Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

For the West the goal is more than just pushing Russia back out of Ukraine, it’s taking the opportunity to completely cripple the Russian economy / threat by feathering the throttle to keep the battle on going for as long as mobile without letting them gain much ground.

 

1 hour ago, pas5898 said:

This war is absolutely ideal for the US politicians and their donors. They'll want it to go on as long as possible. 

-Crippling Russia

-Paying off your donors from Raytheon, Boeing etc

-Transfer of public money to the private sector at an unbelievable scale, all widely accepted by the majority of the population.

-Boost to local economies from manufacturing 

-No dead american soldiers on TV

-No dead civilians from US drones.

 

Way back at the start of this phase, 2 years ago, a few on here suggested ‘the west’ wouldn’t be trying to get a definitive win here, but would be drip feeding just enough to prevent a Russian win, thus making Russian people poorer and making a nice income stream for some western arms companies. It was suggested Russia wasn’t working on a metric of the number of dead sons or the value of the ruble, they were interested in land gain and influence on world events.

Others were less cynical.

 

[blandy]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

Way back at the start of this phase, 2 years ago, a few on here suggested ‘the west’ wouldn’t be trying to get a definitive win here, but would be drip feeding just enough to prevent a Russian win, thus making Russian people poorer and making a nice income stream for some western arms companies. It was suggested Russia wasn’t working on a metric of the number of dead sons or the value of the ruble, they were interested in land gain and influence on world events.

I think they were wrong then and still wrong. I feel that analysis ignores quite a lot of facts. The first of which is that with Russia being a nuclear power, a corrupt dictatorship in all but name, complete defeat for Russia is not only extremely dangerous in terms of nuclear war, but also extremely dangerous in terms of “what happens to Russia” if Putin is toppled (either by internal or external forces).  Next is that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and there is no mandatory duty to defend her by the west. Another is that the conduct of Ukraine’s actions is determined by Ukraine. Yet another is that putting NATO or Western forces on the ground in anything other than a small number of, er, “liaison and training” roles has always been a nonstarter, not because “we” want to trickle along, but because our populations don’t want to, or agree to, killing our children and partners to fight Russians in a non NATO nation.

Or in other words, those people who suggested what you say perhaps don’t appreciate the extent to which we realistically could “defeat Russia”. It’s not a war anyone can “win”, with or without external help of whatever scale. It’s not about deliberate policy to drag out the war, or deliberately “drip feeding just enough”.

And lastly, there’s another fact. Neither NATO nor the west is capable of providing “enough to win” to Ukraine without diminishing our own capabilities . Industry is not set up to manufacture and supply arms and equipment etc in sufficient quantity, quickly. Nor is Ukraine capable of suddenly being able to operate complex jets, for example, in short timescales, nor do they have the facilities to operate them from. The Abraham tanks and leopard tanks and so on, remember them? Not being used now, because Russia just kills them with drones (as does Ukraine to Russian tanks).

We can give Ukraine kit and intel and training to defend their land, but we can’t win the war for them.

 

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

I think they were wrong then and still wrong. I feel that analysis ignores quite a lot of facts. The first of which is that with Russia being a nuclear power, a corrupt dictatorship in all but name, complete defeat for Russia is not only extremely dangerous in terms of nuclear war, but also extremely dangerous in terms of “what happens to Russia” if Putin is toppled (either by internal or external forces).  Next is that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and there is no mandatory duty to defend her by the west. Another is that the conduct of Ukraine’s actions is determined by Ukraine. Yet another is that putting NATO or Western forces on the ground in anything other than a small number of, er, “liaison and training” roles has always been a nonstarter, not because “we” want to trickle along, but because our populations don’t want to, or agree to, killing our children and partners to fight Russians in a non NATO nation.

Or in other words, those people who suggested what you say perhaps don’t appreciate the extent to which we realistically could “defeat Russia”. It’s not a war anyone can “win”, with or without external help of whatever scale. It’s not about deliberate policy to drag out the war, or deliberately “drip feeding just enough”.

And lastly, there’s another fact. Neither NATO nor the west is capable of providing “enough to win” to Ukraine without diminishing our own capabilities . Industry is not set up to manufacture and supply arms and equipment etc in sufficient quantity, quickly. Nor is Ukraine capable of suddenly being able to operate complex jets, for example, in short timescales, nor do they have the facilities to operate them from. The Abraham tanks and leopard tanks and so on, remember them? Not being used now, because Russia just kills them with drones (as does Ukraine to Russian tanks).

