All Things Russia & Ukraine

[NattyBohChamps04]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Balkans have been warning us about Russia for decades Post-USSR. And you were the one who suggested the Balkans were somehow ethnically Russian? What are you trying to say here?

[MDlaxfan76]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Actually most wars end with a victor and a loser. Not a temporary stalemate.

And I don't see this one ending with a stalemate...neither side will be ok with that outcome...of course, that's merely my opinion based upon my read of the players and history.

Disagree if you wish.

But I'm very, very clear where I'd like this to end.

And it ain't with rewarding Christian Nationalism and brutal aggression and war crimes by a nuclear super power.

[old salt]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Balkans have been warning us about Russia for decades Post-USSR. And you were the one who suggested the Balkans were somehow ethnically Russian? What are you trying to say here?

What ? Ethnically Russian ? They are all Slavic countries, populated by Slavic people, who've been making war over their borders for much of modern history.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/slavic-countries.html

[MDlaxfan76]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Balkans have been warning us about Russia for decades Post-USSR. And you were the one who suggested the Balkans were somehow ethnically Russian? What are you trying to say here?

What ? Ethnically Russian ? They are all Slavic countries who've been making war over their borders for much of modern history.

So...therefore...they don't deserve independence from Russian domination???

[old salt]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Balkans have been warning us about Russia for decades Post-USSR. And you were the one who suggested the Balkans were somehow ethnically Russian? What are you trying to say here?

What ? Ethnically Russian ? They are all Slavic countries, populated by Slavic people, who've been making war over their borders for much of modern history.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/slavic-countries.html

So...therefore...they don't deserve independence from Russian domination???

I was answering nattybo's question. After all these centuries, why is it now our responsibility to pick up the tab for them sorting it out amongst themselves. They're all White Christian Nationalists, after all. Even their National Orthodox Churches are at war with each other.

[old salt]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Actually most wars end with a victor and a loser. Not a temporary stalemate.

And I don't see this one ending with a stalemate...neither side will be ok with that outcome...of course, that's merely my opinion based upon my read of the players and history.

Disagree if you wish.

But I'm very, very clear where I'd like this to end.

And it ain't with rewarding Christian Nationalism and brutal aggression and war crimes by a nuclear super power.

I recommend that you, DocB, & the other Russophobe war hawks in this forum invest 45 min & listen to a very smart & experienced Russia hand (CIA & VP Cheney advisor) on how this war is likely to end & why. It's a reality check which can help you calibrate your expectations so that you are not too disappointed with the likely outcome.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?524143-3/ ... e-conflict

Beebe knows his stuff. Even when he gets a seemingly off the wall question, he gives an informed, relevant answer.
Lot's of good stuff in his answers near the end of the Q&A.

Hey afan -- listen to the Biden clip that starts just after the 20:30 mark. You say I never give Biden credit, even when he's doing what I want.
I FINALLY find what he says very reassuring about the nature & extent of the military aid we are providing.
Had he been that unequivocal & forthright BEFORE the election, I would have given him credit then.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Actually most wars end with a victor and a loser. Not a temporary stalemate.

And I don't see this one ending with a stalemate...neither side will be ok with that outcome...of course, that's merely my opinion based upon my read of the players and history.

Disagree if you wish.

But I'm very, very clear where I'd like this to end.

And it ain't with rewarding Christian Nationalism and brutal aggression and war crimes by a nuclear super power.

I recommend that you, DocB, & the other Russophobe war hawks in this forum invest 45 min & listen to a very smart & experienced Russia hand (CIA & VP Cheney advisor) on how this war is likely to end & why. It's a reality check which can help you calibrate your expectations so that you are not too disappointed with the likely outcome.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?524143-3/ ... e-conflict

Beebe knows his stuff. Even when he gets a seemingly off the wall question, he gives an informed, relevant answer.
Lot's of good stuff in his answers near the end of the Q&A.

Hey afan -- listen to the Biden clip that starts just after the 20:30 mark. You say I never give Biden credit, even when he's doing what I want.
I FINALLY find what he says very reassuring about the nature & extent of the military aid we are providing.
Had he been that unequivocal & forthright BEFORE the election, I would have given him credit then.

