Russia Invades Ukraine XIX

[4Q Basket Case]

Hungary has been the most disappointing country so far, considering what Soviets did to it in 1956

Yeah, it's funny, Hungarians I believe do not remember the Soviet era fondly. The former KGB headquarters in Budapest is surrounded by a series of 3' x 4" porcelain portraits of all the people that disappeared inside that building.
I think that a lot how they act officially if Viktor Orban and how stupidly the EU acted towards Hungary. The source of Orban's power in Hungary is standing up to the arrogance and stupidity of the EU.

Some years ago, Mrs. Basket Case and I did a tour consisting of both Budapest (Hungary) and Prague (Czech Republic). Obviously, both were former Soviet Bloc countries. But when we were there, they viewed capitalism quite differently.

The Czechs were enthusiastic adopters of capitalism. They had (and I guess still have) a way to go, especially in the rural areas. But they loved the freedom.

The Hungarians wanted to have it both ways. They wanted the economic and personal freedom of capitalism. But they also wanted the government to provide them with stuff and services that they didn't care to go out and earn the money to pay for. Over the last 20 years, the US has grown increasingly similar on the point, but the Hungarians took it to an entirely different level.

My best guess is that the trip was in the 2010-ish time frame, but my memory is getting increasingly unreliable.

 

[Tidewater]

Some years ago, Mrs. Basket Case and I did a tour consisting of both Budapest (Hungary) and Prague (Czech Republic). Obviously, both were former Soviet Bloc countries. But when we were there, they viewed capitalism quite differently.

The Czechs were enthusiastic adopters of capitalism. They had (and I guess still have) a way to go, especially in the rural areas. But they loved the freedom.

The Hungarians wanted to have it both ways. They wanted the economic and personal freedom of capitalism. But they also wanted the government to provide them with stuff and services that they didn't care to go out and earn the money to pay for. Over the last 20 years, the US has grown increasingly similar on the point, but the Hungarians took it to an entirely different level.

My best guess is that the trip was in the 2010-ish time frame, but my memory is getting increasingly unreliable.

What I find funny about the EU is that the EU guidelines seem to be followed differently in different countries. If the EU tells member states, "You have to follow this policy, even if it really screws your country, we don't care, get with it!" Germany says, "Dadgummit! This policy is really bad for Germany. Oh well, guess we'll have to follow it," France says, "No way. That policy would really screw up France. We are going to ignore it."
I think the EU could benefit by studying the concept of subsidiarity: handle problems at the most local level possible. Only handle things at the EU level that you really must.

 

[Bamaro]

"Russia does not have enough strength to capture all of Ukraine, and Ukraine does not have enough strength to reclaim all occupied territories," said Zelensky. According to the President of Ukraine, the diplomatic path is the only option today and the fastest way to end the war.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1961416260094230540

So, who pays for all the distruction?

 

[Tidewater]

So, who pays for all the distruction?

That sir, is the question. Safest bet? The EU pays for it.

 

[some_al_fan]

Until Putin is stopped, this war is not going to end.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

What I find funny about the EU is that the EU guidelines seem to be followed differently in different countries. If the EU tells member states, "You have to follow this policy, even if it really screws your country, we don't care, get with it!" Germany says, "Dadgummit! This policy is really bad for Germany. Oh well, guess we'll have to follow it," France says, "No way. That policy would really screw up France. We are going to ignore it."
I think the EU could benefit by studying the concept of subsidiarity: handle problems at the most local level possible. Only handle things at the EU level that you really must.

If they did that, 99% of the EU complaints would disappear...

 

[Tidewater]

The Europeans float the idea of a 40 km "buffer zone."
‘Grasping for straws’: Europe floats Ukraine-Russia buffer zone in push for peace
Putin, I am told has agree in principle.
40 would probably limit small arms, small drones and a lot of artillery from accidentally getting the shooting started again.
Here are what I see as the biggest problems.
40 km wide by 965 km of confrontation line equals 38,600 sq km. That is a hunk of terrain to control. Now they could say, nobody goes in there, but somebody has to check.
Whoever is enforcing that has to have (a) enough force to enforce the peace deal and (b) a mandate, so that when they catch one side violating it, they do not have to phone home to UN HQ (or whoever controls this force) to ask for permission to smoke the violators. It needs to be "see'em, smoke'em." Otherwise the enforcement force will just get in the way, too many hostages and not enough to force the two sides to quit. That means a huge force. For years.

