Ще́дрик, щедри́к, ще́дрівочка

[Grant]

Massive amounts of MLRS artillery strikes on Ukrainian positions.  The softening up as begun. 

Reports of two planes full of Turkish paratroops landing in Kyiv airport right before the airport is shut down and attacks begin. 

[Grant]

American surveillance aircraft, including global hawk drone, hauled balls out of the area just before the missile strikes begun. 

[Grant]

Reports of Russian troops landing in Odessa and Mariupol.  Not confirmed. 

If true this isn't a game of "just the tip".  This is the full court press.  Beyond 2-3 axes of advance.  This is everything being hit at once.  This is a quick decapitation move.  Trying to end the war ASAP. 

If Russians have taken and can hold Kyiv Airport....

[edgmatt]

Doesn't Russia just lose this?  With Nato, Euope, Japan, and the U.S. all on board to "stop" him?

Or is Russia really that strong?  I'm woefully ignorant on this subject.  I can't figure out why Putin would do this, knowing he's not going to win and pay severly for it.

What am I not seeing or not understanding?

[edgmatt]

Like is this some massive, deep plot between Russia and China?  Russia starts a war with Ukraine, gets Europe and US involved, then China and North Korea throw their weight into it, Russia comes out on top, but China betrays them and take over the world.

[TheDeamon]

Like is this some massive, deep plot between Russia and China?  Russia starts a war with Ukraine, gets Europe and US involved, then China and North Korea throw their weight into it, Russia comes out on top, but China betrays them and take over the world.

More likely the reverse. China "follows up" in response to Russian successes in Ukraine by going after Taiwan. US intervenes to protect US (great circle) Trade Routes between the US and Singapore(Strait of Malacca) and trade routes with other nations bordering the SCS. As well as for the purpose of bolstering relations with Allies in the East Asia region (again, gotta protect those trade routes) so they don't switch sides and align with China.

US in an all-out war with China, one where Japan has also outright said they would help defend Taiwan, even if the Americans don't... And Russia gets a unique opportunity there.

Guess who has S500 batteries stationed along the potential flight path of many ballistic missiles launched from China and heading for Japan? Russia does.

Russia simply declaring itself to be "neutral" in that conflict, but closing its airspace for all involved sides then give Putin cover for using the S500 system to shoot down Chinese Missiles headed for Japan that overfly Russia.

China would obviously be pissed at Putin doing that, but declaring war on Russia over it would be very stupid on China's part all the same.

But in the meantime, the people of Japan would be left in a very interesting position where it concerns Russia at that point.

If China did declare war on Russia over it, well. Some of the history from WW2 comes to mind. Putin loves his soviet history. People need to remember what was going on with Poland at the start of the war. Russia and Germany both invaded Poland. Then the Germans declared war on Russia. Russia joined the Allies(most of whom had defense treaties with Poland prior to 1939), and at the end of the war, who had control of Poland? The Soviet Union.

If China goes after Taiwan, Putin is betting that the world(Well, the US, UK, and Japan at a minimum) will let him keep Ukraine.

[Crunch]

Thank god Putin is too scared of Biden to do anything and Heels Up Harris was sent to defuse this. If not for them, Putin would …. wait.

[Grant]

Doesn't Russia just lose this?  With Nato, Euope, Japan, and the U.S. all on board to "stop" him?

Or is Russia really that strong?  I'm woefully ignorant on this subject.  I can't figure out why Putin would do this, knowing he's not going to win and pay severly for it.

What am I not seeing or not understanding?

Yes, Russia would lose against NATO.  Pooter is betting that NATO will not become involve militarily and he's most likely right.  He's also betting that he's going to be able to convince the EU to keep paying him for his gas after fait accomplit. 

No, Russia is not really that strong.  But Pooter is daring to say the least.  Wheras NATO doesn't seem to want to go to war with Russia. 

Like is this some massive, deep plot between Russia and China?  Russia starts a war with Ukraine, gets Europe and US involved, then China and North Korea throw their weight into it, Russia comes out on top, but China betrays them and take over the world.

No.  This definitely isn't China's idea.  The timing isn't right for China.  Unless they are convinced that the United States will not become involved. 

It does help China if the US becomes involved in Ukraine, but not to an important degree.  The major US element that would prevent Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be the US Navy.  The USAF would have a secondary role.  You don't need the Navy to fight Russia in Ukraine unless the war widens to the Atlantic, and even then, the way we have the forces balanced right now in the Atlantic and the Pacific is satisfactory, IMO, to prevent Russia from closing off the Atlantic. 

The possibility of Russia "losing this" over the long run economically and diplomatically is very strong, though.  Unless Europe just keeps buying his gas. 

[Grant]

Doesn't Russia just lose this?  With Nato, Euope, Japan, and the U.S. all on board to "stop" him?

Or is Russia really that strong?  I'm woefully ignorant on this subject.  I can't figure out why Putin would do this, knowing he's not going to win and pay severly for it.

What am I not seeing or not understanding?