[old salt]

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ra ... sia-201144

Raging Toward the Abyss with Russia

In our outrage over Russia’s bloody assault, very few in the West believe we should seek ways to end the conflict short of the Kremlin’s capitulation. But unless we do, we are unlikely to find ourselves in a new Cold War. We may instead be in a very hot one.

by George Beebe. March 11, 2022

As Russia’s unconscionable invasion of Ukraine has brought the “post-Cold War” period to a violent close, many are convinced that we have entered a new age of cold war with Russia. Few have welcomed this, but most seem confident the West will prevail.

After all, we know the story of how the first Cold War turned out. The West safely contained Communist power behind the Iron Curtain. John Kennedy went eyeball to eyeball with Nikita Khrushchev over Cuba, and the Kremlin blinked. Ronald Reagan stood up to the Evil Empire, freedom proved superior to tyranny, and sensible reformers eventually came to power in Moscow. Our fears of global annihilation never materialized.

But we are not in some modern revival of that imagined morality play. We are in an intensifying escalatory spiral with a bitterly aggrieved nuclear power that, under the pressures of a stumbling military campaign and asphyxiating economic sanctions, may soon face a choice between accepting national humiliation and doing something we have long thought to be unimaginable: directly attacking a NATO member or even the United States.

Soviet leaders never faced such a dilemma. Contrary to popular myth, Kennedy did not simply force Khrushchev to back down in 1962 by threatening him with the prospect of American military attacks on Soviet missile installations in Cuba. He coupled that threat with a willingness to strike a face-saving bargain. The two leaders ended the crisis by trading the removal of those Soviet missiles for withdrawal of American medium-range missiles in Turkey and Italy, coupled with a U.S. pledge never to invade Cuba.

After the near disaster of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Cold War was played according to a set of mutually accepted rules that helped to manage and stabilize East-West rivalry. The two sides had widely divergent political ideologies, values, and national interests. But they shared a common recognition that, in the nuclear age, war between them would be catastrophic for both, and therefore they had no choice but to establish rules of the game and draw security redlines neither would cross.

We have no such understandings today. Nearly all the Cold War-era arms control and crisis management accords have disappeared, and new ones adapted to today’s changed conditions have not emerged. BBC Moscow correspondent Farida Rustamova has reported that Vladimir Putin believes the West has destroyed all the old rules of the game and that Russia is now in a fight uncircumscribed by any agreed boundaries. Putin’s recent directive putting Russia’s strategic nuclear forces on a “special regime of combat duty” suggests she is correct.

The center of gravity in Western media and popular opinion has shifted substantially since the Cold War. There has been no significant American constituency for any kind of détente with Moscow for at least a decade. Few regard nuclear war with Russia as a serious possibility, and nearly all seem to assume that the United States cannot not be drawn into direct warfare with Russia against its will. Justifiably outraged by Putin’s attack on Ukraine, our media commentators and Twitter warriors are focusing on how to ensure that Russia is defeated, and Putin removed.

But the advent of the cyber age has made the chances of escalation into direct East-West conflict much greater than during the Cold War, while doing little to reduce its potential destructiveness. Our dependence on nearly defenseless digital infrastructure makes the United States far more vulnerable to foreign attacks than it was only a few decades ago. Putin has publicly warned that Western economic sanctions constitute war against Russia. How might we react if Russian cyber combatants retaliate by disabling American power plants or disrupting trades on Wall Street? Once the sides begin attacking critical infrastructure, might they be tempted to target military and intelligence satellites on which each side’s ability to detect and respond to nuclear strikes depends?

We cannot know how these disparate factors may combine to shape events in the coming weeks. But it is fair to say that we are venturing onto terra incognita, not into some strangely reassuring replay of a regulated Cold War competition that ended happily, at least for the United States and its allies. The dangers we face today are not unmanageable, but they are certainly unprecedented.

At least one Cold War dictum retains its relevance in these new circumstances: that the leaders of superpowers must not force each other into situations where they must choose between losing face and launching nuclear war, which Kennedy said was the chief lesson of the Cuban missile crisis. What can we do—and what must we refrain from doing—to avoid putting either the Kremlin or ourselves in such a corner?

Washington’s recent decision to activate military deconfliction channels with Russia was wise, as was NATO’s choice not to pursue a no-fly zone over Ukraine, which would have required direct engagement with Russian aircraft and air defenses. We must be careful, however, not to allow our goal to slide from deterrence and punishment of Russia into regime change, which would be more likely to provoke Putin’s retaliation than his removal.

