Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: - Giants - 03-08-2022

I thought this topic would be off-limits so I did not post any comments relating to the current situation in  Ukraine.

On a personal note…

As a member of the Peace Corps, my older daughter was assigned to Ukraine in 2007.  We visited her in ‘08.  We had not traveled to a former Soviet bloc nation prior to this trip.  To say it was an eye-opening experience is an tremendous understatement.  Since she was the first American to work in her designated location (a rural area near Melitopol), she was quite a curiosity to the Ukrainians in that region.  When we showed up, everyone from her host family to their neighbors to her students (she taught English as a second language at a local school) greeted us warmly.  As we have learned over and over in our travels, the cliche is absolutely true - people are people regardless of their background or place of origin.   

Sadly, my daughter received a note from her host mother last week indicating that things are very, very bad - no doubt worse than anything we are reading or seeing but they are persevering.  It is well beyond a bleak situation.  

I could go on for pages but will stop here with a final thought….

Whatever you can do to support these courageous people, please do, especially programs that focus on the children of Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: - Brickcity - 03-08-2022

(03-08-2022, 11:13 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(03-08-2022, 09:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  

(03-08-2022, 07:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Ultimately this is Yvonne’s call, but given the enormity of the situation, far be it for me to put the kibosh on the discussion, even though technically it is political.

If you are looking to a Stanford sports angle to it (aside from the analogies), there is this:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/looseshoulders/status/1497845117977182208?s=21[/tweet]

As for Putin, whether he wins or loses on the battlefield, he has already lost:
1) given Eastern European countries (plus Sweden and Finland) a strong rationale for joining NATO.
2) has exposed his army as a paper tiger
3) has done what US presidents going back three administrations have failed to do: get the European NATO allies to invest in defense
4) has convinced Europe to wean itself off Russian natural gas and will probably accelerate the transition from imported fossil fuels more generally
5) has devastated his country’s economy
6) has obliterated what was left of his reputation

It is heartbreaking that the Ukrainian people have suffered, and while I hope against hope that they repel the invaders, right now I am just praying that we can get to a cease fire to allow innocent civilians to evacuate.

BC

I'm not nearly as "optimistic" as you are regarding what this all has shown to date or what it will lead to in the future.
WAY too many wildcards, starting with the nut who invaded Ukraine - that's what a megalomaniac with absolute power (and no conscience) looks like.  Scary and unpredictable.

I don’t disagree with your take at all.  I think Putin has lost, but I don’t think that means that everything will turn out well for Western democracies.  In the best case scenario, it has brought misery and destruction to the Ukrainian people, a refugee crisis of 2 million and counting, a potential food crisis in countries that depend on Russian and Ukrainian wheat, higher energy prices for everyone and the potential of having to restart coal plants to make up for reduced gas.  And then there is the possibility of the conflict inadvertently widening, and even though I would consider this an unlikely event, that “megalomaniac with absolute power (and no conscience)” controls the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.

So, yeah, this qualifies as an L for everyone.

BC

I think there's little doubt that Putin is a psychopath. This is a great read from the person who has probably studied the subject more than anyone: https://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience-Disturbing-World-Psychopaths/dp/1572304510

---

RE: Way OT: - OutsiderFan - 03-09-2022

I watched a fascinating interview on DW (German English language news) with a German military and diplomatic expert last night. She said a lot of interesting things, but the most disconcerting were these:

1. Putin has been given "off ramps" to save face before (including during his Ukraine invasion force buildup) and has rejected all of them. Plus, his word is not trusted in any country involved at this point, so not only is there no off ramp available, nobody believes he will actually take it if he says he will. That means diplomacy is not an option and NATO military posture must be on high alert, ready to fight at a moment's notice for the foreseeable future. There literally is no way out right now even if Putin refuses to call things off on his own, because even if he did, he can't be trusted to not try invasion again. I mean look at all the insane claims he makes to justify breaking agreements and invasions. The latest I read this morning is "Ukraine is going to purposely blow up their nuclear reactors." Just unhinged, and a possible pretext for Russia destroying them. 