Yes, Russia would lose against NATO.  Pooter is betting that NATO will not become involve militarily and he's most likely right.
He's also betting that he's going to be able to convince the EU to keep paying him for his gas after fait accomplit. 

No, Russia is not really that strong.  But Pooter is daring to say the least.  Wheras NATO doesn't seem to want to go to war with Russia. 

Like is this some massive, deep plot between Russia and China?  Russia starts a war with Ukraine, gets Europe and US involved, then China and North Korea throw their weight into it, Russia comes out on top, but China betrays them and take over the world.

No.  This definitely isn't China's idea.  The timing isn't right for China.  Unless they are convinced that the United States will not become involved. 

It does help China if the US becomes involved in Ukraine, but not to an important degree.  The major US element that would prevent Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be the US Navy.  The USAF would have a secondary role.  You don't need the Navy to fight Russia in Ukraine unless the war widens to the Atlantic, and even then, the way we have the forces balanced right now in the Atlantic and the Pacific is satisfactory, IMO, to prevent Russia from closing off the Atlantic. 

The possibility of Russia "losing this" over the long run economically and diplomatically is very strong, though.  Unless Europe just keeps buying his gas.

[Grant]

Thank god Putin is too scared of Biden to do anything and Heels Up Harris was sent to defuse this. If not for them, Putin would …. wait.

Thank you, Crunch.  I had made a $1000 bet that you would be the first one to make it domestically partisan.  I will be donating it to the DNC. 

[cherrypoptart]

I don't appreciate the media like Drudge trying to make it look like Trump is in favor of what Putin is doing in Ukraine.

Headline: "TRUMP: LET'S GO, PUTIN!"

Then you read the article and of course Trump never says that or anything like it and instead it's about Trump saying that Putin is walking all over Biden. I wouldn't put it in the terms that Trump is using, but Trump does get around to indicating that he does not support what Putin is doing in Ukraine by bloviating, and yeah I'll call it that even if I'm a Trumper, that Putin would not be doing this under a Trump Presidency. And there is a great element of truth to that since Putin did not do this while Trump was President. He took Crimea under Obama's nose and now he's cutting off piece after piece of Ukraine under Biden.

The sanctions against the two "breakaway republics" Biden called for were pathetic. There need to be massive sanctions against Russia itself. I like the way Germany is talking about getting off of Russian energy. While anyone who buys Russian energy should be punished, anyone like Germany who shuns it at their own discomfort should be rewarded and supported. The Russian pipeline Biden supports over there needs to be cancelled and the XL pipeline restored. Major assets should start getting frozen and not just for a few of the top oligarchs but for the entire country itself. Banking privileges revoked. Diplomats ejected.

I'm not so much in favor of direct military action but with Putin threatening a literal nuclear option, we can't blink and need to engage the economic nuclear option immediately. Massive sanctions against Russia and smaller more directed sanctions against anyone buying their energy. With these war crimes and crimes against humanity I'm not even sure it's enough to just call for withdrawal anymore. The price for the lessening of sanctions probably needs to be that Putin is no longer in charge of Russia as he is prosecuted in absentia internationally for his crimes.

[Grant]

NATO convenes emergency virtual summit.  Plans activated to send more planes and troops to Eastern Europe.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/nato-step-up-deterrence-measures-after-russian-attack-calls-summit-2022-02-24/

[Grant]

Important to note:  Russia didn't go for a 2 to 7 day air campaign to soften up the Ukrainians.  They're going full bore from the jump.  Resistance doesn't seem to be terribly strong despite the only brief air/missile/artillery campaign.  Russian troops moving forward on all fronts. But there is resistance.  Video evidence of Russian armor being hit on roads to Kiev and Kharkiv.  Not sure if the Russians have achieved any major objectives yet except taking the bridge at Nova Khakova.  Which really isn't a major objective but it is a first day one. 

Pooter wants to take all of Ukraine and install a puppet government before NATO can rally and before public sentiment in Europe/US turns towards intervention.  Glad there has not been a lot of video and geolocation on Ukrainian forces online. Though I could be following the wrong people for that, lol.  Not sure if the Ukrainians decided to hold their defensive positions or move back to the cities for a defense. 

[Fenring]

Doesn't Russia just lose this?  With Nato, Euope, Japan, and the U.S. all on board to "stop" him?

Or is Russia really that strong?  I'm woefully ignorant on this subject.  I can't figure out why Putin would do this, knowing he's not going to win and pay severly for it.

What am I not seeing or not understanding?

Yes, Russia would lose against NATO.  Pooter is betting that NATO will not become involve militarily and he's most likely right.  He's also betting that he's going to be able to convince the EU to keep paying him for his gas after fait accomplit. 

No, Russia is not really that strong.  But Pooter is daring to say the least.  Wheras NATO doesn't seem to want to go to war with Russia.

I think the answer has always been nukes. It's a game of nuke chicken. If you go to war against me I will use nukes, and the world dies. You want to play chicken to see if he really is a maniac, or is just playing prisoner dilemma with you to psyche you out?