We can give Ukraine kit and intel and training to defend their land, but we can’t win the war for them.

 

 

I think the evidence in front of our eyes shows us the worst case is they were right, for the wrong reasons. But I would dispute that argument.

 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

I think the evidence in front of our eyes shows us the worst case is they were right, for the wrong reasons. But I would dispute that argument.

 

Western Europe, we know from the 30 odd years since “the end of the Cold War” didn’t want to spend money on defence. Governments wanted to and did spend it on other stuff. The US was different, it’s true, but you look at the Republicans and Trump and they don’t want to help Ukraine. So somehow the implied narrative that donors and the governments love feeding arms companies money and it’s a deliberate policy to keep those companies in clover doesn’t really stack up with the evidence of the last 30 years or with what the Republicans have done and said. Cynics gonna cynic all the same, I suppose.

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

Western Europe, we know from the 30 odd years since “the end of the Cold War” didn’t want to spend money on defence. Governments wanted to and did spend it on other stuff. The US was different, it’s true, but you look at the Republicans and Trump and they don’t want to help Ukraine. So somehow the implied narrative that donors and the governments love feeding arms companies money and it’s a deliberate policy to keep those companies in clover doesn’t really stack up with the evidence of the last 30 years or with what the Republicans have done and said. Cynics gonna cynic all the same, I suppose.

By 30 years of evidence, are you referring to Ukraine, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Israel and Syria or a broader or narrower argument for not feeding the arms companies?

[sidcow]

It's like people are blind to the tightrope nearly every Western leader has walked over this back home. 

As much as I'm sure they'd like to appease a few conspiracy theorists on the internet they're fighting very real political battles in their own countries to justify what they're supplying already. 

Just imagine where most would be if they suddenly agreed to provide hundreds of billions (or in the case of USA trillions) of pounds of aid when there are already subject to real political pressure over what they're doing at the moment. 

They're not going to commit political suicide to help another country they’ve got no obligation to help at all. 

And before you shout morality, if they did commit political suicide they'd inevitably be replaced by the guy who pulls out all the aid. 

Some people just don't live in the real world. 

[villa89]

2 hours ago, sidcow said:

They're not going to commit political suicide to help another country they’ve got no obligation to help at all

I'd argue that all European countries do have an obligation to help given we've had two world wars in the not so recent past. USA maybe not so much. 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

By 30 years of evidence, are you referring to Ukraine, Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Israel and Syria or a broader or narrower argument for not feeding the arms companies?

I'm referring to the cut (in percentage of GDP terms ) of European nations spending on Defence since the end of the Cold War.

This time lapse video shows it quite well.

It's now back up to and above Cold War levels and while that obviously does create jobs and taxes and stuff, as was said earlier, it also means money isn't getting spent on stuff that wins more votes.  

[chrisp65]

So not only are they spending more now, its on equipment or ‘arms’ not personnel, as the size of the army in that same time period has gone from a third of a million, to 80,000 

[sidcow]

6 hours ago, villa89 said:

I'd argue that all European countries do have an obligation to help given we've had two world wars in the not so recent past. USA maybe not so much. 

Like I said, don't do the morality thing. The reason they don't is because it's to fall on their sword and suddenly Neville Chamberlain is there waiving a piece of paper because the public aren't happy. 

[Panto_Villan]

It's quite astonishing the amount of agency people seem to ascribe to arms companies. You'd think they were the illuminati secretly pulling the strings of every major government from some of the things you read online (and occasionally on here).

Big arms manufacturers like... Boeing, the company that famously can't even build planes that don't fall apart. Yup, I'm sure they'd do a great job of running a conspiracy.

The idea that the West is deliberately trying to destroy Russia's economy by lengthening the war is also pretty dumb, imo. The Russian economy was already being strangled by corruption long before the war; distracting from their poor economic performance was one of the reasons why Putin started his foreign adventures a decade or two ago. Why would the West choose such an expensive way to destroy their economy when Russia was already doing the work for us?

Is it so hard to believe that the West just don't want to pay the price in blood to fight Putin directly, and don't want to risk nuclear war? And that the Ukrainians can't push the Russians out because war is hard, and Russia has a lot of men / equipment and can tolerate huge losses?

