Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

[Gulliver Foyle]

I think there's a difference between appeasement - giving a bully what they say they want, in the hope/belief that this will be the end of their demands - and negotiating some kind of quid pro quo with someone who is in a strong negotiating position.

Yes the quid is returning to the Jan 1st 2014 borders, paying reparations in full for all damages caused in Ukraine, returning those kidnapped, and admitting publicly in view of everybody that Russia, at all levels, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The quo is Putain doesn't get his head separated from his neck.

 

[theprestige]

Yes the quid is returning to the Jan 1st 2014 borders, paying reparations in full for all damages caused in Ukraine, returning those kidnapped, and admitting publicly in view of everybody that Russia, at all levels, committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The quo is Putain doesn't get his head separated from his neck.

Already addressed in the remainder of my post, which you snipped for some reason. Except for the part about credibly threatening Putin's life if he doesn't concede, which is just delusional.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I think there's a difference between appeasement - giving a bully what they say they want, in the hope/belief that this will be the end of their demands - and negotiating some kind of quid pro quo with someone who is in a strong negotiating position.

I've been saying all along that there are corners Russia/Putin could be backed into where escalating use of nuclear weapons seems like their best option. And I've been saying all along that I would rather try to keep from backing Russia into one of those corners - even if it means negotiating some sort of quid pro quo.

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, there's been a fairly consistent narrative that NATO* cannot intervene more robustly or decisively, because Russia has nukes and nobody wants to incite them to start a nuclear war. We'd rather help the Ukrainians grind out however many Ukrainian casualties it takes to win this the "safe" way, rather than just end it tomorrow and then find out whether Putin is bluffing or not.

So it's a bit rich now to see people saying we should just keep grinding this out until Russia's destruction and humiliation is so thorough that nukes are the only thing they have left, and they cannot imagine conceding. If it's gonna be like that, then we should just let slip the dogs of NATO* air power tonight, and put Ukraine in Crimea by the end of the week. Get it over with.

I'm assuming your last point was not serious. (I seriously hope so, anyway.)
What, then, would be your preferred solution? What kind of compromise do you suggest, and how would you expect to sell that to Ukraine?

 

[Olmstead]

A Russian military aircraft has crashed into a residential block in Russia:

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1582045969709174784

I'm a complete layman, but this seems like something that should absolutely never happen in completely uncontested territory.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

That's nice. Can we get back to talking about the war itself, and leave Musk's state of mind and epistemology for some other thread?

Unfortunately, the state of mind of influencers in the West regarding the War is very much relevant.

 

[lobosrul5]

A Russian military aircraft has crashed into a residential block in Russia:

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1582045969709174784

I'm a complete layman, but this seems like something that should absolutely never happen in completely uncontested territory.

I mean... an analog of that did happen in peace time by the USAAF* over American soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash

That said, navigation aids have come along ways in 77 years I'm told, but maybe not for Russia?

*SIC

 

[JoeMorgue]

Russia's stuff is in such bad shape I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of them just decided to randomly fall out of the sky.

 

[lobosrul5]

I'm assuming your last point was not serious. (I seriously hope so, anyway.)
What, then, would be your preferred solution? What kind of compromise do you suggest, and how would you expect to sell that to Ukraine?

I've been saying roughly the same since this started. And I was at no point, kidding.

For any logical person being defeated because NATO is sharing technology, equipment, and intelligence is no different than being defeated because NATO pilots are in the air over Ukraine. Russia's response to being defeated SHOULD be no different in either case. So, if NATO keeps supporting Ukraine well enough that Russia's defeat through conventional arms is inevitable, and its inevitable that Russia then resorts to WMD... and its inevitable that that leads to WW3, well lets just get it over with with a pre-emptive strike. If we hit them first then the damage they can deal will be greatly reduced. I'm not kidding, and I don't have a death wish.

I have, however, realized that there's actual logic and then there's "Russia logic". So in that manner maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it does matter to Putin that there aren't actual NATO pilots over Ukraine? I mean it was no secret that the Soviets had pilots over Korea (and secretly but known over Vietnam) yet we didn't start WW3 over it.

 

[Mike!]

A Russian military aircraft has crashed into a residential block in Russia:

https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1582045969709174784

I'm a complete layman, but this seems like something that should absolutely never happen in completely uncontested territory.

Apparently staying at the controls in order to try and avoid any ground casualties isn't a thing in Russia.

https://twitter.com/KralovecStepan/status/1582070616978378752

 

[Olmstead]

I mean... an analog of that did happen in peace time by the USAAF* over American soil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash

That said, navigation aids have come along ways in 77 years I'm told, but maybe not for Russia?

*SIC

Based on reports and some other videos, this one seemed to have been equipment failure rather than human error.

I've read that Russian reports are suggesting a bird strike. That sounds plausible, but I wonder if they're cutting corners on maintenance.

 

[theprestige]

I'm assuming your last point was not serious. (I seriously hope so, anyway.)
What, then, would be your preferred solution? What kind of compromise do you suggest, and how would you expect to sell that to Ukraine?

My preferred solution is some sort of diplomatic-intelligence arrangement with some faction close to Putin, that has a vested interest in ousting Putin, withdrawing from Ukraine, licking their wounds, and living to try again some other day - a day that will likely never come, or in any case won't come soon enough to prevent us from working out some other better long term outcome.

However, if we're confident that Putin and his cronies won't resort to nukes no matter how hard they are pressed in Ukraine, or how thoroughly they are driven from the country, then why not escalate right now, and get this over with right now? Why do Ukrainians have to keep fighting and dying, week after week, month after month, while we trickle in our leftovers and hand-me-downs?

