[Goose]

I can't imagine any movement to join with Russia gaining any real traction. The brutality of this war seems like it would burn that bridge for a generation at least. Can't think of any good examples of a non conquered nation leaning into their aggressors. South Korea turned heavily to the west. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other, etc.

I think the example of Alsace is a more appropriate one.

Although Alsace is part of France, its borders have not always been clear. The region has been passed between French and German control several times since 1681, when Strasbourg was conquered by French forces. As a result, Alsatian culture is a unique mix of French and German influences.

So it is with Ukraine and Russia. One must remember there are LOTS of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Right now, anybody who was previously pro-Russian is keeping their mouth shut. However, many such people have been arrested for acting directly against the Ukrainian government. Do not forget that the Kherson Oblast was lost to Ukraine mostly through treachery. The Euromaidan revolution that brought the current government to power was directed against an explicit pro-Kremlin existing government. Those forces certainly existed then and still do.

While Ukraine has suffered greatly in this war, if the war ends in a de-facto defeat lots of people in Ukraine will decide in retrospect that the war was ill-advised and stupid. Some already think that. Many of them are Russians anyway. In no way will this group be a majority initially, but it will exist and be fairly large. If the rump Ukraine becomes economically strongly linked to Russia, either because of the terms of the agreement ending the war or because the EU/US won't allow Ukraine into the "western" economy, the argument to remain politically independent becomes very weak. Russia will of course support pro-Russian groups in Ukraine. Money talks, and if all the money is Russian, many Ukrainians (regardless of ethnicity) will listen. One must always remember that both Russian and Ukrainians are in the main fatalistic. They will make the best they can of what happens. They have been doing that for generations. Often we in "the west" can't understand "why they put up with it", but they do.

FWIW in the 19th and 20th century, Alsace changed hands four times. Every time it did there were plenty of people who emigrated, in both directions. Many others went into hiding while others came out of hiding. There were also plenty of Quislings on both sides who were more than ready to "assist" the "new" occupying power. There were quite a few arrests and prosecutions for "collaboration". Veterans of the previous wars were often physically abused simply because they were drafted into the "wrong" army 50 years ago.

[Goose]

I can't imagine any movement to join with Russia gaining any real traction. The brutality of this war seems like it would burn that bridge for a generation at least. Can't think of any good examples of a non conquered nation leaning into their aggressors. South Korea turned heavily to the west. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other, etc.

I think the example of Alsace is a more appropriate one.

Although Alsace is part of France, its borders have not always been clear. The region has been passed between French and German control several times since 1681, when Strasbourg was conquered by French forces. As a result, Alsatian culture is a unique mix of French and German influences.

So it is with Ukraine and Russia. One must remember there are LOTS of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Right now, anybody who was previously pro-Russian is keeping their mouth shut. However, many such people have been arrested for acting directly against the Ukrainian government. Do not forget that the Kherson Oblast was lost to Ukraine mostly through treachery. The Euromaidan revolution that brought the current government to power was directed against an explicit pro-Kremlin existing government. Those forces certainly existed then and still do.

While Ukraine has suffered greatly in this war, if the war ends in a de-facto defeat lots of people in Ukraine will decide in retrospect that the war was ill-advised and stupid. Some already think that. Many of them are Russians anyway. In no way will this group be a majority initially, but it will exist and be fairly large. If the rump Ukraine becomes economically strongly linked to Russia, either because of the terms of the agreement ending the war or because the EU/US won't allow Ukraine into the "western" economy, the argument to remain politically independent becomes very weak. Russia will of course support pro-Russian groups in Ukraine. Money talks, and if all the money is Russian, many Ukrainians (regardless of ethnicity) will listen. One must always remember that both Russian and Ukrainians are in the main fatalistic. They will make the best they can of what happens. They have been doing that for generations. Often we in "the west" can't understand "why they put up with it", but they do.

FWIW in the 19th and 20th century, Alsace changed hands four times. Every time it did there were plenty of people who emigrated, in both directions. Many others went into hiding while others came out of hiding. There were also plenty of Quislings on both sides who were more than ready to "assist" the "new" occupying power. There were quite a few arrests and prosecutions for "collaboration". Veterans of the previous wars were often physically abused simply because they were drafted into the "wrong" army 50 years ago.