2. Russia has "tactical" nuclear weapons that NATO doesn't have in great numbers. For those unaware, tactical nukes are minimal yield ordnance that do much more damage than conventional weapons can to specific tactical targets (a rail yard or airport), but don't impact nearly as large a footprint or have as much nuclear fallout as strategic nukes designed to flatten everything in a city (10+ mile radius) and create great fallout. The fear is Putin will use a tactical nuke and dare NATO to respond. Because it wasn't "that bad," NATO and he doubts NATO will launch strategic nuclear retaliation (like taking out Moscow). Moreover, the U.S. only has less than 300 tactical nuclear weapons in it arsenal. Russia has many many more. IOW, we can't any longer be confident our nuclear weapon strategy is an actual deterrent to any nuclear weapon use by Russia, and being in this position gives Putin more room to damage his neighbors with NATO just watching the destruction.

She concluded by saying even though NATO wants to avoid getting involved in direct conflict with Russia, if genocide happens at a scale that outrages the world, or Putin tests NATO's resolve by invading a NATO country, maybe even Maldova, it will have no choice but to act against Russia. 

The best thing we can hope for is economic sanctions and global pariah status will effectuate some kind of change within Russia to weaken Putin's hold and force some kind regime change. Until then, Putin's inner circle of advisors known as the siloviki - not the Oligarchs - are the only ones who can stop him, and right now they are as much for the Ukraine operation as Putin is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60573261

---

RE: Way OT: - Mick - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 09:33 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I watched a fascinating interview on DW (German English language news) with a German military and diplomatic expert last night. She said a lot of interesting things, but the most disconcerting were these:

1. Putin has been given "off ramps" to save face before (including during his Ukraine invasion force buildup) and has rejected all of them. Plus, his word is not trusted in any country involved at this point, so not only is there no off ramp available, nobody believes he will actually take it if he says he will. That means diplomacy is not an option and NATO military posture must be on high alert, ready to fight at a moment's notice for the foreseeable future. There literally is no way out right now even if Putin refuses to call things off on his own, because even if he did, he can't be trusted to not try invasion again. I mean look at all the insane claims he makes to justify breaking agreements and invasions. The latest I read this morning is "Ukraine is going to purposely blow up their nuclear reactors." Just unhinged, and a possible pretext for Russia destroying them. 

2. Russia has "tactical" nuclear weapons that NATO doesn't have in great numbers. For those unaware, tactical nukes are minimal yield ordnance that do much more damage than conventional weapons can to specific tactical targets (a rail yard or airport), but don't impact nearly as large a footprint or have as much nuclear fallout as strategic nukes designed to flatten everything in a city (10+ mile radius) and create great fallout. The fear is Putin will use a tactical nuke and dare NATO to respond. Because it wasn't "that bad," NATO and he doubts NATO will launch strategic nuclear retaliation (like taking out Moscow). Moreover, the U.S. only has less than 300 tactical nuclear weapons in it arsenal. Russia has many many more. IOW, we can't any longer be confident our nuclear weapon strategy is an actual deterrent to any nuclear weapon use by Russia, and being in this position gives Putin more room to damage his neighbors with NATO just watching the destruction.

She concluded by saying even though NATO wants to avoid getting involved in direct conflict with Russia, if genocide happens at a scale that outrages the world, or Putin tests NATO's resolve by invading a NATO country, maybe even Maldova, it will have no choice but to act against Russia. 

The best thing we can hope for is economic sanctions and global pariah status will effectuate some kind of change within Russia to weaken Putin's hold and force some kind regime change. Until then, Putin's inner circle of advisors known as the siloviki - not the Oligarchs - are the only ones who can stop him, and right now they are as much for the Ukraine operation as Putin is.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60573261

1. When the Editor in Chief of RT (Russia Today) Maria Baronova quit, she said she was convinced that the we were on the brink of a nuclear war.

2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

3. The misery in Russia must be off the charts right now.  I'd hate to be Putin's food taster right now.

4. Sanctions to date include:
- SWIFT international bank messaging system has been cut off for Russian banks. As a result, the Russian ruble collapsed on 2/28, now worth less than a cent.
- Nord Stream 2 pipeline was decertified. $11 bils. pipeline running under the baltic sea from Russia to German to supply natural gas to Europe. Germany denied certification because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia has now entered into a deal to sell natural gas to China. American oil companies have terminated agreements made with Russian counterparts.
- Most nations have denied use of their airspace to Russian jets.
- Russian bank assets were frozen o n2/28/22 in the USA. OFAC is prohibiting U.S. citizens from engaging in transactions with Russian financial institutions.
- All NATO countries have announced sanctions, as have non-NATO countries Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and Taiwan.