[Grant]

I think the answer has always been nukes. It's a game of nuke chicken. If you go to war against me I will use nukes, and the world dies. You want to play chicken to see if he really is a maniac, or is just playing prisoner dilemma with you to psyche you out?

I'm not terribly impressed with Russian nuclear threats.  Pooter has shown himself to be a shrewd gambler, not a madman, and NATO/US is not interested in invading Russia ala Barbarossa or Napoleon. 

No one has used nuclear weapons for 77 years, which is probably one of the best testaments to the human race you can give.  I don't consider it a game of chicken, I consider it similar to trading hostages, but on a mass scale.  You don't use your nukes, I won't use my nukes.  Use your nukes, I'll use my nukes. 

[edgmatt]

Map

I found the maps here very illuminating as far as helping me understand what's happening more clearly.

[TheDrake]

Vlad is already hinting that if somebody starts shooting his planes down, he'll nuke them till they glow. He ordered nuclear drills, they are laying groundwork for putting nukes in Belarus, etc. But sure, we should totally have the F35s engage to contain Russia. I don't think his threat is idle at all, and I think his trigger point - whatever it is - is not limited to retaliating against a nuclear first strike. Drop a couple of conventional bombs on Moscow, and I think you can expect ICBMs. Much as you might with Washington. Other cities? In other countries? Hard to say. Pakistan and India were at risk of going nuclear over Kashmir for Pete's sake.

[Fenring]

I don't consider it a game of chicken, I consider it similar to trading hostages, but on a mass scale.  You don't use your nukes, I won't use my nukes.  Use your nukes, I'll use my nukes.

No, that's not a good enough explanation. Any "treaty" about non-use of nuclear weapons isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Whether it's said out loud or not the fact that nukes exist is always on the table in terms of mutual threat. It doesn't need to be said in a formal press release for it to be pretty obvious that, for instance, if the U.S. ever existentially threatened China, let's say, nukes would be employed whether or not the U.S. was employing nukes themselves. It's the ultimate escalation if a situation becomes unacceptable enough. I doubt it is true of any nation, the U.S. included, that they would only employ nukes if someone else did so first. Being a nuclear power automatically means, and has always meant, that you cannot directly attack them anymore or else the nuke card comes down on the table. No one so far has been willing to call that bluff, or to see if it is one.

As I see it, the way things stand any nuclear power like Russia or China *could* just start attacking non-nuclear neighbors and dare anyone to try to stop them. Until such a time as a major power is willing to go to direct war against a nuclear power, in theory there would be no answer to such attacks other than sanctions. For a country with a lot to economically lose there is an incentive not to cut themselves off from the rest of the world. The more troubled a nation's economy is the less they will have to lose. I've been saying for a long time that the best way to prevent war is to deliberately enrich nations, tying them to you and giving them too much to lose.

[Grant]

Vlad is already hinting that if somebody starts shooting his planes down, he'll nuke them till they glow.

Because he knows he can lose that way. 

He ordered nuclear drills, they are laying groundwork for putting nukes in Belarus, etc.

They do nuclear drills every year.  So do we.  Yes he coincided it this year as a threat.  It appears to be working on some people.

Drop a couple of conventional bombs on Moscow, and I think you can expect ICBMs.

Nobody has really suggested striking Moscow.  But sure, it makes perfect sense.  We'll start a nuclear war that will end with my own death and the death of my entire country because a bomb dropped on Moscow or Washington.  That makes perfect sense. 

Or maybe that's just somebody who is scared talking.  Or just a tankie or Lindbergh.   

[Grant]

Being a nuclear power automatically means, and has always meant, that you cannot directly attack them anymore or else the nuke card comes down on the table. No one so far has been willing to call that bluff, or to see if it is one.

I take it that we could never have defended West Germany then either.  This is bull*censored*. 

This was the last refuge of the libs when public sentiment turned against them when it came to NATO or Korea or Southeast Asia.  You can't *censored* with Russia.  They'll start a nuclear war.  Back then it was mainly liberals, but they were always tankies and fascists.  Now they just vote differently. 

It may not please very many modern liberals, but I feel the need to summon the ghost of Ronald Reagan, the great enemy of the tankies and isolationists. 

[TheDrake]

Countries do a lot of things that don't make sense. Particularly ones run by dictators. It didn't make sense for Saddam to fight off inspections resulting in his country being demolished and his own death also. We had plenty of people clamoring for us to nuke Afghanistan, and the attack wasn't even successful on Washington, despite the strike in New York. Plus nobody drops one bomb, to clarify I should have said launches an aerial attack.

The whole point of nuclear weapons is to be scared by them. It is called a deterrent. Now I don't know if Putin would use nukes or not if strikes were limited to military targets in border areas, or Belarus. I'm not really willing to call and see the cards for the sake of Ukrainian freedom. You might well ask, at what point would I be willing to test it - and I would generally say an attack on a country with a mutual defense agreement. You will note that we have that with neither Ukraine nor Taiwan (which we won't even admit is a country).

[TheDrake]

Let's also note that current US nuclear doctrine does not rule out a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Let alone a gentleman's agreement to not use nukes until we get nuked.

