webdiplomacy.net

Are you now seriously trying to suggest, with a straight face, that when you called for Putin's removal what you had in mind was him dying of old age

Will you be applying a similar approach to your preferred method of justice? All criminals will be confined to a small cell for eternity after death as their punishment, perhaps?

Octavious wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:44 am

Are you now seriously trying to suggest, with a straight face, that when you called for Putin's removal what you had in mind was him dying of old age

I am not doing that, no. You could perhaps work on your reading comprehension

What I'm comprehending, from your failure to point to any examples of me being an apologist for Putin, is that you know full well that it's not true. In which case a bit of humility on your part may be appropriate. Go on, try it. It's good for the soul.

The US has confirmed two separate helicopter attacks in Belgorod, Russia. Thursday Ukraine hit an ammunition depot, Friday an oil depot. First known strikes on Russia soil since the invasion began.

Someone's getting fired in Russia for that. Great morale boosting coup for Ukraine.

It looks like the peace talks are struggling somewhat, which is a shame. The most likely scenario seems to be Russia simply taking the entire Donbas region and a land bridge to Crimea and sitting on it. Possibly ending with a long drawn out ceasefire to be argued over for decades to come. Still, we shall see.

A couple of things to think about.

What do you think the West's reaction would be if Russia were to drop a nuke on Kiev?

What would the reaction be if Russia was to devastate Kiev with an intense bombardment of its heaviest conventional weapons? A few FOABs, that sort of thing.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 8:46 am

What do you think the West's reaction would be if Russia were to drop a nuke on Kiev?

No clue. I imagine the West is currently talking loudly amongst themselves (so it's sure to be overheard by Russian intelligence) about what their response "will" be. What the response will actually be....

A massive, coordinated cyber attack, coupled with actual military strikes against known/suspected Russian nuclear weapon sites would be worst case scenario. I doubt the West could hit them all, at once, before Russia got a few off. There has to several sites that remain unknown as well, in a country so vast.

Openly seek a regime change via coop/assassination? Seems dangerous. Perhaps covertly...

My best guess would be to unify all remaining major powers against Russia/Belarus, in an attempt to completely cut them off from the rest of the world. China, India, Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, and so on could probably be persuaded to stop all support/economic cooperation. Delcare a no fly zone? Give Russia an ultimatum on withdrawal of forces? Beyond that, it's hard to say. They already pushed the button once in this hypothetical scenario. Mutually assured destruction is a real possibility if Russia were to be attacked by a large, nuclear armed alliance.

What would the reaction be if Russia was to devastate Kiev with an intense bombardment of its heaviest conventional weapons? A few FOABs, that sort of thing.

Something along the lines of the last paragraph. Both scenarios seem unlikely, but not zero... I wouldn't rule out a large cyber offensive in either case. Assuming Stuxnet was a creation of the US military, it's reasonable to assume they have some extremely nasty cyber weapons at their disposal.
[/quote]

Another idea per either scenario, if NATO were to decide that they had to act with force: a surprise offensive into eastern Belarus.

Certainly not ideal, but not directly attacking Russia. Hold Belarus hostage until Russia stops? Threatening Russia without directly threatening Russia??

Sounds scary. Just throwing ideas out.

Matticus13 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:59 pm

The US has confirmed two separate helicopter attacks in Belgorod, Russia. Thursday Ukraine hit an ammunition depot, Friday an oil depot. First known strikes on Russia soil since the invasion began.

Upping Putin's supply chain problems. His ground forces were already short on food and fuel and this will only make it worse as he needs to protect the supply line farther into Russia.

Putin can get away with conventional weapons since he's gotten away with looting humanitarian supply and bombing Red Cross buildings. But going nuclear will tip the balance against him. Only Trump would consider it acceptable because he's been willing to do it.

It's fairly small beer as far as supply chains go. Russia will be able to have it back to full operational capacity in short order. I imagine there will be some genuine short term problems, but not much more. The power of the strike is far more in the political than the practical.

With regard to strikes on Kyiv, the city has been largely protected thus far by its use in negotiations. If Putin no longer values the city as something that can be exchanged in a favourable peace deal, he may instead see it more as a target to break the will of the Ukrainian people and to diminish their ability to fight. A nuke I agree seems unlikely, but FOABs were designed to replace tactical nukes and it wouldn't take many to devastate the city. If Russia do feel like they're in danger of losing then an overwhelming strike to decapitate the Ukrainian leadership and take away all Ukrainian hope of walking away with anything resembling a victory may start to look attractive.

With regard to strikes on Kyiv, the city has been largely protected thus far by its use in negotiations.

Where do you come up with this BS?

Kyiv is out of range of Russian artillary, and it has not been spared air strikes and missile strikes.

Meanwhile Ukraine attacks targets in Russia, actually strengthening their hand in negotiations, but the Russians say 'oh, now that makes us less likely to be nice in negotiations'

The negotiations are a waste of time. The Russians are not taking them seriously. They will only negotiate if the take Ukraine seriously, that means Ukraine must pose a serious threat.

