Ukraine War Watch Thread

[Yuli Ban]

[Yuli Ban]

I mentioned the Nagorno-Karabakh war earlier
If we want to understand what the Ukraine war will hold, it's best to look back to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war

[caltrek]

U.S., Russia Leave Door Open for Dialogue Over Ukraine
by Cain Burdeau
January 21, 2022

https://www.courthousenews.com/us-russi ... r-ukraine/

Introduction:

(Courthouse News) — A second week of high-stakes talks ended on Friday with still no signs of breakthroughs between the West and Moscow over NATO's expansion onto Russia's doorstep nor success at defusing a simmering armed conflict in Ukraine, though both superpowers appeared eager to let the door for diplomacy remain open.

At a hotel on Lake Geneva in Switzerland, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday to reassess the state of a military and political crisis for which all sides share responsibility. It is becoming obvious that the outbreak of a major war in Ukraine would be disastrous for all involved.

Simmering since 2014, armed conflict in Ukraine has led to the deaths of about 14,000 civilians in a civil war in the predominantly Russian eastern regions, which are seeking more independence from Kyiv through military force. The conflict has crippled the country economically and politically and forced about 1 million people to flee their homes in Donbas, a heavily populated industrial hub. After years of frozen conflict, the region is described as a war zone resembling the trenches, mud flats and deserted towns of World War I.

In Geneva, Lavrov and Blinken held separate news conferences at the conclusion of 90-minute face-to-face talks. Lavrov obtained promises from Blinken to provide a written response from the United States to demands Russia made in December for NATO to stop seeking to recruit Ukraine into the alliance and to withdraw troops and weapons from Eastern Europe, such as in Bulgaria, Romania and Poland.

Blinken repeated warnings that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it chooses to invade Ukraine, something the Kremlin denies it intends to do despite a large military buildup along Ukraine's borders.

[andmar74]

Any link to a in-depth article about possible scenarios?
How will the Russians start the invasion? What flanks? Will they bomb Ukraine first? How will Ukraine defend? Do they have many portable anti-tank weapons? How good are they? Can they hold Kiev?

[Yuli Ban]

[weatheriscool]

UK warns Russia will face severe sanctions if it installs Ukraine 'puppet regime'
Source: Reuters

LONDON/KIYV, Jan 23 (Reuters) - Russia will face severe economic sanctions if it installs a puppet regime in Ukraine, a senior UK minister said on Sunday after Britain accused the Kremlin of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader there.

Britain made the accusation late on Saturday, also saying Russian intelligence officers had been in contact with a number of former Ukrainian politicians as part of plans for an invasion.

The Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the comments as "disinformation", accusing Britain and NATO of "escalating tensions" over Ukraine.

Mykhailo Podolyak, a Ukrainian adviser to the presidential office, said the allegations should be taken seriously.

"There'll be very serious consequences if Russia takes this move to try and invade but also install a puppet regime," British Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab told Sky News on Sunday.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-01-23/

[andmar74]

How can Russia install a puppet regime? Are the Ukraines just going to give their country away?
UK is threatening sanctions. Did they forget they left EU? Why would Russia care about what UK is saying.

[weatheriscool]

Ukraine: US orders families of embassy staff to leave
Source: BBC

The US has ordered the relatives of its embassy staff in Ukraine to leave amid rising tension in the region.

The State Department has also given permission for non-essential staff to leave and urged US citizens in Ukraine to consider departing.

In a statement. it said there were reports that Russia is planning significant military action against Ukraine.

Read more: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-60106416

[caltrek]

Europe's Energy Reliance on Russia is a Crucial Shield for Putin
by Andrew Freedman and Ben Geman

https://www.axios.com/eu-gas-scramble-r ... b2013.html

Introduction:

(Axios) Cracks in the NATO alliance regarding sanctions for Russia should President Vladimir Putin order troops into Ukraine are in large part based on energy supply concerns.

Why it matters: Russia holds tremendous leverage over some European countries because it provides roughly 40% of Europe's natural gas supply. In Germany, this figure is greater than 50%.

• Should Russia choose to cut off the supplies in the middle of winter in response to the imposition of Ukraine-related sanctions, energy costs would skyrocket and millions could shiver amid power outages.

• This would put pressure on political leaders to weaken the sanctions.

Between the lines: "It's going to be an incredibly hard sell in any European country, to say that you have a 10 times higher energy bill and we feel as though our supply is not plentiful enough, because of Ukraine," Kristine Berzina, of the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy.

[andmar74]

Europe's Energy Reliance on Russia is a Crucial Shield for Putin
by Andrew Freedman and Ben Geman

https://www.axios.com/eu-gas-scramble-r ... b2013.html

Introduction:

(Axios) Cracks in the NATO alliance regarding sanctions for Russia should President Vladimir Putin order troops into Ukraine are in large part based on energy supply concerns.

Why it matters: Russia holds tremendous leverage over some European countries because it provides roughly 40% of Europe's natural gas supply. In Germany, this figure is greater than 50%.

• Should Russia choose to cut off the supplies in the middle of winter in response to the imposition of Ukraine-related sanctions, energy costs would skyrocket and millions could shiver amid power outages.

