Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[harms]

Wow, thanks for the info re: Russian opinion! And yikes, "probably less than 50% back potential military aggression"! That's still very high. I'd say far less than 20% of the West want that. It just goes to show, Russia wants an un-Nato'd Ukraine much more than the West is willing to enforce Ukraine's will to choose. In effect, the country is there for the taking.

Oh, it's certainly a huge amount of people, usually an older demographic that get their information from TV, radios, newspapers — all the regular information channels that's been pretty much cleansed from any opinion that varies from that of Putin. We only have 1 private-owned TV channel that had been cut off from any satellite bulk deals (in fact, I'm not even sure if they exist as a TV channel at all as their main auditory had switched to either their website or their YouTube channels) — and, like most of those "alternative" sources of information it had been labeled a foreign agent and they have to put up a 5-second warning that says "THIS MESSAGE (MATERIAL) WAS CREATED AND/OR DISSEMINATED BY A FOREIGN MASS MEDIA OUTLET PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF A FOREIGN AGENT AND (OR) A RUSSIAN LEGAL ENTITY PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS OF A FOREIGN AGENT"; 1 radio station that kinda allows alternative opinions... 1 big newspaper that still somehow exists even though they're moving closer and closer to full digitalisation (its chief editor, Dmitry Muratov, had just received a Nobel Prise for Peace).

It's just that "Russian think/feel that..." means that most of the Russians think so and I doubt that it's true. My "not more than 50%" is a very wild estimate as we don't have any great independent sociological institutions in Russia to calculate it with better precision. It's certainly a huge amount, but it's not a country-wise agreement. Although the further away you go from big cities like Moscow/St. Petersburg/Ekaterinburg etc., the worse it gets. Russian propaganda used the dirtiest trick in the book by appealing to the collective trauma of WWII* by comparing Ukrainian nationalist movement as fascists and nazi collaborators — and in certain generations the word fascists kills any potential argument, let alone leaving space for nuances. Once you've got labeled as a fascist, regardless of whenever that label has anything to do with reality**, you're the enemy and the rules of war apply to you — and critical thinking is a luxury of peace.

* it's really a fascinating cultural phenomena how the WWII or, rather, the Great Patriotic War (that started with the invasion of Soviet Union, not in 1939) became the nation-creating myth for the new Russia, succeeding the Revolution for USSR. And it's getting horribly exploited by the propaganda, often in areas that have no relation to it whatsoever.
I'm not sure what to link in English on the matter, but the abstract of this article looks more or less on point (but I haven't read the article itself)
http://aei.pitt.edu/102465/
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacj...riotic-war-a-tool-kremlins-great-power-policy

** that's not to say that it's a baseless accusations, like every good lie it's based on some truths — for example the likes of Stepan Bandera are hailed as national heroes, but Ukraine & Russia highlight different parts of his complicated story. He was a Ukranian nationalist who most of his life fought for Ukraine's independence from USSR — at some point even aligning with Hitler (hindsight 20/20), seeing this as his chance of getting his country back. And this is where you get your divide — is he a hero that fought against Bolshevik's oppression or is he a nazi collaborator? But that's the thing, he's both.

Sorry for this long and badly-structured message, it's always hard to describe the situation in detail when you try to cover all the angles.

 

[Stookie]

I’ve just been reading the latest headlines regarding this and it could seriously go south. I work with a Ukrainian woman and she’s convinced it’s going to happen. Her family lived near the border and have had to move out. I suppose we only see the headlines they want us to read/hear here in the West but speaking to someone who’s from there and seeing them as worried as they are makes food for thought. If Russia do go in, what does the West do? It’s a powder keg.

 

[LilyWhiteSpur]

This seems too elaborate and expensive to just be Putin swinging his dick? Europe as usual will do feck all as every single country simply only care about there own agenda. I don’t often get to worried about world politics but this, for me is a cause for concern.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

All the direct military comparisons look grim for the ability of the Ukrainians to hold out against a major Russian attack.

On the other side though the last attack came at a moment of real political weakness and turmoil inside Ukraine which had zero preparation for defence and while the west was distracted and caught of guard.

This attack would be met on very different terms and will take no one by surprise. Ukrainians have prepared and will fight asymmetrically where they can not hope to match the Russians directly.
I think they could look to strike at soft targets inside Russia or at Russian interest abroad to bring the war into Russian homes too.

The main problem for Ukrainian defence forces is the range and weight of Russian artillery and air support. There could be very large casualties on the Ukrainian side very early in the invasion which will test the moral of their army.