 

[some_al_fan]

The Europeans float the idea of a 40 km "buffer zone."
‘Grasping for straws’: Europe floats Ukraine-Russia buffer zone in push for peace
Putin, I am told has agree in principle.
40 would probably limit small arms, small drones and a lot of artillery from accidentally getting the shooting started again.
Here are what I see as the biggest problems.
40 km wide by 965 km of confrontation line equals 38,600 sq km. That is a hunk of terrain to control. Now they could say, nobody goes in there, but somebody has to check.
Whoever is enforcing that has to have (a) enough force to enforce the peace deal and (b) a mandate, so that when they catch one side violating it, they do not have to phone home to UN HQ (or whoever controls this force) to ask for permission to smoke the violators. It needs to be "see'em, smoke'em." Otherwise the enforcement force will just get in the way, too many hostages and not enough to force the two sides to quit. That means a huge force. For years.

Loading…

www.cnn.com

----
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that any Western troops in Ukraine would be considered “legitimate targets for defeat,” a day after it was announced that dozens of Western countries have pledged to contribute to a potential peacekeeping force there if a ceasefire deal is agreed.

“This is one of the root causes (of the war): trying to involve Ukraine in NATO,” Putin said, speaking at an economic forum in Russia’s Far East on Friday. “So if any troops appear there, especially during the ongoing hostilities, we assume they will be legitimate targets for defeat.”
-----

 

[Bamaro]

Loading…

www.cnn.com

----
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that any Western troops in Ukraine would be considered “legitimate targets for defeat,” a day after it was announced that dozens of Western countries have pledged to contribute to a potential peacekeeping force there if a ceasefire deal is agreed.

“This is one of the root causes (of the war): trying to involve Ukraine in NATO,” Putin said, speaking at an economic forum in Russia’s Far East on Friday. “So if any troops appear there, especially during the ongoing hostilities, we assume they will be legitimate targets for defeat.”
-----

Bring it!

 

[Tidewater]

Bring it!

I agree.
If Russia and Ukraine agrees to a deal that stipulates peacekeepers on the ground, I doubt Russia would target them and if they did, then Russia is going to face an entirely different problem.
Any peacekeepers cannot be the Indians, Kenyans, and Filipinos (of offense to those countries) because they cannot do anything about violations. They are simply not capable enough. If violations go unpunished (Hans Brix writing a strongly worded letter is no punishment), then they will continue and the deal will collapse.
They have to have the capability and the mandate to crush violators.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I agree.
If Russia and Ukraine agrees to a deal that stipulates peacekeepers on the ground, I doubt Russia would target them and if they did, then Russia is going to face an entirely different problem.
Any peacekeepers cannot be the Indians, Kenyans, and Filipinos (of offense to those countries) because they cannot do anything about violations. They are simply not capable enough. If violations go unpunished (Hans Brix writing a strongly worded letter is no punishment), then they will continue and the deal will collapse.
They have to have the capability and the mandate to crush violators.

The buffers would have to be someone other than the UN sky-blue helmets. They didn't help a whit with the Serbs during the latest Balkan war...

 

[Tidewater]

The buffers would have to be someone other than the UN sky-blue helmets. They didn't help a whit with the Serbs during the latest Balkan war...

In the 1990s, the UN played around with the concept of "peace enforcement" (forcing combatants to stop fighting, whether they want to stop or not. That, however, takes an incredible imbalance of forces (in favor of the peace enforcers) You know what forced the Wehrmacht to stop fighting in May 1945? 4.5 million Allied soldiers and 6.5 million Soviet soldiers.
Unless both parties in Ukraine want to stop fighting, there is no way to deploy enough force to make them stop fighting because nobody is deploying 4.5 million troops to Ukraine.

 

[Tidewater]

Here is my read on the situation:
1. Putin has given no real public indication that he is willing to make a deal. (I can't say what the Russians have said behind closed doors to the American negotiator, but I am not too impressed by him anyway.) Maybe Trump has finally learned that Putin is not interested in peace. He does not care how many Russians and Ukrainians die.
2. Zelenskii will hold his nose and make a deal if offered, I believe.
3. Without Putin agreeing to a deal, the war will continue.
4. War continues until:
a. Ukraine collapses
b. Putin dies and the next guy says, "Oops. Sorry!"
c. The Russians revolt and force the regime to stop.
4. In my view it is a race between a and b. In my view, c is exceedingly unlikely.
5. With no peace to enforce, the Europeans have to decide whether to intervene on the side of Ukraine as combatants (which is a very different thing from deploying peacekeepers). Their voters may buy it, but I am not sure. NATO will not agree to do anything as an alliance unless Russia welcomes it, which seems unlikely.

