Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Its naive to think, that Medvedev is posting anything without the permission of the new czar. Its Good cop, Bad cop play nothing more.

[conon394]

Russia's reorientation to Asia from a neoclassical realist perspective.
Meirsheimer, February 2022. He says,

Really still quoting this guy?

"what we have done by expanding NATO eastward is we have precipitated a huge crisis with Russia that prevents us from fully pivoting to Asia.
We can't fully pivot to Asia because we're so concerned about events in Eastern Europe. That's the first consequence.
The second is that we have driven the Russians into the arms of the Chinese. This makes no sense at all. "

And what exactly are we going to do in this pivot to Asia. If Poland in NATO and the EU is vast harm to Russia we should never done what are going to Recognize Taiwan? Form some actual Military Alliance with Japan and Taiwan and the ROK and Indonesia and Vietnam and Australia that has an clause 5 iron clad joint defense requirement. But wait that is interfering in China's near abroad and Meirsheimer tells us you can't do that another great power.

Also again Russia no agency only the US we made them act although you are ignoring Russia's clear interference in all it self designated near abroad states that to say want to be in the EU and NATO. And of course clearly As Poland shows that was a good option vs say Belarus staying in Russian orbit. But IR is like playing EU4 it does not really care what people think or model their choices.

Putin has a language of verbal restraint. He still uses to say, "our western partners"; Medevdev is a Russian hardliner,

That is quite funny. Umm who ordered the invasion. Who had some weird Peter the Grant speech. Be real any Russian figure of any note who is not dead, in jail or about have some polonium tea that says anything is clearly saying what Putin want's them to say. Medevdev is Putin's sock puppet

[Lord Thesaurian]

The paradox of Mearsheimer’s position is he correctly anticipated the circumstances of the Ukraine invasion, but certain premises have led him to get some things wrong since then, a bit awkwardly so at this point. He says Putin is a realist and Russia is a great power seeking to guard its sphere of influence, and therefore Ukraine should not try to join NATO because Moscow will not tolerate it. Yet Putin’s motives have proven to be steeped in romanticism and nostalgia, and his grandiose ambitions stymied by a country that was supposed to be nothing more than a satellite in the realist framework. Zelensky even floated the concession to not join NATO if that will end the war. Putin has yet to take him up on it. That said, I think the intellectual beating realism has taken as a result confuses politics with political theory.

But realism’s critics should not throw out the baby with the bath water. The invective directed at realism misses an important distinction: realism is both an analytical school of thought and a policy position. The errors of the latter don’t obviate the utility of the former. In explaining the war in Ukraine, realism, like any theoretical framework, is neither good nor bad. But even when its prescriptions can seem unsound, it retains value as a prism through which analysts can understand the motivations and actions of states in an inevitably complex world.

The debate regarding Ukraine has long featured realist voices. In 1993, Mearsheimer wrote in Foreign Affairs that Kyiv should retain the stockpile of nuclear weapons it inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union because Moscow might one day seek to reconquer Ukraine. Some 20 years later, Mearsheimer wrote of how NATO enlargement and the promise of bringing Ukraine into the alliance provoked Russian aggression, namely the seizing of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014. Both pieces were focused on policy prescription: rather than simply describing what Russia, Ukraine, the United States, the European Union, and NATO were doing, they focused on what they should do.

Although one can disagree with those arguments, it is worth pointing out that they reflect realism as policy, not realism as theory. But realism [as theory] offers a useful frame for understanding this war’s onset. Indeed, the enduring power of realism is its ability to offer a clear baseline for coming to grips with why the world is and will likely remain a world full of pain and despair.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/artic...power-and-fear

It’s clear that for decades, Mearsheimer has operated from the premise that Ukraine should have better prepared for this conflict, and failing that, it should be prepared to lose. Kissinger was honest enough to admit Ukraine will have to cede territory if Kiev wants to appease Moscow. Both of these prescriptions are valuable in their own right, and a world apart from apologist concern trolling about how “UkrAinE shOuLd JuSt Be NeUtrAl GaiS StAhP.”

[Mithradates]

Macron, Scholz and Draghi meet Zelenskyy in Kyiv during historic visit

...A French diplomatic official told reporters that once Russia’s war is over, “a dialogue” between Moscow and Kyiv “will be needed to find out how we build a sustainable peace,” with security guarantees for Ukraine, and the nature of the relationship between Ukraine and NATO.