---

RE: Way OT: - JJJ - 03-09-2022

Francis Fukuyama, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford. It's a long article but I found it informative.

Quote:The horrific Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24 has been seen as a critical turning point in world history. Many have said that it definitively marks the end of the post-cold war era, a rollback of the “Europe whole and free” that we thought emerged after 1991, or indeed, the end of The End of History.

https://www.ft.com/content/d0331b51-5d0e-4132-9f97-c3f41c7d75b3

---

RE: Way OT: - Goose - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.

The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

---

RE: Way OT: - 82 Card - 03-09-2022

According to British defense ministry, the Russian defense ministry has acknowledged the use of thermobaric weapons in Ukraine. No word yet on how they were used. In an urban setting, these weapons would result in mass slaughter.

Note: The US has used these types of weapons as well, in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The weapons use a fuel air mixture to create a giant fireball sucking all the oxygen out of the blast area, killing anything in it's path, including underground. Not that different form a mini-nuke.

---

RE: Way OT: - qwerty49 - 03-09-2022

Lots of things to think about here but if one puts aside the political and philosophical issues and just takes a look at Ukraine's vast natural resources, (including iron, lithium, titanium, etc) plus its geographic position providing added hegemony over the Black Sea and an overland route for natural gas transport to Europe, this land grab is, in retrospect, not surprising.

Putin obviously figured that NATO would have no taste for direct military involvement.  Would any Western head-of-state sign off on committing forces to on-the-ground operations there right now?  I don't think so.

So we're left with non-military actions, and unfortunately I think this eventually puts it all in Putin's hands.  Who can last longer -- the Russian economy or the poor people of Ukraine?

---

RE: Way OT: - OutsiderFan - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 02:32 PM)Goose Wrote:  The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

Not sure it is wise to apply "western" notions of what benefit/cost is to Putin at this point. I agree with those who say he wants to bring NATO into the conflict and will keep crossing lines until it happens. The pain from economic sanctions may even embolden him to double down. It seems most people believe the Ukraine terrorism by Russia is a terrible thing happening that should be stopped, but don't understand how close we are to this thing spiraling out of control beyond Ukraine and becoming a true global disaster. Oh what a time to be alive.

British MoD is saying they expect chemical weapons to be used. And then there is this...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1501663511218429963[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: - gailtate - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 02:32 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.

The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

The biggest risk happens to be likeliest outcome right now, unfortunately. It is nuclear: all evidence to date suggests the deteriorating mentality of Putin. If I were a man of faith I'd be praying that somebody dispatches Vlad with extreme prejudice. Historically, Russians are pretty tough on whichever slob is at the top whenever there's a military failure, with the exception of Gorbachev/Afghanistan. But that ended the Soviet Union. I don't rely on faith but I am a man of hope.

---

RE: Way OT: - martyup - 03-09-2022

Where is Jason Borne when you really need him?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-09-2022

If Russia uses chemical weapons it won’t be for tactical advantage, but to terrorize the population and put pressure on Zelensky to capitulate lest more innocent civilians become victims of the terror.

I don’t think there is a high chance of Russia invading another country, let alone NATO. Given how utterly badly the invasion of Ukraine is going for him, he’d be a fool to try to go anywhere else. Virtually all of his mobilized army is stuck in a morass in Ukraine.

The bigger risk is that sensing a loss in Ukraine or a stalemate, that Russia will pursue increasingly aggressive and unacceptable measures. He’s already used cluster bombs against civilian targets, and it sounds like he’s used a thermobaric bomb. He can use increasingly desperate measures from there; chemical weapons, a nuclear weapon, etc.

I think NATO is playing a fine balancing act, helping the Ukrainian’s with arms without getting drawn directly into the conflict. The problem is getting the balance right. So far, arming Ukrainians hasn’t provoked a response (probably because Russia can’t afford one), but the more NATO tries to, the greater the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, and the greater the risk that it escalates into a global thermonuclear war. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - JJJ - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 07:31 PM)BostonCard Wrote:   the greater the risk of a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, and the greater the risk that it escalates into a global thermonuclear war. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.




