Ukraine War Watch Thread

[joe00uk]

The real irony is that the more Russia puts effort into becoming "terrifying to the West", the less it manages to do so. How long will they try to keep up that downward spiral? They previously did manage to make us think that they're the 2nd most powerful army in the world. Now they've been almost completely humiliated by their smaller neighbor for the entire world to see, and their few "allies" now only see them as a potential vasal state rather than a respectable ally.

But ok, apparently now we're about to see "someone who will be less moderate than Putin". And he'll do what exactly? And literally with what army? And how much rust will he be able to scrape off those ancient weapons they've got left?

I babysit from time to time, and there's this kid I sometimes put on the naughty bench until she calms down, and she'll threaten me that she'll only calm down if I get her off the bench and give her the candy she demanded. That kid lately reminds me of Putin, thinking there's leverage when simply there's none. Fortunately, the kid will grow up to understand how the modern world works and how to cooperate with each other to make it an actual better place. Question is, when will Russia?

Apparently the West was terrified enough to fall into the complete hysteria of imposing backfiring sanctions because we "forgot" that Russian resources exist (how's that for no leverage?). As for completely humiliated, well that's just not true. If Ukraine was able to recover its 2013 territory, then sure, I'd agree. Until that happens, however, the "complete Russian humiliation" narrative is just a cope. Russia actually has a lot of allies and countries willing to do even more trade with them than ever before. Only 15% of the world's population lives in countries which have joined in with the sanctions insanity. 85% of the world's population lives under governments with more sense. Another ironic thing about the "Russian army destroyed" meme is that Russia's setbacks and failures so far have been precisely due to a lack of willingness to deploy enough troops - their army hasn't been destroyed because the vast majority of it hasn't even left Russia yet! That's in large part due to Putin's moderation (within a Russian context), which we can't - or choose not to - see in the West. Someone less moderate would have unleashed far more of their capabilities as soon as the invasion began, and we'd all know about it. From a purely strategic perspective, Russia's problems in this war aren't really military and certainly not economic: they're political.

[ibm9000]

Ukraine takes/occupies Kupiansk. ISW.

It has been a long 72 hours...

[Time_Traveller]

Ukraine takes/occupies Kupiansk. ISW.

It has been a long 72 hours...

The only 4 i'm interested in is Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk and Mariupol.

[wjfox]

the complete hysteria of imposing backfiring sanctions

[...] the sanctions insanity.

So we should just allow a country to break international law, invade and destroy a neighbouring sovereign country, torture and kill civilians, and cause the biggest military crisis in Europe since WW2, without any consequences?

Another ironic thing about the "Russian army destroyed" meme is that Russia's setbacks and failures so far have been precisely due to a lack of willingness to deploy enough troops - their army hasn't been destroyed because the vast majority of it hasn't even left Russia yet! That's in large part due to Putin's moderation (within a Russian context), which we can't - or choose not to - see in the West. Someone less moderate would have unleashed far more of their capabilities as soon as the invasion began, and we'd all know about it. From a purely strategic perspective, Russia's problems in this war aren't really military and certainly not economic: they're political.

If the latest reports are accurate then Russia has lost, at minimum, more than 6,000 troops (confirmed by name), and possibly 10 times that figure based on satellite imagery and communication intercepts. If the latter is correct, it would be around 1/3rd of Russia's total forces, and more troops than the U.S. lost during the 20-year Vietnam War. Either way, the Russian losses are unsustainable. This also includes more and more of its generals.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has a steady supply of new equipment and superior technology flowing in from the West, as well as better training and higher morale compared to large swathes of the Russian forces, many of whom are kids barely older than 20, who don't even want to be there, and often lack basic equipment and logistics. The tide has clearly turned against Russia and in favour of Ukraine.

The sanctions will further limit Russia's ability to mount a comeback, and its longer-term future is even bleaker as the world shifts away from its primary exports.

[ibm9000]

So we should just allow a country to break international law, invade and destroy a neighbouring sovereign country, torture and kill civilians, and cause the biggest military crisis in Europe since WW2, without any consequences?