The official added: “Zelenskyy must define what would be a military victory for him … We are in favor of a complete victory with the re-establishment of [Ukrainian] territorial integrity over all the territories that have been conquered by the Russians including Crimea.”

So they are not there to convince Zelensky to give up territories, good.

Also the relationship between Ukraine and NATO, membership, nothing less. That's the only real guarantee for their future safety.

[conon394]

The paradox of Mearsheimer’s position

The real 'paradox' is that he a man trapped in the cold war. And worse yet still seems to think in terms that say think the opening with China was a good ideal (when in fact it was completely unnecessary since the USSR economy was withering). The ideal somehow a pivot to Asia and suddenly getting Russia to be part of that stinks of glowing recollection of Nixon to China. A hard core IR decision that was in the long egregiously disastrous for the US - because in the end it led to the half thought out and poorly implemented rush to allow China into the WTO. An own goal of epic proportion.

[Love Mountain]

Lol factually. You’ll have to be more specific, because following multilateral talks in December 2019, Putin expressed positive sentiment that diplomacy between Russia and Ukraine/the West was thawing after years of impasse. Neither did I see anything in the public proposals about NATO membership.

Because Zelensky was elected on a platform of Diplomacy in 2019, which he subsequently abandoned because Russian demands were incompatible with the expectations of the Ukrainian electorate.

Normandy Talks, and of course the infamous Russian demands themselves.

NATO has described Georgia as “one of our closest partners” who may eventually become a member if it wants to, but nevertheless needed to show progress implementing internal reforms in order to continue along that path. The same was said of Ukraine. Your entire premise is that Russia was not and could not be satisfied with that.

To this day, there no Membership Action Plan with Georgia. So NATO can make whatever statements they want to make themselves feel good, factually, Russia's invasion was effective.

Are you referring to the 1992 treaty that says Russia will respect Finnish sovereignty and territorial integrity and refrain from interference in internal affairs and from the threat or use of force?

I am referring to the fact that there hasn't been an armed conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union, or Russia, since the Continuation War.

You’ve said your observations are objective and aren’t part of any narrative, but your talking points thus far are generic complaints about NATO expansion and whataboutism. Russian invasions in 2014 and 2022 have intensified cooperation between Kiev and NATO, strengthened the latter geopolitically and ended Finnish neutrality. I guess Ukraine has followed Finland’s course after all? On what basis would Moscow go about respecting Ukraine’s neutrality given they’ve invaded and occupied Ukrainian territory for years?

This question makes no contextual sense, but I'll answer it regardless.

I am not complaining about NATO expansion or engaging in whataboutism. The statements I made are either factual observations, or statements describing somebody's point of view.

A. NATO expansion is a major Russian concern. That's a fact. I don't think Russia's concerns are justified, but the fact is that Russia doesn't like it.
B. Russia pretested and resented NATO expansions and NATO's open-door policy to Russia's neighbors specifically. Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, but it is a fact that Russia is concerned about it.
C. Russia has used military force to address these concerns. Again, I think this was a foolish decision, especially in 2014 and 2022, but the fact is that this military invasion happened, and it is my opinion that it was primarily motivated by the desire to stop NATO expansion.

The point of my posts isn't to "prove" or "defend" Russia's position, merely that the decision to ignore Russia's concerns and position has contributed towards the outbreak of hostilities. Moreover, the moralizing and hysteria over Russia's position is childish. The decision to use military force is either a short-sighted, or a misguided, attempt to improve Russia's security. The army suffers from ill-discipline, corruption, and in some cases poor morale.

It is not some misguided attempt for the greater Russian Empire or pan-Slavism like some people think.


I oppose this war because I believe that the Western model is generally superior, and that a world dominated by Western ideals and military power is a much better, humane, and richer place to live in. Not because I think that Democracy or humanity is necessarily threatened by Russia.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please stop treating Russia like it has some goddam manifest destiny. Ukraine should not have done anything different as Russia itself has promised, repeatedly, and signed multiple international treaties over several decades, that it will not interfere with any post-soviet country's decision to join the west.

This is not an accurate description of my post. And no, in my opinion, Ukraine definitely should have done things differently, and it would've been better off for it.

This is a naked act of aggression with no diplomatic reasoning whatsoever and your veiled attempts to victim blame are frankly disgusting.