BC

War Games reference? (Sorry if wrong).
CPE1704TKS
(launch code in the movie, which I saw for the first time while at Stanford)

---

RE: Way OT: - ADPinWDC - 03-09-2022

(03-08-2022, 01:41 PM)French Rage Wrote:  Zelensky is bringing EUTM while Putin is blaming his army's execution.

 

EU Trade Mark?  But, EU won't let them join, most likely nor Moldova.  
To survive, Ukraine must assume a "neutral" status between EU and Russia.

---

Back in August 2014, to start WW1 -- the might Austro-Hungarian Empire invaded Serbia and got their ass handed to them. 
After more than 200,000 casualties on each side, it was fought to a draw even though AHE occupied Belgrade. 
I am thinking Stanford over USC in 2009, 55-14 and "Hey, what's your deal?" [Carroll FAIL vs Harbaugh] 
https://totallyhistory.com/serbian-campaign/

---

RE: Way OT: - 81alum - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 02:32 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.



The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

Goose, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government dispersed sarin gas via rocket barrage on the town of Ghouta, just outside of Damascus.  The gas killed 1400 people.  It was so horrific that international pressure forced Syria to destroy its stockpile and finally sign onto the international treaties banning chemical warfare.

But that did not last long.  As the Syrian civil war dragged on and Russia intervened on the government's behalf in 2015, Syria began the use of chemical weapons again.  The crucial turning point was the battle for the largest city--Aleppo.  The Russian-backed government forces surrounded and sealed off the city, pummeled it with artillery and bombs and refused for months to let the starving population leave.  During this time helicopters dropped barrel bombs loaded with chlorine gas, block by block.  Chlorine worked well for their purposes since in the right conditions it settles low into basements and bunkers where people attempt to hide from shelling and bombs.  Surviving the chlorine means going up to the top of rubble heaps.  Surviving the shelling means going down into basements.  In this way the largest city in Syria, and one of the most beautiful and most historic, was turned into a circle of hell.  Human rights groups count 336 separate uses of poison gas in that war--including sarin gas, chlorine, and a few instances of sulpher mustard gas.

Syria got its poison gas capacity from the Soviet Union in the 1970s.  Following the destruction of its stockpile in 2013, it created a new supply with Russian help, and used Russian tactics and Russian aircraft in deploying it.

That's what I meant when I called Aleppo "Putin's Guernica."  Years before Hitler invaded Poland his forces intervened in the Spanish Civil War and tried out their tactics there. Putin learned from Aleppo and appears to be applying its lessons now. All that is lacking so far is the use of poison gas.  And Russia has more of it than any other country on earth.

I am terribly dismayed by what is yet to come, and am beginning to wonder if it is realistic to believe that the war can be contained.

---

RE: Way OT: - Goose - 03-09-2022

(03-09-2022, 08:25 PM)81alum Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 02:32 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.



The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

Goose, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government dispersed sarin gas via rocket barrage on the town of Ghouta, just outside of Damascus.  The gas killed 1400 people.  It was so horrific that international pressure forced Syria to destroy its stockpile and finally sign onto the international treaties banning chemical warfare.

But that did not last long.  As the Syrian civil war dragged on and Russia intervened on the government's behalf in 2015, Syria began the use of chemical weapons again.  The crucial turning point was the battle for the largest city--Aleppo.  The Russian-backed government forces surrounded and sealed off the city, pummeled it with artillery and bombs and refused for months to let the starving population leave.  During this time helicopters dropped barrel bombs loaded with chlorine gas, block by block.  Chlorine worked well for their purposes since in the right conditions it settles low into basements and bunkers where people attempt to hide from shelling and bombs.  Surviving the chlorine means going up to the top of rubble heaps.  Surviving the shelling means going down into basements.  In this way the largest city in Syria, and one of the most beautiful and most historic, was turned into a circle of hell.  Human rights groups count 336 separate uses of poison gas in that war--including sarin gas, chlorine, and a few instances of sulpher mustard gas.

Syria got its poison gas capacity from the Soviet Union in the 1970s.  Following the destruction of its stockpile in 2013, it created a new supply with Russian help, and used Russian tactics and Russian aircraft in deploying it.

