Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If Ukraine Wins, Who Loses?
There’s the obvious answers – Putin, the image of Russian might, the Duginist dream of solidifying Russian control over its insolent children.
Who else? The Russian Orthodox Church, for declaring this a holy war? Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion? The countries that have been buying Russian military gear and now have a rep, however justified, for buying junk? US pundits who backed Russia’s invasion? Renewable energy advocates, suddenly on the back foot because nuclear is a better option than Russian gas? US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?
You could also note who else wins: the West, for one. Superior armaments and tech, better logistics, the products of a more energetic and innovative culture. I suspect there’s a non-insubstantial intersection between those who are comfy with Russian control of Ukraine and those who would be irritated by a Western win, because the West is decadent and subject to rule from our Davos overlords, and ought not to prevail until it is overhauled and remade.
This is not a thread about whether Ukraine will win, or what victory looks like. Just a question about what shakes out when it is apparent to all that Russia could not prevail.
Published in General
I am going to try to get back to the original topic. Currently, although there have been apparently some successful Ukrainian counter offensives in and around Kharkiv, the south appears more firmly in Russian control. Russia has actually achieved a significant goal with the surrender of Ukrainian forces in Mariupol they effectively have their land bridge to the Crimea. It still seems like Russia is fairly successful at resupplying and holding the south of Ukraine, while they are struggling in the North and East. My suspicion is Russia is able to resupply by Sea more effectively than they have been by land. If Ukraine is able to step up its antishipping campaign this could potentially be reversed. This represents the first concrete gain by Russia of a war aim. Question is will Russia try to use this as an off ramp to save face? and will/ should Ukraine let them?
I couldn’t find such a word. Maybe you meant Auroras. I have seen them in Alaska. But I also really do see auras. It’s a benign visual disturbance that accompanies a headache in most people, known also as visual migraines, and also known as ocular migraines. Luckily for me, I never have an accompanying headache.
A well kept secret in the Arab world is that none of them like the Palestinians. I first heard this from an old girlfriend of mine who was Kuwaiti, and had emigrated to the U.S. after the first Gulf War. She said (which I later confirmed) that the Arab nations had treaties whereby citizens of all Arab countries could travel freely within the borders of other Arab countries with one exception – you guessed it, the Palestinians.
Black September is an event known in the Arab world but not so much in the West. In 1970-1971 the Palestinians attempted twice to kill Jordanian President King Hussein while trying to take over that country in an insurrection. Jordan fought them in a war which eventually drove all Palestinians out of the country. That’s how they ended up in Lebanon. Syria actually briefly fought Jordanian forces on behalf of the Palestinians, but took heavy losses and backed away. Then the Palestinians proceeded to terrorize and bully the Lebanese people, followed by yet another insurrection to take over that country too, until they were finally driven out. Now Israel is stuck with them.
This is why Arabs don’t like them, but find them useful as propaganda weapons against Israel. Note that the country of Kuwait expelled/beat and/or killed 250,000 Palestinians in 1991 after they had supported Iraq in the Gulf War. Kuwait waited until 2012 to resume relations and finally open a Palestinian Embassy in their country. They had previously imported Palestinians to do all the menial work the way we employ illegal/and legal aliens to pick fruit and wash floors. They since switched to importing workers from the Philippines who are much less troublesome.
The war against Israel came first, not the occupation of Palestinian land. That’s a huge distinction.
I guess if we were to judge World War II by the doctrine of whoever kills the most is the guilty side, then the United States would be easily be adjudged the “bad” country in the war, not Japan nor Germany.
The Jews have lived there for more than 3,000 years. It is the one place on earth where a people have lived and had its own nation for so long and where another nation has never replaced it. It has only been taken as an adjunct territory to other nations.
The majority of Palestinians who lived there during the U.N. partition into two states, had come during the British occupation after World War I. The majority of Jews who lived there at that time had come during the first half of the 20th century. So both groups were made up of mostly newcomers. The British let far more Arabs immigrate to the land than they did Jews during their occupation.
People on the left are constantly decrying that native peoples are having their land taken away from them by invading groups, for instance Native Americans in North, South, and Central America, Africans in South Africa, and Aboriginals in Australia. However, they completely ignore the case of the Hebrews who have a greater than 3,000 year old claim on their land. The left favor “The Invaders” in this case because they don’t like Jews or what they stand for.
I don’t think anybody here is painting the combatants in such extreme stereotypes as pure good and pure evil. I don’t find that a valid criticism.
That was a good thing for Israel?? Come on, that’s an evasion of the question.
In fairness the US doesn’t come close to Germany in that war since Germany did a number on Russia. Which is why the Russian’s enemies are always labeled as “Nazis”. I think even Japan out does the US in the at war because of what they did to China.
I’m comparing only head-to-head contests. We killed way more than they killed Americans.
Putting aside the assumptions there, that seems like a good place to start discussing peace if you want to discuss peace. It’s also a really good justification to not discuss peace at all. Depends on your objective.
Give me three additional examples. There are plenty of assassinations, but not that many politically successful ones.
Sorry. It’s a Harry Potter reference. Aurors are the magical policeforce.
