Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[phinds]

It is easy to demand from the Europeans against Russia what the US isn't willing to do against China. Things are more complicated than black and white. And, of course, do Europeans have tight relationships with Russia.

True. I should have added that were I a European I might well be against expelling Russia from SWIFT even though I would realize intellectually that it is perhaps the only thing that would really get Putin's attention. Self-interest is a powerful motivator and I DO understand why the European don't want the SWIFT expulsion.

I DO, however, stand by my statement that Putin's got to be loving the fact that the allies are NOT united on sanctions.

 

[Astronuc]

According to the person interviewed he/she (I think it was a she) said that the reason for Russias action against Ukraine is not primarily because of any NATO expansion. Instead it is because Ukraine is a functional democracy which is/would be threatening to Russia which is an authoritarian state. If Ukraine is a functional, prosperous democracy which is looking to the West, people in Russia may start to realize that their lives could become better if Russia was a functional democracy. This reasoning makes quite much sense to me.

I've heard this mentioned several times, including this morning. One expert apologized during an interview about being wrong about Putin and about a comment made recently in which the expert had mentioned that the Biden administration was being a bit hysterical. It's one of those rare moments where an expert admits to being wrong.

I think Fiona Hill, for one, has been saying this.

Hill certainly knows about Russia and Putin.

Ukraine is a dysfunctional, somewhat democracy. At least the population had more say than they would under Russian control. And now the concern is that Putin's forces will eliminate dissent. The rhetoric from Putin is harsh. Someone has commented on his short stature, that like Napoleon, he suffers from 'short-man' syndrome (i.e., insecurity) among other dysfunctions. And the expert who apologized earlier mentioned that Putin probably felt backed into a corner based on comments from the US, UK and EU/NATO, so he felt the need to act by invading Ukraine. If they had forces in Belarus, Crimea and certainly along the eastern border, that was a sure sign that Putin has been building up to invade Ukraine before the US could respond.

I recall something about the US declaring Ukraine as a ally. Well, clearly, that didn't mean a whole lot in the present crisis.

 

[PeroK]

Ukraine is a dysfunctional, somewhat democracy.

A bit like the USA, then?

 

[phinds]

I recall something about the US declaring Ukraine as a ally. Well, clearly, that didn't mean a whole lot in the present crisis.

It meant exactly as much as it meant when Russian annexed Crimea. Pretty much nothing.

 

[Jarvis323]

KYIV, Feb 24 (Reuters) - The Chernobyl nuclear power plant has been captured by Russian forces, an adviser to the Ukrainian presidential office, Mykhailo Podolyak, said on Thursday.

"It is impossible to say the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is safe after a totally pointless attack by the Russians," he said.

"This is one of the most serious threats in Europe today," Podolyak said.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...russian-forces-ukrainian-official-2022-02-24/

 

[fresh_42]

According to the person interviewed he/she (I think it was a she) said that the reason for Russias action against Ukraine is not primarily because of any NATO expansion. Instead it is because Ukraine is a functional democracy which is/would be threatening to Russia which is an authoritarian state. If Ukraine is a functional, prosperous democracy which is looking to the West, people in Russia may start to realize that their lives could become better if Russia was a functional democracy. This reasoning makes quite much sense to me.

I've heard this mentioned several times, including this morning. One expert apologized during an interview about being wrong about Putin and about a comment made recently in which the expert had mentioned that the Biden administration was being a bit hysterical. It's one of those rare moments where an expert admits to being wrong.

It is pretty clear that it is not about Ukraine being in NATO. If he wished to avoid a common border with NATO he shouldn't have invaded Ukraine, since now he borders NATO on many frontlines.

Again, Putin is a child of the Cold War and a KGB officer at heart. It's plain old imperialism. I mean, he named the end of the Soviet Union a catastrophe!

 

[DennisN]

I haven't said this before, but I think it is appropriate to say that this day, 24th February 2022, is a turning point in history, and we are now waking up and facing a different world emerging (with respect to security etc).

This could have far more far reaching consequences than the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11 2001.

Regretfully that is currently my feeling, and my two cents.

Furthermore, it is VERY unfortunate that this happens right after/during a worldwide pandemic.
Very unfortunate.

To be frank, I have two strong feelings today: sadness and anger.

 

[BillTre]

When Ukraine got rid of its nukes (1994), it got "security assurances" from Russia, The US, the UK, and in different forms from France and China.

The assurances were all kind of passive: we will respect their territory, etc.
There is not an assurance that anyone would go and protect them.
A pledge to take problems to the UN is in there, but it is empty.
Russia can stop anything with its UN powers of veto.