Sorry, are you talking about the invasion of Iraq?

[wjfox]

Sorry, are you talking about the invasion of Iraq?

A textbook example of whataboutism.

[joe00uk]

So we should just allow a country to break international law, invade and destroy a neighbouring sovereign country, torture and kill civilians, and cause the biggest military crisis in Europe since WW2, without any consequences?

What do you mean "allow"? This isn't 1900, we don't have the power anymore to "allow" or "not allow" other countries to do these things. And what did we do when America did the same thing to Iraq in 2003? Not only did we "allow" it, we actively joined in with it. I know you think it's "whataboutism", but I think it's absolute hypocrisy to ignore it. In any case, imposing these sanctions has only impoverished our own countries. Tell all the people who won't be able to pay their heating bills this year (even with recent measures) that they have to make the sacrifice just so Ukraine can remain independent from Russia. Surely you don't actually expect them to care. When severe poverty clamps its jaws around this country's throat, don't be surprised if vast swathes of the public become a little sceptical of these sanctions.

If the latest reports are accurate then Russia has lost, at minimum, more than 6,000 troops (confirmed by name), and possibly 10 times that figure based on satellite imagery and communication intercepts. If the latter is correct, it would be around 1/3rd of Russia's total forces, and more troops than the U.S. lost during the 20-year Vietnam War. Either way, the Russian losses are unsustainable. This also includes more and more of its generals.

"If the latter is correct" - well sorry, but the latter is probably highly exaggerated in order to boost Ukrainian morale. You can't just read pro-Ukraine war propaganda and accept it as an accurate assessment, just like you can't with pro-Russian propaganda. There simply isn't any evidence that Russia has lost a third of its forces, and you seem be ignoring the fact that Ukraine has also taken extremely heavy and unsustainable casualties.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has a steady supply of new equipment and superior technology flowing in from the West, as well as better training and higher morale compared to large swathes of the Russian forces, many of whom are kids barely older than 20, who don't even want to be there, and often lack basic equipment and logistics. The tide has clearly turned against Russia and in favour of Ukraine.

The equipment Ukraine receives really isn't any sort of game changer (its superiority is questionable), and is more than made up for by the masses of equipment Russia can produce itself and buy from friendly countries like China and Iran. Ukraine, on the other hand, has very little capability for domestic production, which is why it is utterly dependent on NATO countries who don't have unlimited capabilities themselves. Even Germany is now talking about how they've depleted their armouries for Ukraine, and have nothing left to give.

It's also a bit like the situation in WW2 when the German army spent a lot of resources on producing what was supposed to be "superior equipment", but it couldn't produce as much, and was defeated by the supposedly lower quality but far more numerous Soviet armoury. As for the "higher morale", that's been variable across both sides throughout the war. There have been plenty of times when Ukrainian morale has been disastrously low, such as when Russia completed its takeover of Luhansk oblast. The Ukrainian army has suffered from its fair share of desertions and defections too. The situation with Russians "lacking basic equipment" also doesn't seem to be much of a concern compared to March, when it could have been debated (but certainly not conclusively) to be the case in some places like the Kiev and Sumy oblasts. Now, however, there just isn't evidence for that anymore. As for the tide turning against Russia, whilst it's true that Ukraine has scored a major victory in the Kharkiv oblast, you can't assume this is some permanent turning point. Back when Russia captured Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, the tide turned in their favour for a while. Such is the nature of an ongoing conflict.

The sanctions will further limit Russia's ability to mount a comeback, and its longer-term future is even bleaker as the world shifts away from its primary exports.

The sanctions aren't limiting anything in Russia - but they sure are in the West. Most of the world is eager to get their hands on as many Russian resources as they can, and will continue to be so for as long as those resources are there. Fossil fuels will eventually run out, we all know that, but there's something else in Russia's favour. As climate change warms the world, more and more land in Russia will become available for agricultural use. As the world deindustrialises, fertile land like that will gradually become the new fossil fuels.