It appears that way if you actually thing that Diplomacy and Foreign Policy is conducted primarily within a liberal framework of Democracy, Human Rights, and International Norms. Such things are a secondary or tertiary concern for all countries. The main concern has always been, and will continue to be, National Security.

Love Mountain, please wake me up when US invades Canada or Mexico.
Or India because it wants to trade with Russia.
You admitted yourself Russia invaded its neighbours because they dared to say they want to join EU or NATO.
And that Russia remained satisfied after carving out Southern Ossetia from Georgia and did not want more. Praise the lord they are so generous!
Let us rejoice on peaceful resolution and Russian reliable foreign policy.
We can trust them they will not invade if neutrality agreement favours them ("is in their interest), not the country being neutral. Praise the lord for Russia is reliable, compassionate and generous!

Why are you fixated on "neighbors"? Both Mexico and Canada are U.S. allies. We know what happens to American countries when they do things against U.S. interests. Like the on-going economic blockade of Cuba, various invasions of Latin America, or giving weapons to Jihadis in Syria. I mean you can see a list here.

I'm not against every single use of force, I'm not a pacifist, and I'm not anti-American. In fact, I generally want a NATO and US dominated world, as I've stated before. I simply think that a lot of times, use of force and coercion is foolish, when there are more effective tools for achieving our desired political ends.

Similarly, while I have huge issues with Russia's military invasion. The loss of life, the violence, the further degradation of international norms, and the economic fallout, are all detestable to my sensibilities. However, the motivation behind Russia's action is logical, hence why it was consistently predicted, and there were things many countries could have done to avoid this outcome. That does not mean I do not blame Russia, who is the aggressor, and major instigator of the entire thing, from before 2014, till now, but it does mean that I see many instances of diplomatic mis-steps and lost opportunities over the last 20 years.

The rather childish and infantile attempts to paint Russia and Vladimir Putin as inherently evil are counter-productive. Personally, I find China's actions in Xinjiang to be much more morally reprehensible and insidious. No, Russia and Vladimir Putin have played themselves into a geopolitical corner, a dead end, because he couldn't move on from the Cold War.

[conon394]

I am referring to the fact that there hasn't been an armed conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union, or Russia, since the Continuation War.

Good point but at the same time I think lost to often that the USSR was not Russia by another name. I think current Russian foreign policy as to be judged by the only the Post Soviet age.

The rather childish and infantile attempts to paint Russia and Vladimir Putin as inherently evil are counter-productive. Personally, I find China's actions in Xinjiang to be much more morally reprehensible and insidious. No, Russia and Vladimir Putin have played themselves into a geopolitical corner, a dead end, because he couldn't move on from the Cold War.

Fair. But while I would not go for evil I do think Putin is four square behind dismantling the shall we say best rhetoric and version of the Post WW2 era in favor on an illiberal world state? Not that the 'West' lives up to the former in many cases but at least and occasionally it achieves some of it.

[Love Mountain]

Good point but at the same time I think lost to often that the USSR was not Russia by another name. I think current Russian foreign policy as to be judged by the only the Post Soviet age.

Sure, but they do share a lot of the same security concerns. The main difference in my opinion, is that the Soviet Union had ideological aspirations, the current Russian state, does not. Calling Putin just another tin-pot dictator is ironically accurate, he is no different from say... Park-Chung-Hee or Assad in that regard. There aren't really nay grandiose ambitions, despite how much Putin enjoys poor parallels to Peter the Great.

Fair. But while I would go for evil I do think Putin is four square behind dismantling the shall we say best rhetoric and version of the Post WW2 era in favor on an illiberal world state? Not that the 'West' lives up to the former in many cases but at least and occasionally it achieves some of it.

Mmmm, I think the West lives up to failed Allied diplomacy pre and post WW2 in every single way. We are rarely involved in absolutely horrible things happening, but we are often complicit with it, and more often than not, turn a blind eye towards it. That's obviously problematic, but it's still better than our other contemporaries. On the flip side, our adversaries are a lot less "evil", so it's hard to put ourselves on a moral pedestal, especially when some of our allies are just as bad.

The moral arguments are popular right now, but in my opinion, many of these arguments will ring hollow in ten years time. Speaking of which, I re-listened to the War on the Rocks podcast from this week (at home this time, instead of while driving), and I'm pleased to see Kofman corroborate some of my military analysis and predictions.