The United States also needs to resist the temptation to cut off diplomatic contacts with Moscow. We can and should ensure that Russia does not win this war. But we must recognize that Putin can make everyone else suffer horrifically if Russia must lose. Diplomacy is our only way out of this dead end. To encourage the Russians to end the fighting, we must face the painful reality that they need a viable path toward a future in which sanctions are eased and NATO is not in Ukraine, while at the same time safeguarding Ukraine’s security.

In our outrage over Russia’s bloody assault, very few in the West believe we should seek ways to end the conflict short of the Kremlin’s capitulation. But unless we do, we are unlikely to find ourselves in a new Cold War. We may instead be in a very hot one.

George Beebe is Vice President and Director of Studies at the Center for the National Interest. He is a former director of Russia analysis at the Central Intelligence Agency and author of The Russia Trap: How Our Shadow War with Russia Could Spiral into Nuclear Catastrophe.

[MDlaxfan76]

Beebe has a long history of buying into the assumption that appeasement is the only path to avoid nuclear war.

[Farfromgeneva]

Russia will need to leave and return the civilians, including children, they deported into the bowels of Russia and that's not going to happen because of a winter stalemate.

Milley undoubtedly knows this.

Who says ? You ? Wars don't end that way. Remember the Balkans. That can all be resolved postwar, with a right to return.

Actually most wars end with a victor and a loser. Not a temporary stalemate.

And I don't see this one ending with a stalemate...neither side will be ok with that outcome...of course, that's merely my opinion based upon my read of the players and history.

Disagree if you wish.

But I'm very, very clear where I'd like this to end.

And it ain't with rewarding Christian Nationalism and brutal aggression and war crimes by a nuclear super power.

I recommend that you, DocB, & the other Russophobe war hawks in this forum invest 45 min & listen to a very smart & experienced Russia hand (CIA & VP Cheney advisor) on how this war is likely to end & why. It's a reality check which can help you calibrate your expectations so that you are not too disappointed with the likely outcome.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?524143-3/ ... e-conflict

Beebe knows his stuff. Even when he gets a seemingly off the wall question, he gives an informed, relevant answer.
Lot's of good stuff in his answers near the end of the Q&A.

Hey afan -- listen to the Biden clip that starts just after the 20:30 mark. You say I never give Biden credit, even when he's doing what I want.
I FINALLY find what he says very reassuring about the nature & extent of the military aid we are providing.
Had he been that unequivocal & forthright BEFORE the election, I would have given him credit then.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2E1t74HAgpM

[old salt]

Beebe has a long history of buying into the assumption that appeasement is the only path to avoid nuclear war.

Right. Real appeaser. That's why VP Cheney chose him as his primary adviser on Russia.

[MDlaxfan76]

Beebe has a long history of buying into the assumption that appeasement is the only path to avoid nuclear war.

Right. Real appeaser. That's why VP Cheney chose him as his primary adviser on Russia.

I've been reading his stuff...yes, I repeat, he makes the assumption that the only way to avoid nuclear catastrophe is to appease Putin and the Russian hardliners. He wouldn't use that loaded word, but that's the net effect.

He certainly makes excellent points about the dangers of not understanding the assumptions made by each perspective on global affairs, but IMO, he draws the wrong conclusions. As have all the thoughtful, well-informed men in history who were concerned more about the costs of conflict versus the unknown costs of appeasement.

The fundamental problem is that aggression that is rewarded only begets more aggression.

[Kismet]

https://www.justsecurity.org/84023/puti ... otiations/

Another viewpoint, entitled Putin’s War Against Ukraine and the Risks of Rushing to Negotiations - from Ambassador Daniel Fried who is Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He previously served as Special Assistant and NSC Senior Director for Presidents Clinton and Bush, Ambassador to Poland, and Assistant Secretary of State for Europe (2005-09), and State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy.

[old salt]

https://www.justsecurity.org/84023/puti ... otiations/

Another viewpoint, entitled Putin’s War Against Ukraine and the Risks of Rushing to Negotiations - from Ambassador Daniel Fried who is Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He previously served as Special Assistant and NSC Senior Director for Presidents Clinton and Bush, Ambassador to Poland, and Assistant Secretary of State for Europe (2005-09), and State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy.

