Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

NATO is dropping 300,000 troops into position

Zelensky says the war needs to wrap up by winter

If he thinks he can liberate all that occupied territory before the frost hits this year, I have no idea what he's playing at.
Looks like he’s already written off Crimea...

Numenorean said:The situation in Ukraine is a bit different, though fundamentally the same. Back in 2013, a small segment—maybe 10%—of the anti-Russian population tried to tie Ukrainian identity directly to Banderism, which is essentially just a blatant anti-Russian sentiment. The implication was clear: if you have any connection to Russians, you aren't a "real" Ukrainian. You can't be both. It’s the kind of "get out" rhetoric that borders on the genocidal. Naturally, this sparked massive protests among the pro-Russian Ukrainian population, who realized that many Ukrainian families were deeply tied to Russia. This created those territorial lines between ethnic Russian regions and pro-Russian areas, and well, here we are. It also halted the assimilation of Russians, causing them to undergo a sort of national awakening. If the Ukrainians had been smarter and just waited another 20 or 30 years for time and biology to take their course, they could have peacefully integrated eastern Ukraine. They basically tripped over their own feet and fell.

To me, this seems like a rather naive perspective. I am fairly certain that Putin would have invaded Ukraine regardless of what a handful of extreme nationalists were doing back in 2013 or 2014.
As for this supposed "awakening" of ethnic Russians in Ukraine... they only really "woke up" because of Russian special forces and tanks (over in Crimea), along with a bunch of heavily armed Russian intelligence agents and Wagner mercenaries (in Luhansk and Donetsk). Until then, they weren't even aware that anyone was "oppressing" them based on their ethnicity.☕

Jessica Peterson2 said:To me, this seems like a rather naive perspective. I am fairly certain that Putin would have invaded Ukraine regardless of what a handful of extreme nationalists were doing back in 2013 or 2014.
As for this supposed "awakening" of ethnic Russians in Ukraine... they only really "woke up" because of Russian special forces and tanks (over in Crimea), along with a bunch of heavily armed Russian intelligence agents and Wagner mercenaries (in Luhansk and Donetsk). Until then, they weren't even aware that anyone was "oppressing" them based on their ethnicity.☕

How are the communists viewing this situation? Are they making noise in the media or what? You probably know best through the local news...
I assume if they were actually being asked anything, mobilization would have already been declared.

Arthur Miller7 said:NATO is dropping 300,000 troops into position

Given how the Putin bots over on Rossiya 1 are constantly hyping up new special operations—like strikes on the Baltic, sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Netherlands, or even the total disappearance of the United Kingdom—I suspect this deployment of 300,000 is merely the opening act!

George Robinson43 said:Given how the Putin bots over on Rossiya 1 are constantly hyping up new special operations—like strikes on the Baltic, sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Netherlands, or even the total disappearance of the United Kingdom—I suspect this deployment of 300,000 is merely the opening act!

Could be. And if this really is just phase one, there's a chance this whole war wraps up by winter.

Richard Wilson4 said:Easy work for Viktor Orbán and his favorite beef stew.

The thing is, that's exactly how Olaf Scholz and Emmanuel Macron see it.

At the same time, Macron doesn't actually feel that way. 😉 He’s the kind of guy whose entire political doctrine is built on "simultaneity" (or "en même temps"). Basically, he'll take a specific stance on something and then, 🕺
"at the same time," pivot to a completely contradictory position. He's just incredibly skilled at wrapping those contradictions up in a way that sounds like a coherent argument.
To me, it actually seems fine and fully supports Ukraine; if anything, it feels like he's starting to shift from being a purely calculated figure into someone who shows a bit more genuine emotion.

Either way, Ukraine can't exactly bank on Macron.

George Robinson43 said:Given how the Putin bots over on Rossiya 1 are constantly hyping up new special operations—like strikes on the Baltic, sabotaging oil infrastructure in the Netherlands, or even the total disappearance of the United Kingdom—I suspect this deployment of 300,000 is merely the opening act!

Which NATO members are actually going to cough up that much manpower and hardware? Honestly, this feels more like a threat than an actual reality.

Terry Green3 said:Which NATO members are actually going to cough up that much manpower and hardware? Honestly, this feels more like a threat than an actual reality.

Poland, Germany, Italy, France, the USA... if Russia starts hitting NATO, they don't even have to pretend anymore. They'll just be the obvious villains, basically modern-day Nazis hunting for their own lebensraum.

Thomas Walker84 said:At the same time, Macron doesn't actually feel that way. 😉 He’s the kind of guy whose entire political doctrine is built on "simultaneity" (or "en même temps"). Basically, he'll take a specific stance on something and then, 🕺
"at the same time," pivot to a completely contradictory position. He's just incredibly skilled at wrapping those contradictions up in a way that sounds like a coherent argument.
To me, it actually seems fine and fully supports Ukraine; if anything, it feels like he's starting to shift from being a purely calculated figure into someone who shows a bit more genuine emotion.

Either way, Ukraine can't exactly bank on Macron.

When looking at the foreign policy of France, Italy, or Germany, you have to factor in their domestic chaos. All of them are dealing with much more unstable internal politics than they were four years ago.
The UK and the USA aren't exactly in the strongest positions either.

