Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[magnkarl]

9 hours ago, Awol said:

The holocaust was an event in a class of its own and no one (regardless of faith) should ever cheapen that, imo. Mariupol is of a piece with Aleppo and Grozny, a city that is systematically destroyed and a civil population abused by design - but not exterminated on sight. It’s worse than Sarajevo though, making it the biggest atrocity of this type in Europe since 1945.

It’s also important to note that while Putin is a very bad and evil man, he’s not Hitler*. Russia’s campaign in Ukraine is one of old-fashioned imperial conquest, not a racial war to eradicate specific groups of humanity. 

* Caveat, if Putin starts wanging nuclear weapons around willy-nilly then clearly he’s on a fast track to historic infamy. 

Edit: In terms of Biden getting emotional, that’s likely exactly right. I think most of us are, just from witnessing this through screens and social media. 

To be honest, it took the allies and nazis a bit longer of fighting before they started bombing cities indiscriminately like Putin did after about 4 days. It's in no way cheapening the holocaust when Putin is after wiping out Ukrainian history and culture. He's specifically bombed museums, schools and hospitals. The Holodomor was another one of these events where the Russian overlord tried to wipe out Ukraine, now he's instead doing it with bombs and artillery.

[magnkarl]

12 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

Why was Dresden any worse than the bombing of London during WW2?

Because the allies were winning, Dresden was full of women, children and ill people. It was a heritage city, one of the most beautiful in the world and the bombs used were fire bombs which would easily ignite the old wooden houses in Dresden. It also had very little military presence, no weapons production to speak of and almost zero grounds for being totally wrecked.

London's bombs were bad too, mind. Just not on the same scale. Also Hitler never claimed to fight for 'good'. The allies killed more civilians in two days in Dresden\Hamburg than what was killed in Bergen-Belsen during the whole war.

Edited March 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[KentVillan]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/biden-putin-regime-change-russia/629397/
 

Quote

Biden’s Comments About Putin Were an Unforced Error

The words of every world leader matter right now, and none more than those of the president of the United States.

By Tom Nichols

 

Joe Biden has been a model of restraint during the most serious global crisis in nearly sixty years, and thank goodness for that. He has provided assistance to Ukraine while keeping NATO together against the possibility of a Russian attack against the Alliance. He has resisted calls to engage in high-risk escalatory moves—such as a no-fly zone—while inflicting damage on the Russian economy and making clear the depth of America’s outrage at Putin’s war of conquest.

But Biden broke his long streak of message discipline during a speech in Poland today, when he added an apparently unscripted ending: “For God's sake, this man”—meaning Russian President Vladimir Putin—“cannot remain in power.”

The sound that could not be captured by the cameras after Biden spoke was dozens of staffers slapping the palms of their hands against their foreheads. Predictably, the media in America and elsewhere seized on this statement as if it were some new policy or a NATO war aim and asked if the President of the United States was calling for regime change in, of all places, Moscow.

Biden’s staff lamely offered that the president was saying that Putin “cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region. He was not discussing Putin's power in Russia, or regime change.” The United States, as Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut, a member of the House intelligence committee, later told CNN, does not have a new policy of regime change, and has no overt or covert programs aimed at such a goal in Russia. But the news cycle was already in full swing, with CNN and others quoting Biden in their chyrons and prodding their guests to speculate on the president’s meaning.

A good piece by a guy who is sympathetic to Biden, but thinks this one was an unscripted, unforced error.

[blandy]

Please stay on topic. - Russia

[bannedfromHandV]

I wonder what the general consensus is amongst the populations of those eastern areas of Ukraine at this stage.

Much will depend on which versions of the news they’ve been able to access I guess and how strongly they view their citizenship (Ukrainian vs Russian) but I can’t imagine many of them are overly joyed at witnessing Russia decimating their country, surely?

Is it possible that Putin is turning even those who would have been supporters at the beginning of all this against him?

[KentVillan]

8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I wonder what the general consensus is amongst the populations of those eastern areas of Ukraine at this stage.

Much will depend on which versions of the news they’ve been able to access I guess and how strongly they view their citizenship (Ukrainian vs Russian) but I can’t imagine many of them are overly joyed at witnessing Russia decimating their country, surely?