Russia holds all the strategic and tactical cards but wars are won by logistics and the current Russian army isn't the red army and will struggle to support large numbers of troops for long periods of time through a hostile country.

The west will/is supplying Ukraine faster and with better weapons earlier this time and it will give better intelligence information and support. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they hold out, bog the Russians down and win a longer war by attrition. This is what Putin should be very afraid of. I don't think he survives a bad war with tens of thousands of Russian casualties.

 

[nickm]

All the direct military comparisons look grim for the ability of the Ukrainians to hold out against a major Russian attack.

On the other side though the last attack came at a moment of real political weakness and turmoil inside Ukraine which had zero preparation for defence and while the west was distracted and caught of guard.

This attack would be met on very different terms and will take no one by surprise. Ukrainians have prepared and will fight asymmetrically where they can not hope to match the Russians directly.
I think they could look to strike at soft targets inside Russia or at Russian interest abroad to bring the war into Russian homes too.

The main problem for Ukrainian defence forces is the range and weight of Russian artillery and air support. There could be very large casualties on the Ukrainian side very early in the invasion which will test the moral of their army.

Russia holds all the strategic and tactical cards but wars are won by logistics and the current Russian army isn't the red army and will struggle to support large numbers of troops for long periods of time through a hostile country.

The west will/is supplying Ukraine faster and with better weapons earlier this time and it will give better intelligence information and support. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they hold out, bog the Russians down and win a longer war by attrition. This is what Putin should be very afraid of. I don't think he survives a bad war with tens of thousands of Russian casualties.

Theres nothing the West would like to do more, than bog Putin down and inflict steady losses on him. No idea how feasible that is though.

 

[MTF]

Russia holds all the strategic and tactical cards but wars are won by logistics and the current Russian army isn't the red army and will struggle to support large numbers of troops for long periods of time through a hostile country.

The west will/is supplying Ukraine faster and with better weapons earlier this time and it will give better intelligence information and support. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that they hold out, bog the Russians down and win a longer war by attrition. This is what Putin should be very afraid of. I don't think he survives a bad war with tens of thousands of Russian casualties.

This is the part I don't get. After over 20 years in power, and very consolidated, Putin now gambles his position over Ukraine? Why? It's not like he's doing it out of desperation or some sense that his internal legitimacy is nearing breaking point, quite the opposite.

Is he so confident that there's nearly no chance of this becoming a quagmire for the Russian Army? Does he have some kind of operation or intelligence that will see the Ukrainian Army fold when the fighting begins? Or is this all planned as a big bluff from the get-go?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

This is the part I don't get. After over 20 years in power, and very consolidated, Putin now gambles his position over Ukraine? Why? It's not like he's doing it out of desperation or some sense that his internal legitimacy is nearing breaking point, quite the opposite.

Is he so confident that there's nearly no chance of this becoming a quagmire for the Russian Army? Does he have some kind of operation or intelligence that will see the Ukrainian Army fold when the fighting begins? Or is this all planned as a big bluff from the get-go?

Didn't he say last time that they could be in Kiev in a week if he gave the order?

 

[nimic]

The Russian military is overwhelmingly more powerful than the Ukrainian one, I don't doubt that they would crush them. Of course, it would still cost Russian lives, given Ukraine has some modern technology. The ensuing occupation wouldn't be any fun either.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Theres nothing the West would like to do more, than bog Putin down and inflict steady losses on him. No idea how feasible that is though.

Until rockets are fired, the best option to deter Putin would be a strong naval presence both in the Black Sea and in the Baltic Sea, which are the main entry/exit points for goods in Russia. I see a certain someone complaining about NATO naval presence, but that could well be the undergoing and only proportional response to that Russian troop build-up at the moment. Mind you, naval presence was a strong tool for pressure against the Soviets during the Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962 as well as against China during the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1995-96.

This is the part I don't get. After over 20 years in power, and very consolidated, Putin now gambles his position over Ukraine? Why? It's not like he's doing it out of desperation or some sense that his internal legitimacy is nearing breaking point, quite the opposite.

Is he so confident that there's nearly no chance of this becoming a quagmire for the Russian Army? Does he have some kind of operation or intelligence that will see the Ukrainian Army fold when the fighting begins? Or is this all planned as a big bluff from the get-go?

When all 3 Baltic countries joined NATO in 2004, where was that outrage indeed? I just don't know what is going through Putin's mind at the moment. The only few things that may have hurt him in recent years would be 1) the increasing support for Navalny's movement within cities and Russian youth at home, and 2) the pathetic response to COVID-19. Even then, those should still be too marginal to justify a war as means to distract Russian public opinion.