I'll try to make an update later today, and maybe review how some of my statements have lined up with Kofman's statements in this podcast.

[z3n]

Interestingly yet more Eastern Ukranian soldiers are commenting on the weapons situation. They say that Kyiv keeps all the weapons or that they never receive the shipments:

In his view, the leadership in Kyiv cares little for those fighting out here.

"[Kyiv] has not sent us any new weapons — and they're not going to," said Nikita.

"Everything new and fancy has been reserved for those other places: Kyiv, Kharkiv, the big cities. Headquarters thinks, 'Well, you [in the east] have been fighting the Russians for eight years already. You'll be fine.'"

Nikita shakes his head, before turning to even harsher words for his superiors.

"You have to understand that there are two castes in this country," he said. "There's the upper caste, and then there's us: the lower caste. We are just pawns. Nothing more. The upper caste gets the money, and we get the command: 'Forward!'

"That's how it's always worked here [in Ukraine]," he said, before emphasizing that he doesn't expect anyone to believe him.

"No one here wants to hear the truth," said Nikita. "They just want the beautiful story of how Ukraine is united. But here, we're ."

Other soldiers filtering through the shawarma stand also tell dire tales of being outgunned and outnumbered as fighting in the region intensifies.

The bolded part from the Ukranian soldier really sums things up.



More Ukranian soldiers go on to tell about the Mariupol situation, suggesting that the Ukranian command has grown more strategically obtuse as the war progresses.

One of their assignments involved being sent to cover the retreat of Ukrainian forces pulling out of Mariupol — a task they say nearly saw them killed as they were overwhelmed by a Russian force they were not equipped to fight.

"Our guys [in Mariupol] were almost encircled, so we were sent there to guard the exodus," said the younger Sergei. "The Russians put out 200 vehicles against us. They caught us and surrounded us in a village. [It was] just 70 of us against all that."

For an additional example the Hitler type "no retreat" strategy in Severondonetsk doesn't really make the most sense imo. The fighting in Severondonetsk is definitely not going their way. While the initial plan seemed to be an attempt at "fighting for every inch of ground" and turning Azov chemical plant into a repeat of the Azov steelworks, the infrastructure that enabled the steelworks defense doesn't exist in Azot. There is no array of tunnels, neither was it designed to be a fortress.

Based on that it seems Ukraine is letting its best and most experienced soldiers die or get captured. You'd think that you would use the expendable inexperienced conscripts from Kyiv instead of the veterans but perhaps there really is a two tier caste like the soldiers talked about. Apparently they don't want to equip their best fighters better or pull them back instead of ordering them to stay and fight for every inch of Severodonetsk.

I really dont think the rumored counter offensive will work without these veteran soldiers who are being squandered in odd "no retreat" situations. If Ukraine is forced to rely largely on poorly trained and inexperienced soldiers they will not make much if any progress. Especially not in the face of the Russian artillery which surprisingly is being talked about much more recently. I also doubt the Ukranians chances of success at taking something concrete like a large city without these experienced forces.

[conon394]

note left a not out before evil above.

Sure, but they do share a lot of the same security concerns.

Not really I mean think about NATO may have expanded over the 90s but realistically at the same time most more or voluntarily demilitarized and the US withdrew most of its troops. I mean Germany is the poster child of NATO military disarmament and a force that was clearly not ready for Prime time. Outside of the US, Fran the UK and Poland NATO did not really have Forces in place to launch some lunching attack into Russia. Nor was NATO massing troops in Poland and Baltic. I mean its not the V Corps simply rolled out of Germany and was forward based in Poland.

Mmmm, I think the West lives up to failed Allied diplomacy pre and post WW2 in every single way. We are rarely involved in absolutely horrible things happening, but we are often complicit with it, and more often than not, turn a blind eye towards it. That's obviously problematic, but it's still better than our other contemporaries. On the flip side, our adversaries are a lot less "evil", so it's hard to put ourselves on a moral pedestal, especially when some of our allies are just as bad.

Again note I meant to say not evil. But in this I do think Putin is very much interested in breaking the positive world order bits the US and Western Europe did bring out of WW2. And thus I also think the weird IR claims that somehow we could by appeasing Putin swing him to some kind of lever vs China are absurd.

