War Is Peace

Like much of what we have been told lately, that is surreal. We are being systematically disabled to tell real from surreal, to accept surreal as fact. Mentally disabled, and so disarmed. Pretty interesting really. Idk why you and I have not drunk the kool ade, while so many around us have.

Do you know Judith Curry? I watched an interview with her (trying to find it to give a link) in which she said that there are more than 80 possible scenarios for future climate changes, or not, and that the one we are being fed is none other than the worst of those scenarios. Likely not true. Here's her website if you're interested https://judithcurry.com/

Is the claim by Putin that Nato has been continually expanding eastwards and thereby constituting a threat untrue?

Yes.

While it can be argued that Nato might never wanted to attack Russia per se, it is hard to argue against the fact that Nato has been expanding towards Russia.

Ex-Warsaw Pact countries and three Baltic countries have voluntarily joined Nato. About 20 years ago even Putin asked if Russia could join Nato. He was told Russia could put in an application any time. But Russia wasn't interested in applying like any other country. It would have had to be invited.

As far as I know there was an agreement in the 90s in which Nato stated that they would not expand eastward. But with Clinton and Bush they broke this promise.

There is no treaty that says so.

I think it is clear that Russia would never have attacked Ukraine if Nato would not have done this expansion.

Ukraine applied for membership in Nato in 2008 and was turned down. There is little chance Ukraine would ever had been able to join. Now there is a chance depending on the outcome of the war.

John Mearsheimer has also argued that Russia does not have "imperialist dreams".

I think that's a blatantly false idea. Imperialism is at the core of Russia's state building. It has been since the late 15th century when Muscovy was liberated from under the Golden Horde after which it conquered the rest of the Russian principalities and then other territories. One only has to listen to what Putin himself has said to know that Mearsheimer is wrong. He has called the collapse of the Soviet Union the worst geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century (for Russia). Greatness is Russia's national idea. He's now comparing himself to Peter the Great in terms of being a great leader who expanded Russia's territories.

It is quite frankly absurd to argue that Russia would somehow want to conquer (western) Europe: with what forces would they do that? It would take millions and resources that Russia simply does not have. But it makes sense to me that they would want to banish the threat of Nato missiles targeted at them which is why they have drawn a red line in Ukraine.

Since the beginning of Putin's presidency, all of his actions have been consistent with restoring Russia's influence in Eastern Europe to as great as extent as possible. Interfering with elections, supporting far-right and far-left extremist movements in Europe, corrupting officials and politicians with oil and gas money, information warfare (the famous troll factories) are Putin's methods of choice for softening up Europe and the West as a whole and to increase Russia's influence. Russia has used 500 billion dollars to modernize it's armed forces (a lot of it was actually embezzled). Trump's election as POTUS was a small lottery win for Putin.

Whatever missile defenses were deployed in Eastern Europe have never seriously threatened Russia's ability to mount an effective counterstrike against a potential nuclear strike by Western nuclear powers. Direct war against Russia has never been desired by Nato countries owing to the risk of escalation into a nuclear conflict.

It is quite frankly absurd to argue that Russia would somehow want to conquer (western) Europe

By the way, what did you mean by adding "western" in parenthesis in that quote?

No peace that does not end in Russia's complete defeat will last.

This is the kind of thinking that gets us into WWIII. We have to use diplomacy and not war to solve this crisis.

The war already started over a year ago.

If you back someone in the corner and threaten to destroy it militarily, do you think they will not respond more fiercely? This strategy might have worked with states that were weaker (e.g. Iraq), but it is a folly to do so with a nuclear capable state.

At a minimum, complete Russian military defeat means driving it out of the territories it has gained control over since February 2022. Any other result is extremely dangerous as it sets a precedent for any tinpot dictator unconcerned with any losses in human life or materiel and with nuclear weapons that one can get away with wars of conquest.

It does not mean entering internationally recognized Russian territory.

As for Russia actually using nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons are not very effective battlefield weapons. This was studied extensively during the Cold War. There is little to gain by using them. Secondly, using strategic nuclear weapons is something China (and India) has made clear to Putin they would not accept. The USA has also told Russia what consequences it would face if it destroyed cities in Ukraine or elsewhere using nuclear weapons. Putin does not want to die, which he would do if he unleashed global nuclear war. Also, Russian elites have their children living in Western capital cities like London, Berlin or Paris. They're not going to nuke them. Although, the eventuality cannot be completely ruled out, the likelihood is very small and so far there has been no sign of Russia making preparations to use nuclear weapons.

