. Which I think is the real red line here.

 

[TMDaines]

It's exactly what we've done for 77 years.

Do whatever horrible shit you want to everyone else but if we go to war we're destroying everything and everyone. Or are you suggesting MAD isn't a thing?

Doesn't make it any less shit, but it's prevented nuclear annihilation.

I’m not sure anything equivalent to what is happening in Ukraine has happened on the doorstep of the West since WWII, hence why we have had a decade of policy changes from European countries during this month of war.

There’s been proxy wars in Asia and bits and pieces elsewhere too, but nothing like this in Europe or North America.

 

[Carolina Red]

No boots on the ground, no planes in the sky, no missiles being intercepted near our borders despite a possibility of them being a threat to millions... We're not doing too much really.

Yes, we aren’t actually fighting the war. To say that means we aren’t doing too much is just silly.

there are some who believe that all it takes is a single Russian boot over a NATO borderline and we would suddenly abandon all fear of nuclear annihilation.

You’re talking to one of them.

 

[Krakenzero]

No boots on the ground, no planes in the sky, no missiles being intercepted near our borders despite a possibility of them being a threat to millions... We're not doing too much really. Yes, we have armed Ukraine to the teeth but we certainly haven't given them everything they need either. There is a clear limit to our willingness to get involved.

Is it the fear of nuclear war? I don't know. But I'm curious to know where the break to this limit is. Specifically bombing civilians is so far not that limit. Chemical weapons? Let's find out soon.

But, it does make me laugh that in light of all we are witnessing, there are some who believe that all it takes is a single Russian boot over a NATO borderline and we would suddenly abandon all fear of nuclear annihilation.

I think the real revelation is that there are two classes of citizens: the ones that live in a country with nukes (or that is part of a military deffensive alliance with nukes), and the ones who don't. The latter are exposed to be invaded, the former aren't. But that's nothing new at all. It's just that being an european NATO neighbouring country the one being invaded, it
feels like this truth is too on the nose for us.

 

[matherto]

I’m not sure anything equivalent to what is happening in Ukraine has happened on the doorstep of the West since WWII, hence why we have had a decade of policy changes from European countries during this month of war.

There’s been proxy wars in Asia and bits and pieces elsewhere too, but nothing like this in Europe or North America.

Why is Europe your line in the sand?

This IS a proxy war. We're fighting Russia using Ukraine.

It's no different to anywhere else or any other time since nukes were invented.

 

[TMDaines]

Why is Europe your line in the sand?

This IS a proxy war. We're fighting Russia using Ukraine.

It's no different to anywhere else or any other time since nukes were invented.

Why is Europe my line in the sand for Europe? I would think that is self-evident. It’s a far greater threat to the security and prosperity of the EU/NATO countries than Vietnam or Korea or Syria are by sheer proximity and what it would mean if Ukraine were to be conquered/controlled by Russia.

 

[GlastonSpur]

Why is Europe your line in the sand?

This IS a proxy war. We're fighting Russia using Ukraine.

It's no different to anywhere else or any other time since nukes were invented.

Correction: we're helping Ukraine to defend itself against an unwarranted Russian invasion as best we can without risking a nuclear escalation by directly engaging in combat with the Russian military.

To say that we are "using" Ukraine is just plain wrong.

 

[spiriticon]

Yes, we aren’t actually fighting the war. To say that means we aren’t doing too much is just silly.

Yes it's not our war to fight, and yes therefore I can accept no boots or planes. But surely we are, at least, big and strong enough to stand up to Putin in the name of whatever that is good and protect a few civilians within our arms reach?

We're not going on the offensive, we're staying exactly where we are and protecting a few innocent lives within our capability.

I'm not looking for a war, but I do feel deflated to think we really can't (or won't) do just a little bit more.

 

[matherto]

Correction: we're helping Ukraine to defend itself against an unwarranted Russian invasion as best we can without risking a nuclear escalation by directly engaging in combat with the Russian military.

To say that we are "using" Ukraine is just plain wrong.

There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.

I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past?

Why is Europe my line in the sand for Europe? I would think that is self-evident. It’s a far greater threat to the security and prosperity of the EU/NATO countries than Vietnam or Korea or Syria are by sheer proximity and what it would mean if Ukraine were to be conquered/controlled by Russia.