[Grant]

You might well ask, at what point would I be willing to test it - and I would generally say an attack on a country with a mutual defense agreement.

I don't believe that.  I would like to ask what the fundamental difference between having a piece of paper signed and not having a signed piece of paper is?  What is the fundamental difference between Lithuania and Ukraine?  Between Turkey and Ukraine?  Just a piece of paper?  What is the purpose of NATO?  Why make mutual defense treaties at all?  What is the underlying purpose?  Just to protect trade? 

I'm reminded of times when people and nations have done the right thing regardless of having a signed piece of paper in front of them.  I believe that people who would not do the right thing without a piece of paper are simply making excuses and would find other excuses even if the piece of paper existed. 

[Grant]

1964

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -- the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -- just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

[Grant]

I found the maps here very illuminating as far as helping me understand what's happening more clearly.

This is a link to the best map that I've found.  It's not exactly a map of where the Russians are at right now, but more of a map of what their plan appears to be. 

https://twitter.com/KofmanMichael/status/1496876298051989504/photo/1

[rightleft22]

None of what happing makes sense to me I don't see a win scenario here for anyone except maybe China...and maybe for hopping that Putin's "success" damages Biden (that doesn't make sense to me either but I suspect they will take that as a win)

I don't understand the world - we never learn

[Fenring]

It may not please very many modern liberals, but I feel the need to summon the ghost of Ronald Reagan, the great enemy of the tankies and isolationists.

This isn't a philosophy seminar where the correct way of thinking will win audience points. I'm personally not convinced that Reagan knew anything about anything on any topic, but let's put that side. Taking action (a) (for instance militarily going to war with a nuclear power) will have a certain set of results, maybe varying on how intense the combat is or who is the aggressor. Attacking Russian forces in the Ukraine might have a different result than sending forces deep into Russian territory to take Moscow. But either way, there will be a result, and the manner in which you politically posture from the podium isn't going to change that. Maybe a skilled negotiator could talk down a Putin and decide on a mutually agreed upon solution. But in terms of Reagan-like bluster vs 'don't do it' "liberal" thinking, it won't affect the calculus going on at the other end. They either *are* or *are not* already willing to use nukes if opposed military. Pushing the button faster will get you your answer faster, but it won't change the answer. What might change it is if you're ok with nuclear war, threatening to do it better and/or do it first. So in the Armageddon game perhaps the craziest a**hole might win the game of chicken (or lose, depending on how you define winning for the human race). It is the very question of whether playing the Armageddon game is tolerable that I'm discussing. If you're willing to play it then it's a whole other discussion. My point is no one's been willing to play it yet.

[Grant]

This isn't a philosophy seminar where the correct way of thinking will win audience points. I'm personally not convinced that Reagan knew anything about anything on any topic, but let's put that side.

Yes,  I am aware of your feelings on Reagan.  But some people might have different feelings.  I wouldn't expect a Neo-Taftian/Ron Paul fan who believes that Chase Manhattan bank is behind all American interventionism or behind all Republican Presidential nominations to have different feelings.  I would only point out that Reagan and Eisenhower seem to have a better record than Robert Taft and Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy success. 

Attacking Russian forces in the Ukraine might have a different result than sending forces deep into Russian territory to take Moscow. But either way, there will be a result, and the manner in which you politically posture from the podium isn't going to change that.

None of this addresses the following two points:
1. Using nuclear weapons is a no win scenario.  No nuclear power has used nuclear weapons since 1945.  Using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power in response to conventional attack is a suicide pill. 

2.  The argument that appeasement of dictators out of fear amounts to cowardice, disgrace, and is immoral. 

[Grant]

Germany, Hungary, Italy, and Cyprus against disconnecting Russia from SWIFT. 

https://www.ft.com/content/69f72de5-d727-496d-9f9d-316db7bdaf03

Chernobyl taken by Russian forces.  Russian ground forces advancing along the western bank of the Dnieper now one fifth to one sixth the way to Kyiv.  Not that fast. 

[Fenring]

Yes,  I am aware of your feelings on Reagan.

I don't think I've ever mentioned him except in context of his battle with the Federal Reserve in the early 80's.

But some people might have different feelings.  I wouldn't expect a Neo-Taftian/Ron Paul fan who believes that Chase Manhattan bank is behind all American interventionism or behind all Republican Presidential nominations to have different feelings.  I would only point out that Reagan and Eisenhower seem to have a better record than Robert Taft and Ron Paul when it comes to foreign policy success.

I don't really think you know what I "am" based on critiques I've made about corruption. And btw that corruption is often right on-point with Eisenhower's own warning about the military industrial complex. So don't invoke him so fast if you're trying to refute me! He knew how to go to war, and also knew how dangerous it would be to have powerful military interests pulling strings in Washington. Trying to remove corrupting influences is really totally unrelated to how prepared a people are to go to war. Americans are comparatively so willing to go to war that your concerns (about so-called liberals like me) are most likely ill-placed.