You should be demanding that Russia withdraw its forces from Ukraine.

What makes you think I do not?

You blamed West for the war and did not mention Russia at all.

Of course I am. But I can also see that it is an impossible demand to make now. Again, we need diplomacy to solve this. Even Mark Milley stated that the chance to defeat Russia militarily in Ukraine is at close to 0%

Whether Ukraine will be capable of repeating the successful counteroffensives of September/October 2022 depends crucially on the extent and type of assistance it is given. If Ukraine is given a sufficient quantity of modern main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and the requisite training and logistical capabilities, it can build a sufficient number of armored brigades capable of breaking through Russia's defenses in the southern Azov Sea coast region and routing the Russian forces there. We have already seen evidence that the Ukrainian armed forces are capable of successful large-scale combined arms operations. What is also needed is long-range precision strike capability for destroying Russian logistical hubs and command and control centers up to 150-300 km into the rear. Ukraine has a domestically produced system called Vilkha and some old Soviet era unmanned aircraft capable of this but not in sufficient numbers. The Russian military logistics system is based on railways. Russia's tactical truck fleet has already suffered in a major way. Forcing Russia to use railheads much further than the current 80 km from the front lines would seriously hamper Russia's ability to supply its artillery in particular because artillery ammunition is very heavy. The introduction of HIMARS (the American rocket artillery system) in the summer was ground breaking at that point as it reduced Russian artillery fire to a fraction of what it had been prior to that. Anti-radiation missiles were key in suppressing Russian air defenses enabling strikes in Russia's rear during the counter offensives in the fall and in suppressing Russian counter artillery radars further reducing the effectiveness of Russian artillery, which its military heavily relies on.

Before Russia's large scale attack in February 2022, it had roughly 3000 serviceable main battle tanks. Oryx is an open source intelligence project that keeps track of Russian losses among other things based on photographic evidence, which is a lowball estimate. According to Oryx, Russia has lost about 1700 main battle tanks in a little over a year. According to other figures I've seen, Russia is capable of manufacturing 20 MBTs per month and refurbishing 60 old ones per month. On average 160 are destroyed per month. In a year or so, Russia will run out of main battle tanks altogether.

Even holding onto Crimea may turn untenable for Russia if Ukraine is capable of keeping the Kerch bridge out of commission and the railways and highways between Mariupol and Crimea under constant fire control.

The Russian military has woefully underperformed relative to expectations and Ukraine has overperformed. Ukraine has been able to deny Russia air supremacy over Ukrainian skies despite Ukraine not even having a single fourth generation fighter jet at its disposal at present.

The best solution now would be to give Ukraine the tools it needs to destroy Russian military logistics inside Ukrainian territory and its immediate vicinity thus making holding Ukrainian territories untenable for Russia. At that point the kind of negotiated peace acceptable for Ukraine in the long term becomes possible.

A peace agreement that involves Russia keeping the Azov sea coast is not a lasting one because Putin could present it as a victory allowing him to keep his presidency. Russia would reconstitute its forces and launch a new attack in the coming years at an opportune moment. Russia must be defeated so badly that Russia's elites get rid of Putin. That can only happen if he is perceived to be too weak to continue as president. An internal power struggle and a time of internal instability is likely to ensue at that point.

Here's how Ben Hodges (former commander of US forces in Europe) sees it:

An additional benefit of that scenario would be the fall of the Lukashenko regime in Belarus and free elections in the country.

I hope you will be able to live in a free country instead of a dictatorship in Belarus.

When/if the Lukashenko regime falls, I think it makes sense to study carefully what went wrong when the Soviet Union fell and learn from it. I've heard Lukashenko has kept much of the Soviet era welfare state in place. Is this true? If it is true, I would be careful about dismantling the social safety net to the extent it was done in Russia and many other countries in the ex-Soviet space.

Not like heaven, but our life would be so much easy, there will be no worries. People will not have the fear of losing a life due to the war. currently happening in Russia and Ukraine.