• This would put pressure on political leaders to weaken the sanctions.

Between the lines: "It's going to be an incredibly hard sell in any European country, to say that you have a 10 times higher energy bill and we feel as though our supply is not plentiful enough, because of Ukraine," Kristine Berzina, of the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy.

What an embarrassment being a European. The United states is protecting us with military forces, and Russia is crucial for energy supply.

[weatheriscool]

NATO sends ships and fighter jets to eastern Europe
Source: AP

BRUSSELS (AP) — NATO said Monday that it’s putting extra forces on standby and sending more ships and fighter jets to eastern Europe as Russia continues its troop build-up near Ukraine.

It said that it’s beefing up its “deterrence” presence in the Baltic Sea area. A number of members of the 30-country military organization have offered troops and equipment.

Denmark is sending a frigate to the Baltic Sea and deploying F-16 war planes to Lithuania. Spain is sending ships to join NATO’s standing maritime force and considering sending fighter jets to Bulgaria. France stands ready to send troops to Bulgaria, NATO said.

“NATO will continue to take all necessary measures to protect and defend all Allies, including by reinforcing the eastern part of the Alliance. We will always respond to any deterioration of our security environment, including through strengthening our collective defence,” NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 52ef09d102

[weatheriscool]

US orders 8,500 troops on heightened alert amid Russia worry
Source: AP

The Pentagon ordered 8,500 troops on higher alert Monday to potentially deploy to Europe as part of a NATO “response force” amid growing concern that Russia could soon make a military move on Ukraine. President Joe Biden consulted with key European leaders, underscoring U.S. solidarity with allies there.

Putting the U.S.-based troops on heightened alert for Europe suggested diminishing hope that Russian President Vladimir Putin will back away from what Biden himself has said looks like a threat to invade neighboring Ukraine.

At stake, beyond the future of Ukraine, is the credibility of a NATO alliance that is central to U.S. defense strategy but that Putin views as a Cold War relic and a threat to Russian security. For Biden, the crisis represents a major test of his ability to forge a united allied stance against Putin.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said about 8,500 U.S.-based troops are being put on alert for possible deployment — not to Ukraine but to NATO territory in Eastern Europe as part of an alliance force meant to signal a unified commitment to deter any wider Putin aggression.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 52ef09d102

[weatheriscool]

8500 US and 40,000 NATO Troops Placed on Standby
January 24, 2022 by Brian Wang

The Pentagon has put 8500 troops on alert for possible deployment to Eastern Europe in case Russia invades the Ukraine.

I think there is no chance of any direct US or NATO engagement of Russian troops inside Ukraine. Troops would be doing to other nearby countries.

The UK and USA are drawing down embassy staff and embassy families from Ukraine.

There is also a 40,000 troop NATO Response Force. There is rumors of considerations to activate those troops. The NATO website reports:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2022/01/174439.html

[andmar74]

US to the rescue, again:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ies-energy

US finalizing plans to divert gas to Europe if Russia cuts off supply

[weatheriscool]

US offers no concessions in response to Russia on Ukraine
Source: AP

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV and MATTHEW LEE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration and NATO told Russia on Wednesday there will be no U.S. or NATO concessions on Moscow’s main demands to resolve the crisis over Ukraine.

In separate written responses delivered to the Russians, the U.S. and NATO held firm to the alliance’s open-door policy for membership, rejected a demand to permanently ban Ukraine from joining, and said allied deployments of troops and military equipment in Eastern Europe are nonnegotiable.

“There is no change, there will be no change,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said. Also not up for negotiation will be the U.S. and European response to any Russian invasion of Ukraine, he said, repeating the mantra that any such incursion would be met with massive consequences and severe economic costs.

The responses were not unexpected and mirrored what senior U.S. and NATO officials have been saying for weeks. Nonetheless, they and the eventual Russian reaction to them could determine whether Europe will again be plunged into war.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukrai ... 954488ba90

[urdestan]

I mentioned the Nagorno-Karabakh war earlier
If we want to understand what the Ukraine war will hold, it's best to look back to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war

I’ve followed this war in late 2020 and its after effects in early 2021 especially on Armenia. Yet the average American does not know this happened thanks to media coverage focused on internal American politics and bickering or if externally, its always about China or some other place thats a major threat to America.

The Nagorno-Karabakh War showed what warfare might look like in the future or at least glimpses of it. Azerbaijan has a technological edge compared to Armenia, their arms are supplied by Turkey (a regional power and close ally to it), Israel and a few other western countries, iirc, which is how they were able to take back a majority of territory held by Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). There may be a greater role in drones in combat as well in a hypothetical 2022 Russo-Ukrainian War, which was one of Azerbaijan’s points of winning the war.