To quote Aeschylus I do think the west has done better than worst in the eyes of fair judge since WW2 against international politics and such... but as you say we do like back pat ourselves a little too much and gloss over and not face up to the fair amount of bad policy and see reconize the human cost of it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Because Zelensky was elected on a platform of Diplomacy in 2019, which he subsequently abandoned because Russian demands were incompatible with the expectations of the Ukrainian electorate.

I still didn’t see anything in there about not joining NATO but I also couldn’t find the link to the leaked docs. What is evident is Moscow wanted Ukraine to change its constitution to give up territory in exchange for…..what? How does Zelensky’s refusal equate to Ukraine “rejecting neutrality?” In the context of Putin’s maximalist demands in December 2021, all your observation here seems to indicate is that Moscow isn’t serious about any conflict resolution to be negotiated in the first place.

To this day, there no Membership Action Plan with Georgia. So NATO can make whatever statements they want to make themselves feel good, factually, Russia's invasion was effective.

There was no MAP for Ukraine either after Bush made those remarks nor in 2014, and if statements from NATO are meaningless, the idea Russia halted membership plans by invading them is even weaker conjecture for the same reason. If anything, what you’re suggesting here is Washington should have backed up Bush’s statement with MAP and interim security guarantees for Ukraine and Georgia in anticipation that Moscow was prepared to use virtually any western influence or posturing as pretext for force. That’s the opposite of neutrality.

I am referring to the fact that there hasn't been an armed conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union, or Russia, since the Continuation War.

That would include the 1992 treaty I referenced, which by its very nature makes it irrelevant to anything Ukraine has been “offered.” Even if you go back to the 40s, Finland ceded territory to the Soviets and successive Russian governments since 1989 then made it clear there’s no intention of negotiating it. Is that what you’re suggesting Ukraine should do? Russia already violated the 1997 Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation by invading Crimea, so the onus is on you to justify your position that Ukraine could have avoided conflict through more explicit neutrality and that Russia would have respected the agreement.

This question makes no contextual sense, but I'll answer it regardless.

I am not complaining about NATO expansion or engaging in whataboutism. The statements I made are either factual observations, or statements describing somebody's point of view.

A. NATO expansion is a major Russian concern. That's a fact. I don't think Russia's concerns are justified, but the fact is that Russia doesn't like it.
B. Russia pretested and resented NATO expansions and NATO's open-door policy to Russia's neighbors specifically. Again, I don't think this is a bad thing, but it is a fact that Russia is concerned about it.
C. Russia has used military force to address these concerns. Again, I think this was a foolish decision, especially in 2014 and 2022, but the fact is that this military invasion happened, and it is my opinion that it was primarily motivated by the desire to stop NATO expansion.

The point of my posts isn't to "prove" or "defend" Russia's position, merely that the decision to ignore Russia's concerns and position has contributed towards the outbreak of hostilities. Moreover, the moralizing and hysteria over Russia's position is childish. The decision to use military force is either a short-sighted, or a misguided, attempt to improve Russia's security. The army suffers from ill-discipline, corruption, and in some cases poor morale.

It is not some misguided attempt for the greater Russian Empire or pan-Slavism like some people think.

People are well aware of what Moscow’s position is. Describing it is different from your insistence that Ukraine chose war by failing to capitulate to Russian demands, or that a failure to achieve those demands through diplomacy subjected Russia to “a brutal peace meant to cripple it.” Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression and that statement of fact is not “moralizing hysteria.” It’s a self evident acknowledgment of what has taken place and serves as an indication that Moscow cannot be trusted to respect basic diplomacy, even in its own interest. That’s why Sweden and Finland are joining NATO now and not in 2008 or 1989 or 1950, despite Russian threats of retaliation. If Russia doesn’t meaningfully retaliate with force against either of them, your assertion that Russia had an existential security interest in invading Ukraine to stop NATO is even less applicable to the current reality.

[athanaric]

Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression and that statement of fact is not “moralizing hysteria.”

Don't you see, it's always the other guys' fault. The Russian Federation just happens to be the largest country in the world, how dare the other countries border it. All those Russian colonies just magically manifested. Peacefully, of course.

[Laser101]

For an additional example the Hitler type "no retreat" strategy in Severondonetsk doesn't really make the most sense imo. The fighting in Severondonetsk is definitely not going their way. While the initial plan seemed to be an attempt at "fighting for every inch of ground" and turning Azov chemical plant into a repeat of the Azov steelworks, the infrastructure that enabled the steelworks defense doesn't exist in Azot. There is no array of tunnels, neither was it designed to be a fortress.