None of this addresses the following two points:
1. Using nuclear weapons is a no win scenario.  No nuclear power has used nuclear weapons since 1945.  Using nuclear weapons against another nuclear power in response to conventional attack is a suicide pill.

You seem to be suggesting that there never has been a moratorium on conventional war between nuclear powers, since they'd all play nice if they did go to war. But I don't think the 20th century tells that story. I think the story it tells is that once a country has nukes everyone walks on eggshells in anything approaching conflict with them. So your suggestion that we may as well pretend there are no nukes since obviously using them is 'no-win' is as far as I'm concerned a really illogical and probably highly dangerous mindset. One should act as if Russia absolutely is willing to use them, and based on that premise to decide how far to go (even if it's not in fact true).

2.  The argument that appeasement of dictators out of fear amounts to cowardice, disgrace, and is immoral.

It's not immoral if it's a strategic decision. Your premise that 'appeasement' can only be based in fear is not accurate. It could also be immoral if it's because you are kicking the can, or want to win brownie points with voters at the expense of the world. But either way "appeasement" only means making a decision that the dictator is satisfied with. That can be good, or bad. Chamberlain is maligned not because he was an appeaser, but because he was wrong. Big difference there.

When it comes down to it, if you want to adopt a zero tolerance policy where if someone commits acts of war you go full-on in with military force under the assumption that they won't dare use nukes, then that is an approach. I call it playing chicken because in this case you call the silent bluff about attacking a nuclear power. My point is that there is a non-zero chance you are woefully mistaken about how they'll respond. To say nothing of non-nuclear options like biological.

[cherrypoptart]

At some point you do have to risk nuclear war or you will engage in appeasement.

Theoretically, even sanctions could risk Russia going nuclear if the sanctions are as tough as they should be.

[Fenring]

At some point you do have to risk nuclear war or you will engage in appeasement.

Well that's my point, basically. It's just not clear-cut to me how appeasement is 'tolerable' before you switch gears and say it's enough, we'll risk nuclear. Don't forget, Russia gaining ground, killing people, making some misery, could last 20 years, 50 years, 100 years. But how much could be lost if nuclear comes into it? It's not just a short-term strategic consideration but a long-term one. How much pain will we accept to avoid nuclear? The calculation on that does not seem simple to me. Even allowing yourself to be literally conquered and become a slave nation for 200 years might in the abstract be preferable to wiping out half the planet and having a nuclear winter. To me, "we are tough guys, we don't give up" is not a valid argument. Posturing and being tough like Reagan is not strategy, it's emotion.

[TheDrake]

China invaded Tibet. Was it wrong to appease them? They continue to mess with India along their shared border. But it also didn't encourage them to invade Japan, though they did swallow half of Korea. And continuously threaten Taiwan. And herd Muslims into camps. But sure, since we don't have to worry about a nuclear deterrent, let's start a war with them. I mean they wouldn't be stupid enough to annihilate both our countries and by proxy the whole world, just because we liberated an economically worthless chunk of land like Tibet, right? They wouldn't immediately see that they couldn't match the US conventionally, so I guess they'd probably just surrender and Tibet would be free!

* I realize that they were non-nuclear at the time of Tibet.

[Grant]

China invaded Tibet. Was it wrong to appease them?

What else could have been done about Tibet? 

To me, appeasement doesn't mean not doing anything.  It means not doing anything when you actually CAN do something but you still don't do it because of fear, intimidation, or an unrealistic view of the ability of diplomacy.  I don't think Hungary or Czechoslovakia was appeasement.  I think those were different situations where there really was nothing that the United States could do that could have easily led to defeat of the USSR or Warsaw Pact. 

I think the situation in Ukraine is different, but I have to admit that it is not easy.  I've already spoken that putting NATO/US air power over Ukraine without allowing strikes on Russian ADA inside Belarus and Russia would make things very difficult rather than easy.  Hitting targets inside Russia is exactly the kind of thing that I acknowledge might escalate things further, which would also make things very difficult rather than easy.  But I do not believe that Pooter is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.  If I thought he might, I would instead target him personally. 

[Grant]

Reports that the Ukrainians were able to take back an Antonov International Airport 10km outside of Kyiv that had been seized by Russian air assault earlier. 

[kidv]

Reports that the Ukrainians were able to take back an Antonov International Airport 10km outside of Kyiv that had been seized by Russian air assault earlier.

That would be great news.  It seems tactically that the Ukrainian military near Kyiv should have a fair shot at engaging and defeating a group of Russian paratroopers (with helicopter support) at the airport because it should be one area at the moment that Ukraine should have a location and materiel advantage.  So it's good that they could win in that circumstance.  (And probably very bad news if Ukraine could not retake the airport under those circumstances).

[TheDrake]

I can't find any references to Ukrainian forces retaking the airport, except this which was retracted:

⚡️Ukraine's armed forces report they reclaimed the Hostomel airport near Kyiv.

CORRECTION: The report was by Oleksiy Arestovych, an advisor to the president, not by the armed forces.

He has deleted his initial report and said that the fighting is continuing in Hostomel.