Geopolitical theorists will tell you that in open nation-vs-nation conflicts, a totalitarian regime can always maintain a long-term strategy because they don't have to worry about their own citizens demanding a change in direction.
That's just the reality of the democratic struggle.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Poland, Germany, Italy, France, the USA... if Russia starts hitting NATO, they don't even have to pretend anymore. They'll just be the obvious villains, basically modern-day Nazis hunting for their own lebensraum.

If there's an actual attack on a NATO member, then sure. In peacetime? Don't hold your breath. Nobody is going to sink that kind of money into this just for show.

For context, this is basically the peak strength we saw during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You don't maintain that level of force right on the border unless you actually intend to pull the trigger.

Terry Green3 said:How are the communists viewing this situation? Are they making noise in the media or what? You probably know best through the local news...
I assume if they were actually being asked anything, mobilization would have already been declared.

Precisely. Their leadership seems to have completely abandoned any pretense of "internationalism" or the "right to self-determination."
"The survival of the Party comes first," they seem to say.
Any individual brave enough to protest the war finds themselves either purged from the party or forced to walk away entirely.
Here is an article written in Russian regarding the matter: https://meduza.io/feature/2022/06/03...oe-bombit-kiev

Nancy Gomez26 said:Relying on air power is a double-edged sword. The Russians would simply strike back from Belarusian or Russian territory. That essentially mandates the immediate neutralization of those launch sites, which constitutes an attack on the Russian Federation itself. Once you cross that line, you're effectively opening the door to World War III; neutralizing those systems happens the moment their positions are compromised.
If an intervention were to occur, it absolutely must include Crimea. Crimea has become a matter of principle, and there is no room for compromise there. Giving in to the aggressor regarding Crimea today is nothing more than an invitation for Russia to launch the next conflict once they recover and regroup. That is precisely what we are trying to prevent through preemptive action. If we fail to stop them now, we might as well give up entirely.

Exactly. However, I see plenty of people who are staunchly anti-Russian aggression and pro-Ukrainian, yet they argue that Crimea should belong to Russia simply because it was "administratively assigned to Ukraine during the USSR era."

I think that logic is flawed. Historically, Crimea doesn't belong exclusively to either side, and if Soviet bureaucrats made a mistake, that territory belongs to Ukraine under its currently recognized, inviolable borders.

There are countless other cases where territory ended up within a modern nation's borders through odd or trivial means—be it a treaty, a decree, a cheap sale, a reward, or a sanction... Much like Kaliningrad.

Timothy Williams5 said:Nina, if you ever decide to run in the elections, let me know. You have my vote.🙂

🙂 haha, that hasn't really crossed my mind yet 😁

Terry Green3 said:Which NATO members are actually going to cough up that much manpower and hardware? Honestly, this feels more like a threat than an actual reality.

The number of NATO troops stationed in Europe will return to levels similar to those seen during the Cold War. For instance, West Germany alone hosted 900,000 soldiers back then.
That is precisely why I am arguing that this initial 300,000 is merely phase one.

If there is an actual attack on a NATO member, then yes. In peacetime, nobody is going to absorb a cost like that.

???
The goal here is deterrence! We want to prevent an attack, not wait to mobilize NATO after Russian forces have already marched into Vilnius, Riga, and Tallinn.
Taking this proactive step is significantly more cost-effective in the long run.

Terry Green3 said:If there's an actual attack on a NATO member, then sure. In peacetime? Don't hold your breath. Nobody is going to sink that kind of money into this just for show.

For context, this is basically the peak strength we saw during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. You don't maintain that level of force right on the border unless you actually intend to pull the trigger.

It's just not the same thing. Russia has basically shown they've got this hyperactive urge for imperialist expansion, so we really do need a military that's ready in case those idiots—or some local collaborators—get some half-baked idea in their heads. And let's be real, China and India wouldn't be happy at all if Russia actually ended up nuking the UK. That wouldn't just slide by, even if the UK isn't exactly the most popular player in those parts of the world.

All five, sure, but we’re going to pay a premium for it.
The average grunt back then didn't get to spend their summers vacationing and enjoying life the way we do now.
Someone has to foot the bill for all this.

It doesn't bother me personally, but like I said, these major powers tend to have unstable governments. You have to maintain a balance so you don't end up facing a massive internal meltdown, similar to what the French dealt with right before World War II.
That'll end up costing you even more in the long run.

Terry Green3 said:All five, sure, but we’re going to pay a premium for it.
The average grunt back then didn't get to spend their summers vacationing and enjoying life the way we do now.
Someone has to foot the bill for all this.

It doesn't bother me personally, but like I said, these major powers tend to have unstable governments. You have to maintain a balance so you don't end up facing a massive internal meltdown, similar to what the French dealt with right before World War II.
That'll end up costing you even more in the long run.

Keeping an army ready actually costs less than rebuilding entire countries or fighting an active war. If anyone's against it, they can go write a letter to Putin and those other Kremlin Nazis.

Terry Green3 said:All five, sure, but we’re going to pay a premium for it.
The average grunt back then didn't get to spend their summers vacationing and enjoying life the way we do now.
Someone has to foot the bill for all this.

It doesn't bother me personally, but like I said, these major powers tend to have unstable governments. You have to maintain a balance so you don't end up facing a massive internal meltdown, similar to what the French dealt with right before World War II.
That'll end up costing you even more in the long run.

Honestly, I think way too many people are out on vacation right now. Just look at United Airlines—they had to scrap 2,200 extra flights out of New York City and Chicago because they can't find enough staff. I wouldn't go calling it a "crisis" just yet, though.