Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[Bert_]

If NATO deploys troops to Ukraine then that presumably means they will be directly engaging the Russians. Ukraine isn't Russian territory but it's not allied with NATO either. Russia would consider any NATO attack on their forces outside of NATO territory a declaration of war. No one is going to risk direct military confrontation with Russia. It's a race to the bottom.

NATO should have been arming Ukraine since 2014 with the goal to retake the Donbass at least. And Russia should have been isolated and sanctioned immediately. Instead our politians swam in pools of oligarch cash and turned a blind eye.

 

[Wibble]

What? Why?
Are you OK with people in Ukraine dying because what???
What's wrong with you?
So many questions....

You don't need to be OK with Ukrainians dying not to want to commit NATO forces to directly engage in a war with Russia.

That would be an incredibly dangerous escalation especially as it would effectively then be a US Russia war.

 

[Oldham]

You don't need to be OK with Ukrainians dying not to want to commit NATO forces to directly engage in a war with Russia.

That would be an incredibly dangerous escalation especially as it would effectively then be a US Russia war.

So we should just let Putin play his war games?
Sometimes you have to be brave and stop evil and this is in my opinion what should be done...

 

[the_cliff]

After seeing the US and the UK rush to defend Iranian attacks on Israel yesterday, Zelensky seems pretty annoyed and rightly so.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[DT12]

So we should just let Putin play his war games?
Sometimes you have to be brave and stop evil and this is in my opinion what should be done...

It's not a question of "bravery". When every major political and military leader in the West is saying direct war with Russia must be avoided "at all costs" (the acceptable 'cost' here being Ukraine), it's likely they have access to information that you don't about what the consequences of that war would be.

And for you and others who have begun to casually throw around words like "bravery" and "cowardice" when saying "we" must fight Russia directly - here's the link to the Ukrainian Foreign Legion:

https://ildu.com.ua

Let me know the link works and that your application has gone through.

 

[DT12]

After seeing the US and the UK rush to defend Iranian attacks on Israel yesterday, Zelensky seems pretty annoyed and rightly so.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

If he still hasn't figured out the difference between an "ally" and a "proxy" 2 years into this war then he isn't "rightly" annoyed, he's a moron.

I will say this for him though - there is a definite anger coming through in his nightly addresses to the Ukrainian people. Scornful remarks about "genuine" friends and "those who only promise" (from last night's address, thanking Germany for the extra Patriot system while admonishing everyone else). There's a glimmer of hope that he's starting to realise he's been used as a disposable tool by the Washington neocons and he was an idiot to buy into their "new Winston Churchill" flattery.

 

[VorZakone]

If he still hasn't figured out the difference between an "ally" and a "proxy" 2 years into this war then he isn't "rightly" annoyed, he's a moron.

I will say this for him though - there is a definite anger coming through in his nightly addresses to the Ukrainian people. Scornful remarks about "genuine" friends and "those who only promise" (from last night's address, thanking Germany for the extra Patriot system while admonishing everyone else). There's a glimmer of hope that he's starting to realise he's been used as a disposable tool by the Washington neocons and he was an idiot to buy into their "new Winston Churchill" flattery.

What makes you think he bought into Churchill flattery? What specific behavior, quotes etc. shows that he bought into his own narrative?

 

[DT12]

What makes you think he bought into Churchill flattery? His own interests are to secure aid and maintain positive PR and Ukrainians by and large chose to fight back.

He wasn't forced or anything by Western allies to fight, that's a decision Ukraine made for itself.

He got caught up in the West's bullshit about how "Ukraine can defeat Russia", which every single Western leader must have known was utter nonsense. If they were genuine "friends" of Ukraine, they would have done 2 years ago what they are doing now - been bluntly honest with him about Ukraine's chances of 'victory' and made major diplomatic efforts to resolve it (I know, I know, "Putin can't be negotiated with! He invaded!!!"). Instead, and in contrast to Israel - an actual Western ally whose destruction they care about - they all got a bit giddy. They should have been honest with Zelenskiy. Instead they showered him with adulation, staged multiple #slavaukraini tours for their own domestic political benefit, contributed to the "Ukraine will win" horseshit, and the result is that Ukraine has been destroyed as a functioning state. I know you and most others here have a very different take and that's fine (though I will add that Zelenskiy is more and more expressing what I have written here). I don't propose to go over it all again.