[TheDeamon]

China invaded Tibet. Was it wrong to appease them? They continue to mess with India along their shared border. But it also didn't encourage them to invade Japan, though they did swallow half of Korea. And continuously threaten Taiwan. And herd Muslims into camps. But sure, since we don't have to worry about a nuclear deterrent, let's start a war with them. I mean they wouldn't be stupid enough to annihilate both our countries and by proxy the whole world, just because we liberated an economically worthless chunk of land like Tibet, right? They wouldn't immediately see that they couldn't match the US conventionally, so I guess they'd probably just surrender and Tibet would be free!

Tibet likely happened "With the USSR's blessing" and nobody else really had a means of getting TO Tibet to do anything about it beside posturing.

The Chinese intervention in the Korean War was done on orders from the Kremlin, we know that for a fact. Now the Kremlin may have been mindful of "don't give an order you know will not be obeyed" and that China might intervene on its own in any case, so in alternate reality, it's possible Mao Zedong sends troops into Korea without orders from Moscow to do so. However, that isn't the world we live in. We don't know what they would have done, or when, without those orders to get involved.

The "continuous threats" to Taiwan are a comparatively new thing in the 21st century. During the 1950's and into the 1970's, the United States was spending most of its time trying to get the ROC to stop carrying out military/insurgency operations inside the Chinese Mainland. Now the shoe is on the other proverbial foot. China did try to invade (parts of) Taiwan in the 1950's and failed every time without Taiwan needing outside help. The credible threat of invasion against Taiwan is only a recent development in the 70+ years of that standoff existing.

I do think that China does believe in "limited wars" being possible when up against nuclear powers, and that they're likely going to force the US to put that to the test this year, probably before this summer. So long as the fighting(on the part of the US and allies--not the ROC) doesn't credibly threaten the Chinese mainland and their control over it, their nukes should remain in China.

[kidv]

As of 2 hours 20 minutes ago,

Deputy Minister of Defense of Ukraine Hanna Malyar:

 Gostomel
 Active actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine did not allow to land the main forces of the enemy landing in Gostomel. The battle continues with the advanced group, which suffered losses after the fire.

from Ukraine ministry of defence official twitter

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1496952123522576385

Clarifying reports are that Ukraine shot down a Russian supertransport.

[rightleft22]

I do think that China does believe in "limited wars" being possible when up against nuclear powers, and that they're likely going to force the US to put that to the test this year, probably before this summer. So long as the fighting(on the part of the US and allies--not the ROC) doesn't credibly threaten the Chinese mainland and their control over it, their nukes should remain in China.

So other then satisficing and historical hurt what does China gain by taking Taiwan - what's the win
I don't see any. The world and Chinese people will not be better off in anyway

Same with Russia - I don't see a win from them if if Putin wins

[TheDeamon]

Russia will likely be better off with their gains in Ukraine so long as Russia can keep it limited. It might take a decade or more to get a solid "ROI" though.

Taiwan on the other hand? It's likely to be a blood bath, and destructive enough the China's going to have a hard time justifying in hindsight. Too many powerful nations have reason to not allow China to turn the SCS into it's own private waterway. It has everything to do with keeping trade lanes open, and nothing to do with "keeping the yellow man down." Especially as it relates to Taiwan, free Taiwan is likely to be better off if it remains free.

The problem China has is Taiwan runs directly counter to many of the nationalistic claims they like to make, so it needs to be removed.

[Fenring]

But I do not believe that Pooter is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.  If I thought he might, I would instead target him personally.

I just do not think that people understand what "crazy" means. People can have mental illness; or be too destabilized to go to work every day; or be extremely predictable and then snap; or be psychopathic; or be bitter. And many more. Any of these could result in someone doing something unfortunate and against 'their own interest'. And then there's simple mistaken morality, 'maybe I die but I die nobly' without caring that other people die too. I imagine there are a spectrum of possible beliefs that could seem crazy to people who just disagree. Like is ritual suicide "insane" or just a different value? The notion that because a person can speak logically and lucidly like Putin, that therefore he cannot be 'crazy' enough to do a terrible thing...I don't think it takes that much. A person can even fool themselves into thinking they could never do a thing, and then just do it for reasons beyond them.

You seem to be talking about Putin's cold logic: he doesn't believe in the abstract nukes should be used, that this would be crazy. Who's to say any of us really uses cold logic at all? I don't personally even think the average person is that distanced from the sort of "if I have to die then you all die too" childish tantrum. Are children insane? Or are they all too human.

[Grant]

First day is over.  On to day two. 

Most analysis I've seen is that the Russians did not do as well as they hoped on day 1.  They seem to have overreached going after Hostomel Airfield with that air assault.  I heard somewhere that the plan had been to reinforce with paratroopers from 20 IL-76s but they turned back.  I guess maybe air defense or fighter defense was still still too strong to risk it.  But the air assault troops got captured, killed, or driven off.  But if the plan had been for Russian armored columns to reach them at the end of the day or end of day two, they didn't make it.  Guess the battle around Chernobyl slowed them down.