It is not likely (as Gen Milley implied) that Ukraine can win back their lost territories with the nature & amount of weapons we are willing to provide. He has seen the intel on the defenses the Russians have prepared. The retreat across the Dneiper (a natural boundary) was a tactical decision. There was no need to hold that territory since the plan to push west to Odessa, then to Moldova, taking the entire Black Sea coast, has been abandoned. It sets up both sides for a stalemate & a frozen conflict, even if such is not declared. Our weapons provided are still only defensive in nature, as the President just annunciated more clearly than he ever has before.

Meanwhile, Ukraine will suffer a harsh winter, as will the EU, US & much of the world, due to the disruptions in global food & energy supplies that this war is causing, while contributing to a global recession. In return for the hope that at some undetermined point in the future, Russia's military &/or regime may collapse, yielding a potentially more unstable & dangerous adversary in Russia, while returning a destroyed, depopulated territory to an impoverished Ukraine, unable to rebuild it themselves.

In practical (not ideological) terms, is it in our best interests for Ukraine to win back that territory ? Things like reparations. war crimes trials, re-population, resettlement, etc. can only be accomplished when the "loser" is totally defeated & occupied. Does anyone envision a regime change in Russia which will accept such a defeat & the return of Crimea ?

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree and my track record on such predictions has been vastly better than yours Salty.
But hey, you served a long time ago, so there's that...

Seriously, the Ukrainians don't need to do differently next spring than they've been doing this fall. If they do so, inevitably the Russian military will be driven out of occupied Ukraine.

Will it be hard? You betcha.
But how hard is it for the Ukrainians under the boot of the Russians?

The winter is going to be long and cold and dangerous for the Russian conscripts and mercenaries in occupied Ukraine, too. And they really, really don't want to be there.

Now, if you were asking whether we could accelerate Ukraine's success with more offensive capabilities, I'd say yes. Longer reaching precision weaponry would definitely accelerate Russia's inability to resupply and protect command and control.

From the very beginning, I've been arguing that the West is best served by providing escalating capabilities. Not all at once, but rather based on the operational imperatives of the current and next phases of the war. And that's what we've been doing. I think too slowly, but I don't have the insights on what is actually happening and planned at each stage to know that for sure.

Meanwhile, I think it's been super important that the West, and particularly the US, has take a public posture of restraint and a strong preference for peace.

I think that's what is going on right now...because they know it's going to be a brutal winter for many. And that there's no actual hope for peace in the next few months because Putin is not going to withdraw, he's not going to agree to pay for the enormous damage, and he's not going to address the war crimes nor return of Ukrainian citizens including stolen children.

At some point, I do see a Russian elite being willing to do so (or at least much of it).
And I don't think it's going to require leveling Moscow.
Just removal of Putin.
Pragmatic.

[MDlaxfan76]

10 min ago
Zelensky: Investigators found evidence of more than 400 war crimes in liberated Kherson region
From CNN’s Mariya Knight
Investigators have uncovered more than 400 cases of alleged Russian war crimes in the Kherson region since the exit of Moscow's forces from the area, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday.

“Investigators have already documented more than 400 Russian war crimes, the bodies of both civilians and military personnel are being found," Zelensky said in his nightly address.

“In the Kherson region, the Russian army left behind the same atrocities as in other regions of our country where it was able to enter,” he said.

The president added that “detention of Russian soldiers and mercenaries who were left behind, and neutralization of saboteurs, are also ongoing.”

Zelensky warned “the situation in the Kherson region is still very dangerous.”

“First of all, there are mines. Unfortunately, one of our sappers was killed, and four others were injured while clearing mines,” he said.

Zelensky was echoing warnings voiced by a local Ukrainian official earlier Sunday, who told Kherson region residents to beware of encounters with Russian soldiers and to look out for mines or missile strikes from Moscow's military.

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.justsecurity.org/84023/puti ... otiations/

Another viewpoint, entitled Putin’s War Against Ukraine and the Risks of Rushing to Negotiations - from Ambassador Daniel Fried who is Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He previously served as Special Assistant and NSC Senior Director for Presidents Clinton and Bush, Ambassador to Poland, and Assistant Secretary of State for Europe (2005-09), and State Department Coordinator for Sanctions Policy.

It is not likely (as Gen Milley implied) that Ukraine can win back their lost territories with the nature & amount of weapons we are willing to provide. He has seen the intel on the defenses the Russians have prepared. The retreat across the Dneiper (a natural boundary) was a tactical decision. There was no need to hold that territory since the plan to push west to Odessa, then to Moldova, taking the entire Black Sea coast, has been abandoned. It sets up both sides for a stalemate & a frozen conflict, even if such is not declared. Our weapons provided are still only defensive in nature, as the President just annunciated more clearly than he ever has before.