 

[VorZakone]

He got caught up in the West's bullshit about how "Ukraine can defeat Russia", which every single Western leader must have known was utter nonsense. If they were genuine "friends" of Ukraine, they would have done 2 years ago what they are doing now - been bluntly honest with him about Ukraine's chances of 'victory' and made major diplomatic efforts to resolve it (I know, I know, "Putin can't be negotiated with! He invaded!!!"). Instead, and in contrast to Israel - an actual Western ally whose destruction they care about - they all got a bit giddy. They should have been honest with Zelenskiy. Instead they showered him with adulation, staged multiple #slavaukraini tours for their own domestic political benefit, contributed to the "Ukraine will win" horseshit, and the result is that Ukraine has been destroyed as a functioning state. I know you and most others here have a very different take and that's fine (though I will add that Zelenskiy is more and more expressing what I have written here). I don't propose to go over it all again.

But how do you know he got caught up in the "Ukraine can defeat Russia" rhetoric specifically?

The premise of your argument is that he would have behaved differently if the West was "honest". In fact, if I recall correctly, Western intelligence were honest in their assessment pre-invasion and told him that Ukraine was likely to get crushed if they didn't prepare better. He must have been given the same intel about Kyiv being stormed by Russia in potentially several days.

Instead, under those circumstances, he and his team chose to stay and rally the country to fight back.

The notion that he was convinced by the West that he could win doesn't really fly for me. Because it's precisely in those early days where the situation looked extremely vulnerable (and the West pessimistic) that he didn't back down

In other words, I don't recall the West singing kumbaya with Zelensky 2 years ago. The West was pessimistic and shared alarming intel with Ukraine on its chances for resistance, but Zelensky and his government chose to fight regardless.

 

[VorZakone]

Defenders of Ukraine’s strategy accuse the White House of prioritizing domestic politics over Kyiv’s military goals. U.S. officials say the rationale behind their warnings is more nuanced than critics suggest, noting that Moscow’s counterattack has hurt Ukraine more than the refinery attacks hurt Russia.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[africanspur]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I'm genuinely interested to know who these kinds of people are. I mean.....why wouldn't the White House prioritise domestic policies over Ukraine's military goals?

And why (if this is all true), would you piss off your biggest backer, by doing exactly what they've asked you not to do?

 

[VorZakone]

I'm genuinely interested to know who these kinds of people are. I mean.....why wouldn't the White House prioritise domestic policies over Ukraine's military goals?

And why (if this is all true), would you piss off your biggest backer, by doing exactly what they've asked you not to do?

I think it's a two-way street. Obviously the White House needs to think about its domestic policies, they're still the White House and have to deal with a lot more than just the war in Ukraine.

But on the other side, I also don't think the WH has 100% authority on Ukraine's decision-making. The Europeans have also provided a lot of (economic) aid and they don't seem to be upset or vocal about Ukraine's attacks on refineries.

The Ukrainians aren't using Western weapons on Russian territory to my best knowledge so they're adhering to that condition.

As for whether the refinery strategy is a good one in terms of hurting the Russian war machine, I don't know.

 

[TMDaines]

Just feel sorry for Ukrainians at this point, and more than slightly embarrassed by the inertia of the West.

 

[Red in STL]

I think it's a two-way street. Obviously the White House needs to think about its domestic policies, they're still the White House and have to deal with a lot more than just the war in Ukraine.

But on the other side, I also don't think the WH has 100% authority on Ukraine's decision-making. The Europeans have also provided a lot of (economic) aid and they don't seem to be upset or vocal about Ukraine's attacks on refineries.

The Ukrainians aren't using Western weapons on Russian territory to my best knowledge so they're adhering to that condition.

As for whether the refinery strategy is a good one in terms of hurting the Russian war machine, I don't know.

