Ukraine

[Generals]

Moving troop around like this is really not cheap and as much as he try to put a positive spin on it I don't think anybody is going to miss that he had to back down, even domestic audience. I can't think of any significant concession anyone did so I don't even know if he even got something in the end.

Will be interesting to see if nordstream 2 is given the okay after this, I know if I was a European energy minister I'd be doing everything possible to make sure my energy supply can be completely decoupled from Russian source at a moment notice.

In a way, it's possible that Ukraine is the biggest winner in all this (again, assuming Putin is really backing down), they got a bunch of stuff and know a lot more what kind of support they'd get from the international community. I also imagine that turned the population even more sour on Russia.

Oh it's not cheap alright, but than again Russia has always been a country which invests heavily into military instead of its civilian population. So whether it goes into useless drills or SATAN missiles which will never be used...

Nordstream 2 will get a green light if Russia doesn't annex new parts of Ukraine. Germany's stupid campaign against Nuclear energy has lead to this inevitable necessity.

As of now you're right Ukraine has scored quite some diplomatic points. But all the panic probably hit its already fragile economy. And in a way this may also be why Russia continuously plays "pretend invasion". By creating this continuous sense of threat Ukraine becomes much less attractive for foreign investments.

 

[Generals]

That and 'hysteria' are old talking points, comrade. The new justification is 'genocide;' you should check your email for the latest script.

Putin baselessly claims 'genocide' is happening in areas of Ukraine controlled by Kremlin-backed rebels

Putin's comments came as Russia said that it was pulling back some of its troops from Ukraine's border — a claim met with skepticism by the West.

www.businessinsider.com

Meanwhile (granted this is actually old news by now) the ICC is investigating crimes committed in Ukraine (also specifically occupied Crimea) and mentioned the cooperative attitude of Ukraine (not so much of Russia, why would that be?)

Statement of the Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, on the conclusion of the preliminary examination in the situation in Ukraine

Today, I announce the conclusion of the preliminary examination in the situation in Ukraine. As I stated last year at the annual Assembly of States Parties, as I approach the end of my term as Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or the "Court"), it is my intention to reach...

www.icc-cpi.int

Also to refresh people's memories, let's not forget Boris Nemtsov who was assassinated while working on a report of Russia's involvement in Ukraine: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32703353

 

[Lykosia]

Ukraine hasn't promised any such thing. Zelensky has been explicit that he won't base Ukrainian foreign policy on what Russia wants.

Ukraine could drop NATO bid to avoid war, ambassador tells BBC

Ukraine could drop its bid to join NATO to avoid war with Russia, the BBC quoted the country's ambassador to Britain as saying, in what would amount to a major concession to Moscow in response to the build-up of Russian troops on its borders.

www.reuters.com

 

[Silvanus]

Does Russia not have barracks near Ukraine?

I'm sure it has one or two. Enough for over a hundred thousand troops, well over 100 battalions, including armour, aircraft and ships, all to be within a few short miles of their barracks? No, obviously not. They've travelled extensively to gather specifically at the Ukrainian border.

And somehow I doubt Russia has extensive barracks in Belarus, and yet thousands of troops and aircraft are massing at the Ukraine-Belarus border, too. It's almost as if the border with Ukraine is the important factor when it comes to their location, rather than the presence of a nearby barracks!

Because it's not as if Russians have no legitimate grievances with the way the Ukrainian government treats them. But your article doesn't go into any detail whatsoever about what Putin could possibly be referring to that he calls genocidal.

Putin's claim has very little at all to do with how the Ukrainian government is treating Russian civilians, since he referred solely to Donbas, which is primarily controlled by separatists aligned with and armed by Russia.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The more I look into this, the more I have to conclude that this entire series of events is just the most generously funded military in the entire world by far complaining that Russia has a military at all: highlighting the portions of it that are somewhat near Ukraine and calling it a "massive" build-up.

I'm sure it has one or two. Enough for over a hundred thousand troops, well over 100 battalions, including armour, aircraft and ships, all to be within a few short miles of their barracks? No, obviously not.

How is this in any way obvious?

They've travelled extensively to gather specifically at the Ukrainian border.