On the other hand, if we're seriously concerned that we could at some point push Putin into a nuclear corner, by continued progress in liberating Ukraine, then I would "prefer" something like this:

* Having figured out more or less where Putin's breaking point is likely to be, and

* Being reasonable certain that point has been or soon will be reached,

* Offer him some amount of territory already occupied (Crimea, for example), and

* Some reduction of sanctions and some renunciation of war crimes prosecutions;

* In exchange for cessation of hostilities, renunciation of further claims in Ukraine, and repatriation of all the kidnapped Ukrainians.

ETA: As for selling it to Ukraine, that part is obvious.

 

[theprestige]

I've been saying roughly the same since this started. And I was at no point, kidding.

For any logical person being defeated because NATO is sharing technology, equipment, and intelligence is no different than being defeated because NATO pilots are in the air over Ukraine. Russia's response to being defeated SHOULD be no different in either case. So, if NATO keeps supporting Ukraine well enough that Russia's defeat through conventional arms is inevitable, and its inevitable that Russia then resorts to WMD... and its inevitable that that leads to WW3, well lets just get it over with with a pre-emptive strike. If we hit them first then the damage they can deal will be greatly reduced. I'm not kidding, and I don't have a death wish.

I have, however, realized that there's actual logic and then there's "Russia logic". So in that manner maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it does matter to Putin that there aren't actual NATO pilots over Ukraine? I mean it was no secret that the Soviets had pilots over Korea (and secretly but known over Vietnam) yet we didn't start WW3 over it.

I think we* didn't start WW3 over Soviet involvement in earlier proxy wars because in that period we were pretty confident that we were playing Brinkmanship with rational actors who understood game theory and its geopolitical applications.

I've seen it proposed (on reddit, so grain of salt etc.) that prolonging Russia's humiliation only cements their sense of injustice and despair, and only increases their likelihood of preferring nuclear war to continued suffering. And therefor that a swift and decisive end to the conflict is more likely to shock them into accepting the defeat and giving up the dream of Ukraine or Death.

 

[lobosrul5]

I think we* didn't start WW3 over Soviet involvement in earlier proxy wars because in that period we were pretty confident that we were playing Brinkmanship with rational actors who understood game theory and its geopolitical applications.

I've seen it proposed (on reddit, so grain of salt etc.) that prolonging Russia's humiliation only cements their sense of injustice and despair, and only increases their likelihood of preferring nuclear war to continued suffering. And therefor that a swift and decisive end to the conflict is more likely to shock them into accepting the defeat and giving up the dream of Ukraine or Death.

I see that as well.

Scenario A: NATO goes in guns a blazing. Wars over in days, the vast majority of the Russian military surrenders and becomes PoW's. They're allowed to call their wife or mother back home and let them know they are OK. Most Russian's are probably going to be for a negotiated peace to get their sons and husbands back. Putins backed into a corner, but the Russian people are in no mood to support a nuclear strike.

Scenario B: the war keeps on dragging on over the winter. The conscripts that Putin sent to Ukraine mostly either come back home in a body bag, WIA, or missing a limb or two from frostbite. This is exactly what Putin wants. Practically everyone back in Russia knows a soldier who has died or is crippled by the war. There's widespread absolute hatred of Ukrainians and "the west". Victory in Ukraine by any means is widely supported. Putin knows if he's ousted he's dead and the only means to survive is force Ukrainians surrender with nuclear weapons and then hope that the West doesn't strike back.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Apparently staying at the controls in order to try and avoid any ground casualties isn't a thing in Russia.

https://twitter.com/KralovecStepan/status/1582070616978378752

Looking at the map, it's a lousy situation if the wind's from the East. As soon as you clear the airfield perimeter you're over the town, and you have to clear 2 miles of it to reach the coast. He got a mile and a half.

 

[Drewbot]

It will take one Russian hero to give the Russians an out.

 

[Olmstead]

Looking at the map, it's a lousy situation if the wind's from the East. As soon as you clear the airfield perimeter you're over the town, and you have to clear 2 miles of it to reach the coast. He got a mile and a half.

Yes. I remember hearing that fighter jets like that are horrible at unpowered gliding, so in fairness to the pilot, he might have been out of options and did eject at almost the last moment (I've actually read reports that there were two people who ejected).

I'm not holding my breath for a proper investigation though. Can't have the military look bad for plowing into a residential block. I doubt this would have happened if Russia wasn't stretching itself thin to keep their occupation going, so now they get to add their own civilians to the list of causalties they've caused.

 

[Jimbo07]

. I doubt this would have happened if Russia wasn't stretching itself thin to keep their occupation going, so now they get to add their own civilians to the list of causalties they've caused.

Last year, the Brits flew a brand-new F-35B into the Mediterranean bathtub, due to an ingested intake cover. Stuff happens in the military. The Russians have demonstrated gross incompetence in this conflict, but it may be too early to tie this to the conflict, specifically.

 

[dudalb]

If Putin is gone, 80+% of the efforts of the Russian State will go into finding and taking his billions.

When Putin goes, Russia will descend into another "Time Of Troubles".

 

[dudalb]

Some tankies look like they may be trying to push "this war is designed to be continuous (by US/NATO military industrial complex and leaders), not to be won."

Needless to say, that's facepalm territory, as usual.

What amazes me about the Tankies is they have fooled themsleves into thinking that PUtin is still a Communist at heart.

 

[dudalb]

Musk has made himself a "useful idiot". Theres no doubt in my mind about that. Its only whether Russia actually made that happen or Musk did it to himself that is unknown. I don't see how its proof that they won't really use a nuke though.

Musk has throughly wrecked his public image as "A Real Life Tony Stark" over the past year. I guess that Time Man Of The Year Award drove his ego into La La Land.