There is some unconfirmed audio of 13 Ukrainian border guard troopers stationed on some island in the Black Sea refusing to surrender to a Russian warship.  The audio is basically a modern version of General McAullife's response to the German request to surrender Bastogne.  The Russians opened fire and they're all dead.  That part is confirmed, the audio is unconfirmed. 

There is a rumor going around about a Ukrainian MiG-29 pilot who has shot down 6 Russian aircraft on the first day and is now the first ace of the 21st century.  They call him the "Ghost of Kiev".  I think it is possible, though unlikely, and even more unlikely given the crazy as hell kill list that some people are putting out.  Like I can see getting lucky with half those kills being Mi-8s or something.  Anyways, I'd love it to be true, but even if it is, the guy is likely to be killed in the coming days.

The other main takeaway from day 1 is that the Russians did not go for the full court press when it came to air attack, cyber attack, and artillery attack.  Some people are suggesting that is about to change.  Kiev started getting hit again about an hour ago from additional air attacks.  Not sure what the targets are. 

The Ukrainians to the east in the Donbass are being encircled.  The smart thing to do would be to make a fighting withdrawal and pull back to Dnipro and Zaporizhia before the Russians beat them there.  But a fighting withdrawal is the hardest thing to do.  It's likely these forces are going to be encircled and annihilated over the coming week.  At least they will keep a bunch of Russians tied up til then. 

So the Ukrainians are putting up a good fight, but not sure if time and logistics are on their side.  But one thing seems certain, is that the Ukrainians are not going to roll over. Without the benefit of a 2-7 day air campaign first to soften them up, I expect the Russians to take from 7 to 10 days to take Kiev and the Ukrainians start to fall apart.  There has been no breakthrough.  There has been no lightning thrust.  The Russians have not won, but the Ukrainians don't have time or materiel on their side.  Eventually Russia is going to take the gloves off and they're going to be ground down. Some Ukrainian troops with social media are resigned to death, but morale and discipline hasn't broken down.  Eastern European troops are funny like that. 

I missed the Grandpa President speech round 3.  I might listen later.  Anybody else listened to it?  Comments?

Anti-war protests beginning in Russia.  Surprising. 

Support is growing in Eastern Europe and in the US to bring Ukraine into NATO.  Growing but not yet a majority. 

[Grant]

You seem to be talking about Putin's cold logic: he doesn't believe in the abstract nukes should be used, that this would be crazy. Who's to say any of us really uses cold logic at all? I don't personally even think the average person is that distanced from the sort of "if I have to die then you all die too" childish tantrum. Are children insane? Or are they all too human.

You seem to have me mistaken for someone else.  I'm the guy who believes that the vast majority of humanity are morons 50-75% of the time.  Successful people are only morons 5-20% of the time.  Highly successful people are only morons 1-5% of the time.  I believe that all individuals, no matter how intelligent or successful, are primarily emotionally driven in many of their values and decisions.  Neuroscience and sociology seems to back up that assertion.  People who are morons 0% of the time are excessively dangerous and in danger constantly, because they don't understand other people at all.  I feel for them. 

I have no trouble believing that a world leader can be emotional and stupid.  Kim Jong Un comes to mind. 

I have no problem believing that Pooter might have some emotional blind spots.  It's already been pointed out by some people that they cannot understand logically why Pooter is doing this, since in the long term it will only hurt Russia.  But what they are missing is that Pooter has different priorities or values that they obviously do not understand, like the desire and demand for respect and power on the world stage. 

I don't think that is is impossible for Pooter to make major miscalculations.  Though it seems rare. 

What I do not expect is for a former KGB officer who rose to be the leader of Russia to be cut from the same cloth as Kim Jong Un.   Even if he was, I'm not sure if my reaction to a guy who is kicking the *censored* out of his neighbor and demands that I not help by threatening me and my family with nuclear death would be, "oh *censored*, I better leave that guy alone".  Personally, I see people that threaten me with death, for any reason, as people that I should be working on to eliminate.  If they are going to threaten me with death to get this, and I let them have it, they will soon be threatening me with death for other things.  Next they will be threatening Germany to reopen Nord Stream 2.  And they will keep threatening to get what they want. 

[Fenring]

You seem to have me mistaken for someone else.  I'm the guy who believes that the vast majority of humanity are morons 50-75% of the time.

I was just responding to your belief that Putin isn't crazy enough to do a crazy thing. My point was that in order to think someone incapable of a crazy thing you'd have to ascribe superhuman discipline to them. So if you push the "I dare you" button, no matter how less likely Putin might be to launch the nukes than Kim Jong Un might be, it's a much higher than zero probability chance he will nevertheless do it. He's a safer bet, but not a safe bet. If the stakes were unbelievably high it might be worth taking that risk, hence my comment above, that where the line is regarding acceptable stakes for that seems unclear to everyone for the last 75 years. Maybe eventually someone will go all-in with a nuclear power, they'll back down, and that will set a precedent of sorts. So far we don't have one.

[cherrypoptart]

What kind of options do we have besides military for our response? Is Biden doing enough?