Is it possible that Putin is turning even those who would have been supporters at the beginning of all this against him?

I think a lot depends on the movement of civilians in and out of the region.

Putin’s classic approach to this has been to drive non-Russian / anti-Putin civilians out of these contested areas, while a big Russian migrant community settles there alongside the existing ethnic Russian community, so that over time they basically become sympathetic to Moscow.

Have a look at the conflicts in Georgia (South Ossetia / Abkhazia) and Moldova (Transnistria) and of course the last few years in Crimea for good examples of how he operates.

So it’s a fluid situation. The population right now may not like what is happening, but they may not be the population in 5 years.

On top of that, these are areas where there is already somewhat more pro-Moscow opinion than in other parts of Ukraine (although not to the extent Putin would like everyone to believe - Russian ethnicity / Russian first language does not automatically mean pro-Putin).

Edited March 27, 2022 by KentVillan

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

On top of that, these are areas where there is already somewhat more pro-Moscow opinion than in other parts of Ukraine

Erm, I think there's just a small chance that people who had that opinion a month ago might just have changed their minds in the last few weeks

[Mozzavfc]

9 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I wonder what the general consensus is amongst the populations of those eastern areas of Ukraine at this stage.

Much will depend on which versions of the news they’ve been able to access I guess and how strongly they view their citizenship (Ukrainian vs Russian) but I can’t imagine many of them are overly joyed at witnessing Russia decimating their country, surely?

Is it possible that Putin is turning even those who would have been supporters at the beginning of all this against him?

The areas damaged the worst by Russian forces are ironically the areas of Ukraine with the highest population of Russians/Russian speakers, so if Ukraine holds the territory at the end of this you would have to imagine any pro-Russia sentiment will be gone. 

[magnkarl]

 

[KentVillan]

16 minutes ago, bickster said:

Erm, I think there's just a small chance that people who had that opinion a month ago might just have changed their minds in the last few weeks

In key battlegrounds like Mariupol, probably, but the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts are quite large areas and the picture is more complicated. Lots of the local population are fighting on the Russian side, and many pro-Moscow people will still see this as a liberation exercise (with unfortunate collateral damage).

Sadly, I doubt Putin’s atrocities play out the way we see them in the West. That’s not to say that people are completely blind to them, but people are remarkably good at explaining things away if they contradict their previous beliefs.

[magnkarl]

7 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

In key battlegrounds like Mariupol, probably, but the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts are quite large areas and the picture is more complicated. Lots of the local population are fighting on the Russian side, and many pro-Moscow people will still see this as a liberation exercise (with unfortunate collateral damage).

Sadly, I doubt Putin’s atrocities play out the way we see them in the West. That’s not to say that people are completely blind to them, but people are remarkably good at explaining things away if they contradict their previous beliefs.

The local population of Luhansk and Russian occupied areas are forced into the army. Many of the POW's are normal people conscripted into fighting, telling the UA forces that their bosses said they won't have a job unless they go and help the Russians. It's a far cry away from voluntarily fighting for them.

It also underlines why the morale is so bad for many of the Russian troops. 

The Russian army also has very few NCO's, meaning that generals and big wigs have to be on the ground to push these conscripts forward themselves. This is why Russian generals and NCO's are getting sniped so easily. A weak command structure, a weak invasion plan, corruption and gear not fit for purpose. It's not going well for Putler.

[KentVillan]

17 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The local population of Luhansk and Russian occupied areas are forced into the army. Many of the POW's are normal people conscripted into fighting, telling the UA forces that their bosses said they won't have a job unless they go and help the Russians. It's a far cry away from voluntarily fighting for them.

It also underlines why the morale is so bad for many of the Russian troops. 

The Russian army also has very few NCO's, meaning that generals and big wigs have to be on the ground to push these conscripts forward themselves. This is why Russian generals and NCO's are getting sniped so easily. A weak command structure, a weak invasion plan, corruption and gear not fit for purpose. It's not going well for Putler.

I agree to some extent, but there was already an active separatist movement there, and it’s wishful thinking to believe that there is no sympathy in those regions towards Russia.

Whether the *majority* believe that is another question, my point was simply that it is relatively more pro-Putin than other regions of Ukraine. I don’t understand how that’s controversial.

[LondonLax]

This was an interesting look from a few years back at the differing views in Ukraine.