Yes, but the fight is the same and the tactics are the same. It's just like every other proxy war fought since WW2. We can't engage directly cause of MAD so we're doing everything but.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Neutrality (provisionally) accepted as previously reported, demilitarization still a contentious point, and Zelensky talking about reaching a compromise on the Donbas region and refusing to try retake Russian held territories. Next round of talks 28th-30th March. Progress.

 

[MadMike]

That doesn't make sense, given Hitler didn't have nukes, that's why it's a question.

Obviously because he didn't we intervened.

If Putin didn't we'd be in Red Square celebrating his death right now.

It totally makes sense, because nukes don't change the basic premise that leads to war. Unless you use some perverted version of "logic" that is, which says that when a madman has nukes then you must bend over and let them feck you every time they threaten to use them and turn a blind eye to anything they do. What kind of spinelessness is that?

There just comes a time when you say it's preferable to fight and die than live in a world shaped by such people. Liberty or death is a foundational motto of many nations who had to fight a bloody rebellion with huge human toll for their freedom and independence. Why would I want to live in a Europe ruled by Nazis? How is that preferable?

So yes, even if Hitler had nukes you'd fight back. And if he used nukes, you'd use them back. And if that caused MAD then it's still better than a Nazi world. The survivors would rebuild.

 

[TMDaines]

Yes, but the fight is the same and the tactics are the same. It's just like every other proxy war fought since WW2. We can't engage directly cause of MAD so we're doing everything but.

MAD doctrine doesn’t necessarily mean that two nuclear powers cannot directly engage simply because a full-blown nuclear war would be an inevitability. MAD just dissuades the escalation of war between two such powers reaching the point of using large-scale nuclear weapons, because the outcome would be equally atrocious for both.

Regardless, what many of us are talking about here with Ukraine is still further indirect engagement via increased arms support or the establishment of a clearly communicated demilitarised zone over Ukrainian territory that Russia would be choosing to enter. I don’t see anyone rationally arguing that NATO should immediately drop everything and directly attack all Russian forces in Ukraine or even Russia itself.

 

[GlastonSpur]

There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.

I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past? ...

It's not "semantics" - it's plain distinction between two very different things. NATO did not want Russia to invade Ukraine, but you are implying that they did in order to fight a proxy war. NATO would obviously have much preferred the unmolested development of Ukraine as a free and democratic nation, moving down a pathway to eventual EU membership, and as an example to what is possible to the Russian people.

This is what's "different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past": (a) Ukraine is a democracy looking Westward; (b) Ukraine borders NATO countries; and (c) this is the first time since the end of WWII that Russia/USSR has invaded an independent European nation.

Russia is the aggressor here, not NATO.

 

[MadMike]

There was an agreement to provide Ukraine with support but it wasn't like Article 5 was it? It wasn't necessary.

I agree if you want to get into the semantics of it that we're helping Ukraine but we're absolutely fighting a proxy war in the process. To say that we aren't is quite naive IMO. Tell me how what we're doing in Ukraine is any different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past?

No, it's not naïve, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:

A proxy war is an armed conflict between two states or non-state actors which act on the instigation or on behalf of other parties that are not directly involved in the hostilities.[wiki]

 

[matherto]

No, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:

Fair enough, my mistake.

 

[matherto]

It totally makes sense, because nukes don't change the basic premise that leads to war. Unless you use some perverted version of "logic" that is, which says that when a madman has nukes then you must bend over and let them feck you every time they threaten to use them and turn a blind eye to anything they do. What kind of spinelessness is that?

There just comes a time when you say it's preferable to fight and die than live in a world shaped by such people. Liberty or death is a foundational motto of many nations who had to fight a bloody rebellion with huge human toll for their freedom and independence. Why would I want to live in a Europe ruled by Nazis? How is that preferable?

So yes, even if Hitler had nukes you'd fight back. And if he used nukes, you'd use them back. And if that caused MAD then it's still better than a Nazi world. The survivors would rebuild.

Try selling that to the population in a referendum and see how many want to die because the Nazis are killing Jews in mainland Europe.

We'd all say it's horrible but when push comes to shove we'd let them do it.

People protect themselves first.

It's admirable to want to fight and die rather than live in a world of intolerable actors but we manage to do it every day so why would we draw an arbitrary line?

