Ukraine

[Frances_iom]

thought this topic could do with some further, thoughtful, discussion - as suggested earlier the onset of winter has apparently slowed things and it seems that Russia has found a new very potent weapon in destruction of all civilian infrastructure with it seems the aim of freezing the Ukrainians into submission. How different it would have been if Ukraine had kept its nuclear arsenal - my own feeling is that stalemate has set in and although Russia is at present probably short of accurate missiles, the random destruction of soft civilian targets will effectively prevent Ukraine from progressing even when spring returns. All this at no real cost to their army and almost certainly paid for by the vastly increased price they can sell oil and gas for.

[Dave2002]

It is difficult to know what is going to happen. Indeed, further thoughtful discussion might be helpful, but could just muddy the waters a lot. Re Ukraine keeping its nuclear arsenal, it did so on condition that it would be protected by guarantors - including Russia. Some protection!!!!!

Surely nobody sane can trust the Russian government now.

[HighlandDougie]

Lawrence Freedman's latest - characteristically thoughtful - post:

https://samf.substack.com/p/is-russia-losing?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

[Frances_iom]

...Surely nobody sane can trust the Russian government now.

Trust plays no part in real-politic - self-interest is all eg India's support of Russia guarantees cheap oil - likewise Hungary, reliant on cheap Russian oil, is going to be a huge thorn in the side of the EU - in many ways the EU needs a mechanism to throw out such parties as incompatible with a European norm. Russia is returning to its 'Asiatic' roots - didn't Marx conclude that Communism was impossible there.

[Dave2002]

Trust plays no part in real-politic - self-interest is all eg India's support of Russia guarantees cheap oil - likewise Hungary, reliant on cheap Russian oil, is going to be a huge thorn in the side of the EU - in many ways the EU needs a mechanism to throw out such parties as incompatible with a European norm. Russia is returning to its 'Asiatic' roots - didn't Marx conclude that Communism was impossible there.

You may not call it trust - but I don't see that India's support of Russia guarantees cheap oil. It may make it more likely - but given the way Russia has been operating it surely can't be thought to be a reliable "partner". Perhaps India has obtained a lower price for oil, as Russia has nowhere else to sell it - maybe.

[french frank]

You may not call it trust - but I don't see that India's support of Russia guarantees cheap oil. It may make it more likely - but given the way Russia has been operating it surely can't be thought to be a reliable "partner". Perhaps India has obtained a lower price for oil, as Russia has nowhere else to sell it - maybe.

I suspect it's more the case that Putin is forced to rely on India, not vice vera. Freedman's final paragraph appears to [bleakly] sum up the situation:

"All this can be taken as evidence that even those more prepared to give Russia the benefit of the doubt, and point to what they believe to be NATO’s culpability and hypocrisy, see Putin’s war as a lost cause. They can now see what has been apparent to military analysts for some time. [...] The gap between [Putin's] desired ends and available means has grown ever wider over the past nine months. The war was lost long ago. The challenge remains one of getting Putin and his circle to accept this view. If this is to happen there is no alternative to keeping up the military pressure."

[Frances_iom]

Lawrence Freedman's latest - characteristically thoughtful - post:

https://samf.substack.com/p/is-russi...medium=reader2

I suspect he really hasn't thought thru the destruction of the civilian infrastructure - the several nuclear power stations are shut down even then they are a danger if standby power to keep the storage ponds cool is removed - but the major problem is going to be the replacement of destroyed pumping equipment for water + sewage together with the many sub-stations needed for distribution of electrical power - such equipment can be quickly destroyed but can require months to get replacements meanwhile the population freezes and health is severely compromised by destruction of hospitals as well as failure of sewage and clean water systems.

ETA I suspect this week will give part of the UK a feel for the future in terms of unreliable power - wind which last week was supplying near 50% is down to 2.5%, nuclear has dropped as well (maybe another reactor is out of service) and the weather is due to get colder.

[Serial_Apologist]

Trust plays no part in real-politic - self-interest is all eg India's support of Russia guarantees cheap oil - likewise Hungary, reliant on cheap Russian oil, is going to be a huge thorn in the side of the EU - in many ways the EU needs a mechanism to throw out such parties as incompatible with a European norm. Russia is returning to its 'Asiatic' roots - didn't Marx conclude that Communism was impossible there.

