Russia - General Discussion.

[STURM]

Why do you think that it's "... unlikely even of the Chinese Communist Party losing power?"

Everything is possible but as it stands there is little likelihood of that happening. The Communist Party looks set to remain in power for the foreseeable future.

Actually a weakened Russia is very much to China's advantage because there is a long history between them

China has a balancing act to maintain. A Russia which is too weakened would pose less of a threat to Europe and that in turn might led to the Americans being able to focus less on Europe and more than China. Then there are also issues in Central Asia and the Middle East where despite Russia losing some influence; it still has influence in which the Chinese can benefit from. A weakened or unstable Russia might also not also be in a position to continue collaborating on a number of issues [military and non military] considered vital for China and might not be able to supply the long list of things China needs and can only source from Russia.

there are Russians in the west of the country who still do not like Chinese, or any other non Russians and / or non Slavics.

It's about common interests and reality; Russia's new rulers might not have a penchant for the Chinese but the reality is that China is a major economic power which shares a common border with Russia; economics plays a big part.

 

[Vivendi]

Russia is making some strange claims related to Nord Stream. They say "NATO vessels" were found at Nord Stream. This is pure nonsense. It was a Swedish vessel, not NATO vessel Nord Stream: Ryssland hävdar att robot är från Nato (expressen.se). Furthermore, according to Def Mon it was a Sea Fox with a 1.4 kg warhead, quite different from what was used in the Nord Stream sabotage. Def Mon on Twitter: "The Russian embassy in Sweden is lying. It was a Swedish Sea Fox. It was lost during an exercise 2014. The warhead on a Sea Fox is 1.4kg, not nearly enough to damage the pipeline. https://t.co/HYg9TPxr9H https://t.co/peT2JaGRv8" / Twitter

What is it Russia tries to achieve by spreading such nonsense? I assume it must be for domestic consumption since outside of Russia these claims just make Russia look even more incompetent. I would also argue that it could be seen as strengthening the case for Russia being behind the sabotage, since they go to such desperate steps to try to blame NATO. Is this the best they came up with?

 

[Feanor]

Russia is making some strange claims related to Nord Stream. They say "NATO vessels" were found at Nord Stream. This is pure nonsense. It was a Swedish vessel, not NATO vessel Nord Stream: Ryssland hävdar att robot är från Nato (expressen.se). Furthermore, according to Def Mon it was a Sea Fox with a 1.4 kg warhead, quite different from what was used in the Nord Stream sabotage. Def Mon on Twitter: "The Russian embassy in Sweden is lying. It was a Swedish Sea Fox. It was lost during an exercise 2014. The warhead on a Sea Fox is 1.4kg, not nearly enough to damage the pipeline. https://t.co/HYg9TPxr9H https://t.co/peT2JaGRv8" / Twitter

What is it Russia tries to achieve by spreading such nonsense? I assume it must be for domestic consumption since outside of Russia these claims just make Russia look even more incompetent. I would also argue that it could be seen as strengthening the case for Russia being behind the sabotage, since they go to such desperate steps to try to blame NATO. Is this the best they came up with?

It could mean anything really. Putin has shown video game footage before as footage of Russian troops in Syria. We've seen Russian officials make statements before that weren't aligned with the rest of the state apparatus too.

This could be disinformation to hide involvement, this could be a genuine near-paranoia over NATO involvement, this could be ordinary mudslinging. I find the silence from the West most ominous. I'm prepared to believe that if Russia didn't do this, they genuinely have no idea who did.

But I'm having a hard time believing that the West doesn't know who is behind this. Yet they're not blaming Russia. It could be that the time for talking is done, and the Crimea Bridge attack is the western response to the Nord Stream explosions. It could be that Russia really didn't do this, but letting Russia get blamed by the media and through speculation works out best, while actual state actors don't have to commit themselves.

The most interesting scenario would be sabotage by a third party, possibly even a non-state actor, with or without the knowledge of any western government, and now they're capitalizing on this, with Russia being objecively worse off as a result, and it being easy to blame Russia by association.

Truth be told, I just don't see how Russia does this without someone figuring it out with proof in hand. In my opinion the best way to blow up chances for rapprochement between Russia and the EU would be to publicly out Russia as the perpetrator with evidence.