Oslo was a great outcome for Israel. Decades of relative peace, a Palestinian Authority that does Israel’s security work for it in the West Bank (subsidised by the US), and best of all untrammelled growth in the settler population in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. And all in exchange for some endless talks that lead nowhere for the Palestinians?
What’s not to like?
A surprising but plausible answer.
If being likeable was the key to having rights, then….
Which leads us to the Geneva Conventions and International Law. Thank you.
I’ve read that all the Ukrainian fighters in Azovstal haven’t yet surrendered. That the regular fighters have, but that commanders (and perhaps some foreign fighters) have not yet done so.
Another thing to consider is that Russia can resupply and support from Crimea, with goods etc. entering Crimea from the ‘mainland’ using the Kerch bridge. So that gives Russia two points to resupply from.
Again, it’s the assassin’s veto at work. There are groups within Ukraine (I think the Azov batallion among them) that would react violently to any off ramp for Russia that left it with gains from the war. Zelensky may be stuck domestically, leave aside what NATO would prefer.
There is no right of return.
If I remember correctly, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has said that the goal for the United States is to assist Ukraine in reclaiming all of their territory, not just territory lost to the Russians since February 23-24, 2022.
I have heard some analysts say that it would be very difficult for Ukraine to recapture Crimea. But I would be interested to know if this view is widely held among military experts.
I agree. Especially when the people claiming a right of return never actually lived in the territories in question but only that their parents or grandparents did.
Turkey is never going to do that. Simple reason, NATO gives Turkey strategic depth. It works like this.
NATO has no mechanism for removing a member. Every decision by NATO requires a unanimous vote. So a motion to begin adding to the NATO treaty provisions some method to remove a member could be vetoed by Turkey.
Turkey, 4 years ago, was cozying up to Russia, and contracted to buy a modern Surface to Air Missile system. They could do this because NATO cannot kick them out, yet if Russia becomes too frisky they could declare either Article 4 or 5 protections. The only thing they lost because of the missile deal was the ability to build engines for the F-35 as well as F-35 basing in Turkey.
Just looking at the rules for NATO there is no way to remove Turkey. There is a way to render NATO moot, everybody else joins a new alliance, excludes Turkey, withdraws from NATO. Then when Turkey can’t pay the rent, host countries foreclose on NATO property and cedes it to the new alliance.
That will never happen, but if it does, you heard it here first.
Israel isn’t occupying the Palestinians either.
I think Croatia might object to Sweden and Finland joining NATO. But my guess is that Sweden and Finland will ultimately be allowed to join NATO within 2 years.
Also, opposition to Erdogan is growing and perhaps more importantly, the opposition to Erdogan is becoming more cohesive.
Recently an anti-Erdogan candidate, Ekrem Imamoglu, won the mayor’s race in Istanbul and might be a candidate for President in the 2023 elections.
The Turkish Lira has lost much of its value.
I agree this is a first concrete gain.
No to your first question – Putin needs something more than this to save face. I am estimating 21 day reset for Ukrainian forces to be trained on the new equipment (artillery) they have been given and for the leadership to come up with an operational approach to take advantage of the “King of Battle” and to move forces to implement it.
I don’t think Ukraine would let them off with the land bridge to Crimea, in the event the Russians attempted to negotiate one.
Nor should Ukraine let them.
While I think it will be difficult to recapture Crimea, I think it is in the realm of the possible for Ukraine to accomplish this.
I also think they should.
Looks like the President of Croatia does not have the power to block Sweden and Finland from joining NATO.
That doesn’t seem to mean that Croatia CAN’T veto Sweden or Finland, only that they WON’T. Or at least don’t plan to, for now.
Exactly. It seems that the parliament has the power to say “yea” or “nay” and they are leaning strongly towards “yea” while the President, who doesn’t have the authority to make the decision, is a “nay.”
Point is material changes would have to happen before a right of return would even be considered by Israel, so if that is the principle aim of the Palestinians then everything is off the table because the Israelis can’t trust that a people that has demonstrated its willingness to kill them would be beneficent if they were able to achieve political power.
It is tricky because it depends on how narrowly you define politically successful and what time horizon you are looking at, but if we go with stated beliefs:
These are just a few with some healthy dispute I’ll grant you. I didn’t really even look further back where things could get much murkier. Like I said depends on what you mean by politically successful.
I think eventually they will leave NATO because it will become uncomfortable for them to stay and they’ll decide that China is a more “flexible” long term security partner. I agree there is nothing in the NATO charter that allows them to be removed; however, there is a lot of pressure that the US, UK, and Germany could bring to bare on a NATO member assuming they all agreed on an outcome.
That is why I think Turkey, (or anyone else) threatening to veto Finland and Sweden joining NATO is actually unlikely to happen. Turkey also gives NATO access to the Black Sea so It is a mutually beneficial partnership. That having been said Turkey is moving away from democratic norms and that makes it an uncomfortable partner in the alliance. I suspect there will be some behind the scenes trading. Unfortunately I concur with Zafar that the likely casualty is going to be the Kurds in this deal.