The US public is super sensitive about the price of gasoline, attacks on oil refineries inevitably leads to the price of oil going up and as a result the price of gasoline

No matter the reason the US president is always blamed if the price of gasoline goes up more than a few cents, Biden or Trump, it would make no difference

 

[VorZakone]

I read the article. Though it offers more details and shows that negotiations were going on for a long time (even after Bucha), it's still somewhat of a "he said, she said" story and we still don't know if the Russians were really intent on securing a diplomatic settlement. Ukraine was willing to agree to neutrality on military alliances but EU membership would be left open.

Nevertheless, the authors disagree with the notion that Ukraine was forced by the West to continue fighting. Also, another point that I was thinking about recently and mentioned in the article. Without hard security guarantees from the West, negotiations aren't worth much. Previous agreements have already been violated by Russia. Any new agreement without concrete security guarantees is just another agreement that Russia can violate without Western military intervention.

Still, the claim that the West forced Ukraine to back out of the talks with Russia is baseless. It suggests that Kyiv had no say in the matter.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

This thread says Poland's role was bigger than known, and that the Polish felt that the Russians were bluffing but tried to subjugate Ukraine at the negotiation table after the early military failures. Also says Russian officials threatened Ukrainian officials and that the Ukrainian delegation, including current minister Rustem Umerov, had symptoms of poisoning (here's a WSJ piece which may be linked).

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[That_Bloke]

I read the article. Though it offers more details and shows that negotiations were going on for a long time (even after Bucha), it's still somewhat of a "he said, she said" story and we still don't know if the Russians were really intent on securing a diplomatic settlement.

Nevertheless, the authors disagree with the notion that Ukraine was forced by the West to continue fighting. Also, another point that I was thinking about recently and mentioned in the article. Without hard security guarantees from the West, negotiations aren't worth much. Previous agreements have already been violated by Russia. Any new agreement without concrete security guarantees is just another agreement that Russia can violate without Western military intervention.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It's still one of the best articles I've read about the topic, thanks.

You've raised some good points about which I'd like to talk. I'll get back to back you.

 

[VorZakone]

It's still one of the best articles I've read about the topic, thanks.

You've raised some good points about which I'd like to talk. I'll get back to back you.

Another quote from Ukrainian negotiator Arakhamia from a different article, when asked why Ukraine didn't agree to Russia's terms.

First of all, to agree to this point, we would have to change the [Ukrainian] Constitution. Our path to NATO is written into the Constitution.

Second of all, we did not and still do not trust the Russians to keep their word. This would only have been possible if we had security guarantees. We couldn’t sign something, walk away, everyone would breathe a sigh of relief, and then [Russia] would invade, only more prepared this time — because the first time they invaded, they were actually unprepared for us to resist so much. So we could only work [with them] if we were 100 percent confident that this wouldn’t happen a second time. And we don’t have that confidence.

https://meduza.io/en/feature/2023/11/28/we-had-to-buy-time

 

[Sweet Square]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[the hea]

Pro Russian Tegram channels are saying that ATACMS missiles where used in the attack.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

50,000 confirmed killed on the Russian side.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?

 

[Mike Smalling]

If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?

Difficult to say, but it's not like Putin has single-handedly spellbound an entire nation that will suddenly wake up upon his death. There is a big propaganda apparatus that has filled the population with lies about the conflict, and I'm sure many of his closest allies at the top of the food chain actually agree with Putin's reasons for the invasion. Putin's death could maybe act like a good opportunity for negotiations though. Whoever takes over wouldn't massively lose face by giving concessions to Ukraine, like Putin would.

It's all speculation, of course, and I don't see Putin dying the next 10 years. The bad ones always seem to live forever.

 

[stefan92]

If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?

There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.

Thanks for your answers @Mike Smalling and @stefan92.

I guess there are nutters everywhere, as the images show flattened villages, you can't be more unrestrained than that.

 

[stefan92]

Thanks for your answers @Mike Smalling and @stefan92.

I guess there are nutters everywhere, as the images show flattened villages, you can't be more unrestrained than that.

They could fully mobilize and try to attack with a million soldiers instead of the roughly 200k they use.