 

[ngatimozart]

It could mean anything really. Putin has shown video game footage before as footage of Russian troops in Syria. We've seen Russian officials make statements before that weren't aligned with the rest of the state apparatus too.

This could be disinformation to hide involvement, this could be a genuine near-paranoia over NATO involvement, this could be ordinary mudslinging. I find the silence from the West most ominous. I'm prepared to believe that if Russia didn't do this, they genuinely have no idea who did.

But I'm having a hard time believing that the West doesn't know who is behind this. Yet they're not blaming Russia. It could be that the time for talking is done, and the Crimea Bridge attack is the western response to the Nord Stream explosions. It could be that Russia really didn't do this, but letting Russia get blamed by the media and through speculation works out best, while actual state actors don't have to commit themselves.

The most interesting scenario would be sabotage by a third party, possibly even a non-state actor, with or without the knowledge of any western government, and now they're capitalizing on this, with Russia being objecively worse off as a result, and it being easy to blame Russia by association.

Truth be told, I just don't see how Russia does this without someone figuring it out with proof in hand. In my opinion the best way to blow up chances for rapprochement between Russia and the EU would be to publicly out Russia as the perpetrator with evidence.

1. It could be that NATO / EU have the evidence that Russia is indeed the culprit, but are playing their cards very close to their chest. They could be waiting until the time is right in order to gain maximum advantage.
2. It could have been a US OP for purely mercenary reasons as you have stated previously.
3. It could have been a third party OP for political mischief making reasons. A few nations come to mind.
4. As you suggest, a non state actor, but who? For what purpose? And what's in it for them?
5. An Ukrainian OP?
6. A NATO / EU false flag OP?
7. Part of a Russian maskirovka OP, with Kerch Bridge being a later component of the same OP.

Plenty on the menu to choice from. It's just about do you want chips with it option.

 

[Cooch]

I really can’t see what Russia can do at this point. It does make me worry a little about a Hail Mary move using tactical nukes but even they might cause more problems than they are worth on the battle field.

I know what you mean.
It’s difficult to determine at what point we regard Putin et al as rational actors and when we decide that they are just doing more Maskirovka.

I doubt that there is any benefit in trying to placate a madman, so our best response is to proceed on the assumption that someone in the Kremlin is rational.
Which means making it clear that (a) deploying nuclear weapons will not get them what they want, and (b) it will get them a great deal of what they don’t want.
There are no better options.

 

[Cooch]

I’m not dismissing sabotage, although I think the risks for the US are higher than any potential gains, so that leaves Russia or a third party...... but a plausible theory for it being an accident, has been put up. I can’t even link to the website, as the blog on which it was discussed has been hit with a bot-attack, but the theory goes like this.

Both Nordstream pipelines were left for some time full of Natural Gas and under pressure. Normal procedure for a pipeline that will not be in use is to empty it and refill with nitrogen. This is done because under some conditions, Natural Gas that has not been scrupulously dehydrated, will form methane hydrate. Methane hydrate looks, behaves and weighs like ice, and can plug pipes.

Unplugging pipes plugged with MH requires lots of patience. The pipeline must be depressurised slowly and from both ends. If the depressurisation is not done evenly, you may have a chunk of ice weighing a tonne, with a differential pressure of well over 1000psi from one end to the other. Yes... it behaves just like a bullet in a gun-barrel, and velocities approaching 300kph have been observed.

Ask yourself what happens when a mass of that size, travelling at that speed, meets an obstruction such as a valve or bend in tge pipe? Look up the industry literature on Hydrate Plugs.

Now the speculation is that when you have Politicians wanting to turn gas on and off as it suits them. A management who do not expect to feel the pain if something goes wrong, and engineers in a culture where you “Do as you are ordered“ . It seems possible that someone in the hierarchy issued orders to have the pipelines ready, and the order was passed down the chain with enough “emphasis” that an engineer with a few shots of Vodka under his belt, said the Russian equivalent of “The Hell with it”, and pushed the wrong buttons.

Telling the Germans at the other end of the line doesn’t enter into it if you are institutionally paranoid, know you are possibly doing the wrong thing... and that kind of communication was not included in the orders.

Brought to you by the same engineering culture that gave us Chernobyl, the Kursk and one or two other disasters.

Just a theory, mostly derided by those who know how things “should” be done, but gaining some traction amongst pipeline engineers with experience in the field... and experience working with Russians. Or so they say.

