Ukraine Invasion: Part 27

[MagicFox]

27th thread, thanks for the continued company and analysis all

@notimagain · Today 07:37
This might be of interest:

en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

It shows the real reason he has gone after Ukraine. As RedToothbrush said yesterday it is not because of NATO or Nazis.

He has an obsessive belief that Ukraine really is Russia.

Ukraine shares a common root of Slavic with Russia - I read that Ukraine and Russia share the same number of similar words as English does with Dutch, or Spanish with Portuguese. We also have a royal family which has intermarried throughout Europe.
None of this means one country owns another.

Yesterday, I happened though to see lots of comments under a You Tube video about this war, that lots of responding Russians think the same as Putin.

The video was made by a popular US pro-Russian pseudo-journalist Patrick Lancaster reporting from Kherson about a Ukrainian commander (territorial guard?) from Kherson abandoning his Ukrainian allegiance, going with his wife to get a Russian passport, and denouncing Ukraine for attacking his village. The man and his battalion are named and it is not staged with actors.

In the video the man and his wife look entirely cowed and their words are stiff. They were under duress. But there were hundreds of comments showing no realisation that this video was not really of a relieved couple choosing to be Russian.

Many Russians responded saying they are doing the right thing, now they can have a happy life, they are Russians already because Ukrainians are Russian - they are one people.

By the way, there are lots of Americans commenting too, no small number of whom are saying they wish they could get a Russian passport too. Maybe some are trolls but they seem genuine.

Last para

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide

Ukraines citizens can decide. With a gun to their heads.

@RedToothBrush · Today 08:54

notimagain
“This might be of interest:

en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181”

Last para

Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide

Ukraines citizens can decide. With a gun to their heads.

Yes, and after the very areas of Ukraine where most Russian speakers live have been obliterated.

tbh the Ukr and Ru losses seem on a par now :/

Regarding the 3 soldiers sentenced to death, the Russians are really showing they are a terrorist state. I don't know the answer as to how to deal with them but I would think that we need to start debating whether or not we deport oligarchs and their families

ljsbear what do you mean by Ukraine and Russian losses on par? Do you mean losses per day of men numerically or some other criteria. Russia is so much bigger as a force in terms of soldiers and equipment as Ukraine.

Thanks again for your takeaways. Always eagerly read by me. Bummer about losing that post.

...what do you mean by Ukraine and Russian losses on par? Do you mean losses per day of men numerically or some other criteria. Russia is so much bigger as a force in terms of soldiers and equipment as Ukraine.

Fair observation and it takes us back to the maxim, variously attributed, often to Stalin, of "quantity as a quality all of it's own". That used to get laughed at a lot and brushed off by the high techie war acolytes prior to February, I'm not sure it's such a laughing matter now that this war has turned into a battlefield slog.

If the Russian leadership is willing to accept a numerical casualty exchange rate of 1:1 or even quite a bit worse to achieve their aims then then from the Ukrainian POV something has to change.

I did mean the people-cost yes

notimagain, for a 'battlefield slog' as you say, where one side is so clearly outgunned by another, would you expect the weaker side to lose more men and equipment than the stronger one.

So if Russian losses are quantitatively on par with Ukraine losses, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I would have thought on a numerical battle, Ukraine losses would be felt far more deeply than the same loss at the Russian side simply because Ukraine is fighting the same war but from a smaller numerical base.

Therefore, 1:1 losses would be catastrophic for Ukraine and its ability to continue.

Apologies if my questions are a little dense. Trying to make sense of it all.

@blueshoes

Lots of "ifs" to this, IMHOs and speculation, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, such as state of morale on both sides, how much coercion the Russian leadership is willing to apply to it's troops, how much info is getting back to the Russian population and would the Russian general public dare complain if they knew the level of losses in a war they might feel their troops don't have to fight...

Fundamentally, IMHO, etc etc... 1:1 losses numerically, if sustained, is working in the Russians favour.

That's no doubt why we are hearing more and more that from Ukrainians that they definitely need more heavy weapons. It's not just so they can supposedly surgically hit a few tanks, logistics points or oil, fuel depots, they need to get into it's the business of hitting troop assembly areas and troops concentrations well behind the Russian lines....otherwise amongst other things we are never going to see that complete collapse of the Russian offensive that many said was going to happen in May/early June/any day now.

I have been watching Darkest Hour on iPlayer - the scriptwriter's characterisation of Churchill asking when will people learn that about dictator's (you can't reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth) seems uncannily apt for discussions about Russia. In fact the whole plot about whether Britain should seek peace or keep fighting seems relevant to the situation in Ukraine. It is also quite a good reminder that whilst anyone can discuss what they think should be done, express a view on what is being done etc, it is senior military officers and politicians who have the latest intel and have to make decisions on what/who to sacrifice for the survival of others.