Putin is directly defying these agreements (with his "anti-passive respect" for their borders).
Other countries, by this agreement, don't really have (are not obligated) to do anything.

Putin is to Never be Trusted.

Hill certainly knows about Russia and Putin.

So does Garry Kasparov (whom I consider a real hero of democracy) who also has a lot to say about Putin.
https://www.kasparov.com/putin-cont...individual-in-history-msnbc-february-24-2022/

 

[DennisN]

Again, Putin is a child of the Cold War and a KGB officer at heart. It's plain old imperialism. I mean, he named the end of the Soviet Union a catastrophe!

Once again I agree with you.

(Putin has been on my radar for a very long time, and I have been worried about his intentions for a long time.)

 

[PeroK]

It meant exactly as much as it meant when Russian annexed Crimea. Pretty much nothing.

I'm not particularly optimistic, but I wouldn't dismiss the West's resolve just yet. The really major decisions on banking and energy cannot be made immediately. At the very least we would need to plan for an embargo on Russian oil and gas. But, if what emerges from the Ukraine is particularly bloody and brutal, then I wouldn't rule that out. Democracies are fickle.

If enough people are appalled by what Russia has done, then they may force our government to act. For example, a member of parliament today recited the names of 35 Russian "oligarchs" who (according to Navalny) are cronies of Putin and are based in the UK. One of them owns a major football club. I can see that club coming under pressure.

If you're cynical, you may say that ultimately Premier League football is more important than Ukraine and peace in Europe. I don't know. It could go either way. We may be sitting here a year from now and only a few protesters across Europe are still trying to get something done about Russia. Or, it could snowball.

Finally, don't forget that the UK is under almost constant cyber attack from Russia, so it's not entirely a case of being oblivious to their actions. Both the UK and USA are aware of just how active Russia is and has been in trying to undermine our democracies by attacks on IT systems. I don't think it's impossible that this is the point at which the collective decision is that we cannot sit around until Putin successfully brings down a western country's banking system. And, if we don't stand up to him now, then he'll become more emboldened.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't think it's impossible that this is the point at which the collective decision is that we cannot sit around until Putin successfully brings down a western country's banking system,

What he already did with the Estonian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia

 

[PeroK]

What he already did with the Estonian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_cyberattacks_on_Estonia

Well okay, but there must be a point eventually when the West will take decisive action. To use your favourite example, there was no compulsion on the UK to declare war on Germany in 1939 over Poland. We could have ignored the invasion of Poland. But, we didn't. That was the point at which we finally acted.

There must be a point at which, if nothing else, we feel sufficiently threatened.

 

[fresh_42]

To use your favourite example, there was no compulsion on the UK to declare war on Germany in 1939 over Poland. We could have ignored the invasion of Poland. But, we didn't.

After parts of Czechia (an ally of France) fell to Germany and the European powers (UK, FR, I) still tried appeasement politics. Poland was a year after Munich 1938! So think again before you congratulate yourself early.

 

[PeroK]

After parts of Czechia (an ally of France) fell to Germany and the European powers (UK, FR, I) still tried appeasement politics. Poland was a year after Munich 1938! So think again before you congratulate yourself early.

I stated a simple historical fact, which you seem unable to accept because it doesn't tie in with your Weltanschauung. The UK declared war on Germany in 1939. You have to accept that as a historical fact!

 

[fresh_42]

I stated a simple historical fact, which you seem unable to accept because it doesn't tie in with your Weltanschauung. The UK declared war on Germany in 1939. You have to accept that as a historical fact!

Sure, but not before other countries have been sacrified. Same as now.

Edit: The first link in this thread.

 

[Jarvis323]

Ukraine is now urging citizens to take up arms and fight. That is hard for me to wrap my mind around, unless maybe they have lots of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons they need operators for and the civillians are able to operate them.

I hope it will not be people with guns making a last stand, because I would think that would be a pointless massacre. At what point to surrender is a difficult question.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not particularly optimistic, but I wouldn't dismiss the West's resolve just yet. The really major decisions on banking and energy cannot be made immediately.

Well, we could have started working on them 4 months or 10 years ago.

If there is going to be a major and permanent shift in energy policy though, that will take years.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Ukraine is now urging citizens to take up arms and fight. That is hard for me to wrap my mind around, unless maybe they have lots of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons they need operators for and the civillians are able to operate them.

Why aren't other countries bombing the sh** out of Russia? Ukraine can't do this by themselves. Sitting in a room and imposing sanctions isn't doing much to deter.