 

[STURM]

They could offer a truce while they withdraw behind their own borders.

Higher chance of Chad or Bolivia raising a corps level combined arms formation.

big country invading little country is probably bad

Any country invading another country is technically ''bad''; whether the U.S. and Britain with Iraq over non existent WMDs or other types of invasions.

it is counter-intuitive to accept that the Russians are not only this bad, but incapable of fixing their shortcomings.Maybe hoping for another Stalingrad?

I have no idea and I won't assume but by the same token I also won't assume - yet - that this is going to end with Russia being totally driven out of the Ukraine and a major victory celebration being held in Kiev - democracy and freedom triumphing over evil. The ''all well that ends well' cliche doesn't always hold true. Even if the Ukraine achieves its aims; will what comes after be better; unless of course a defeated a humiliated Russia signs a 100 year non aggression pact [doubt it]. Is this war going to end in nuclear exchange which sees Europe inhabitable for the next few hundred years? Will Putin decide that holding on to what he already holds constitutes a victory? Will the Russian army revolt/mutiny? What if the war lasts till 2025 with a weak and isolated Russia still being able to sustain things?

 

[seaspear]

This is an interesting article providing media viewer perspectives of this war
Perceptions of media coverage of the war in Ukraine | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (ox.ac.uk)
This Institute of War article seems to add some timelines to the present conflict including claims of Russia's possible goals
Ukraine Crisis Coverage | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)
Certainly the article from the 27th of January this year suggesting a more limited operation from the south and south eastern Ukraine would be safer to meet President Putin's aims for Russia .
"A Russian military action centered around limited military operations in southern and southeastern Ukraine coupled with a brief but widespread and intense air and missile campaign could better position Putin to achieve both aims as well as reduce the likely costs and risks to Russia."

 

[Cooch]

Higher chance of Chad or Bolivia raising a corps level combined arms formation.

I don’t know much of the countries in question, but you raised a chuckle, there

Any country invading another country is technically ''bad''; whether the U.S. and Britain with Iraq over non existent WMDs or other types of invasions.

Ok.... ”Bad” if it’s without some serious justification. The Allied invasion of Germany in 1944/45? That was justified.
Russia has yet to present a justification which qualifies under the principles of Just War.
1. The claimed problem has not been shown to be more harmful than the war supposed to solve it.
2. Alternative peaceful solutions had not been proposed in good faith.
3. The invasion was illegal under both international law and treaties signed by Russia.
So on first principles, probably bad. On examination.... very bad indeed.

have no idea and I won't assume but by the same token I also won't assume - yet - that this is going to end with Russia being totally driven out of the Ukraine and a major victory celebration being held in Kiev - democracy and freedom triumphing over evil. The ''all well that ends well' cliche doesn't always hold true. Even if the Ukraine achieves its aims; will what comes after be better; unless of course a defeated a humiliated Russia signs a 100 year non aggression pact [doubt it]. Is this war going to end in nuclear exchange which sees Europe inhabitable for the next few hundred years? Will Putin decide that holding on to what he already holds constitutes a victory? Will the Russian army revolt/mutiny? What if the war lasts till 2025 with a weak and isolated Russia still being able to sustain things?

I don’t know either. I had a pedantic moment in which I answered the question that was asked, not the one that was obviously intended. There is nothing stopping Russia from withdrawing except the egos of some of it leadership.

A non-aggression pact with Putin would be worth no more than the previous treaties that Russia has signed, guaranteeing Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders. One of the reasons that Ukraine is probably not inclined to accept a negotiated peace is that Russia has proven that it cannot be trusted... hence trading land for peace would only lead to a temporary peace. Ukraine is justified in believing that it not only wants its land and people bac, but enough breathing-space to build the kind of military that will make attacking it again, even more of a losing proposition.

 

[Rob c]

If Russia lost the war, would western sanctions be lifted? I do not think so, the current level of economical escalation is hard to undo and probably the repairs demanded by the west would be astronomical (much like Germany after WWI). I think that in the current status of the war Russia too is fighting for survival.

I would suggest that it is Putin and his Government that are fighting for survival, To me it would seem that win or lose the RU will be subject to sanctions and other economic pressure for some time into the future and a long continuation of this war is more likely to put them in a worse position in the long run. To say that they are fighting for survival is to ignore the reality, which is that due to their ruling elate they have become the authors of their own misfortune.

