Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Soloist]

I suspect that Russia intends to outlast the Ukrainian supporters. Russia may be bad at war, but they are good at out lasting their opponents.

[Josh]

With Gaza in the news, Ukraine has kind of faded from the headlines.

But here is an interesting article from a Russian political scientist arguing that Putin doesn't want any end to the war. That a state of war is politically beneficial to Putin's government regardless of whether they are winning or losing (and losing might even be better) since it allows them to squelch dissent and divert attention from their domestic policy failures. Food for thought.

The original discussion is in Russian, this is an English summary.

A tactic that Putin, Zelensky, and Netanyahu are all busy doing right now. (Plus Hamas, but I have no idea who their leadership is.)

Foreverwar is a GREAT excuse to postpone elections, suspend civil rights, control the press, and divert the economy to massive military production. Russia is basically in a fast track back to Soviet era levels of wartime production (as high as 50% GDP back then.) Recently the Financial Times reported on weapons factories hiring anyone - clerks and cooks and dishwashers. They need bodies on the production lines. Russia is also taking full advantage of open immigration from the satellite states, enticing workers from places like Kazakhstan with promises of good jobs.

Netanyahu has rescued his political career and also found a way to cement a far right extremist government with global support, accusing anyone who opposes this of supporting Hamas.

Hamas has found a way to stay relevant and shore up more support for extremism, making Fatah and Abbas look weak.

Winners: Warmongers, bankers, elites, and empires.
Losers: Everyone else.

[Ken]

With Gaza in the news, Ukraine has kind of faded from the headlines.

But here is an interesting article from a Russian political scientist arguing that Putin doesn't want any end to the war. That a state of war is politically beneficial to Putin's government regardless of whether they are winning or losing (and losing might even be better) since it allows them to squelch dissent and divert attention from their domestic policy failures. Food for thought.

The original discussion is in Russian, this is an English summary.

A tactic that Putin, Zelensky, and Netanyahu are all busy doing right now. (Plus Hamas, but I have no idea who their leadership is.)

Foreverwar is a GREAT excuse to postpone elections, suspend civil rights, control the press, and divert the economy to massive military production. Russia is basically in a fast track back to Soviet era levels of wartime production (as high as 50% GDP back then.) Recently the Financial Times reported on weapons factories hiring anyone - clerks and cooks and dishwashers. They need bodies on the production lines. Russia is also taking full advantage of open immigration from the satellite states, enticing workers from places like Kazakhstan with promises of good jobs.

Netanyahu has rescued his political career and also found a way to cement a far right extremist government with global support, accusing anyone who opposes this of supporting Hamas.

Hamas has found a way to stay relevant and shore up more support for extremism, making Fatah and Abbas look weak.

Winners: Warmongers, bankers, elites, and empires.
Losers: Everyone else.

Also of course why the US was in Afghanistan for over 20 years.

[Josh]

We spent $2.13 trillion by most analysts’ estimates on the Afghanistan occupation. Imagine what else that could’ve been used for.

The interest on that is now roughly $100 billion per year. Each household in America will be coughing up $1000 per year, forever, for that pointless exercise.

[Ken]

And yet, one of the reasons why presidents across several administrations stayed in Afghanistan for so long was to avoid public sentiment like the following:

Maybe we should ask the parents and loved ones of the 13 brave young people who were brutally killed in the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, which they would rather have? A “normal” president or a president who foreign leaders feared.

This is not to pick on one particular person but to illustrate a very common partisan sentiment. War is popular among the American people and ending wars without "victory" (which is always messy) is not. And domestic politics is always involved, especially when it comes to "looking tough"

[Ernie]

Looks like Zelensky will arrive in DC tomorrow. He hopes he can still win the war. I wonder what winning means and whether winning is even a possibility at this point...

Its one thing to invest a million dollars into a business that may go bankrupt.

It is quite another thing for Ukraine and its Allies to...
*invest $500 billion into fighting a war against Russia
*lose $500 billion of infrastructure to Russian bombs
*lose 100,000 citizens
*Poverty rate of 25% instead of 5%

only to have Russia eventually take over a section of Ukraine someday anyhow...

From a strategic point of view, it appears that enacting a ceasefire a year ago would have saved many lives and much infrastructure. And if they really valued people's lives, the time to have enacted a ceasefire would have been after Russia retreated from Kyiv a couple months after the invasion.

Meanwhile, the war has resulted in heavy economic losses for countries all around the world and much more poverty in 3rd world countries who can't afford food.

War is a terrible thing. Period. Some might argue that there are worse things that could happen by not going to war, but I think that is probably too difficult for humans to assess.


https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/500-da ... ne/2940141

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk ... 2023-11-15

[Szdfan]

Looks like Zelensky will arrive in DC tomorrow. He hopes he can still win the war. I wonder what winning means and whether winning is even a possibility at this point...

Its one thing to invest a million dollars into a business that may go bankrupt.

It is quite another thing for Ukraine and its Allies to...
*invest $500 billion into fighting a war against Russia
*lose $500 billion of infrastructure to Russian bombs
*lose 100,000 citizens
*Poverty rate of 25% instead of 5%

only to have Russia eventually take over a section of Ukraine someday anyhow...

From a strategic point of view, it appears that enacting a ceasefire a year ago would have saved many lives and much infrastructure. And if they really valued people's lives, the time to have enacted a ceasefire would have been after Russia retreated from Kyiv a couple months after the invasion.

Neither side was ever going to go for a cease fire at that point.

Meanwhile, the war has resulted in heavy economic losses for countries all around the world and much more poverty in 3rd world countries who can't afford food.

War is a terrible thing. Period. Some might argue that there are worse things that could happen by not going to war, but I think that is probably too difficult for humans to assess.

I don't think it was inevitable that Russia was going to win and I don't agree with the fatalism that says big powers can bully other countries without consequences. The absence of violence isn't always peace.

[Ken]

Why this war isn't ending any time soon. Not only does Russia not want a ceasefire or truce. This is what the Russian people see every night on state TV (which is the only TV)

[Szdfan]

According to this interview with the NPR Pentagon correspondent, the Pentagon believes that neither side can win the war --

Russia can't take the whole country over, and Ukraine can't kick out every Russian soldier. So the only way this is really going to end is if Putin decides, I've had enough. I'm pulling my troops out. No one thinks that it's possible.

In a lot of ways, the war is in the worst-case scenario -- a stalemate that neither side at this moment can definitively win. The Russian strategy (which has lost 90% of the troops it had at the beginning of the war -- they've had to use a draft and recruit from prisons to fill those positions) is to wait out support from the West no matter what it costs them. As support for Ukraine begins to drop in the US, it's a strategy that might be successful.

[Soloist]

According to this interview with the NPR Pentagon correspondent, the Pentagon believes that neither side can win the war --

Russia can't take the whole country over, and Ukraine can't kick out every Russian soldier. So the only way this is really going to end is if Putin decides, I've had enough. I'm pulling my troops out. No one thinks that it's possible.

In a lot of ways, the war is in the worst-case scenario -- a stalemate that neither side at this moment can definitively win. The Russian strategy (which has lost 90% of the troops it had at the beginning of the war -- they've had to use a draft and recruit from prisons to fill those positions) is to wait out support from the West no matter what it costs them. As support for Ukraine begins to drop in the US, it's a strategy that might be successful.

Russia at the very least is waiting on our election. Depending on who gets elected might change if they push or dig in further.