 

[fresh_42]

Why aren't other countries bombing the sh** out of Russia? Ukraine can't do this by themselves. Sitting in a room and imposing sanctions isn't doing much to deter.

Biden nailed it weeks ago: If Russians and Americans are shooting at each other, we will have WW III. And bombing Russia isn't a good idea if you don't want to be nuked.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Biden nailed it weeks ago: If Russians and Americans are shooting at each other, we will have WW III. And bombing Russia isn't a good idea if you don't want to be nuked.

World War Three, in my opinion, started yesterday. And it shouldn't just be the USA attacking Russia.

 

[PeroK]

Well, we could have started working on them 4 months or 10 years ago.

We could, but the political will to do something based on a potential eventuality is always weaker. Look at climate change.

The question now that Putin has made military invasion part of his strategy is what to do now? I suggest that it could go either way. This is a potential turning point. What I reject is the notion that anyone can be so confident that the west will do nothing - because "it's just like 1938". I reject that as well, as history is never really the same twice. Circumstances are always unique. No one knows what the world will look like a year from now. Certainly I don't. And not even @fresh_42 knows.

 

[PeroK]

@fresh_42 I guess you really do believe you know exactly what's going to result from all this? It makes discussion difficult, given you have all the answers to the questions the rest of us are asking!

 

[fresh_42]

Certainly I don't. And not even @fresh_42 knows.

It is important to know history so that it doesn't repeat itself! Think about Afghanistan. Some history lessons could have saved many lives! All I am saying is that Putin as of now is following the playbook from 1938. Now it is our turn to avoid 1939. I don't like Johnson very much, but I hope he is right and this war will turn out to be a failure for Putin.

 

[jtbell]

And Finns still have WW2 memories fresh, with a high conscription rate; mandatory service , mostly as a reaction to their war with Russia.

Make that "many wars." Finland and Russia have a 'history'. Finland was originally part of Sweden, which fought several wars with Russia, largely on Finnish territory. That ended in 1809, when Sweden ended up on the losing side of the Napoleonic wars and had to give up Finland to Russia. Finland declared independence in 1917 and managed to keep it after a bloody civil war in which the then-new Soviet Russian regime took sides to try to bring Finland back into the fold. Then came 1939:

The Lesson Stalin Could Teach Putin About Invading a Neighbor Politico, 14 February

Since then, Finnish presidents have always kept in contact with their Russian/Soviet counterparts, in order to reasssure them that Finland doesn't threaten them, and to sense any potential changes in their relationship.

Finland's president sees changes in Putin: 'It was a different kind of behavior' Politico, 20 February

While Niinistö emphasized his country wasn’t planning on a dramatic change in its relationship with Russia, he suggested Russia’s actions are making Finnish people rethink joining NATO.

 

[WWGD]

Make that "many wars." Finland and Russia have a 'history'. Finland was originally part of Sweden, which fought several wars with Russia, largely on Finnish territory. That ended in 1809, when Sweden ended up on the losing side of the Napoleonic wars and had to give up Finland to Russia. Finland declared independence in 1917 and managed to keep it after a bloody civil war in which the then-new Soviet Russian regime took sides to try to bring Finland back into the fold. Then came 1939:

The Lesson Stalin Could Teach Putin About Invading a Neighbor Politico, 14 February

Since then, Finnish presidents have always kept in contact with their Russian/Soviet counterparts, in order to reasssure them that Finland doesn't threaten them, and to sense any potential changes in their relationship.

Finland's president sees changes in Putin: 'It was a different kind of behavior' Politico, 20 February

How could Finland threaten a country with a population of 147 million to Finland's 5.5 million?

 

[ergospherical]

The idea of full-scale conflict between interdependent modern economies seemed so completely outlandish even as little as a couple of days ago, but the decades preceding 1914 were also characterised by rapid globalisation (or "First globalisation") so it's not hard to imagine that the people back then thought exactly the same (e.g. Norman Angell famously writing that strengthened economic relationships meant that war "becomes every day more difficult and improbable" only a few years before WW1).

I guess it's easy to look back on history and think of it as a fiction, i.e. "that'd never happen nowadays", but inevitably in a few hundred years (assuming we're all still around...) our successors will probably say exactly the same things about us! Scary.

 

[StevieTNZ]

*cries*

 

[berkeman]

One thing that I don't understand is that a lot of the reported damage so far (aside from airports, which is logical) was to neighborhoods and apartment buildings. Is this misinformation from the Ukraine folks (seems unlikely given all the media boots on the ground there), or are the Russian missles and bombs mistargeting civilian targets? So far that part seems especially clumsy to me.