 

Edited July 12 by Panto_Villan

[sidcow]

13 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

It's quite astonishing the amount of agency people seem to ascribe to arms companies. You'd think they were the illuminati secretly pulling the strings of every major government from some of the things you read online (and occasionally on here).

Big arms manufacturers like... Boeing, the company that famously can't even build planes that don't fall apart. Yup, I'm sure they'd do a great job of running a conspiracy.

The idea that the West is deliberately trying to destroy Russia's economy by lengthening the war is also pretty dumb, imo. The Russian economy was already being strangled by corruption long before the war; distracting from their poor economic performance was one of the reasons why Putin started his foreign adventures a decade or two ago. Why would the West choose such an expensive way to destroy their economy when Russia was already doing the work for us?

Is it so hard to believe that the West just don't want to pay the price in blood to fight Putin directly, and don't want to risk nuclear war? And that the Ukrainians can't push the Russians out because war is hard, and Russia has a lot of men / equipment and can tolerate huge losses?

 

 

[blandy]

13 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

So not only are they spending more now, its on equipment or ‘arms’ not personnel, as the size of the army in that same time period has gone from a third of a million, to 80,000 

Exactly right. For 30 odd years Europe both reduced defence spending as a percentage of GDP and also reduced the size of armed forces and of ships, planes, tanks, bases and so on. The governments preferred to use the money for more voter friendly stuff.

Then the combination of Trump and Putin and to an extent China brought about a need to reverse that decline. Orders for shells and rockets and so on, for jets and tanks for Ukraine or for the UK go into the books straight away. Recruiting more soldiers, having sold off the barracks, airfields etc. is more long term (if they’re going to even do that). And then there’s the nature of equipment. A new iPhone is way more complex and expensive than a 1980s phone. An F35 is likewise compared to a Tornado built in the 80s.

The world is a lot less safe because of Russia and Europe in particular has responded with various degrees of reluctance (eg Germany) or alacrity (eg Poland) by bolstering depleted forces.

[LondonLax]

8 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

It's quite astonishing the amount of agency people seem to ascribe to arms companies. You'd think they were the illuminati secretly pulling the strings of every major government from some of the things you read online (and occasionally on here).

Big arms manufacturers like... Boeing, the company that famously can't even build planes that don't fall apart. Yup, I'm sure they'd do a great job of running a conspiracy.

The idea that the West is deliberately trying to destroy Russia's economy by lengthening the war is also pretty dumb, imo. The Russian economy was already being strangled by corruption long before the war; distracting from their poor economic performance was one of the reasons why Putin started his foreign adventures a decade or two ago. Why would the West choose such an expensive way to destroy their economy when Russia was already doing the work for us?

Is it so hard to believe that the West just don't want to pay the price in blood to fight Putin directly, and don't want to risk nuclear war? And that the Ukrainians can't push the Russians out because war is hard, and Russia has a lot of men / equipment and can tolerate huge losses?

 

Conspiracy theories are seductively popular. 

They are a chance for us who are ultimately pretty powerless to feel like we’re in on what’s going on. 

[chrisp65]

11 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

It's quite astonishing the amount of agency people seem to ascribe to arms companies. You'd think they were the illuminati secretly pulling the strings of every major government from some of the things you read online (and occasionally on here).

Big arms manufacturers like... Boeing, the company that famously can't even build planes that don't fall apart. Yup, I'm sure they'd do a great job of running a conspiracy.

The idea that the West is deliberately trying to destroy Russia's economy by lengthening the war is also pretty dumb, imo. The Russian economy was already being strangled by corruption long before the war; distracting from their poor economic performance was one of the reasons why Putin started his foreign adventures a decade or two ago. Why would the West choose such an expensive way to destroy their economy when Russia was already doing the work for us?

Is it so hard to believe that the West just don't want to pay the price in blood to fight Putin directly, and don't want to risk nuclear war? And that the Ukrainians can't push the Russians out because war is hard, and Russia has a lot of men / equipment and can tolerate huge losses?

 

Do I think the head of Boeing is part of the illuminati, meeting in poorly lit mountain lairs with other devil worshippers and pulling the strings of Blair and Trump? No, I think on balance that’s unlikely.

Do I think that Boeing can simultaneously chase profit too keenly in their civil aircraft division at the expense of safety, AND be a part of the incredibly successful arms lobby? Yes.

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Do I think that Boeing can simultaneously chase profit too keenly in their civil aircraft division at the expense of safety, AND be a part of the incredibly successful arms lobby? Yes.