But Ukraine isn’t like Armenia or at least how I view it. They are between Europe and Russia essentially, unlike Armenia where they are surrounded by two major belligerents (Turkey and Azerbaijan) that refuse to cooperate with them for reasons always associated with nationalism. Its how Armenia lost the war, essentially their only ally (if at all) was Russia and even then, Russia didn’t really contribute too much into their support. Ukraine has the edge of being a strategic point for the West compared to Armenia, so the West would naturally try to support them to push their goals and maybe would back them in such a fight through supplying arms. If its like a one-on-one war, then Ukraine is certainly going to be defeated by Russia - but much like the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, their spirits won’t be broken so easily thanks to years of being on alert essentially (since 2014), so I can see them fighting off longer especially if they try to take over western Ukraine.

It might seem a bit off topic (and if so, you could delete the post), but I wanted to share my own opinion between these comparisons, but they might seem a little nuanced and oversimplified.

Also another note, I would wish that everyone would not trust bad media like The Grayzone alongside some lefty apologists to Russia trying to justify Russia’s imperialist course on Ukraine (heck, even some of the worst American conservative pundits are supporting Russia with their likeminded views). Just because America has done imperialism on Iraq or Afghanistan, doesn’t mean Russia’s is justifiable. It is not an “anti-imperialist” power and its doing the same thing America did to both countries but with Ukraine and previously, Georgia. I believe Ukraine has the right to having their own nation on the principle of self-defence and their wish for independence, although ultimately, history (a subjective thing) and nationalism seems to always muddle everything around me.

I am also hoping that peace would prevail as well, it would be a big lose for Russia and Europe if war breaks out. Russia’s economy cripples while Europe loses access to well, gas (looking at you Germany). I think the idea of autonomy could work for the Donbas region through a referendum, but then again, Crimea, while being autonomous decided to annex itself to Russia back in 2014 so they could just do the same which kinda makes it pointless imo. Eh, I’m not sure. I ramble too much and I got to put it here somehow.

[erowind]

.

[caltrek]

^^^I know that it is not the intent but casting the situation in terms of colonialism can be very misleading. That is to say there is no economic logic to military action in Ukraine. Such action will have negative economic consequences. It only has economic benefits if the Ukraine is brought into the orbit of one or the other side through peaceful means. So, military action is inherently irrational. It may spring from relatively rational actions to maneuver for economic advantage, but it can quickly morph into something that is highly irrational and counterproductive to all that are concerned.

What I came here to post:

Macron Reaffirms Solidarity with Ukraine in Call with Ukraine's Leader
January 28, 2022

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2022 ... in-ukraine

Introduction:

(France 24) French President Emmanuel Macron reaffirmed France’s solidarity with Ukraine in a phone call Friday with President Volodymyr Zelensky amid tensions between Moscow and Kyiv. In an earlier phone call, Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on the need to “de-escalate" the situation. Follow Friday's events as they happened in our coverage below.

22:29 Paris time: Ukraine’s Zelensky says diplomacy must continue if conditions allow

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said after his phone call with French President Emmanuel Macron late on Friday that intensive international negotiations reduced "the chance of escalation" in Kyiv's stand-off with Moscow.

"As long as conditions are conducive, we must meet & talk," Zelensky said in a tweet, adding that he agreed with his French counterpart to keep up the pace of diplomatic talks.

This report was cited in Courthouse News: https://www.courthousenews.com/hopes-fo ... utin-talk/. I should add that most of the information in the Courthouse News article is largely repetitive of information already posted earlier in this thread.

[erowind]

.

[caltrek]

You make some good points about rational alternatives. While you mention World War I and World War II, I should note that I have been reading Hanah Arendt's The Origins of Totalitarianism. She makes the point, If I can oversimplify for the moment, that these were in part explainable by looking at clashes between pan-German and pan-Slavic ideologies. These were in turn rooted in issues of identity and ideas of cultural superiority. They were only sometimes related to economic considerations. For example, one reason Jews were signaled out for oppression from both the pan-Slavic and pan-German camps were the role played by Jewish bankers in the past as financiers for royalist governments. So, an entire ethnic and religious group had to pay for the sins carried out by a tiny minority in their midst. A minority who often sought to distance themselves from any identity as Jews.

These sorts of racist and bigoted attitudes had very little to do with a "declining rate of profit." Moreover, "Western Imperialism" as associated with countries like Great Britain, France, the United States and even Germany were largely coincidental to the clash between pan-German and pan-Slavic ideological and cultural interests. I think it is in fact highly confusing to historical truth to use that "declining rate of profit" argument as the magic hammer by which all nails must be pounded.

Edit: I started to read the first article you posted. Sure, the depression that preceded World War II certainly did not help the situation. That, in turn, can be somewhat traced to the "declining rate of profit." My point still stands that it is an oversimplification to state that such a decline therefore caused World War II. The crash of the system created a situation where many looked for scape goats. Blaming a "declining rate of profit" is in and of itself a kind of a search for a scape goat. It makes it seem rational what was essentially an irrational situation.

Edit: Also, looking at the chart you provide shows a clear indication of the declining rate of profit trend between 1869 and 1983. Overall, there is virtually no change between 1983 and 2008.

Edit: Perhaps I read the two articles too quickly, but I also think there is an issue of precisely how "profit" is identified and defined. For example, how does the rate of compensation for management fit into the picture? How can we be sure "profit" is not simply a shift from payment to shareholders to an increase in executive compensation?

Not to mention other factors such as capital gains.