I don't see you protesting that we should go into China to save the Uyghurs? They're being wiped out just like Jewish people were. In concentration camps too. How about Israel over Palestine or Saudi Arabia over Yemen?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

No, it's not naïve, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:

That definition would exclude some of the most famous proxy wars of all time. It's a technical qualifier but in reality this is a proxy war (Russia is fighting both Ukraine and NATO; NATO is fighting Russia through Ukraine and Ukraine is fighting Russia with help from NATO, then you also have other institutional factors like the EU involved in information wars, and also the role of states like China in the grand scheme of things). You might say it isn't a proxy war for Russia (I think this would be wrong, as Russia is clearly fighting NATO through Ukraine, you can't disentangle the two) but it is for NATO without qualification.

This is what's "different to when we've provided arms to other countries in other conflicts in the past": (a) Ukraine is a democracy looking Westward; (b) Ukraine borders NATO countries; and (c) this is the first time since the end of WWII that Russia/USSR has invaded an independent European nation.

On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced to the watching world that Russian military forces were orchestrating a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The offensive was the largest in Europe since World War II. However, this is not the first time that Vladimir Putin and the upper brass of Russian officials had invaded a neighboring nation. In 1999, the Russian Federation invaded the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria in the Northern Caucasus. While tensions between Russia and Chechnya did not begin with Putin, Putin used the conflict to establish himself as Russia’s supreme leader.

Differences between national status is a fair enough distinction, though. Aside from that, the NATO operation/invasion of Serbia (though obviously that was us and not them and different in some other respects).

 

[calodo2003]

That definition would exclude some of the most famous proxy wars of all time. It's a technical qualifier but in reality this is a proxy war (Russia is fighting both Ukraine and NATO; NATO is fighting Russia through Ukraine and Ukraine is fighting Russia with help from NATO, then you also have other institutional factors like the EU involved in information wars, and also the role of states like China in the grand scheme of things). You might say it isn't a proxy war for Russia (I think this would be wrong, as Russia is clearly fighting NATO through Ukraine, you can't disentangle the two) but it is for NATO without qualification.

My thoughts as well.

 

[MadMike]

That definition would exclude some of the most famous proxy wars of all time. It's a technical qualifier but in reality this is a proxy war (Russia is fighting both Ukraine and NATO; NATO is fighting Russia through Ukraine and Ukraine is fighting Russia with help from NATO, then you also have other institutional factors like the EU involved in information wars, and also the role of states like China in the grand scheme of things). You might say it isn't a proxy war for Russia (I think this would be wrong, as Russia is clearly fighting NATO through Ukraine, you can't disentangle the two) but it is for NATO without qualification.

It isn't and it wouldn't be wrong to say it, because they are directly involved in the hostilities. They are not fighting through a proxy. A technical qualifier is better than a theoretical, arbitary one.

 

[MadMike]

Try selling that to the population in a referendum and see how many want to die because the Nazis are killing Jews in mainland Europe.

We'd all say it's horrible but when push comes to shove we'd let them do it.

People protect themselves first.

It's admirable to want to fight and die rather than live in a world of intolerable actors but we manage to do it every day so why would we draw an arbitrary line?

I don't see you protesting that we should go into China to save the Uyghurs? They're being wiped out just like Jewish people were. In concentration camps too. How about Israel over Palestine or Saudi Arabia over Yemen?

I said we would do the same as what we did. What we did is we joined the war against Germany when they started invading neighbouring sovereign nations, ones we were allied with, rather than abandon them. We didn't start the war, nor did we invade Germany to stop them from killing Jews (which we didn't even know the extend of at the time).

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...ainian-war-begins/id682478916?i=1000555379343

 

[nimic]

Aside from that, the NATO operation/invasion of Serbia (though obviously that was us and not them and different in some other respects).

NATO bombed Serbia (oh boy did they ever bomb Serbia), but there was no invasion.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

It isn't and it wouldn't be wrong to say it, because they are directly involved in the hostilities. They are not fighting through a proxy. A technical qualifier is better than a theoretical, arbitary one.