I mentioned sanctions against countries buying Russian energy. That's a start. Some other ideas are to start expelling Russians and maybe have other countries do the same. First, the families of diplomats. We can think about moving on from there to the diplomats themselves. Then not letting Russians in for tourism or work, cancelling all visas and not renewing them. And last maybe even expelling all Russian citizens from America. You've got a month to pack up and get out. If other countries did something like that, it seems like that would send a serious message and put some real pressure on Putin.

Obviously, also go after the money too. And not just a few of the top oligarchs and a couple of banks, but as people keep mentioning about how much of Ukraine Putin really wants, the whole enchilada.

Oh, and a no brainer is a major law enforcement push against the Russian mafia in America. That could be done with or without the invasion of Ukraine but if Biden needs an excuse to do what would be the right thing to do anyway, the timing presents itself as ideal right now.

On an unrelated note, I was listening to this in my car and thought how much I felt it related to what was happening in Ukraine, with their forces fighting desperately against what amounts to a titan. If I had more A/V talent I'd make a montage of this song as something of a propaganda / public relations jab to paint Putin and Russia as the forces of pure evil that they are with scenes of the titans attacking the walls and I'd put Putin's evil sneering mug on titans and mix in some real life video of some of the scenes unfolding in Ukraine at appropriate moments to match the lyrics, like the little Ukrainian girl Putin murdered with cluster bombs at the part about "will we die like trampled flowers" and the bludgeoned and bandage wrapped elderly lady mixed with images of the UN and NATO leadership at the part about "scream and cry but none will hear you, plead and beg but none will help you". At "will you rise and join the battle" there is a montage of brave Ukrainian troops. A Putin montage accompanies "there are beings living off our fears" with his quote threatening nuclear war when he said, "Whoever tries to stand in our way or create threats for our country and people should know Russia’s response will be immediate and lead you to consequences you have never encountered in your history" going along with "and their words are like knives as they play with our lives." As this war is being played out on live streaming cell phones more than any previous war, there is no dearth of heartbreaking images to accompany a song that is also heartbreaking but full of inspiration and determination to fight an almost impossibly powerful evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Czam1dKjoCc&list=PLgYAivc85cgai4ZK-p_fprfo2FsLff88X

[Grant]

What kind of options do we have besides military for our response? Is Biden doing enough?

The problem here is that Grandpa President isn't the only one involved.  There seems to be a degree of response by committee within NATO. 

I obviously think we should be intervening militarily to a degree, while attempting to keep things localized to Ukraine, but I acknowledge the difficulty involved in this.  And the final problem is a lack of public support.  Democratic politicians have been trained that leadership is a bad idea. 

I mentioned sanctions against countries buying Russian energy. That's a start.

I'm still against this.  We're trying to help and convince our allies, not turn them into enemies. 

Some other ideas are to start expelling Russians and maybe have other countries do the same. First, the families of diplomats. We can think about moving on from there to the diplomats themselves. Then not letting Russians in for tourism or work, cancelling all visas and not renewing them. And last maybe even expelling all Russian citizens from America.

LOL.  You probably won't like this Cherry, but I'm of the exact opposite mind.  I think we should adopt the proposal that we offer visas and fast track citizenship for any Russian with a technical degree. Suck Pooter's intelligensia dry before he throws down another iron curtain. 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/drain-putins-brains/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=article&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=top-stories&utm_term=fourth

Oh, and a no brainer is a major law enforcement push against the Russian mafia in America.

We're not doing this already?  I don't think those guys are even really Russian.  They're American criminals, lol.  I don't know how it would hurt Russia, but we should be going after them already anyways. 

[LetterRip]

Putin is likely a psychopath (by psychopath I mean physiologically incapable of empathy and related oxytocin dependent emotions - such as love, loyalty, fear, anxiety, disgust). A psychopath only cares about consequences to themselves.  Therefore you can't use standard moral calculus when dealing with a psychopath.  For them millions, tens of millions, even billions of other people dying or suffering don't matter to them at all.  The only thing that matters is what they personally stand to gain or lose, and how likely they personally are to gain or lose.

So for instance - starting a nuclear war that kills most of the world population - their primary concern is how dull it would be to live in a fallout shelter and that it might not have adequate luxuries - since that would be the most significant risk to themselves.

[Grant]

For the last 24 hours, NATO has had between 3-5 refuelers over Poland or Romania.  Three E-3 Sentry AWACS over Poland and Romania, and a Rivet Joint.  All refueling fighters not squawking.  F-35s are now forward deployed.

If NATO isn't going to launch an air offensive, they are at least presenting the capability of doing so at a moment's notice, giving Russia something to think about. 

[cherrypoptart]

I'm not totally against a Russian brain-drain operation. They'd probably send a bunch of spies along with them but we'd get a lot of talent to offset that. I do feel for the Russian people and can't imagine most of them support the Ukraine invasion, or if it actually is most of them that do support it, there would still be a significant minority as in tens of millions of Russians who do not. I saw a story that at least some of the Russian soldiers are green conscripts who were lied about what they were getting into.