 

[NoelVilla]

 

[chrisp65]

In the 1991 Independence referendum 92% of Ukrainians voted for independence. Absolutely no region had a minority for Indy, everywhere was 50% for Indy. The lowest yes vote anywhere was 54% in Crimea.

Once the 2014 breakaway regions happened, there were two sets of referendums held in Donbas, one organised by those in control of the breakaway military action. One by the Ukrainian government. Both these polls gave the result the people holding the election wanted to prove.

So it is next to impossible to suggest there is majority support for Russian occupation of any inch of Ukraine anywhere.  

[KentVillan]

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In the 1991 Independence referendum 92% of Ukrainians voted for independence. Absolutely no region had a minority for Indy, everywhere was 50% for Indy. The lowest yes vote anywhere was 54% in Crimea.

Once the 2014 breakaway regions happened, there were two sets of referendums held in Donbas, one organised by those in control of the breakaway military action. One by the Ukrainian government. Both these polls gave the result the people holding the election wanted to prove.

So it is next to impossible to suggest there is majority support for Russian occupation of any inch of Ukraine anywhere.  

Literally nobody has suggested that. But some regions have larger pro-Russia populations than others - and Putin has driven opponents out of the parts he controls.

Edit: to elaborate a bit, my point was that Putin looks for regions where there is *some* support for him, not necessarily majority support, and tries to leverage that. It would be the same story in the Baltic States. None of these countries wants to be part of Russia, but they do have significant populations who are sympathetic to him, even if the majority despise him.

He will have a relatively easier (but still very difficult) time holding on to Donetsk / Luhansk than he would ever have controlling western Ukraine, and his aim will be to change the makeup of the population over time, through ethnic cleansing, migration, etc.

Edited March 27, 2022 by KentVillan

[magnkarl]

Surely the plan to attack Odesa is now gone as Russia only has one capable landing ship left in the black sea. Turkey has now turned away a number of Russian cruisers and ships from the Bosporos. Kherson will likely be liberated within a few days, and then I hope Ukraine actually goes for Crimea. It'd be a good idea to blow up the land bridge from Russia to Crimea, and then retake the whole thing. It'd be ironic if Ukraine managed to take back the land illegally taken from them due to Putin's horrid army.

[bickster]

21 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Russia only has one capable landing ship left in the black sea.

Not true. The Black Sea fleet had 7 landing ships when I looked it up, at least 5 of which were seaworthy before the conflict

Alligator class

• Orsk
• Saratoc
• Nikolay Filchenlov

Ropucha II

• Azov

Ropucha I

• Novocherkassk
• Caesar Kunikov
• Yamal

One of Orsk or Saratov is sunk, the other is damaged. Yamak and Nikolay Filchenlov are unknowns

But also currently on active duty in Black Sea are

Ropucha's Minsk, Kallingrad and Korolev from the Baltic Fleet as well as Georgy Pobedonoset and Olenegorsky Gornyak from the Northern Fleet. Add to that the Ivan-Gran class ship Pyotr Morgunov also from the Northern Fleet

So thats at least 9, possibly 11 Landing ships still in the Black Sea on active duty

[maqroll]

6 hours ago, KentVillan said:

If Biden really did go off script there, which it sounds like he did, then that’s a bad one. Bit puzzling, as he’s been pretty solid so far

Some people speculating it was intentional and in the speech, perhaps as a signal to enterprising officials in Moscow who also want Putin out.

It also gives Putin something to think about. He probably didn't expect this aggressive posture from Biden.

If it was intentional, it comes with some risk, obviously.

Edited March 27, 2022 by maqroll

[fruitvilla]

7 hours ago, Cizzler said:

Why was Dresden any worse than the bombing of London during WW2?

It was renown for its intensity and resulting firestorm. But worse and better are not really relevant terms when it comes to all out war.

from history.com

In an effort to force a surrender, the Dresden bombing was intended to terrorize the civilian population locally and nationwide. It certainly had that effect.

 

And in an effort to keep it on topic, that is happening in Ukraine is terribly new. Undesirable yes. And Biden's comment on Putin, I sort of get it. Is it a mistake. Unintentional perhaps. Time will tell regarding the consequences.

Edited March 27, 2022 by fruitvilla