[Nero]

Give it a rest man, they lost their flagship to a nation without a functioning navy, and have lost tens of thousands of soldiers to a war that has lasted 6 months. The Soviet Union collapsed after a much less costly Afghanistan conflict to act otherwise to consume only Russian propaganda and nothing other.

[joe00uk]

to act otherwise to consume only Russian propaganda and nothing other.

LOL nope, it's called only accepting what can so far be objectively established, and not giving in to either pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian hype. If I was only consuming Russian propaganda, as you say, I'd be frothing at the mouth over how total Russian victory is coming any week now, and that you all just have to "trust the plan" because Russia has some genius trick up their sleeve that they'll unleash any time. FYI, that's not what I believe at all. I actually do think the Russian leadership has made some stupid decisions. On the other hand, most pro-Ukrainians populating the internet can't tolerate any criticism or even shadows of doubt that total victory is theirs any week now. They literally have the same disposition as QAnon.

[erowind]

As climate change warms the world, more and more land in Russia will become available for agricultural use. As the world deindustrialises, fertile land like that will gradually become the new fossil fuels.

I should write a larger post on this war at some point since it's been so long now. For the record, I agree with your response. Briefly, it's reductionist to call whataboutism in context of broader American history of genocide and industrial scale scorched earth tactics the world over. Even when it is taken that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is an imperial action, something I do believe, the solution is not to back the opposing empire of evil in its crusade for the purposes of its own imperialism. And Ukraine would have been utterly dominated, by the mid 2010s it was already liberalizing under western pressure and selling its public and cooperative agricultural property, among other property, to private western capitalists and creditors. Nevertheless, I digress, that's a story for another time.

On to the main point of this post. Russia's advantage in the ecological crises with opening agricultural land is oversold. As are the advantages of the Arctic ocean being ice free in the summer for trade. Fertile soils take centuries and often many millennia to truly form. The soil being opened up in the arctic tundra is largely rocky, thin, and lacking in biodiversity. It can be cultivated and over generations made more viable but it will not be productive in the way that current breadbaskets like the Great Plains in America or the current viable steppe in Eurasia are. This issue applies to thawing Canadian and Alaskan soils too for that matter. In absence of industrial inputs like phosphorous these soils will not be as great a resource as they are often portrayed. And even with industrial inputs will not match productivity of current breadbaskets.

This is my intuition speaking from learning more about ecology these past years. When I have a formal source or study to point to I'll try to post it if I remember, I do think I saw some at some point but you know how it is with reading on the internet, hopefully my words alone suffice for now. The thin new soils are only part of the problem though. They can still be made somewhat productive with use of permaculture and other organic farming methods even in absence of industrial inputs, but it will be an uphill battle. The real problem that will make this task go from being a mere challenge to a nightmare is that in absence of the cooling effect caused by sea ice in the Arctic Ocean over the summer; the climate in the Northern Hemisphere is likely to dramatically destabilize in ways we don't currently understand fully. Causing even more intense and unpredictable extreme weather events such as erosive flooding and prolonged droughts.

The thermal equator will move north by some degrees as cold air from a still functional southern hemisphere-climate system protected by Antarctica will push warm air in the northern hemisphere farther north in absence of the North Pole's now absent balancing force. Which will cause the north to experience worse warming relative to the south. When the Southern Hemisphere is struggling with periodic agricultural supply chain breakdown under 2C of warming we in the north will be contending and likely failing to adapt to 4C warming. This doubling effect will level off at some point, but over the next two centuries will likely remain mostly constant. Russian agricultural resources simply will not fair well under these conditions, and any relative advantage granted by new thin soils is likely to be outweighed by other extenuating circumstances

I don't expect that Russia will ever starve, assuming it controls the territory it does today. Russia will likely still even be able to export some food under pronounced ecological breakdown for sometime, though by the 22nd century this too will come into question. But it won't be enough to become a breadbasket of the world. There simply won't generally be breadbaskets of the world anymore at all really if this process isn't stopped. And on that note, learn Spanish and get your Chilean visa now, or New Zealand visa if you're lucky enough to have an avenue there. The south is the place to be within then next 20 years! Patagonia will be lovely for some time.