That is still not to say that we are in a situation directly analagous to WWII - just that I am being reminded a) that I will never have the full intel or control (as I am not senior military or polician!) and b) the hard decision around war and peace and dealing with dictators do not change even if the weapons and society today, and that is true however far back in time you look.

notimagain that makes sense. How else can Ukraine dislodge Russian troops other than by going on the offensive and devastating their positions. It is not just pushing back on their advances. Too right that Ukraine needs those heavy weapons. They have been asking for it months ago and it still just trickling in. Argh.

When you say "they need to get into it's the business of hitting troop assembly areas and troops concentrations well behind the Russian lines..", you mean Russian front lines on Ukraine territory rather than Russia territory, right?

"you mean Russian front lines on Ukraine territory rather than Russia territory, right?"

In the current context, correct, although......................🤐

"you can't reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth."

So true. You do just have to bite the bullet.

I understand why people like Chamberlain desperately wanted a peaceful solution but such men are blood thirsty and they don't understand/want/need/respect peace.

terrywynne snap! Watched Darkest Hour last night thinking, "My god, this is it."

The film captures brilliantly the way that of course, of COURSE, no one sane wants the horrific loss of life a war brings.

But sometimes there is no choice. Putin has made no secret of his wish to continue to conquer and expand; his troops have visited atrocities on civilians, deported thousands to Russia, and have coherent plans to "disappear" community leaders or anyone who might speak against his regime. In Russia itself he has long been imprisoning the opposition and having leaders murdered.

Ukraine cannot gain safety by capitulating to imperial expansionist Russia. And neither can anyone else.

Not read yet but Chatham House publication on "Disinformation fight goes beyond Ukraine and its allies". These are often very interesting.

www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/disinformation-fight-goes-beyond-ukraine-and-its-allies?utm_source=Chatham%20House&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=13265010_CH%20-%20CH%20Newsletter%20-%2010.06.2022&utm_content=Ukraine-CTA&dm_i=1S3M,7WBCI,77M2TJ,W9B1Z,1

Yes, it is quite interesting in terms of the characters wanting peace negotiations to save women and children in England and seeing Churchill as being delusional about the military realities. Of course I am sure it is all heavily fictionalised and favours Churchill but as an exercise in understanding the two sides of fight v. appeasement it is an accesible way of presenting it.

As I think I have said before, ultimately leaders have to make the decision that they think is best based on the information they have. And different individuals make different decisions. If they get it right they will be lauded, and if they get it wrong they will be reviled. And people will judge them with the benefit of hindsight for decades to come... I suppose it gets a bit complicated by politicking, self interest etc but ultimately all of them Johnson, Macron, Scholz, Zelensky (even Putin) are making the decision they believe is best for their country (and them). And we are stuck hoping that what they believe is best turns out to be best for us...

(sorry went a bit abstract/philosophical there!)

Someone on here posted an excellent video of one of the Baltic state prime ministers warning of the risks of appeasing Putin, as he'd just come back for more and more. It pre-dated the Ukraine War (but was after the annexation of Crimea?).

I can't find it - can someone re-post it please. I was describing it to my dad and would like to send a link.

Yes! I have seen it before but it is hitting a bit differently this time around.... Thinking where you stand on peave v. fighting feels a bit more real rather than hypothetical (even from the safety of the UK, obviously it is even more so if anyone were watching it from Ukraine)

I think the speaker was Kaja Kallas, the Estonian Prime Minister, and she was definitely speaking about Gromyko, a former Soviet Foreign Minister.

Good luck if you can persuade MN search to find that... I've just failed but will keep trying.

Kallas is quoted here, but I'll keep looking for the vid as it expands slightly.

‘Putin only understands strength’: Estonian PM on Ukraine tensions
www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/28/germany-must-end-reliance-on-russian-gas-estonian-pm-on-tensions-in-ukraine

Kallas said there was a very clear pattern to Russian negotiations and it was best summed up by the former Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko. “He said there are three basic rules of negotiating with the west. First, demand the maximum, do not meekly ask but demand. Second, present ultimatums, and third, do not give one inch of ground because there will always be someone in the west that will offer you something maybe half that you did not previously have. It is so characteristic of how they operate.

@PerkingFaintly - that's why I posted to ask, rather than trying the "new" crap MN search - hoping that someone roule remember or even still have the original link.

@MNHQ have truly fucked up the functionality of this site with the "upgrade"

@PerkingFaintly - the actual interview was much earlier (maybe even 2018). It was very prescient - I was going to say "amazingly" so, but actually it wasn't. It was sensibly prescient. Everyone one else was sticking their heads in the sand.

At least Chamerlain, with his "Peace in our time" declaration was buying us more time to prepare for war.

Got it. Kallas was speaking at the Munich Security Conference, 18-20 Feb, so just days before the invasion. But she was quoting Andrei Gromyko (she misspeaks this Alexei) speaking back in Soviet times.

She's spot on.

Here's the vid:

twitter.com/munsecconf/status/1512451999622643714

Haven't found anything in the Finnish news about it. Well, the non-tabloid news. Very odd though.