The Russian military has just over a million active duty personnel (per International Institute for Strategic Studies (25 February 2021). The Military Balance 2021. London: Routledge. p. 191. ISBN 9781032012278 cited by wikipedia) of which that Guardian map graphic claims to account for 150,000. About 15%. Frankly, I'm now wondering where the hell the rest would be that is so important.

and ships

OK, I ignored this before, but come on. Ships! You're literally complaining about Russia having a naval presence in the Black Sea. They haven't run aground in Georgia or Turkey or Romania or ventured into the Mediterranean (assuming Turkey would let them, I don't even know). Such provocation! I bet their Black Sea naval presence is larger than their Caspian flotilla, too!

And somehow I doubt Russia has extensive barracks in Belarus, and yet thousands of troops and aircraft are massing at the Ukraine-Belarus border, too. It's almost as if the border with Ukraine is the important factor when it comes to their location, rather than the presence of a nearby barracks!

They're doing military exercises with Belarus (just like the United States does military exercises in many other countries such as South Korea, Germany and so forth).

A lot of those dots on that Guardian map graphic are in Belarus. How much of this "massive" build-up can be explained by movement to Belarus for those (presumably impermanent) military exercises?

Putin's claim has very little at all to do with how the Ukrainian government is treating Russian civilians, since he referred solely to Donbas, which is primarily controlled by separatists aligned with and armed by Russia.

It was around half and half last I looked at a map. Indeed, the map in the article you posted at the beginning of this thread splits Donbas about half and half between Ukrainian control and the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.

 

[tstorm823]

The more I look into this, the more I have to conclude that this entire series of events is just the most generously funded military in the entire world by far complaining that Russia has a military at all: highlighting the portions of it that are somewhat near Ukraine and calling it a "massive" build-up.

I don't think "conclude" is a proper word to describe what you do. "Rationalize" is significantly more accurate.

Putin moved his troops into invasion position, leaked fake invasion plans, made vague demands on what he'd need to not trigger war, got the attention that we wanted, and now is going about his business. You're not a fool for thinking Russia was never going to invade, you are a fool if you think the US made up the invasion plan.

 

[Silvanus]

How is this in any way obvious?

You believe it has dozens upon dozens of barracks, over a hundred battalions with tanks and aircraft, just ordinarily on Ukraine's doorstep? Including in Belarus?

OK.

Say, I wonder if those thousands of troops in Crimea all just happen to be hanging around their barracks, too? You know, considering Russia has only occupied it for 8 years. That's a pretty fast militarisation of an occupied zone if so.

OK, I ignored this before, but come on. Ships! You're literally complaining about Russia having a naval presence in the Black Sea.

No, I'm saying the fact that they gathered extremely close to Ukraine, at exactly the same time that ~100 - 150,000 troops with tanks and aircraft also did, does not look like coincidence, unless you're extremely gullible. The Black Sea is somewhat large.

They're doing military exercises with Belarus (just like the United States does military exercises in many other countries such as South Korea, Germany and so forth).

A lot of those dots on that Guardian map graphic are in Belarus. How much of this "massive" build-up can be explained by movement to Belarus for those (presumably impermanent) military exercises?

Very little, considering those troops are not distributed throughout Belarus, and are clearly bunched up around the Ukrainian border.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You believe it has dozens upon dozens of barracks, over a hundred battalions with tanks and aircraft, just ordinarily on Ukraine's doorstep? Including in Belarus?

The map graphic from the article you posted says that black outlines around dots denote "new deployment". All of the dots in Belarus have black outlines-- because of course they do, they're doing military exercises there, not staffing a bunch of permanent military bases (they're apparently not the United States).

The biggest clump is nearer Moscow than Kiev. It's really not very close to Ukraine at all except insofar as most of populous Russia is near the Ukraine. It's next to Belarus. Another of the graphics in that article calls that location a training ground. One of the second biggest clumps is about equally distant from Moscow and Kiev. The other one is in Crimea-- the other side of Ukraine from Moscow, so of course it's going to be closer to Kiev. These also have black outlines and are sitting on large gray areas of the map which seem to represent large population centers. Gray shading so far as I can tell seems to denote transportation infrastructure (the lines) and urban centers (the blobs). The biggest new deployments are on big gray spots that are not very near the border with Ukraine all things considered (taking into account that most of Russia's population is closer to Ukraine than it is most of the Russian landmass).