 

[StevieTNZ]

One thing that I don't understand is that a lot of the reported damage so far (aside from airports, which is logical) was to neighborhoods and apartment buildings. Is this misinformation from the Ukraine folks (seems unlikely given all the media boots on the ground there), or are the Russian missles and bombs mistargeting civilian targets? So far that part seems especially clumsy to me.

According to stuff.co.nz, 137 are dead so far.
"At least 137 people have been killed, 169 injured as a result.
Russia says it has destroyed 83 Ukrainian military facilities, including 11 air bases."

 

[hutchphd]

The idea of full-scale conflict between interdependent modern economies seemed so completely outlandish even as little as a couple of days ago,

You were making the tacit assumption of rational actors.
In my lifetime our Presidency has seen at least two truly crazy Presidents (I dare not mention particulars) and the USSR has had Stalin (before my time) and Putin. I believe recently the UK has had fewer instances of truly mentally ill leaders... perhaps the Parliamentary system is better that way.
But I am surprised that folks are shocked.

One thing that I don't understand is that a lot of the reported damage so far (aside from airports, which is logical) was to neighborhoods and apartment buildings.

There were credible reports that Russian operatives had created an extensive target list of people to be eliminated. Perhaaps this is part of that campaign.
.

 

[ergospherical]

But I am surprised that folks are shocked.

Well, I was slightly too late to this planet to remember the Cold War. You'll no doubt have a much more refined perspective than myself and my generation.

 

[berkeman]

There were credible reports that Russian operatives had created an extensive target list of people to be eliminated. Perhaaps this is part of that campaign.

Sure, but there are no credible actors in these photos...

https://www.npr.org/sections/pictur...s-show-the-calamity-as-russia-invades-ukraine

 

[berkeman]

Well, I was slightly too late to this planet to remember the Cold War. You'll no doubt have a much more refined perspective than myself and my generation.

Sorry ergo, it looks like we failed your generation. Still the challenge of a rogue Putin at this time in Russia came as a surprise to me. Hopefully our intelligence agencies saw this coming, but then why did they not do a better job in the chess game...?

 

[Astronuc]

Hopefully our intelligence agencies saw this coming, but then why did they not do a better job in the chess game...?

I'm sure they did, or at least I hope they would. Still the key decisions are made by Joe Biden (president is ultimate decider as head of state) and Antony Blinken (Sec of State and advisor to president).

 

[hutchphd]

You'll no doubt have a much more refined perspective than myself and my generation.

Sorry ergo, it looks like we failed your generation.

I will second this. I was shown a full table and escorted to a very comfortable seat. Men landed on the moon when I was seventeen years old!
I don't really know WTF happened.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, told reporters during her daily briefing that there are credible reports Russian soldiers are holding the staff of the Ukrainian nuclear site hostage.

"We are outraged by credible reports that Russian soldiers are currently holding the staff of the Chernobyl facilities hostage," she said.

"This unlawful and dangerous hostage-taking, which could upend the routine civil service efforts required to maintain and protect the nuclear waste facilities, is obviously incredibly alarming and gravely concerning.

"We condemn it and we request their release."

-- https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/europ...old-hostages-at-chernobyl-nuclear-power-plant

 

[morrobay]

You were making the tacit assumption of rational actors.
In my lifetime our Presidency has seen at least two truly crazy Presidents (I dare not mention particulars)
.

Well how would you classify a president who invaded Iraq . And invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like invading Argentina after Pearl Harbor.

 

[russ_watters]

The question now that Putin has made military invasion part of his strategy is what to do now? I suggest that it could go either way. This is a potential turning point. What I reject is the notion that anyone can be so confident that the west will do nothing - because "it's just like 1938". I reject that as well, as history is never really the same twice.

I don't think this is 1938. Putin's aspirations are much smaller than Hitler's were. Again, I see no reason to not take him at his word on what he wants. And I see no reason not to take the Western leaders at their word that they aren't going to employ military force to try and stop him this time, as they didn't the last two times. But I also don't see this as being much different from the last two times (Georgia and Crimea) except in scale.

But we'll just have to wait and see.

We could, but the political will to do something based on a potential eventuality is always weaker. Look at climate change.

Sure, but the options and odds of success also shrink dramatically when you wait. Anyway, as I said, I think the action needs to be geared toward stopping the next time, as it could have been last time.

 

[Jarvis323]

This was interesting.

 

[strangerep]

[[Latvia, Lithuanian in NATO...] So? Again: Putin is following exactly Hitler's textbook from 1938.