Based on that it seems Ukraine is letting its best and most experienced soldiers die or get captured. You'd think that you would use the expendable inexperienced conscripts from Kyiv instead of the veterans but perhaps there really is a two tier caste like the soldiers talked about. Apparently they don't want to equip their best fighters better or pull them back instead of ordering them to stay and fight for every inch of Severodonetsk.

I really dont think the rumored counter offensive will work without these veteran soldiers who are being squandered in odd "no retreat" situations. If Ukraine is forced to rely largely on poorly trained and inexperienced soldiers they will not make much if any progress. Especially not in the face of the Russian artillery which surprisingly is being talked about much more recently. I also doubt the Ukranians chances of success at taking something concrete like a large city without these experienced forces.

Well, they could try to employ local insurgents in a major city to undermine Russian defenses (a "fifth column" if you will) but the chances of such a strategy are not clear.

As far as I can tell the Russians are in a similar problem with the added issue that most of their infantry forces are dangerously undermanned. The reason being that most of the professional contract soldiers are in more specialized roles with the line infantry forces supposed to be filled by conscripts, but absent mobilization these positions haven't been filled. Without sufficient infantry forces you can't really take and hold ground, which is probably why the Russians haven't been able to advance very much.

The situation in Ukraine has the rather bizarre property that rhetoric around it is completely inconsistent with the situation on the ground (which is barely moving and hasn't for a while). On the one hand, you have Macron in Kiev supporting the retaking of Crimea, something which is not really on the table at the moment. On the other, there's the argument that if Putin managed to overrun Ukraine (and at the moment, the Russians don't seem to be able to go much further than they have already, so that's unlikely in itself), he'd then try to invade Poland, which is a NATO member with double Ukraine's military budget. To put it simply, that would be very much Russia's reach exceeding its grasp.

As it stands, neither Ukraine nor Russia have managed to get any kind of decisive breakthrough, and neither seem likely to for the foreseeable future.

[z3n]

Well, they could try to employ local insurgents in a major city to undermine Russian defenses (a "fifth column" if you will) but the chances of such a strategy are not clear.

As far as I can tell the Russians are in a similar problem with the added issue that most of their infantry forces are dangerously undermanned. The reason being that most of the professional contract soldiers are in more specialized roles with the line infantry forces supposed to be filled by conscripts, but absent mobilization these positions haven't been filled. Without sufficient infantry forces you can't really take and hold ground, which is probably why the Russians haven't been able to advance very much.

The situation in Ukraine has the rather bizarre property that rhetoric around it is completely inconsistent with the situation on the ground (which is barely moving and hasn't for a while). On the one hand, you have Macron in Kiev supporting the retaking of Crimea, something which is not really on the table at the moment. On the other, there's the argument that if Putin managed to overrun Ukraine (and at the moment, the Russians don't seem to be able to go much further than they have already, so that's unlikely in itself), he'd then try to invade Poland, which is a NATO member with double Ukraine's military budget. To put it simply, that would be very much Russia's reach exceeding its grasp.

As it stands, neither Ukraine nor Russia have managed to get any kind of decisive breakthrough, and neither seem likely to for the foreseeable future.

While I partly agree with your assessment about troops, it seems Ukraine has concentrated on defending the cities most, and groups troops there. We can see that Ukranian infantry feel like they're not doing well right now, which is to some degree true. I feel like they really can't fight back either.

His colleague, Mikhail, had also fought in 2014, against the initial Russian invasion of Ukraine. This time, he says, is different.

"[In 2014], I could fight well enough with my rifle," said Mikhail. "Now, I can't. They hit us with planes, helicopters, mortars, tanks, GRADs [rocket artillery]."

"In this war, the ordinary infantryman is nothing," said Nikita. "Now it's all artillery and heavy weapons. The average soldier, he can't do anything."

"We are just cannon fodder," Mikhail interjects.

Ukrainian commands strategy of grouping in cities means Russian artillery gets more concentrated targets that way and it no longer becomes an infantryman fight. To quote the Ukranian soldiers "we are cannon fodder". It seems like Russia may continue to pursue their strategy of bombardment even if the advances are slow. On the other hand Ukrainian command must believe that fighting outside of cities and sparing the infrastructure and civilians is impossible. Otherwise Ukranian command would order the fight to occur outside the cities.