Meanwhile, Ukraine will suffer a harsh winter, as will the EU, US & much of the world, due to the disruptions in global food & energy supplies that this war is causing, while contributing to a global recession. In return for the hope that at some undetermined point in the future, Russia's military &/or regime may collapse, yielding a potentially more unstable & dangerous adversary in Russia, while returning a destroyed, depopulated territory to an impoverished Ukraine, unable to rebuild it themselves.

In practical (not ideological) terms, is it in our best interests for Ukraine to win back that territory ? Things like reparations. war crimes trials, re-population, resettlement, etc. can only be accomplished when the "loser" is totally defeated & occupied. Does anyone envision a regime change in Russia which will accept such a defeat & the return of Crimea ?

“Peace for our time,” eh?

Where and when would you like to fight Russia? Because fight we shall. Anything short of defeat and removal of putin can only lead to later campaigns. Or are you banking on a “natural solution”?

[a fan]

It sets up both sides for a stalemate & a frozen conflict, even if such is not declared. Our weapons provided are still only defensive in nature, as the President just annunciated more clearly than he ever has before.

Biden has executed the Old Salt plan to the letter. You should really give the man a well earned pat on the back. He's doing what you asked, and doing it nearly perfectly....no small feat.

In return for the hope that at some undetermined point in the future, Russia's military &/or regime may collapse, yielding a potentially more unstable & dangerous adversary in Russia

Where the F was this wisdom all these years, my man?

Agreed. THIS is why we don't send troops, money, or arms to places were we aren't treaty bound to do so. Now that I mention it, THIS is why we have treaties in the first place.

Again, welcome aboard to chess-level thinking, and moving away from "Hulk SMASH" level thinking.

[old salt]

It sets up both sides for a stalemate & a frozen conflict, even if such is not declared. Our weapons provided are still only defensive in nature, as the President just annunciated more clearly than he ever has before.

Biden has executed the Old Salt plan to the letter. You should really give the man a well earned pat on the back. He's doing what you asked, and doing it nearly perfectly....no small feat.
I just did, now that he has unequivocally stated what our policy is, ...now that the election is over.

In return for the hope that at some undetermined point in the future, Russia's military &/or regime may collapse, yielding a potentially more unstable & dangerous adversary in Russia

Where the F was this wisdom all these years, my man?
You continue to ignore what Jim Webb & I wanted to do in the ME/Persian Gulf in '92.
Everything since has flowed from that decision.

Agreed. THIS is why we don't send troops, money, or arms to places were we aren't treaty bound to do so. Now that I mention it, THIS is why we have treaties in the first place. You may have noticed that treaty bound NATO allies went to Afghanistan with us, & did not want to leave when we did. They don't want a safe haven for Islamic terrorists anymore than we do. They don't want the Taliban & AQ to get the nucs next door in Pakistan.

Again, welcome aboard to chess-level thinking, and moving away from "Hulk SMASH" level thinking.
Appeasement. Peace in our time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

It sets up both sides for a stalemate & a frozen conflict, even if such is not declared. Our weapons provided are still only defensive in nature, as the President just annunciated more clearly than he ever has before.

Biden has executed the Old Salt plan to the letter. You should really give the man a well earned pat on the back. He's doing what you asked, and doing it nearly perfectly....no small feat.
I just did, now that he has unequivocally stated what our policy is, ...now that the election is over.

In return for the hope that at some undetermined point in the future, Russia's military &/or regime may collapse, yielding a potentially more unstable & dangerous adversary in Russia

Where the F was this wisdom all these years, my man?
You continue to ignore what Jim Webb & I wanted to do in the ME/Persian Gulf in '92.
Everything since has flowed from that decision.

Agreed. THIS is why we don't send troops, money, or arms to places were we aren't treaty bound to do so. Now that I mention it, THIS is why we have treaties in the first place. You may have noticed that treaty bound NATO allies went to Afghanistan with us, & did not want to leave when we did. They don't want a safe haven for Islamic terrorists anymore than we do. They don't want the Taliban & AQ to get the nucs next door in Pakistan.

Again, welcome aboard to chess-level thinking, and moving away from "Hulk SMASH" level thinking.
Appeasement. Peace in our time.

You and Jim Webb pitched this?