Yes, totally agree. I've been surprised how few commentators (at least in my part of the world) have avoided mentioning that. My point was simply that it will be much harder for the other, more powerful NATO members to respond only with mere "sanctions".

Who will bet that he won't count on exactly the same mechanism: the west won't risk a world war for the Balticum?

I won't bet. But he has to be stopped, or at least opposed credibly, eventually. That's also a lesson from the 1930's.

 

[strangerep]

Will a refugee exodus allow Russia to gerrymander the country to get a result in an "election" they can live with on an interim basis?

Putin doesn't care about elections. If a substantial majority of the people of Crimea really had wanted to return to Russian overlordship, Putin could have held a genuine referendum with UN observers and regained Crimea with legitimacy, instead of just a forced annexation.

 

[strangerep]

Our Alberta Premier's first thought was that the world should boycott Russian oil and gas. [...]

With Russia and China forming a defacto trading bloc, and such sanctions against Russian seem laughably impotent. Anyway, Russia will need to retain a lot more of its own oil to fuel its tanks and other war engines.

 

[morrobay]

Yes, totally agree. I've been surprised how few commentators (at least in my part of the world) have avoided mentioning that. My point was simply that it will be much harder for the other, more powerful NATO members to respond only with mere "sanctions".

I won't bet. But he has to be stopped, or at least opposed credibly, eventually. That's also a lesson from the 1930's.

Putin has never gotten over the dismantling of the USSR. His only objective is to reverse and reclaim those territories. Unlike 1938 there is no threat to Western Europe. So is it worth WW111 to stop him. The West has got to give him something to end this without WW111

 

[strangerep]

I've read China is staunchly against violation of state sovereignty in principle. [...] they view Taiwan as part of China already.

A classic hypocrisy.

So Russia's fueling of the separatists in East Ukraine, declaration of their independence, and now invasion, are all behaviors they condemn implicitly, in principle at least.

I'm surprised how many people still listen to what China says. You can only rely what they actually do.

In terms of Russia's invasion emboldening them to possibly invade Taiwan. I'm not sure it should have that effect, because it is unlikely for Russia to have a net benefit from this. The economic effects, diplomatic effects, deaths, etc. will more likely be a sobering example of how nobody will benefit from that kind of aggression.

Totalitarian regimes care nothing about that. (Their proletariat exists merely to serve the overlords...)

 

[Keith_McClary]

The West has got to give him something to end this without WW111

Did they offer anything? Even "no nuclear missiles on the border", which the US didn't like as near as Cuba?

 

[strangerep]

Sorry ergo, it looks like we failed your generation. Still the challenge of a rogue Putin at this time in Russia came as a surprise to me. Hopefully our intelligence agencies saw this coming, but then why did they not do a better job in the chess game...?

...because people of good faith do not properly comprehend Monsters from the Id.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Did they offer anything? Even "no nuclear missiles on the border", which the US didn't like as near as Cuba?

At the risk of being overly technical, I believe the us has no nuclear missiles in Europe already.

 

[valenumr]

I think the biggest problem with the situation is that the US has a lot of conventional weapon systems that are nuclear capable, as does Russia. If NATO gets into a head on war with Russia (which Putin seems hell bent on making it happen), every cruise missile, bomber, ballistic missile, launch could be construed as a nuclear attack. And then we get to the extinction level event.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I think the biggest problem with the situation is that the US has a lot of conventional weapon systems that are nuclear capable, as does Russia. If NATO gets into a head on war with Russia (which Putin seems hell bent on making it happen)

If he really wanted that, he would attack a NATO country. It's not technically that hard to make this war happen.

 

[valenumr]

Neither I nor the Swedish military (according to Swedish news) sees an immediate Russian threat against Sweden (but things can of course change over the years).

Nevertheless: an aggressive Russia is in my opinion a threat to the security of Europe.
And a threat to the security of Europe is a threat to the world, due to the various interconnections (economical and military (NATO)).

In Sweden the military recently took some defensive actions due to the current situation, and I suspect more of that is to come.

If you ask me, my concerns in the near future apart from Ukraine are the countries Latvia and Lithuania, which both are NATO members, see this map:

View attachment 297535

There is a Russian enclave called Kaliningrad, and if Russia would try to create a land corridor (my red marking in the map) between Russia and Kaliningrad, Latvia and Lithuania are in the way.

In short: I sincerely hope this conflict does not spread, as it would be very dangerous.

I'm feeling some concern for Moldova as well. They have a small pro-russian breakaway that borders ukraine.