Some Western analysts suggest that Russia will try to carry forward their assault strategy but others disagree. I see Ukraine command stating Russia has more than doubled the troops (from roughly 150'000 at start to 300'000) . Whether this is an accurate assessment or simply a way of explaining Ukraines inability to capitalize on Ukraines manpower advantage remains to be seen. Certainly it seems Russia retains a massive vehicle, air and artillery advantage.

About the Severodonetsk situation, Russian media (Tass) is claiming that Ukranian troops are beginning to surrender. This actually may be accurate as they were accurate in Mariupol, which was much more fortified. I guess we will see what happens and the truth soon enough. This is a bit earlier than the one week timeline I've seen passed around but they did only say begin.

[fkizz]

The fact that Russia is deploying T-62s gives a signal by itself.

[z3n]

The fact that Russia is deploying T-62s gives a signal by itself.

Given Eastern Ukraine's weapons situation they would struggle to destroy even an unsupported T-62 with their RPGs (if they even have an RPG), let alone vehicles right now.

[Ludicus]

Russia has used military force to address these concerns...the fact is that this military invasion happened, and it is my opinion that it was primarily motivated by the desire to stop NATO expansion.

Pretty obvious.
And even more-Meiersheimer, two days ago. Key remarks,
The United States is principally responsible for creating the crisis in Ukraine; US sanctions against Moscow are an attempt to knock Russia out of the ranks of the great powers. He calls the attention to the fact that (in the the way he sees it) the US has declared war against Russia, in effect, but the Ukrainian people are doing the fighting. Finally, he says, both sides consider themselves locked in an existential threat, with no way out.



--

a world dominated by Western ideals and military power is a much better, humane, and richer place to live in

I understand what you are trying to say, I also prefer to live in a democratic country, but the sentence "dominate by" worries me.

We are rarely involved in absolutely horrible things happening, but we are often complicit with it,

Not so rarely...for example the intensive bombing of Cambodia,Taylor Owen and Ben Kiernan, serious historians of Cambodia, have described it.It was a mass genocide.(1) Nixon transmitted an order to general Haig saying that there should be massive bombing of Cambodia, :"It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies on anything that moves", Vietnam,the most intense bombing in human history, Laos with over two million tonns of bombs during nine years,and I could go on. Afghanistan,Iraq, Libya,Latin America, etc ad nausea.

(1)Cambodia may be the most heavily bombed country in history Bombs Over Cambodia - Genocide Studies Program
Yale University -Genocide Studies Program The United States Bombing of Cambodia, 1965-1973
--
--
NATO is not a purely defensive alliance.The formation of NATO helped intensify and institutionalize the Cold War.NATO's goals have expanded along with its territory.And third, its almost a religious thing:when advocating for the creation of NATO, then-British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin said it was necessary for "the salvation of the west" Divinely Sanctioned: The Anglo-American Cold War Alliance

NATO: The World's Largest Alliance | World101 - Council on Foreign Relations
Trace NATO’s history and learn how the organization’s mission has evolved over seventy years.
(…) In the opening years of the new century, NATO adopted a more expansive definition of what it meant to protect its members’ national interests and transformed from a traditional defensive alliance into a collective of like-minded countries willing to pursue broader objectives.
[/QUOTE]

[conon394]

And even more Meiersheimer, two days ago. Key remarks,

Not again please...

Afghanistan,Iraq, Libya,Latin America, etc ad nausea.

You can't cite Meiersheimer and try and drop Latin America in your list. By his resoning they are no different than Ukraine is to Russia. Not real states and to played with as the US sees fit as a Great Power.

So also let us take Afghanistan so what is you ideal of how the US should have responded to the state that sheltered AQ and allowed it to develop and than commit multiple large scale attacks against the US?

Latin America

So you were against duty to protect at the time? Your boy Meiersheimer, would have been I am sure he would say save Gaddafi for stability who he kills or seems to be threatening to kill in suppressing dissent is an internal affair.

Also its a little rich to bring up Cambodia when you recommended listening to Kissinger - a man pretty chill with bombing pretty much anyone in ex Indochina maybe he was just waiting for North Vietnam to realize the US was a great power and they should abandon their aims. You know like Meiersheimer says

[z3n]

Not again please...