That's what I meant when I called Aleppo "Putin's Guernica."  Years before Hitler invaded Poland his forces intervened in the Spanish Civil War and tried out their tactics there.  Putin learned from Aleppo and appears to be applying its lessons now.  All that is lacking so far is the use of poison gas.  And Russia has more of it than any other country on earth.

Not really. In Syria the Russians had air supremacy. They could do what they wanted and take whatever time they wanted. No Russians were getting killed, nobody at home was complaining. The Russian economy wasn't being affected. Syria was going to take the heat for using gas on their own people, not Russia. It was also all inside Syria, so it could be argued it was nobody else's business. There was no danger anybody was going to attack Russia or Russian forces to stop it. No real risk to Russia, no Russian troops to slow down.

Also, your Guernica reference is IMHO misplaced. Guernica was not an attempt to force the citizens of that town to surrender or to flee. In fact, it was actually a tactical blunder according to those who were involved. While it was unique at that time, many, many worse civilian casualties have been caused intentionally in subsequent bombing raids in many wars. Additionally, no gas was used at Guernica FWIW. The raids on Aleppo clearly were intended to cause casualties and force a surrender, Guernica was not.

Quote:I am terribly dismayed by what is yet to come, and am beginning to wonder if it is realistic to believe that the war can be contained.

On this we agree. I don't think Putin wants NATO or the US to become directly involved, but he absolutely must win and win pretty quickly. Time is not his friend here. He also must trade off what actions he takes vs the probability of a wider war, just as NATO/US/EU must. Real dangerous situation, because it is real easy for either side to go too far. If Putin uses sarin or something similar, what will the US/NATO do? I don't know, and I don't want to find out. Hopefully Putin feels the same way.

---

RE: Way OT: - Mick - 03-10-2022

(03-09-2022, 09:27 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 08:25 PM)81alum Wrote:  I am terribly dismayed by what is yet to come, and am beginning to wonder if it is realistic to believe that the war can be contained.

On this we agree. I don't think Putin wants NATO or the US to become directly involved, but he absolutely must win and win pretty quickly. Time is not his friend here. He also must trade off what actions he takes vs the probability of a wider war, just as NATO/US/EU must. Real dangerous situation, because it is real easy for either side to go too far. If Putin uses sarin or something similar, what will the US/NATO do? I don't know, and I don't want to find out. Hopefully Putin feels the same way.

I wonder if Putin thinks the sanctions will disappear once he's installed a Ukrainian puppet and the Ukrainians wage an ongoing guerilla war?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - 81alum - 03-10-2022

This is the best analysis of Putin I have seen so far.  It is not reassuring.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/opinion/putin-russia-ukraine.html

It is "best" not in terms of any profound psychological insights or theories about the man, but because Zygar actually talks to people in Putin's circle and has real information about his habits and contacts.

Nuclear deterrence depends upon the rational actor model.  A man who is increasingly detached from reality is not someone we want with a finger on the "end the world" button.

---

RE: Way OT: - 81alum - 03-10-2022

(03-09-2022, 09:27 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 08:25 PM)81alum Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 02:32 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-09-2022, 02:09 PM)Mick Wrote:  2. Western officials think Russia may use chemical weapons in Ukraine.  If they bomb children's and maternity hospitals, I don't think they'd hold back on using Sarin gas.  They're already committing atrocities

Highly improbable IMHO. The concern about chemical weapons has been around since WW I, but they have essentially never been used in a "serious" war despite both sides having the capability to do so. The two reasons for this are that 1) CBW precautions slow down the attacker significantly. Given what appears to be the low standard of training of the Russian military, many of their troops would undoubtedly be unable to correctly/quickly suit up and would be killed too. It doesn't result in a net advantage. 2) It justifies the other side doing similar things. In this case, it would also seriously increase the probability of US/NATO/EU increasing their involvement on the grounds the Russians have seriously violated the rules of "civilized" warfare.







The Russians won't be held back by moral scruples, but rather by the calculus of low benefit/high cost. The have plenty of technical superiority already. They don't need to take such a risk.

