2: Ukraine and Russia: Answering common questions and issues (PART 2)

[WhatsGoingOn2022]

Hi all,
we are not quite at the end of our current thread but getting there quickly, so going to get this set up in anticipation. Really thrilled that we have so many people still involved!

It is the continuation of this thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4497259-Ukraine-and-Russia-Answering-common-questions-and-issues

The aim of the thread is to keep discussion on an informed and detailed footing, avoiding wild speculation and whataboutery which only derail the conversation. Basically, if you can't broadly agree on the following points, this is not the thread for you:

1: states shouldn’t invade democratic states or get a veto over who their government is. Self determinism is important

2: Putin has no right to dictate how millions of people outside of Russia live their lives, or that they should live under repressive regimes

3: Russia has nukes, so does the west, nobody is therefore able to wholesale dictate to the other

4: we are talking here about the Ukraine situation. I don’t come onto threads about e.g. what the US does in Yemen and spew whatabout e.g. Russia in Syria. If you don’t think the people of Ukraine deserve a discussion about THEM then don’t discuss it.

If you don't know much about the topic: do feel free to get involved. But ask specific questions or for critiques of specific sources, please don't just post ill-informed opinion for the sake of it.

When I get a chance I'll put in some links to the common questions again. We have already gone through issues like NATO expansion, role of China in detail, so please do check the prior thread out.

Thanks!

Within the last hour I have seen some really concerning news: according to the FT (US officials), Russia has asked China to start arming them in Ukraine, and it does not seem to have been ruled out, with some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia.

www.ft.com/content/30850470-8c8c-4b53-aa39-01497064a7b7

“QueenOfHiraeth

ScrollingLeaves
I have a question about refugees in the U.K.

If you have a property you normally let out, which requires a mortgage and insurance and on top of that would have a council tax charge and utilities to be paid for, would you still only get £350 towards it?

In other words, would the owner be required to take on almost all the costs on behalf of the refugee?
I think you would. The government cannot afford to pay high costs and, ultimately, you could be profiting from property value appreciating while they pay the mortgage.
£350 would not go far towards housing and living costs so I suspect it will be a contribution towards rather than covering costs“

Thanks. I wondered if there was a provision to make it work (without setting up a profit) for people who are otherwise relying on paying mortgage and insurance from rent and who do not have a high enough personal income to cover those without. And if the landlord also needed to provide heating, council tax and food (?) it would be even more difficult for them.

The scheme works for a spare room though.

@WhatsGoingOn2022 what is likely to be China's motive for providing Ukraine with military support?

[quote WhatsGoingOn2022]Within the last hour I have seen some really concerning news: according to the FT (US officials), Russia has asked China to start arming them in Ukraine, and it does not seem to have been ruled out, with some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia.

www.ft.com/content/30850470-8c8c-4b53-aa39-01497064a7b7[/quote]
I don't think that they will. We all know how China has (currently) positioned itself in the world as a massively grown exporting nation and I can't see that practical support of Russia against Ukraine would benefit them at all.

First thoughts only and I'm sure there are other viewpoints.

Without wanting to sound overly concerned, I will say that the fact Russian army has now headhunted terrorists from the ME is not good news for two reasons, firstly because this will increase crimes against Ukrainian civilians even more and secondly because no one knows how trained they are and they may inadvertently do something plain stupid near the Polish border. I agree with OP's comments too. And believe me, there would not be a warm welcome for this lot in Poland, ever.

He really is taunting by going so close to Poland isn't he

Do people think that there is an increased chance of terrorist attacks around the world as a result of this conflict? Would Putin back this as a psychological ‘war’ but it being massively indirect - ie via the mercenaries he’s recruiting across the Me?

Thank you for doing this. What a helpful and fantastic thing to do.

Started reading the first thread but caught up in other tragedies.

Placemarking

Shit if he’s getting China involved.

@JayAlfredPrufrock

Shit if he’s getting China involved.

I suspect the next 24-48 hours are going to be fairly crucial ones to see what China plans. Their position the last few days has been to essentially fence, and give themselves some time to watch the situation unfold. But now it's crunch time.