Ukraine is the NATO proxy for Russia. It is doing two things, fighting Ukraine directly and fighting NATO indirectly through Ukraine. Just as the Mujahideen were the proxy for America in the Soviet-Afghan war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

One side being directly involved doesn't stop it from being a proxy war.

NATO bombed Serbia (oh boy did they ever bomb Serbia), but there was no invasion.

Yeah, that's true.

 

[Sir Matt]

 

[calodo2003]

 

[RedTiger]

Number 3 makes me think of Crimea.

 

[harms]

Just found out about that video with Russian POW getting shot in their legs by supposedly Ukrainian forces. Bellingcat are going to check that out but it looks like it might be genuine.

Zelensky’s advisor, Aleksey Arestovich, also have commented on that, saying that it looks like a potentially very serious war crime and that it will be thoroughly investigated.

Looks like a godsend for Russian propaganda but, sadly, I won’t be surprised if that will turn out to be true — the longer the war goes on, the worse it’s going to get, for both sides.

Horrible.

 

[frostbite]

Why is Europe your line in the sand?

This IS a proxy war. We're fighting Russia using Ukraine.

It's no different to anywhere else or any other time since nukes were invented.

Actually, Ukraine is defending itself against the aggressor Russia, using NATO material.

Ukraine is not trying to gain Russian lands, Ukraine is not bombing Russia, it is really dishonest to imply that the two are about the same and they are having a war because they have some contested areas.

Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine it trying to defend itself. It is very simple.

 

[matherto]

I said we would do the same as what we did. What we did is we joined the war against Germany when they started invading neighbouring sovereign nations, ones we were allied with, rather than abandon them. We didn't start the war, nor did we invade Germany to stop them from killing Jews (which we didn't even know the extend of at the time).

Okay, so imagine asking the population to fight Nazi Germany, with nukes. Forget the premise of the holocaust.

I honestly don't think we'd stomach it. I think we'd let them do what they want in Europe and stick to defending our skies and borders with everything if they came at us, at least until Hitler declared if we didn't stop he was going to nuke us, at which point we'd surrender. Certainly we would now, though back then perhaps more people were of the defend the motherland mentality regardless of the cost.

But it's a weird hypothetical anyway because I'd imagine the Nazis would use the nukes somewhere long before they got to us and thus the public would be shocked into submission, or even perhaps long before we could even think about responding to take us out in the first place.

 

[Raoul]

There must be intense groupthink within Putin's inner circle to where all actors are incentivized to talk as tough as possible for fear of being the odd man out who is perceived as wavering. In Medvedev's case, he's about as effective at tough talk as he is at dancing.

 

[calodo2003]

There must be intense groupthink within Putin's inner circle to where all actors are incentivized to talk as tough as possible for fear of being the odd man out who is perceived as wavering.

No one wants to be the person to stop clapping first.

 

[matherto]

Actually, Ukraine is defending itself against the aggressor Russia, using NATO material.

Ukraine is not trying to gain Russian lands, Ukraine is not bombing Russia, it is really dishonest to imply that the two are about the same and they are having a war because they have some contested areas.

Russia is trying to conquer Ukraine. Ukraine it trying to defend itself. It is very simple.

The Ukrainians are defending themselves. Russia is the aggressor, I fully agree, I'm not saying otherwise.

However, I wouldn't be surprised that the west/NATO has gotten involved to such an extent because they want to see what fighting Russia would be like/to test our weaponry against their defences.

We had no obligation to step in and defend Ukraine and hit Russia like we did so I think there's more to it. Thus treating it as if it's a proxy war. We're using someone else's troops but they've been trained by us and are using our weapons so surely that's at least the definition of doing something by proxy, even if it isn't the literal textbook definition of a proxy war.

 

[stevoc]

No, it's not naïve, it's just factual. We aren't fighting a proxy war because Russia isn't using a proxy. Hence it's not a proxy war. It's quite a simple concept, really.

If separatist Russians were fighting Ukrainians with one side being armed by Russia and the other by the West, then it would be a proxy war.

Definition of proxy war:

That definition is from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_war

Also from Wikipedia (and referenced on the first page): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

Soviet–Afghan War

1979–1989

If the Soviet-Afghan War between the Soviet Union vs the Mujahedeen being supplied with weapons by the US was a proxy war, then the Russian-Ukraine conflict is also certainly a Proxy war between Russia and Nato.