Goose, on August 21, 2013, the Syrian government dispersed sarin gas via rocket barrage on the town of Ghouta, just outside of Damascus.  The gas killed 1400 people.  It was so horrific that international pressure forced Syria to destroy its stockpile and finally sign onto the international treaties banning chemical warfare.



But that did not last long.  As the Syrian civil war dragged on and Russia intervened on the government's behalf in 2015, Syria began the use of chemical weapons again.  The crucial turning point was the battle for the largest city--Aleppo.  The Russian-backed government forces surrounded and sealed off the city, pummeled it with artillery and bombs and refused for months to let the starving population leave.  During this time helicopters dropped barrel bombs loaded with chlorine gas, block by block.  Chlorine worked well for their purposes since in the right conditions it settles low into basements and bunkers where people attempt to hide from shelling and bombs.  Surviving the chlorine means going up to the top of rubble heaps.  Surviving the shelling means going down into basements.  In this way the largest city in Syria, and one of the most beautiful and most historic, was turned into a circle of hell.  Human rights groups count 336 separate uses of poison gas in that war--including sarin gas, chlorine, and a few instances of sulpher mustard gas.



Syria got its poison gas capacity from the Soviet Union in the 1970s.  Following the destruction of its stockpile in 2013, it created a new supply with Russian help, and used Russian tactics and Russian aircraft in deploying it.



That's what I meant when I called Aleppo "Putin's Guernica."  Years before Hitler invaded Poland his forces intervened in the Spanish Civil War and tried out their tactics there.  Putin learned from Aleppo and appears to be applying its lessons now.  All that is lacking so far is the use of poison gas.  And Russia has more of it than any other country on earth.

Not really. In Syria the Russians had air supremacy. They could do what they wanted and take whatever time they wanted. No Russians were getting killed, nobody at home was complaining. The Russian economy wasn't being affected. Syria was going to take the heat for using gas on their own people, not Russia. It was also all inside Syria, so it could be argued it was nobody else's business. There was no danger anybody was going to attack Russia or Russian forces to stop it. No real risk to Russia, no Russian troops to slow down.



Also, your Guernica reference is IMHO misplaced. Guernica was not an attempt to force the citizens of that town to surrender or to flee. In fact, it was actually a tactical blunder according to those who were involved. While it was unique at that time, many, many worse civilian casualties have been caused intentionally in subsequent bombing raids in many wars. Additionally, no gas was used at Guernica FWIW. The raids on Aleppo clearly were intended to cause casualties and force a surrender, Guernica was not.

Quote:I am terribly dismayed by what is yet to come, and am beginning to wonder if it is realistic to believe that the war can be contained.

On this we agree. I don't think Putin wants NATO or the US to become directly involved, but he absolutely must win and win pretty quickly. Time is not his friend here. He also must trade off what actions he takes vs the probability of a wider war, just as NATO/US/EU must. Real dangerous situation, because it is real easy for either side to go too far. If Putin uses sarin or something similar, what will the US/NATO do? I don't know, and I don't want to find out. Hopefully Putin feels the same way.

I can see I muddled my point.

"Guernica" is to me simply the greatest symbol of Hitler's intervention in the Spanish Civil War, made famous by Picasso's depiction.  I did not mean to imply that the tactics used in the specific battle at Guernica had anything to do with Aleppo or Ukraine.  What I did mean to imply is that Hitler did experiment with tactics in the Spanish Civil War and made use of that experience when fighting his bigger battles later, much as Putin has learned from tactics undertaken with his foreign adventure in Syria. 

There is no denying that the strategic situation in Aleppo is different from the strategic situation in Ukraine, in the ways you accurately recount.  It remains to be seen, however, whether "time is not on Mr. Putin's side."  That would be true only if there is a palace coup or a popular uprising in Russia--and I certainly hope for that--but he is converting his authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one and totalitarian regimes can persist through incredible isolation and economic hardship--see North Korea. 

There is a similarity with Aleppo (and the earlier example of Grozny) in this regard: when the Russian side could not achieve its objectives in a war of movement, it adopted a deliberate strategy of siege warfare with the indiscriminate killing of civilians.  Basically, whole cities of civilians become hostages to be killed until the other side loses the will to fight.  The war in Ukraine seems to be entering this phase with the destruction of suburban housing, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, etc.