If I remember correctly his view was that Communism (or at any rate socialism) was only on the agenda for countries where capitalism had evolved the means of production to the point where it would be practicably viable for economic and political transformation, i.e. advanced in productivity in accordance with competitive desiderata, otherwise the agency of change (the proletariat) would be defeated by international capital's inherent strategic advantages (in being able to dictate unaffordable princes for essential imports and muster up armed forces for invasion) or by internal divisions resulting therefrom and demoralisation. Marx would have viewed Russia as too backward in these respects: success was most likely to succeed and be consolidated in countries developed to the point where the proletariat constituted sufficient weight in numbers, organisational strength and confidence. This was an argument presented to the Second International in relation to the Fenian struggle for Irish self-determination - some arguing the armed struggle historically premature and destined to fail, Lenin that one could not on principle oppose a people's fight whose trajectory was objectively anti-capitalist, however misguided or under-considerate of likelihood of ultimate success. This position was never really to be overturned in what remained of any kind of socialist international movement - Stalinism turned to "socialism in one country" as a USSR-defensive substitute for co-ordinated internationalism (ie protecting the bureaucracy), and its "son", Maoism, propounded revolution initiated from the countryside, as was proper for China, for the same reasons of industrial comparative under-development.

[french frank]

I suspect [Freedman?] really hasn't thought thru the destruction of the civilian infrastructure - the several nuclear power stations are shut down even then they are a danger if standby power to keep the storage ponds cool is removed - but the major problem is going to be the replacement of destroyed pumping equipment for water + sewage together with the many sub-stations needed for distribution of electrical power - such equipment can be quickly destroyed but can require months to get replacements meanwhile the population freezes and health is severely compromised by destruction of hospitals as well as failure of sewage and clean water systems.

How, in your view, does that affect the balance of miltary advantage?

[Serial_Apologist]

How, in your view, does that affect the balance of miltary advantage?

Surely massively if the Ukrainian army is depleted of civilian back-up, or were another Chernobyl (or worse) to take place.

[french frank]

Surely massively if the Ukrainian army is depleted of civilian back-up, or were another Chernobyl (or worse) to take place.

Fair points, though I realised afterwards I should have said "to what extent" rather than 'how"; more specifically, to what extent would it affect the Ukrainian military effort? Massively? significantly? appreciably but not decisively? Did Freedman not 'think this thru'?

[Historian]

Fair points, though I realised afterwards I should have said "to what extent" rather than 'how"; more specifically, to what extent would it affect the Ukrainian military effort? Massively? significantly? appreciably but not decisively? Did Freedman not 'think this thru'?

I am inclined to agree with ff's implication (as I read it) that Prof. Freedman has indeed thought all this through. To be brutally frank, the Russian terror attacks on the civilian power network have very limited effects on the conduct of the war.

After what Ukraine has already gone through, it seems highly unlikely that morale in the rear areas will collapse on a large scale, despite the inevitable hardships which have been (and will continue to be inflicted). If the Russians wanted to disrupt the Ukrainian war effort then they should have been targeting the lines of communication/ logistics. They have signally failed to do this both because it is beyond the capacity of the means at their disposal and because their tactic of targeting the morale of Ukraine's civilian population is fundamentally flawed. If Freedman does not focus on this aspect it is because he has considered it and decided its impact is limited. If necessary more Ukrainians will move to safer areas of Ukraine or become refugees abroad. This will cause problems (and will exacerbate those already existing). War production, war transport and those activities necessary for the war effort will be prioritised and will continue. Furthermore, the Russian capacity to send missiles against the energy network is a wasting asset, with stocks of missiles diminishing. The Iranian drones are becoming less effective (there are even rumours that Iran may have been warned of adverse consequences of sending too much support to Putin). Ukraine's air defences are being steadily reinforced and increasing their effectiveness.

The IAEA is reported to be negotiating a takeover of control over the Zaporizhzhia power plant, which would greatly reduce the risk of nuclear contamination. If that happens there would still be a risk and of course it may not happen at all. Measures have already been taken to reduce the damage that would be done, so talk of a second Chernobyl may not reflect the actual threat.

[Historian]

Professor Lawrence Freedman's latest article Who can guarantee Russian security? has recently been published.

In a typically thoughtful piece he examines the possibilities for co-operation after the end of the war, as well as examining the reasons why Putin has developed the idea that Russia is 'under threat' from the West/Ukraine.

[richardfinegold]

Professor Lawrence Freedman's latest article Who can guarantee Russian security? has recently been published.

In a typically thoughtful piece he examines the possibilities for co-operation after the end of the war, as well as examining the reasons why Putin has developed the idea that Russia is 'under threat' from the West/Ukraine.

I had read the piece. I simply cannot get my head around why Putin thinks he is under Military Threat from the West, as opposed to Cultural.

[Historian]

I had read the piece. I simply cannot get my head around why Putin thinks he is under Military Threat from the West, as opposed to Cultural.

We cannot know whether Putin genuinely believes in a military threat which is manifestly absurd. However, it is certainly very convenient for him to be able to pretend that Russia is under a range of existential threats in order to justify his illiberal and increasingly dictatorial regime. I agree that it is very hard to understand how far he believes what is being said across the Russian state-sponsored media as well as in his own pronouncements.