Just for balance, some potential positive developments:

news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-military-base-used-for-nato-drills-near-poland-targeted-by-russian-airstrikes-12564880

Regarding the risk of terrorism, it's a difficult question. I think VP knows that any such acts that would happen now and that could be linked to Russia would be considered an act of war. Longer term, possibly. There will be people and organisations he may want to target. But is this very different to what's been happening already? Spies, poisonings, assassinations, interference with elections, meddling with both far right and far left to destabilise multiple democratic countries, fake news, hacking. No doubt intelligence and security services will be on high alert for a while though and spending will have to further increase in this area. So whilst there will be a risk, it will be managed IMO.

Sharing part of this thread by Jamie Galeev from The Wilson Centre for discussion: an interesting take applying game theory to Putin's goals:

twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1503101053092474887

Right now Russian economy is already surviving systemic shock. Why? Because the scale of conflict was unexpected. They didn't expect such an escalation and thus didn't prepare. So now Russia is on a brink of collapse. But next time it will prepare better and be much more robust

Any sincere and unironic talk about the "deescalation" reflects extremely short term thinking. Caring only about what happens here and now and how to minimise immediate threats. Unfortunately, it ignores more long-term consequences of deescalation which will be detrimental

The best formula of institutional evolution is:

1. Scare them
2. Don't finish them

It skyrockets the chance that they evolve. Right now the regime is very scared. So they're working fervently on integration with China and "deescalation" will buy them time they need desperately

Conflict with Russia seems suboptimal. But avoiding necessary conflicts is not avoiding but just delaying. Why would you do that? Putin's miscalculation makes regime super fragile for now. Which means that's the best time for escalation ever. Next time they'll be more robust

That's important, because "deescalation" and defeating Putin are two different goals that require two different strategies. Deescalation means don't threaten him in any way and give him as much as possible in a hope he won't ask for more. Unfortunately that's all wishful thinking

That's how Hitler negotiated with Chamberlain in in 1938. Hitler demanded Sudetenland and that put Europe on a brink of war. Notice the body language. Hitler desires deescalation, he'll humiliate himself for it, cuz in case of escalation, he's doomed. He isn't fully prepared yet

Chamberlain wasn't some irresponsible warmonger. He was a reasonable leader with clear priority to save his nation from the horrors of a new war. Thus he deescalated. He gave reasonable concessions to Hitler and claimed he gave Britain 'Peace for our time". You may sleep quietly

Chamberlain wanted peace and deescalated. And that's how London looked in a couple of years, after German bombings. Concessions Chamberlain made increased Hitler's standing in Germany. Deescalation gave Hitler time to regroup and build up his war machine. He became much stronger

Why would I bring up Hitler, you may ask? Because in one crucial aspect Hitler's and Putin's strategy are similar:

1. Manufacture crisis
2. Get concessions and roll back
3. Increase your standing in the country, become stronger
4. Scale up and repeat

It's not gonna end now

Consider sizes of countries where Putin waged his wars in chronological order:

1. Chechnya, 1999 - 1 million
2. Georgia, 2009 - 4 million
3. Syria, 2015 - 17 million
4. Ukraine, 2022 - 44 million

He's scaling up and quickly. Each time he chooses a bigger prey. So far it worked

Let's introduce some game theory. You know Prisoner's Dilemma? Two criminals are arrested but there's little evidence except for their potential testimonies against each other. If they both keep silence, they receive small sentences. If they both confess, they receive long ones

But if one confesses, and another is silent then the traitor will be released and a true friend buried under jail. Thus the worst scenario ever is that you cooperate and they don't. And vice versa. Nothing brings such big payout as betrayal of the one who will cooperate

It shows asymmetry in payouts regarding human cooperation. Will you betray or stay true, be hawk or a dove? What would be best pragmatically speaking? Paradoxically, hawkish strategy is never more successful than with doves. Betrayal is most profitable when other side cooperates

Putler strategy is entirely built on assumption that the other side will play dove. If I know they play dove and will cooperate, it means I maximise my profit by playing hawk. I manufacture conflict, they play dove, I get a maximum payout. Then I scale up. And again. And again

In other words, Putler strategy is totally rational from the standpoint of game theory. It's a payout maximising strategy built on assumption that you guys are cowards. If I know you'll play dove, I'll be constantly manufacturing conflicts and scaling up to get more concessions

If I know the algorithm the other side is using, then I can hack it. I can devise my own to maximise my profits, based on what I know of their algorithm. And if your algorithm is "play dove no matter what" then the hack would be "play hawk no matter what". That's just game theory

What does it mean pragmatically speaking? First of all, it means that showing your algorithm, is a huge mistake. If you show it, they'll work on hacking it. And yet, how can they know if what you showed is true? How can they be sure? Only if you always act very predictably

If you act predictably, it means the other side will be quite sure about what your algorithm looks likes and able to hack it more effectively. Besides, high level of confidence of your algorithm (which is a result of your predictability) allows them to pursue risker strategies

...