Even if Putin wins anything in Ukraine, the fallout may well see Sweden and Finland join NATO. A Pew poll from November 2020 showed that 65% of Swedes viewed NATO positively while the current Finnish Prime Minister stated earlier this month that joining NATO is a real option on the table despite Finland's traditional opposition to the idea.

 

[Simbo]

People like to point out the size of Russia's economy being equivalent to Italy and on the decline etc as an example of why Russia isn't any threat any more.

It is a commonly held belief however that Putin is the wealthiest person on earth by a considerable margin. His and his Oligarch's assets are mainly held around the world in territories that guarantee financial secrecy, where their funds can be easily weaponised to spread their influence.



This is why he is such a threat.

 

[nickm]

People like to point out the size of Russia's economy being equivalent to Italy and on the decline etc as an example of why Russia isn't any threat any more.

It is a commonly held belief however that Putin is the wealthiest person on earth by a considerable margin. His and his Oligarch's assets are mainly held around the world in territories that guarantee financial secrecy, where their funds can be easily weaponised to spread their influence.



This is why he is such a threat.

Extraordinary to see Russian propaganda being broadcast on a Murdoch channel.

 

[nickm]

Didn't he say last time that they could be in Kiev in a week if he gave the order?

There were rumours he was suffering from Parkinson's or even cancer, one wonders if he's feeling the winds of mortality and wants to complete his project....

 

[calodo2003]

People like to point out the size of Russia's economy being equivalent to Italy and on the decline etc as an example of why Russia isn't any threat any more.

It is a commonly held belief however that Putin is the wealthiest person on earth by a considerable margin. His and his Oligarch's assets are mainly held around the world in territories that guarantee financial secrecy, where their funds can be easily weaponised to spread their influence.



This is why he is such a threat.

Putin or Tucker?

 

[Sir Matt]

I saw that the Dutch have approved weapon shipments to Ukraine while Germany is still blocking Estonia from sending German-made weapons to Ukraine. I could understand Germany's hesitance before the massive buildup, but now, I don't understand.

Extraordinary to see Russian propaganda being broadcast on a Murdoch channel.

But is it really? Murdoch is pure evil.

 

[The Firestarter]

I saw that the Dutch have approved weapon shipments to Ukraine while Germany is still blocking Estonia from sending German-made weapons to Ukraine. I could understand Germany's hesitance before the massive buildup, but now, I don't understand.

It's all about the gass.

 

[Simbo]

Putin or Tucker?

Putin's words, Tucker's lips.

I saw that the Dutch have approved weapon shipments to Ukraine while Germany is still blocking Estonia from sending German-made weapons to Ukraine. I could understand Germany's hesitance before the massive buildup, but now, I don't understand.

A lot of heat being thrown at Germany at the mo. Been trying to make sense of it... These weapon supplies seem to be a NATO initiative, which normally requires unanimous agreement across members. I've seen it quoted that the UK supplied NLAW's requried US approval for example. So I'm wondering if Germany has also approved supply of other countries' weapons, it is just weaponry of German oringin they are vetoing, which the Estonian equipment is.

 

[The Firestarter]

Putin's words, Tucker's lips.



A lot of heat being thrown at Germany at the mo. Been trying to make sense of it... These weapon supplies seem to be a NATO initiative, which normally requires unanimous agreement across members. I've seen it quoted that the UK supplied NLAW's requried US approval for example. So I'm wondering if Germany has also approved supply of other countries' weapons, it is just weaponry of German oringin they are vetoing, which the Estonian equipment is.

No, Germany also closed its airspace for the British shipment of anti tank missiles, so they had to make a detour.

 

[Sir Matt]

It's all about the gass.

I understand the economic reasons, but some German politicians have had a friendlier view of Russia than most of the rest of NATO. I've also seen that they generally refuse to send weapons to "tense" areas, which is understandable in many cases since it could exacerbate things, but Ukraine isn't going to start a war with Russia.

Another thing I've seen is Germany's reticence to get involved in the conflict is its history. It seems that their history would be an incentive to help Ukraine hopefully prevent but potentially resist an invasion from a powerful, aggressive neighbor.

https://www.dw.com/en/why-germany-refuses-weapons-deliveries-to-ukraine/a-60483231

Putin's words, Tucker's lips.