You can't cite Meiersheimer and try and drop Latin America in your list. By his resoning they are no different than Ukraine is to Russia. Not real states and to played with as the US sees fit as a Great Power.

So also let us take Afghanistan so what is you ideal of how the US should have responded to the state that sheltered AQ and allowed it to develop and than commit multiple large scale attacks against the US?



So you were against duty to protect at the time? Your boy Meiersheimer, would have been I am sure he would say save Gaddafi for stability who he kills or seems to be threatening to kill in suppressing dissent is an internal affair.

Also its a little rich to bring up Cambodia when you recommended listening to Kissinger - a man pretty chill with bombing pretty much anyone in ex Indochina maybe he was just waiting for North Vietnam to realize the US was a great power and they should abandon their aims. You know like Meiersheimer says

The Monroe Doctrine has been continuously reinforced by USA and its various presidents throughout the years. We even had Trump offer to invade Mexico to "clean it up".

During the Cold War era, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Monroe Doctrine during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when he ordered a naval and air quarantine of Cuba after the Soviet Union began building missile-launching sites there. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan similarly used the 1823 policy principle to justify U.S. intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua, while his successor, George H.W. Bush, similarly sanctioned a U.S. invasion of Panama to oust Manuel Noriega.

So we have Kennedy, Reagan, Bush and Trump all using a form of the Monroe Doctrine.

Given that this all happened within recent memory its pretty interesting that USA won't afford the same doctrine to Russia with Ukraine. But hypocrisy and double standards are par for the course within our society in the west according to some. I'd think that the Ukraine scenario warrants a Monroe Doctrine of their own, if only because that's the only country Russian intervention is guarenteed within along with the threat of nukes.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Given that this all happened within recent memory its pretty interesting that USA won't afford the same doctrine to Russia with Ukraine. But hypocrisy and double standards are par for the course within our society in the west according to some. I'd think that the Ukraine scenario warrants a Monroe Doctrine of their own, if only because that's the only country Russian intervention is guarenteed within along with the threat of nukes.

Muh hypocrisy. I wonder if the Kremlin will ever come up with something new or if that will forever be the rallying cry of the ages. Propaganda aside, I would argue Mearsheimer ought to take a step back and justify how Russia can still be considered a great power after their performance over the last several years. If all great powers are mostly alike in a realist framework, one wonders how Russia can be like the US outside the echo chamber of Russian nationalism. Russian international influence and hard power is almost entirely leftover from the USSR, aside from its power over energy markets.

If natural resources and the ability to frustrate the US can make a power great, one would need to include countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, or even North Korea or Pakistan, and one can see how the term would lose all meaning in such case. Even if Russia were a great power comparable the the USSR, the idea that the Monroe Doctrine was some kind of written or unwritten law respected at any point by Moscow is comical. The Kremlin backed anti-US movements and governments across Latin America for decades, but I doubt today that the US refrains from invading Cuba or Venezuela for fear of provoking Russia.

If aversion to conflict alone should direct US policy according to a doctrine which revolves around a sphere of influence instead of an international order, then we ought not to have bases in South Korea or Japan for the same reasons Putin demands NATO withdraw from Eastern Europe. It might make strategic sense for the US in a theoretical framework, but it has little explanatory or predictable value in a policy framework regarding what the US should actually do.

The Kremlin might still behave as though it is a great power, but if even if that’s the motivation, it’s finding out the hard way that it isn’t, and there’s no reason for the US to treat it like one apart from MAD, which might as well apply to North Korea given Kim has stated he will use them preemptively “if provoked.” Mearsheimer’s premise that Russia could have ever been a US ally has always been delusional and we’ve seen how useful an ally it would be in any case, begging China for milkies just days into its own war against what Mearsheimer’s framework considers a mere satellite. At this point there’s as much basis for arguing the US needs to come to terms with Iran or North Korea, and the idea is just as fanciful. The overtures the US has made to those states failed to alter their geopolitical behavior in any meaningful way, let alone incentivized a shift in their opposition to the US. The best example of all, the attempt to integrate China into the US-led order, backfired and created a powerful existential threat to America itself. And to the extent Russia has been integrated into western markets, that too has been weaponized against us. The lesson here is the opposite of what Kremlin apologists suggest.