The closest dots to the Russian border with Ukraine lack black outlines apart from one exception: a red dot that is also right next to Belarus. The rest are not "new deployments" according to the map. They are in fact ordinarily present according to the Guardian (though I personally would expect that they probably have only been where they are since around 2014 as they are apparently looking at the Donbas, but that's just a guess). All of my analysis in this post is taking that map, which purports to support your case, at face value.

As for the numbers of barracks you're describing, that's honestly not that many? Why wouldn't they have such capacity at various places in Russia, especially the western side in the various cities and transportation hubs south of Moscow? Especially considering that Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union along with Russia-- and was even a part of the Russian Empire before that, why wouldn't we expect a lot of military infrastructure to be near to it? What about that actually seems suspect if you think about it for more than five minutes? They have to be somewhere, after all. And we're talking about, again, claims concerning only around 15% of Russia's active duty military personnel. That sounds like a pretty reasonable amount to have in the vicinity of Ukraine as depicted by that Guardian map. Yes, permanently (or more or less). What would that map look like if it included all of the Russian military presence in the region rather than only that which can thinly justify a conclusion that there is a military buildup near Ukraine? How many dots would be nowhere near the Ukraine? How would they be outlined? It's not at all clear.

What has happened? Exactly what I suggested would probably happen months* ago when these concerns were first raised: a whole lot of nothing. Is the Russian military disposition consistent with the possibility of invading Ukraine within the next year? Of course it is. It would be weird if it weren't. Russia is big. It has a military. A significant portion of it is in the western part of Russia. But it seems like a lot of people are confusing potentiality with probability and confusing an ominous-if-you-don't-think-about-it-at-all map graphic with real evidence of intent. The same sort of movements described by the Guardian article would happen naturally as a consequence of withdrawing from the border of Manchuria. Say, Russia recently did some significant diplomacy with China-- wonder if that could be related? Oh well, who cares, right? The Azov Battalion says to stay vigilant!

*or was it just weeks?

 

[Silvanus]

The map graphic from the article you posted says that black outlines around dots denote "new deployment". All of the dots in Belarus have black outlines-- because of course they do, they're doing military exercises there, not staffing a bunch of permanent military bases (they're apparently not the United States).

Uhrm, right, but you're the one who implied the deployments were close to barracks, not me.

What has happened? Exactly what I suggested would probably happen months* ago when these concerns were first raised: a whole lot of nothing. Is the Russian military disposition consistent with the possibility of invading Ukraine within the next year? Of course it is. It would be weird if it weren't. Russia is big. It has a military. A significant portion of it is in the western part of Russia. But it seems like a lot of people are confusing potentiality with probability and confusing an ominous-if-you-don't-think-about-it-at-all map graphic with real evidence of intent.

What you're doing here is stripping out context, leaving only the details that could feasibly be innocuous on their own, if viewed in isolation.

Keep in mind that Putin issued a list of demands to NATO and Ukraine, to be met if the troops were to withdraw. What exactly is the purpose of issuing demands for other countries to meet in order to end your... completely routine training exercise?

In addition, they have a record. They've invaded and annexed Ukrainian territory in very recent memory. They continue to fund and arm insurgents in Ukraine. Enormous troop movements have to be seen in this context.

Similarly, US troops moving in their tens of thousands to South America would be massively suspect precisely because the US has a long history of aggression towards South American states. And if those movements coincided with the US issuing demands that South American states must meet!? Then only the ludicrously naive would believe those troop movements were "routine". You yourself would be rightly pointing at the hypocrisy, the aggression, and the ignoble history of the US in the region.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Uhrm, right, but you're the one who implied the deployments were close to barracks, not me.