 

[harms]

Pro Russian Tegram channels are saying that ATACMS missiles where used in the attack.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I don't think that Astra is a "pro-Russian" channel. I'm not a fan of theirs as they're a bit trash in terms of fact-checking but they're trying to be objective (half of their latest posts are about the Russian strike on Chernihiv for example).

 

[harms]

There are several reasons why Russia has something to gain from this war (if you value those high enough to justify the costs is another question):
- the Donbass is rich in natural resources
- Ukraine has a strong industrial base, especially for aircraft and missile technology which Russia badly needs
- Kiyv is the historic core of what did later become Russia. Russia without Ukraine is not "complete" in a way.

There are actually Russians who think Putin acts to restrained in Ukraine and would like to have gone in with a massive army from the beginning (Strelkov as the most vocal I think). The Russian far-right would probably intensify the war, not end it, if they came to power.

Economic reasons that you've mentioned aren't really relevant. The war costs much more (both directly and indirectly via sanctions) — and you'll need tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment to build/rebuild the industrial infrastructure (let alone the civilian one that is also required for it to function considering the damage from the war). Russia has a lot of untapped natural resources on its own territory that aren't getting harvested because of the lack of infrastructure investment.

The issue is people who are benefitting from this war — and I mean both the oligarchy and common folk who are working in military production (although they wouldn't be able to influence the decision directly). And another issue is that we can't really know how genuine Putin's elite are in their ideological convictions at this point (and there's no real way to check). If those who share the same beliefs as Putin (like Patrushev) will stay in power, nothing will change. If it's more practical people (like Sobyanin), I think the war will meet its swift end.

 

[nimic]

They could fully mobilize and try to attack with a million soldiers instead of the roughly 200k they use.

Do they have equipment and logistics for a million soldiers at war?

 

[the hea]

I don't think that Astra is a "pro-Russian" channel. I'm not a fan of theirs as they're a bit trash in terms of fact-checking but they're trying to be objective (half of their latest posts are about the Russian strike on Chernihiv for example).

Astra didn't mention ATACMS that was mentioned on Rybar and at least one other pro Russian channel I checked this morning. I just used Rob Lees tweet to show which attack I was referring to. Sorry for being unclear.

 

[stefan92]

Do they have equipment and logistics for a million soldiers at war?

Those people who advocate for that don't really give the impression that they would care about that to me.

 

[the hea]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[TwoSheds]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Yeah I don't believe the meat armour one, sorry. They perhaps just have more troops than troop carrying capacity so have them sit on the top or something.

 

[stefan92]

Yeah I don't believe the meat armour one, sorry. They perhaps just have more troops than troop carrying capacity so have them sit on the top or something.

The BMPs especially are so badly armoured against mines that it's often safer for troops to ride on top than inside them, if they fear there could be mines.

The mines destroy the lower body of the BMP, but the upper armour prevents the shrapnels to reach the troops on top

 

[Gehrman]

If Putin dies, does this war stop or will Russia still continue this under someone else. Surely Russia as a nation has nothing to gain from this?

I think its wishfull thinking. The whole idea that in countires that has only briefly flirted with democracy that the replacement of a dictator will be progressive is sort of naive considering that their brief spell with democracy was considered humaliating. On a whole I dont think the Russians national psyche and narrative will offer something radically better than whats already on the table.

 

[TwoSheds]

The BMPs especially are so badly armoured against mines that it's often safer for troops to ride on top than inside them, if they fear there could be mines.

The mines destroy the lower body of the BMP, but the upper armour prevents the shrapnels to reach the troops on top

Makes more sense I guess.

 

[DT12]

Your GDP continues to decline

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68823399

 

[VorZakone]

Seventeen killed in Ukraine's Chernihiv in Russia's deadliest air strike in weeks

CHERNIHIV, Ukraine, April 17 (Reuters) - Three Russian missiles slammed into the city centre of Chernihiv in northern Ukraine on Wednesday, killing at least 17 people, wounding dozens more and damaging civilian buildings, officials said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...hits-infrastructure-governor-says-2024-04-17/