Which you have repeatedly dismissed as fantasy, while Ukrainians have demonstrated to be the case. Sanctions on Russia (to prevent the import of vital components needed for the production of anything complex) And a continued economic collapse are the real threats to Putin's power which the West can achieve (while supplying Ukraine with more weapons).

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 03, 2022 12:07 am

https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/ ... En3hNciJVQ

His approval is already in the low 80s. No matter what happens in Ukraine they will spin it into a victory and most will believe it, simply because they want it to be true. There isn't a realistic scenario to "defeat" Russia or turn its population against Putin.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:30 pm

Kyiv is out of range of Russian artillary, and it has not been spared air strikes and missile strikes.

It has also not been subjected to heavy air and missile strikes. This is not a controversial statement. This is obvious. Russia have, by their own standards at least, restricted themselves to a limited number of targeted strikes in Kyiv.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:30 pm

Meanwhile Ukraine attacks targets in Russia, actually strengthening their hand in negotiations, but the Russians say 'oh, now that makes us less likely to be nice in negotiations'

Obviously that Russian statement is bollocks, and I said quite clearly that the power of Ukraine attack was political. Do try and read what I say before you criticise it.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 10:30 pm

The negotiations are a waste of time. The Russians are not taking them seriously. They will only negotiate if the take Ukraine seriously, that means Ukraine must pose a serious threat.

Which you have repeatedly dismissed as fantasy, while Ukrainians have demonstrated to be the case. Sanctions on Russia (to prevent the import of vital components needed for the production of anything complex) And a continued economic collapse are the real threats to Putin's power which the West can achieve (while supplying Ukraine with more weapons).

And this is just a self contradictory mess. The Russians will not take Ukraine seriously unless Ukraine pose a serious threat. Ukraine repeatedly demonstrate that they are a serious threat. Russia are not taking them seriously.

You realise that not all these things can be true? Your narrative is not consistent with itself. Let me help.

Ukraine are a strong defensive force but have not yet proven themselves to have a strong offensive capability. Russia know this and are taking it seriously because, and I can't stress this enough, Russia are not idiots. The negotiations are not a waste of time and will end this war, but Russia's initial plan of saying "give us what we want or we'll destroy your cities has failed (Ukraine has demonstrated a greater capacity than anticipated for watching its cities get destroyed, and a greater resilience in combat as Western armaments have gone a long way to neutralising traditional Russian tactics. That the Ukrainians are robust fighters was never in doubt). So Russia has switched its negotiation strategy to the tried and tested "possession is 9/10ths of the law" approach. They will take the territory they want, and then attempt to negotiate a cease fire. The aim being a solution in the style of Korea or Cyprus.

If Ukraine reject this and go on the offensive (unlikely but possible) then Kyiv it at serious risk

An interesting tidbit from NBC's Meet the Press today from the US Secretary of State:

"Does President Zelensky — does he have the ability to negotiate sanctions relief with Putin?" host Chuck Todd asked Blinken.

"Our focus is on making sure we're doing everything possible to strengthen Ukraine's hand at the negotiating table," Blinken responded.

When Todd pressed him on the question of sanctions relief, Blinken clarified. "The entire international community has come together to impose those sanctions on Russia. We'll be looking to see what Ukraine is doing and what it wants to do," he said. "And if concludes that it can bring this war to an end, stop the death and destruction, and continue to assert its independence and its sovereignty, and ultimately that requires the lifting of sanctions, of course, we will allow that."

Yes, the sanctions chip mean that the US/NATO are effectively at the table at these negotiations. So they could block a deal not to their liking.

No they couldn't. Zelensky is not the shy and retiring type. If there's a deal he wants and it involves the West lifting sanctions he will make sure the world knows about it. It would be politically impossible for the West not to fall into line.

It's a moot point, regardless. A lot of the West would jump at the chance to dump the most harmful sanctions at the earliest opportunity.

Sure they will...but this of course won't be done out in the open.

The entire international community

Interesting to know what this phrase means (ie everyone who agrees with us).

In this case Japan, the EU, UK, Canada, and eh? Australia... Did Turkey even agree to sanctions? Not Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/China/India. Any African, South American, or middle Eastern countries on the list? None of the central Asian countries. South Korea? Taiwan? Am i missing anyone?

DMZ, else cordon sanitaire? Rus "asks" Bulgars to Leave NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY FRIGGINGLY UNDISORGANIZATION.
(Kremlin could only wish it were so, i.e., discombobulated, at odds one or more w/ another, instead of a trained Lithuanian cyber-nuclear officer existing, &c., &c., &c.)
Bulgaria on the Black Sea ["ec" in Diplomacy game] as a bargaining chip in armistice/peace/continuing hostilities negotiations.
Turkey coastline, Georgia, Romania - WHO'LL sit at the Clemenceau seat at a 1919 scenario? Vienna congress? A militarily imposed imbroglio? Two Koreas stalemate?
Time is not on the side of the future putative & tragic fatalities and other casualties of this horror.