 

[Todjaeger]

I do not understand people (often Ukrainian propagandist) saying that Russia should negotiate a truce and withdraw to it’s borders. Why would they give away all the leverage they have in exchange of nothing?

If Russia lost the war, would western sanctions be lifted? I do not think so, the current level of economical escalation is hard to undo and probably the repairs demanded by the west would be astronomical (much like Germany after WWI). I think that in the current status of the war Russia too is fighting for survival.

Maquiavelo famous quote “The end justifies the means” has a second part often omitted: “…only if the end is achieved”.

I would hardly consider peace nothing.

Also, a bit of a reality check seems in order, as Russian propaganda not withstanding, the outside world is not threatening the survival of Russia unless the saber-rattling nuclear threats cease being threats. If Russia does launch nuclear strikes, there is a very real possibility that it could cause a full nuclear exchange in which case basically everyone, everywhere, loses.

I do consider it possible that the current regime and associated power structures might collapse should Russia suffer defeat in the conflict with Ukraine, but that would be as a result of an internal conflict as various Russian individuals and groups vie for control of the state. As an outgrowth of that, Russia as we know it today might fracture if the centralized powers become weakened to the point where different groups and regions that want to break away can do so. However, this would again be a result of internal issues which already exist within Russia and not the result of outside powers dictating what happens to or within Russia. Not that Russia would be capitulating by agreeing upon a truce and Russian forces withdrawing to the established borders from the time of the Budapest Memorandum.

As for sanctions being lifted... I do not see that happening any time soon, certainly not whilst the current regime holds power, and likely not if the current regime falls and is replaced by another led by others but operating with similar methods and objectives. One of the impacts of the sanctions is that it limits Russian access to capital, tech, and resources. These limitations make it more difficult for Russia to modernize and expand/improve the armed forces. Why would anyone permit a regime that is interested in expanding/reclaiming territory including through the use of force regardless of treaties, to have the opportunity to refit and rebuild?

 

[Aerojoe]

What Russia can do, and what it will, are two different discussions, to some extent.
They could offer a truce while they withdraw behind their own borders.
They could do ditto while offering to withdraw behind the lines that existed at the start of this current invasion.
What the Ukrainians will accept, is another matter, and I’m weird enough to think that they get a vote.

I suspect what they will do - assuming that Putin doesn’t suddenly fall out of own window - will be along the lines you mention. Some combination of minimising losses (both territory and men and materiel ) while playing for time in which to rebuild units, refurbish stored weaponry and train/retrain conscripts. They will be hoping that the West grows tired and selfish enough to drop support for Ukraine (and they have grounds for that, whether Vietnam or Afghanistan), but what economic analysis that I’ve seen suggests that Russia will be defeated economically as well as militarily

I sometimes feel as if I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. Much as I want the Ukrainians to win on principle (Self-determination is good, big country invading little country is probably bad) it is counter-intuitive to accept that the Russians are not only this bad, but incapable of fixing their shortcomings.
Maybe hoping for another Stalingrad?

I am not sure that Vietnam and Afghanistan are a useful analogy as they involved western boots on ground and the political challenge of body bags returning home. For US and NATO partners Ukraine is a political low cost intervention so I don’t see public/political support in US/NATO capitals impacting their ongoing material support.

 

[John Fedup]

I am not sure that Vietnam and Afghanistan are a useful analogy as they involved western boots on ground and the political challenge of body bags returning home. For US and NATO partners Ukraine is a political low cost intervention so I don’t see public/political support in US/NATO capitals impacting their ongoing material support.

The big question is Western endurance. The significant costs in suppling arms to the Ukraine will have consequences if this drags on for a couple of more years. Western political leaders must convince their electorates these costs will be much less in the long run compared to allowing Russia to be successful in their invasion of Ukraine.

 

[seaspear]

The big question is Western endurance. The significant costs in suppling arms to the Ukraine will have consequences if this drags on for a couple of more years. Western political leaders must convince their electorates these costs will be much less in the long run compared to allowing Russia to be successful in their invasion of Ukraine.