A lot of heat being thrown at Germany at the mo. Been trying to make sense of it... These weapon supplies seem to be a NATO initiative, which normally requires unanimous agreement across members. I've seen it quoted that the UK supplied NLAW's requried US approval for example. So I'm wondering if Germany has also approved supply of other countries' weapons, it is just weaponry of German oringin they are vetoing, which the Estonian equipment is.

After lots of complaints, I think Germany lifted its opposition to Ukraine buying weapons through NATO's procurement program. Now it seems they're just blocking German-origin weapons.

 

[KingCavani]

Putin's words, Tucker's lips.



A lot of heat being thrown at Germany at the mo. Been trying to make sense of it... These weapon supplies seem to be a NATO initiative, which normally requires unanimous agreement across members. I've seen it quoted that the UK supplied NLAW's requried US approval for example. So I'm wondering if Germany has also approved supply of other countries' weapons, it is just weaponry of German oringin they are vetoing, which the Estonian equipment is.

Eh. Tucker is that “US lives aren’t worth risking on foreign filth” type of fash. He’s like this with literally every foreign policy position and has been since Iraq, which he publicly supported and privately opposed.

People really need to avoid falling into the trap of assuming any and all dissent to war is Russian propaganda. That exists but having seen the coverage of Iraq, Libya and Syria in my lifetime that coverage can definitely go both ways.

 

[berbatrick]

Another thing I've seen is Germany's reticence to get involved in the conflict is its history. It seems that their history would be an incentive to help Ukraine hopefully prevent but potentially resist an invasion from a powerful, aggressive neighbor.

Perhaps this gives them pause.

 

[nickm]

Eh. Tucker is that “US lives aren’t worth risking on foreign filth” type of fash. He’s like this with literally every foreign policy position and has been since Iraq, which he publicly supported and privately opposed.

It is was just that, then fair enough, it's a valid if naive position. But he's actually advocating Putin's POV in the discussion, which suggests he's sympathetic to it.

 

[KingCavani]

It is was just that, then fair enough, it's a valid if naive position. But he's actually advocating Putin's POV in the discussion, which suggests he's sympathetic to it.

Tucker will use anything to sell his overall point, he's clever in that way. He often uses leftist rhetoric to push back against the Democrats for examples, knowing that it's infinitely more coherent but will then twist it into Republican apologism and use it as a defence of the MAGA crowd.

 

[Raoul]

It is was just that, then fair enough, it's a valid if naive position. But he's actually advocating Putin's POV in the discussion, which suggests he's sympathetic to it.

He also went out of his way to fly out to Budapest (during COVID no less) to give Victor Orban a platform to promote his xenophobic views on immigration. The name of the game with Tucker is to galvanize his audience around white identity issues then use his higher viewership as leverage to make more money and promote his authoritarian views. All of this ties into why he promotes Putin’s perspective over that of his own country. More or less in the same category as Trump.

 

[nimic]

Friendly reminder:

 

[Simbo]

Eh. Tucker is that “US lives aren’t worth risking on foreign filth” type of fash. He’s like this with literally every foreign policy position and has been since Iraq, which he publicly supported and privately opposed.

People really need to avoid falling into the trap of assuming any and all dissent to war is Russian propaganda. That exists but having seen the coverage of Iraq, Libya and Syria in my lifetime that coverage can definitely go both ways.

It'd be a valid point if he didn't have so much previous, and actually put forth a sensible argument instead of "Nobody knows what NATO is for"

 

[Droid_Repairs]

This seems too elaborate and expensive to just be Putin swinging his dick? Europe as usual will do feck all as every single country simply only care about there own agenda. I don’t often get to worried about world politics but this, for me is a cause for concern.

...but what can we really do? Lots of countries are already sending weapons to Ukraine. Would you prefer we risk WW3 by sending troops there and actually helping to defend against the invasion?

 

[maniak]

Would you prefer we risk WW3 by sending troops there and actually helping to defend against the invasion?

Would Russia attack and kill troops of 20 or so different countries?

 

[nimic]

Would Russia attack and kill troops of 20 or so different countries?

What if they do?

 

[Droid_Repairs]

Would Russia attack and kill troops of 20 or so different countries?

I just don't know. No tactic Putin employs surprises me, I could see him sending the troops into Ukraine and then blaming the other nations for opening fire on them. "The west fired first" or something.

 

[maniak]

What if they do?

Then we'd finally see if nato exists for something or just to drain money from countries that really need it in other areas.

 

[Raoul]

Then we'd finally see if nato exists for something or just to drain money from countries that really need it in other areas.