You're the one who implied they weren't with a very weird appeal to incredulity. You're also the one who made that some kind of litmus test. And I supplied a separate explanation of the presence in Belarus which, for some reason, you want to ignore. The military's placement in Russia according to your map is clustered at major population centers and transportation hubs in a manner which suggests they're probably housed. I don't know, but a place which the Guardian is calling a "training ground" probably has some barracks. Just a guess, though!

What you're doing here is stripping out context, leaving only the details that could feasibly be innocuous on their own, if viewed in isolation.

Keep in mind that Putin issued a list of demands to NATO and Ukraine, to be met if the troops were to withdraw. What exactly is the purpose of issuing demands for other countries to meet in order to end your... completely routine training exercise?

It is the most normal thing on earth to demand a price for having a say whether what you were doing is virtuous or vile or somewhere in between. You want someone to do something different? They will if you do something different. This is not strange. It should be noted that the call to disallow NATO expansion is a call for NATO to abide by a previously made promise to Gorbachev.

Similarly, US troops moving in their tens of thousands to South America would be massively suspect precisely because the US has a long history of aggression towards South American states. And if those movements coincided with the US issuing demands that South American states must meet!? Then only the ludicrously naive would believe those troop movements were "routine". You yourself would be rightly pointing at the hypocrisy, the aggression, and the ignoble history of the US in the region.

The fact remains that you're talking about Russia's military moving around Russia and mostly staying in Russia. Not going to Colombia to invade Venezuela. Or Mexico to invade the United States. Or Ukraine to build a staging ground to invade Russia!

The United States, it should be noted, has actually invaded Russia before-- in the early years of the Soviet Union. The United States has also meddled in the politics of Russia quite a bit more recently during and after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, going so far as to explicitly side with Yeltsin (and then publicly brag about how they kept him in power despite his poor polling before an election). Russia has not invaded the United States to my knowledge. There were 'buff Bernie' memes in 2016, though. Oh, and Russia might have helped Julian Assange commit a journalism, though both Assange and Russia deny it. But the FBI said it was the case, and you can trust the organization that assassinated Black Panther leaders and tried to extort MLK Jr. to commit suicide not to lie.

 

[CM156]

It should be noted that the call to disallow NATO expansion is a call for NATO to abide by a previously made promise to Gorbachev.

Wow, that sounds like a major promise. I assume that since it was so important, they got it in writing so that it could be referenced in future in case any disagreements were to arise over the topic.

Because in the absence of such an agreement in writing, I'm disinclined to believe these claims by the Russian Federation or Vladimir Putin.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Wow, that sounds like a major promise. I assume that since it was so important, they got it in writing so that it could be referenced in future in case any disagreements were to arise over the topic.

Because in the absence of such an agreement in writing, I'm disinclined to believe these claims by the Russian Federation or Vladimir Putin.

To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990

But they got nothing in writing, so NATO should be free to encroach all they like

 

[CM156]

But they got nothing in writing, so NATO should be free to encroach all they like

I'm saying that if Russia claims such an agreement existed, the onus is on them to provide substantive proof. Otherwise people could claim that anything was agreed in secret.

It's amusing that you see more countries joining NATO as "encroachment' and not "sovereign states choosing to join a defensive alliance against an aggressive neighbor."

 

[Silvanus]

You're the one who implied they weren't with a very weird appeal to incredulity. You're also the one who made that some kind of litmus test. And I supplied a separate explanation of the presence in Belarus which, for some reason, you want to ignore. The military's placement in Russia according to your map is clustered at major population centers and transportation hubs in a manner which suggests they're probably housed. I don't know, but a place which the Guardian is calling a "training ground" probably has some barracks. Just a guess, though!

The presence of enormous numbers of troops very far from their barracks has a few possible explanations. One is training, I suppose, if your credulity stretches far enough to believe ~150,000 taking part in training exercises simultaneously, and coincidentally right on the border of their neighbour, is normal.

If you'd just gone with the line that them being nowhere near barracks etc was normal, then that's fine, we could go down that route of discussion. But since you chose to imply they were actually just hanging out around barracks, then yes, that prompts the relevant response that that's obviously untrue.

It is the most normal thing on earth to demand a price for having a say whether what you were doing is virtuous or vile or somewhere in between. You want someone to do something different? They will if you do something different. This is not strange.