Measuring "costs" its hard to compare the Afghanistan ,Iraq involvement with boots on the ground compared to the financing of Ukraine in its efforts
this article suggests America alone spent 300 hundred million a day in Afghanistan
The War In Afghanistan Cost America $300 Million Per Day For 20 Years, With Big Bills Yet To Come (forbes.com)
Certainly direct costs of involvement in the Ukraine is significantly less by this article
Total bilateral aid to Ukraine by country & type 2022 | Statista
Indirect costs that is the negative effects from sanctions on Russia to oil and gas can be linked to increases gas and fuel shortages or price increases around the world with inflationary pressures
How sanctions impact global economy | Deloitte Insights

 

[Cooch]

I do not understand people (often Ukrainian propagandist) saying that Russia should negotiate a truce and withdraw to it’s borders. Why would they give away all the leverage they have in exchange of nothing?

If Russia lost the war, would western sanctions be lifted? I do not think so, the current level of economical escalation is hard to undo and probably the repairs demanded by the west would be astronomical (much like Germany after WWI). I think that in the current status of the war Russia too is fighting for survival.

Maquiavelo famous quote “The end justifies the means” has a second part often omitted: “…only if the end is achieved”.

Russian “leverage” as you call it, is costing them dearly.
That is the point of both military action and economic sanctions.... to make it hurt so much that the enemy stops doing what he is doing. - in this case, occupying sovereign Ukrainian territory. (Please note, that is NOT Ukrainian propaganda. That is international law, to which Russia is a signatory)

Try to remember that Russia received quite a lot of economic assistance after the Soviet Union collapsed. It was NOT pillaged as a defeated enemy, but treated as a potential trading partner. For this to happen again would require a regime change in Russia, but resistance to regime-change is driven by the interests of the current Russian elite, not those of the Russian nation.

 

[seaspear]

Define regime change , Im not sure the replacement of President Putin would address some of the fundamental issues of Russia
Report - Corruption in Russia - Design FINAL.pdf (csce.gov)
This article from 2015 about a presentation by the United Russia Party (President Putin's) provides some insight into their views on Ukraine including areas of which that should be brought into Russia, that President Putin in being replaced by a member of his party would bring about any change seems optimistic
The Ideology of United Russia | Radix Journal

 

[Cooch]

Define regime change , Im not sure the replacement of President Putin would address some of the fundamental issues of Russia

Fair point. Replacing Putin with another in the same mould is going to produce the same results.
It would need a significant change in the entire political culture, not just the figurehead.

This might happen if Russia suffers severely enough to convince the majority that it is needed. It would require a leadership with the political clout the push things through. That also applies to Ukraine... a good win just might give Zelenski the impetus and personal authority to do what he was elected to do. Russian success will just entrench the oligarchs and emasculate those who want change.

Too many of us have no idea how many centuries it took - and how many civil wars - to get to the point that we take the Rule of Law and comparatively low levels of corruption, for granted.

 

[hauritz]

I know what you mean.
It’s difficult to determine at what point we regard Putin et al as rational actors and when we decide that they are just doing more Maskirovka.

I doubt that there is any benefit in trying to placate a madman, so our best response is to proceed on the assumption that someone in the Kremlin is rational.
Which means making it clear that (a) deploying nuclear weapons will not get them what they want, and (b) it will get them a great deal of what they don’t want.
There are no better options.

The thing that concerns me almost as much as Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons is how western governments are downplaying that threat ... at least in public. Even in this forum I notice that a lot of posters are dismissive of his threats.

The consistent line that Putin is a rational human being, who made a bad decision and will eventually back down is an assumption about his character that I don't necessarily share.

 

[STURM]

The thing that concerns me almost as much as Putin's threats to use nuclear weapons is how western governments are downplaying that threat ... at least in publicn

Mainly due to public opinion I guess. It would be uncomfortable if a concerned public stated pushing governments to cut back on aid to the Ukraine due to the nuke angle. People are aware but don't necessarily like to be reminded of what can happen if things reach the stage where nukes are used.

I think most of are here are of the opinion that if Russia deploys a tactical nuke; NATO would intervene in the Ukraine but the question that then arises is how would Russia respond?

 

[STURM]

If Kherson falls to Ukraine and Bakhmut falls to Wagner forces this could possibly lead to political change in Moscow

It might but what comes after that? Will Putin be replaced by someone who declares that a new strategy will be pursued or will a new government declare an immediate end to hostilities.