Absolutely right. Boeing (and Dassault/Thales in France) are very embedded with their government, to a degree which is unhealthy. That said, it’s not the case for other contractors and governments. Another thing that strikes me is a line of argument has been made, here and elsewhere, that governments are deliberately doing stuff to drag out the war for their own benefit and especially for the benefit of arms companies. The people making that claim also claim that the west should be doing much more to aid Ukraine, by er, spending much more money on buying and supplying arms for Ukraine. So it’s bad that the policy, or alleged policy, is to give money to arms companies, and what we should do is give even more money to arms companies.

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Absolutely right. Boeing (and Dassault/Thales in France) are very embedded with their government, to a degree which is unhealthy. That said, it’s not the case for other contractors and governments. Another thing that strikes me is a line of argument has been made, here and elsewhere, that governments are deliberately doing stuff to drag out the war for their own benefit and especially for the benefit of arms companies. The people making that claim also claim that the west should be doing much more to aid Ukraine, by er, spending much more money on buying and supplying arms for Ukraine. So it’s bad that the policy, or alleged policy, is to give money to arms companies, and what we should do is give even more money to arms companies.

In an ideal world we could run two parallel universes. One, where the aid promised and the sound bites tossed out are actually met in real time. With the cost and benefit tallied up at the end. Another one, where for years there is a drip feeding of just in time or not quite in time, and a shuffling of what stock is kept in what condition in what warehouse on what continent and after a few years we all sort of agree that perhaps it would be better if we settled for a compromise and then beefed up spending in some nebulous way so we would never be caught out like this again until next time.

 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In an ideal world we could run two parallel universes. One, where the aid promised and the sound bites tossed out are actually met in real time. With the cost and benefit tallied up at the end. Another one, where for years there is a drip feeding of just in time or not quite in time, and a shuffling of what stock is kept in what condition in what warehouse on what continent and after a few years we all sort of agree that perhaps it would be better if we settled for a compromise and then beefed up spending in some nebulous way so we would never be caught out like this again until next time.

I only really know (a little of) how the uk has operated in our universe. The uk has in my (limited, but real) experience pretty much done the first universe you describe. The second universe (from media reporting, rather than personal knowledge) seems to be partially accurate when applied to Germany, say and partially (half) accurate when applied to the US. Poland, Netherlands, Scandi nations have been in your first universe, too.

So I think it’s perhaps naive to believe that so many different nations with different circumstances, different populations, different histories would somehow all act in the same way to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It’s because of these differences in circumstances that the outcome has been what it is, in terms of support. I don’t see it as somehow a cunning plot to deplete Russia’s economy, or tickle the tummies of the military industrial complex, or to elicit donations to political parties.

[chrisp65]

So during 14 years of the tories, we’ve pretty much played with a straight bat, politicians have been resistant grandstanding and the most powerful lobbyists in the world. Some Europeans a bit less so. Much of Europe and the U.S. verging on rotters.

I’m beginning to think I have a more cynical view of the world than you.

Though for clarity, I’m still not a believer in satanic rituals at Davos.

 

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

So during 14 years of the tories, we’ve pretty much played with a straight bat, politicians have been resistant grandstanding and the most powerful lobbyists in the world. Some Europeans a bit less so. Much of Europe and the U.S. verging on rotters.

I’m beginning to think I have a more cynical view of the world than you.

Though for clarity, I’m still not a believer in satanic rituals at Davos.

 

What? Where did you conjure that up from? I thought we were discussing what various folk (including each other) had said.

The Tories have been very much cutting away at defence spending over those 14 years and until Ukraine were going to keep doing so, then all of a sudden Bunter showed his Churchill complex and the government and MoD put loads of effort into UORs and calls to industry saying “show us what you can come up with fast to help Ukraine in these x,y,z areas. The Army has been trading 10s of thousands of Ukrainian recruits, we’ve sent them tanks and weapons and ammunition and pretty much as much and as many as we could, as fast as we could and given the depleted state of our forces (from all those cuts), it’s been pretty decent from the UK.

Germany has a bit of a history of a long time ago now, being a bit invadey of other nations and starting world wars n’that, so modern Germany went a bit reluctant to, y’know, be all war keen. And of course re-united with old east Germany and all those soviet era aspects, so that’s been a factor too. And you can look at each country and try and get a sense of their perspectives and history and perhaps work out why there’s not one single completely coherent response to Russia’s invasion.