That's one way to describe a threat, I suppose.

The fact remains that you're talking about Russia's military moving around Russia and mostly staying in Russia. Not going to Colombia to invade Venezuela. Or Mexico to invade the United States. Or Ukraine to build a staging ground to invade Russia!

Well, except for all that surreptitious military involvement in Donbas, and the ongoing occupation of Crimea, of course.

This is akin to A pointing a gun at B and claiming that no threat is insinuated because nobody's touched B yet. Uhrm, yeah; by that time it would be too late.

The United States, it should be noted, has actually invaded Russia before-- in the early years of the Soviet Union.

Indeed they have. And, much more recently, Russia invaded Ukraine.

 

[Seanchaidh]

The presence of enormous numbers of troops very far from their barracks has a few possible explanations. One is training, I suppose, if your credulity stretches far enough to believe ~150,000 taking part in training exercises simultaneously, and coincidentally right on the border of their neighbour, is normal.

But they're not "right on the border". Did you even look at the map? Most of those dots-- especially the ones that indicate movement-- could not be accurately described as "right on the border". The largest clump is at Smolensk, right halfway between Moscow and the center of Belarus. Eight dots there, seven in black outline. Then there are the clumps at Voronezh (6 dots) and Kursk (4). These are also not "on the border" with Ukraine. And what's more, the Guardian article describes those seven black outline dots at Smolensk as coming from Voronezh-- that is to say, as moving further from the border with Ukraine than they started.

1. Yelnya
41st Combined Arms Army units identified in satellite imagery taken on 9 November, indicating redeployment from Pogonovo training ground

(Yelnya is at Smolensk, Pogonovo is at Voronezh)

So you've got 7 new dots at Smolensk, coming from Voronezh. And six "new" dots at Voronezh, replacing the seven that (apparently) were there before. Both are "new" because there was movement. OK. But one seems to be more or less just a replacement of another. This looks like sleight of hand to make a flimsy case. Smolensk, by the way, is the capital of Smolensk Oblast which borders Belarus but not Ukraine. It's like saying Portland, Oregon is right on the border with Canada.

Now consider this map of the population density of Russia:

List of cities and towns in Russia by population - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Notice anything? Like how a lot of the highest population density areas in Russia are (by your standards) "right on the border with Ukraine"? Or actually literally are right on the border with Ukraine? The case that the positioning of Russian military units indicates aggression is very weak. Especially when considering that 150,000 is only 15% of Russia's active duty military personnel.

As for those in Belarus: they are arrayed in various locations in that country, some very near the Ukrainian border. If you look at the shading on the map that the Guardian so happily provided, you'll also find that Belarus's border with Ukraine is also where it seems to have the fewest people-- very little gray shading at all, not even lines. I don't know if that's actually the case, but that's what the map seems to say. One might think that being not near large population centers would be the ideal place for military exercises to be performed. But who knows?

Here's another interesting map:

United States military deployments - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh my gosh! Over 100,000 troops in both Texas and California? Both of those states share borders with Mexico! Both of those states have air and naval bases as well! Could this be a sign of a coming invasion? We must alert the Guardian! People need to shit their pants over this!

 

[Seanchaidh]

It's amusing that you see more countries joining NATO as "encroachment' and not "sovereign states choosing to join a defensive alliance against an aggressive neighbor."

Looking forward to when China and Russia declare nuclear redlines over American interference with Bolivia, Venezuela, and Chile

That's one way to describe a threat, I suppose.

It's literally a way to describe any diplomatic agreement whatsoever.

 

[CM156]

Looking forward to when China and Russia declare nuclear redlines over American interference with Bolivia, Venezuela, and Chile

Those are also all sovereign nations and I fully support their rights to enter into any alliances they so choose.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Those are also all sovereign nations and I fully support their rights to enter into any alliances they so choose.

Sure you do.

 

[CM156]

Sure you do.

Have I ever said anything on this forum, or elsewhere, that would cause you or anyone else to directly believe otherwise?

 

[Avnger]

Sure you do.

Contrary to your own choices, not everyone abandons their principles at the first crossroad...