As for the specific use of chemical weapons, Chechens claimed Russia did use chemical weapons in two attacks in 1999, but not a lot more is known.  They clearly were used in Aleppo under Russian guidance.  Why wouldn't Putin use them in Ukraine?  At this point he is probably convinced that the West has done its worst--short of direct intervention.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians seems to be part of a strategy to demoralize the opponent rather than a battlefield tactic.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-jen-psaki-chemical-weapons-weapons-of-mass-destruction-f01cedf434ec697034b2912696a3448b

I am having a hard time seeing how we get to any kind of resolution to this conflict without descending into greater and greater acts of depravity.  And nuclear war is probably becoming a more viable option in his mind--perhaps starting with a couple of small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities.  I'm sure he would rather not spoil the land he wants to absorb into his empire, but if he thinks it is his best chance to avoid defeat--watch out.  Putin knows it worked for the United States against fanatical Japanese resistance.

---

RE: Way OT: - Goose - 03-10-2022

(03-10-2022, 07:32 AM)81alum Wrote:  It remains to be seen, however, whether "time is not on Mr. Putin's side."  That would be true only if there is a palace coup or a popular uprising in Russia--and I certainly hope for that--but he is converting his authoritarian regime to a totalitarian one and totalitarian regimes can persist through incredible isolation and economic hardship--see North Korea.

I think Russia is a different situation than many of the totalitarian states in the world. In Russia, the oligarchs and the new apparatchiks exist and have significant power. In places like North Korea, or Saddam's Iraq, they didn't/don't. Putin derives the vast majority of his support from the fact he lifted Russia out of the economic and social chaos of the end of the Soviet Union. People could repeatedly say they were better off than six years ago. That situation has kind of plateaued, but nobody in Russia wants to go back to 1998. Given a bit of time, the sanctions will do exactly that. This will make Putin eminently disposable if it happens. At least that is what the US/NATO/EU is hoping for. The question will be can Putin rely on Russian nationalism to overcome this issue. The people in Russia tend to sit on the fence as much as possible. The military, the oligarchs, and the apparatchiks are not so affected by nationalism and I hope their self-interest will prevail.

Quote: Why wouldn't Putin use them in Ukraine?  At this point he is probably convinced that the West has done its worst--short of direct intervention.  The use of chemical weapons against civilians seems to be part of a strategy to demoralize the opponent rather than a battlefield tactic.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-europe-jen-psaki-chemical-weapons-weapons-of-mass-destruction-f01cedf434ec697034b2912696a3448b

I think there are a lot of things the West can do short of entering the war directly that would greatly help the Ukraine. These things are not being done yet because the West doesn't want a wider war. Using chemical weapons will significantly up the pressure on folks like Biden to "do something". Selling (or lend-lease) things like MRLS systems to Ukraine could never be done today. After CBW weapons are used, maybe it could, for example. Is it worth it to Putin? In Syria, there was no down side. In Ukraine, the down side could range from all-out war to a significantly enhanced opponent capability. Lets hope we don't get to find out.

Quote:I am having a hard time seeing how we get to any kind of resolution to this conflict without descending into greater and greater acts of depravity.  And nuclear war is probably becoming a more viable option in his mind--perhaps starting with a couple of small tactical nukes on Ukrainian cities.  I'm sure he would rather not spoil the land he wants to absorb into his empire, but if he thinks it is his best chance to avoid defeat--watch out.

It won't "spoil the land". The radiation effects are minimal. Otherwise, the weapons would be pretty much useless. It will destroy the targets however. This is the exact scenario that NATO has for many years feared, that if either side in a conventional war in Europe felt they were on the verge of defeat, they would be forced to use battlefield nuclear weapons in order to "send a message" to the other side that they were not willing to accept defeat. This would lead to a spiral towards a strategic exchange.
IMHO the danger to the West is that Putin gets locked in a stalemate that looks like it could last months at least. The longer it lasts, the more probable it is that economic hardship will lead to his ouster. It will also become more clear to the Russian people that their troops are getting killed in a war they did not want and that will not benefit them. You are quite right that this scenario is the most dangerous of all.
That is when a desperate Putin may do something real stupid. I am hoping his military simply won't do it. They don't want to be on the other end of a retaliatory strike.

---