These nations aren't obliged to be in NATO. They can leave if they want to, but don't because there is a collective security benefit for them to protect themselves against other nations who may want to invade European territory.....like for instance Russia.

 

[The Firestarter]

Then we'd finally see if nato exists for something or just to drain money from countries that really need it in other areas.

I really expect some European nato countries to look the other way if Putin attacks the Baltic states.

 

[maniak]

These nations aren't obliged to be in NATO. They can leave if they want to, but don't because there is a collective security benefit for them to protect themselves against other nations who may want to invade European territory.....like for instance Russia.

Yeah I'm sure Portugal is in nato because we're terrified of being invaded by Russia. Many nato members are in because it was something that came almost hand in hand with entering the EU.

But seriously, I'm pro-nato, but I would like to see nato defend its interests, and standing up to Putin is doing that. Sanctions and sending weapons to the counties Rusia invades obviously doesn't work. Status quo seems to be letting putin do whatever he wants, I'd like to see something different otherwise most people will start questioning the utility of this alliance. Not the people like us here who follow politics, but the normal person who doesn't follow much politics. Populists use this exact argument, "why are we spending millions in weapons when our hospitals and schools are struggling"?

 

[Stookie]

I really expect some European nato countries to look the other way if Putin attacks the Baltic states.

Will they be able to? Won’t there be some kind of rule/ law or whatever that ensures that all of NATO members will be involved somehow? Otherwise what is the point of being a member? I mean I don’t know for sure but it’s an interesting point you raise.

 

[The Firestarter]

Yeah I'm sure Portugal is in nato because we're terrified of being invaded by Russia. Many nato members are in because it was something that came almost hand in hand with entering the EU.

But seriously, I'm pro-nato, but I would like to see nato defend its interests, and standing up to Putin is doing that. Sanctions and sending weapons to the counties Rusia invades obviously doesn't work. Status quo seems to be letting putin do whatever he wants, I'd like to see something different otherwise most people will start questioning the utility of this alliance. Not the people like us here who follow politics, but the normal person who doesn't follow much politics. Populists use this exact argument, "why are we spending millions in weapons when our hospitals and schools are struggling"?

But NATO was never built on the assumption to counter any Soviet aggression. It might do, but its not mandated to.

 

[The Firestarter]

Will they be able to? Won’t there be some kind of rule/ law or whatever that ensures that all of NATO members will be involved somehow? Otherwise what is the point of being a member? I mean I don’t know for sure but it’s an interesting point you raise.

Yes article 5, but I still expect some countries to not participate in the response. Which will be the end of the alliance of course.

 

[maniak]

But NATO was never built on the assumption to counter any Soviet aggression. It might do, but its not mandated to.

I know, but isn't it in the interest of european nations to have a peaceful continent and showing putin he can't do whatever he wants? Apparently it isn't because european leaders are not willing to risk anything at all, I don't understand why.

 

[The Firestarter]

I know, but isn't it in the interest of european nations to have a peaceful continent and showing putin he can't do whatever he wants? Apparently it isn't because european leaders are not willing to risk anything at all, I don't understand why.

Because they are fighting for their lives politically. Most "allies" also hate each other's guts , for historical reasons. Everyone knows they can't do shit without the US logistics but they are all paralysed in undecisiveness.

What Putin is counting on is another Trump type in the white house who either pulls US out of the alliance or indicates to him that he won't respond to any attack in Europe and then it's game on.

 

[Raoul]

Yeah I'm sure Portugal is in nato because we're terrified of being invaded by Russia. Many nato members are in because it was something that came almost hand in hand with entering the EU.

But seriously, I'm pro-nato, but I would like to see nato defend its interests, and standing up to Putin is doing that. Sanctions and sending weapons to the counties Rusia invades obviously doesn't work. Status quo seems to be letting putin do whatever he wants, I'd like to see something different otherwise most people will start questioning the utility of this alliance. Not the people like us here who follow politics, but the normal person who doesn't follow much politics. Populists use this exact argument, "why are we spending millions in weapons when our hospitals and schools are struggling"?

Once Putin dies and Russia potentially takes a more democratic turn, then I think you will see the utility of NATO fade. It would've already done so had Putin not turned out to be such a corrupt neo-imperialist with visions of reestablishing the Soviet empire.

 

[The Firestarter]

Once Putin dies and Russia potentially takes a more democratic turn, then I think you will see the utility of NATO fade. It would've already done so had Putin not turned out to be such a corrupt neo-imperialist with visions of reestablishing the Soviet empire.

This is assuming Russia will somehow become a democracy once he goes.