 

[Huckleberry]

Here is my read on the situation:
1. Putin has given no real public indication that he is willing to make a deal. (I can't say what the Russians have said behind closed doors to the American negotiator, but I am not too impressed by him anyway.) Maybe Trump has finally learned that Putin is not interested in peace. He does not care how many Russians and Ukrainians die.
2. Zelenskii will hold his nose and make a deal if offered, I believe.
3. Without Putin agreeing to a deal, the war will continue.
4. War continues until:
a. Ukraine collapses
b. Putin dies and the next guy says, "Oops. Sorry!"
c. The Russians revolt and force the regime to stop.
4. In my view it is a race between a and b. In my view, c is exceedingly unlikely.
5. With no peace to enforce, the Europeans have to decide whether to intervene on the side of Ukraine as combatants (which is a very different thing from deploying peacekeepers). Their voters may buy it, but I am not sure. NATO will not agree to do anything as an alliance unless Russia welcomes it, which seems unlikely.

Do you have any opinion/insight into how much influence Trump could have swaying NATO to act (if he chose to do so)?

 

[JDCrimson]

I think the Poles are the only ones willing to commit troops on the ground among the EU. All the others are either to chicken or uninterested.

Here is my read on the situation:
1. Putin has given no real public indication that he is willing to make a deal. (I can't say what the Russians have said behind closed doors to the American negotiator, but I am not too impressed by him anyway.) Maybe Trump has finally learned that Putin is not interested in peace. He does not care how many Russians and Ukrainians die.
2. Zelenskii will hold his nose and make a deal if offered, I believe.
3. Without Putin agreeing to a deal, the war will continue.
4. War continues until:
a. Ukraine collapses
b. Putin dies and the next guy says, "Oops. Sorry!"
c. The Russians revolt and force the regime to stop.
4. In my view it is a race between a and b. In my view, c is exceedingly unlikely.
5. With no peace to enforce, the Europeans have to decide whether to intervene on the side of Ukraine as combatants (which is a very different thing from deploying peacekeepers). Their voters may buy it, but I am not sure. NATO will not agree to do anything as an alliance unless Russia welcomes it, which seems unlikely.

 

[Tidewater]

I think the Poles are the only ones willing to commit troops on the ground among the EU. All the others are either to chicken or uninterested.

Probably. The Bundeswehr is now tiny. The French Army is a good bit smaller than in was in the 1990s. The Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians would certainly be willing, but they have to look after their own defense. The British Army is tiny. The Spanish are not interested. Maybe the Italians would pony up forces. Maybe the Dutch. Maybe Finland (but they have a long border). The Canadians have capable forces and political motivation, but not a huge military.
Many of these are experiencing severe budget problems.

I keep thinking the Ukrainians are like the Confederates in the Civil War. They get some well-wishes, and some money, but nobody is coming to save them from the Empire.

 

[Bamaro]

Here is my read on the situation:
1. Putin has given no real public indication that he is willing to make a deal. (I can't say what the Russians have said behind closed doors to the American negotiator, but I am not too impressed by him anyway.) Maybe Trump has finally learned that Putin is not interested in peace. He does not care how many Russians and Ukrainians die.
2. Zelenskii will hold his nose and make a deal if offered, I believe.
3. Without Putin agreeing to a deal, the war will continue.
4. War continues until:
a. Ukraine collapses
b. Putin dies and the next guy says, "Oops. Sorry!"
c. The Russians revolt and force the regime to stop.
4. In my view it is a race between a and b. In my view, c is exceedingly unlikely.
5. With no peace to enforce, the Europeans have to decide whether to intervene on the side of Ukraine as combatants (which is a very different thing from deploying peacekeepers). Their voters may buy it, but I am not sure. NATO will not agree to do anything as an alliance unless Russia welcomes it, which seems unlikely.

I'll take 'b', probably at the hands of the oligarchs (not the people)

 

[Tidewater]

I'll take 'b', probably at the hands of the oligarchs (not the people)

That is probably the best option for all concerned, except putin.
He is cagey, however.

 

[Tidewater]

Do you have any opinion/insight into how much influence Trump could have swaying NATO to act (if he chose to do so)?

I think Trump has significant influence over NATO leaders, but it is negative leadership (as in "If I don;t do what Trump wants, I'm going to get a bollocking from him" rather the positive style exemplified by Lieutenant Dan inspiring Forrest Gump to tell Bubba, "I sure hope I don't let him down.")

NATO, however, will do very little since any one member can veto a NATO policy. NATO member states can do what they want.

 

[Bamaro]

From late August

KYIV, Ukraine — Two Russian cruise missiles slammed into an American electronics factory in a remote corner of far western Ukraine before dawn Thursday, causing extensive damage and more than a dozen injuries, according to Ukrainian officials.

From last night

KYIV, Ukraine — Russia launched its largest air attack of the war on Ukraine overnight, setting the main government building on fire in central Kyiv and killing at least four people, including an infant, Ukrainian officials said on Sunday.

Again and again, Russia mocks TACO