Deescalation is insane because it shows you are super predictable dovy dove. And even if he had some concerns about playing hawkish before, now you eliminated them and showed it's safe. So next time he'll play even hawkier hawk - and that's rational. You just showed him it's safe

That's exactly how WWII started. Allies played doves and were super conflict avoidant. As Chamberlain pointed out it would be stupid to engage into "a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing" (Czechoslovakia). So he played dove and chose peace

As a result of deescalation Hitler concluded:

1. I know what their strategy is
2. Their strategy is to always play dove

Ergo. I can hack it and get huge payouts with no risk, because they're predictable cowards

"I saw my enemies in Munich, and they are worms" he told

Allies thought they're behaving smart and rational and thus are very safe. Consider a French slogan "Faut-il mourir for Dantzig?". Should we be dying over Dantzig? It just makes no sense to escalate a conflict over Eastern European land we know nothing about

And yet, rational and responsible behaviour of Allies persuaded Hitler that they're predictable doves and he can be very confident about it. So he maximised his payouts by playing hawkish and scaling up. And when at some point Allies didn't back off he was very surprised

Hitler tried to maximise his payout. He maximised it by playing hawkish because he was 100% sure they're gonna play doves. And he was sure because all the previous years they'd been working super hard playing doves and persuading him they'll play dove no matter what

Allies believed dove signals they're giving were safe. But they were super destructive. The more they projected dove behaviour, the more rational it was for Hitler to maximise hawkishness game theory-wise and scale up. That's how WWII happened and that's how WWIII will. End of🧵

^^ interesting,

But now its considered that Chamberlin didnt trust Hitler and actually wanted to buy time? To get his name on the peace document to prove he was a liar and not to be trusted and give us time to scale up.

Re Putin

Bush 2001

"Is this a man that Americans can trust?" I asked Bush as Putin glared at me.

"Yes," Bush replied, before allowing Putin to answer a separate question. A few minutes later, the American president elaborated: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country," Bush said, adding a few sentence later, "I wouldn't have invited him to my ranch if I didn't trust him."

Bush stared into his eyes and saw his soul.

RON SAYS (Ron Fournier and National Journal)

While Bush spoke, Putin fixed his eyes on mine — a look so cold and dark that I wondered whether those eyes were, for some unfortunate Cold Warriors, the last thing they saw

Perhaps Bush saw goodness in Putin. And perhaps I spotted something else, because Russia's advances on Georgia in 2008 and on Ukraine today suggest that Putin is an easy guy to misjudge.

In the summer of 2008, Putin and Bush were in Beijing for the Olympics when Russian troops moved into Georgia in response to what the Kremlin called Georgian aggression against South Ossetia. Peter Baker of The New York Times described the U.S. response:

Bush confronted Mr. Putin to no avail, then ordered American ships to the region and provided a military transport to return home Georgian troops on duty in Iraq. He sent humanitarian aid on a military aircraft, assuming that Russia would be loath to attack the capital of Tbilisi with American military personnel present. Mr. Bush also suspended a pending civilian nuclear agreement, and NATO suspended military contacts.

Obama:

The United States' options are few and fairly weak. But it doesn't help that Obama has undercut his global reputation by vacillating on Syria and, more generally, sending a consistent signal that he is reluctant to use military force to back up his threats.

Two successive presidents have failed to realize that Putin, a former KGB officer, does not think like them and does not act in accordance with Western rules and customs, and that a fast-changing post-Cold War world is filled with opportunistic leaders who, like Putin, recognize that a retrenched United States creates a leadership vacuum that they can fill, brutally.

THATS BEFORE TRUMP!

Once something has happened - its happened like Syria.

PUtin should have been tackled years ago and here we are.

Op as ever the good guys act in a responsible way and take others into account but have to fight with one arm tied behind their backs.

On China: some analysis from Zack Cooper (Georgetown). Same view of China being at a fork in the road, and strong fear of it taking a worrying stance:

twitter.com/ZackCooper/status/1503110572774207497

This is a critical moment for U.S.-China relations.
In recent years there has been a debate about the degree to which the United States can shape China’s major strategic decisions.
I think that debate may be nearing its end. 🧵 1/9

For many years, U.S. policy was premised on the goal of convincing China to become a “responsible stakeholder” – to “work with us to sustain the international system that has enabled its success.”
ncuscr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/migration_Zoellick_remarks_notes06_winter_spring.pdf

Although some in the Trump administration rejected this approach, President Trump still signed the “Phase One” trade deal – we now know it was a massive failure.
Some in the Biden administration hoped climate could be an area of cooperation.

But it looks like China's approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may be the ultimate test.
It is weakening Russia and strengthening cooperation among democracies. So some in China have suggested that Beijing change its approach.

There is merit to testing this logic, as a number of us argue below. Either Beijing will moderate its approach. Or we will at least have shown the world that we tried.
But I have to admit that I think the odds of success are low.
china.ucsd.edu/opinion/statement/index.html

Observers should not expect progress from tomorrow's Sullivan-Yang meeting. It was scheduled before the Ukraine invasion and as recent reporting indicates, the two sides appear as far apart as ever.

Plus, as we
@SecureDemocracy
show in this new analysis, China is actually ramping up its efforts to support Russian narratives about Ukraine.
Beijing is aligning MORE with Moscow, despite the damage that this is likely to do to its reputation abroad.

(For up to the minute data, head to our Ukraine Dashboard, which tracks Russian and Chinese messaging on Ukraine. You'll see lots of disinformation from both about biological weapons labs.)

Where will U.S.-China relations go from here? I think they will worsen, unfortunately.
My guess is that we will look back at this period as the point at which the relationship changed permanently. And not for the better. Buckle up. 9/9

So do you feel WWIII is inevitable? If so is nuclear war inevitable? Shall I bother going to work tomorrow? Or booking this year's holiday? I'm really scared.

@Alphavilla

So do you feel WWIII is inevitable? If so is nuclear war inevitable? Shall I bother going to work tomorrow? Or booking this year's holiday? I'm really scared.

I have just read that they might be close to agreeing to peace

I have just read that they might be close to agreeing to peace

You might just want to share that link ....

@Alphavilla

So do you feel WWIII is inevitable? If so is nuclear war inevitable? Shall I bother going to work tomorrow? Or booking this year's holiday? I'm really scared.

No, definitely not. Please don't panic. The situation right now is tense, but:

1: firstly anything will likely play out slowly. We are talking days but also months, years and decades. In the China context, we are talking plans written in decades. Now is not their planned pinnacle point.

2: secondly reaching a real, strong resolution here could help secure peace further into the future. A half-hearted result here or allowing a loss for Ukraine would be an outcome we simply can't stomach for our safety in the longer term. We need a settlement that secures Europe's safety from Russia, as well as reaches some degree of security over China.

3: thirdly nobody wants a nuclear war. At all. It remains as always a highly unlikely option. The issue is navigating within the zone below nuclear war, and reaching a solution that helps to avoid this in the longer term. I have no doubt that things will get a lot scarier in the short term, as part of escalate to de-escalate. This is a part of signalling determination and resolve, please don't fall for Russia's intentional scaremongering.

4: fourthly: while it may seem counterproductive, if you read Cold War history you will see that in the context of a half century, this situation is not as extreme as many others. One day this period will be in the history books too, alongside these. And people will say 'gosh, that must have been scary.' But nobody wants this and no serious preparations are being made for it. Russia's ICBMs (major nuclear weapons) are on readiness stage 2 of 4, they have made no effort to increase their preparedness. At this point it is not a serious threat.

Your commentary is knowledgeable and concise thank you. A couple of questions.. do Russia and China and bellarus and Serbia and any other pro russian countries appreciate that the Russian narrative is fabrication or do they consider it to be true? Are they happy to go along with blatant lies in order to oppose the west? Also do Putin's generals also know it's lies about Ukraine's nazi government, the supposed us chemical weapons, and such like, or are they astute enough to know Putin's game? Also does our own government understand Putin's hawk strategy as you described above?

Placemarking. Thank you op

@Copenhagenoffice

I have just read that they might be close to agreeing to peace

You might just want to share that link ....

Hi,

I've shared that link above (from Sky). It includes comments from both sides which have a glimmer of positivity.

WARNING - MARIUPOL

I have just come across this utterly heartbreaking news - trigger warnings death and baby loss

news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-pregnant-woman-pictured-being-evacuated-from-bombed-mariupol-hospital-dies-with-baby-12565815

I can't find the words for this.