[BostonCard]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and its people should do what they collectively decide, but I can’t imagine the prospect of becoming another version of Belarus would be that appealing.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and its people should do what they collectively decide, but I can’t imagine the prospect of becoming another version of Belarus would be that appealing.

BC

[GK3]

I can't imagine any movement to join with Russia gaining any real traction. The brutality of this war seems like it would burn that bridge for a generation at least. Can't think of any good examples of a non conquered nation leaning into their aggressors. South Korea turned heavily to the west. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other, etc.

I think the example of Alsace is a more appropriate one.

Although Alsace is part of France, its borders have not always been clear. The region has been passed between French and German control several times since 1681, when Strasbourg was conquered by French forces. As a result, Alsatian culture is a unique mix of French and German influences.

So it is with Ukraine and Russia. One must remember there are LOTS of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Right now, anybody who was previously pro-Russian is keeping their mouth shut. However, many such people have been arrested for acting directly against the Ukrainian government. Do not forget that the Kherson Oblast was lost to Ukraine mostly through treachery. The Euromaidan revolution that brought the current government to power was directed against an explicit pro-Kremlin existing government. Those forces certainly existed then and still do.

While Ukraine has suffered greatly in this war, if the war ends in a de-facto defeat lots of people in Ukraine will decide in retrospect that the war was ill-advised and stupid. Some already think that. Many of them are Russians anyway. In no way will this group be a majority initially, but it will exist and be fairly large. If the rump Ukraine becomes economically strongly linked to Russia, either because of the terms of the agreement ending the war or because the EU/US won't allow Ukraine into the "western" economy, the argument to remain politically independent becomes very weak. Russia will of course support pro-Russian groups in Ukraine. Money talks, and if all the money is Russian, many Ukrainians (regardless of ethnicity) will listen. One must always remember that both Russian and Ukrainians are in the main fatalistic. They will make the best they can of what happens. They have been doing that for generations. Often we in "the west" can't understand "why they put up with it", but they do.

FWIW in the 19th and 20th century, Alsace changed hands four times. Every time it did there were plenty of people who emigrated, in both directions. Many others went into hiding while others came out of hiding. There were also plenty of Quislings on both sides who were more than ready to "assist" the "new" occupying power. There were quite a few arrests and prosecutions for "collaboration". Veterans of the previous wars were often physically abused simply because they were drafted into the "wrong" army 50 years ago.

Very good points!  We forget that Krushchev, Brezhnev and Chernenko all came from what today is called Ukraine. It is sort like Texas declared independence and we forget all the Texans that contributed to our country.  I think Russian leaders have always considered everything East of a line drawn South from St Petersburg to Romania to be historically Russia. Putin probably considers Poland and the Baltic States defacto parts of Russia which will be hard sell in those countries.  Poland is clearly spending the money to make its Armed forces a significant force.  They have not forgotten the 22,000 Poles killed by Russia in the Katyn Forest  My experience with the Poles tells me they won't forget and they won't forgive.

[GK3]

I can't imagine any movement to join with Russia gaining any real traction. The brutality of this war seems like it would burn that bridge for a generation at least. Can't think of any good examples of a non conquered nation leaning into their aggressors. South Korea turned heavily to the west. Armenia and Azerbaijan still hate each other, etc.

I think the example of Alsace is a more appropriate one.

Although Alsace is part of France, its borders have not always been clear. The region has been passed between French and German control several times since 1681, when Strasbourg was conquered by French forces. As a result, Alsatian culture is a unique mix of French and German influences.

So it is with Ukraine and Russia. One must remember there are LOTS of ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Right now, anybody who was previously pro-Russian is keeping their mouth shut. However, many such people have been arrested for acting directly against the Ukrainian government. Do not forget that the Kherson Oblast was lost to Ukraine mostly through treachery. The Euromaidan revolution that brought the current government to power was directed against an explicit pro-Kremlin existing government. Those forces certainly existed then and still do.

While Ukraine has suffered greatly in this war, if the war ends in a de-facto defeat lots of people in Ukraine will decide in retrospect that the war was ill-advised and stupid. Some already think that. Many of them are Russians anyway. In no way will this group be a majority initially, but it will exist and be fairly large. If the rump Ukraine becomes economically strongly linked to Russia, either because of the terms of the agreement ending the war or because the EU/US won't allow Ukraine into the "western" economy, the argument to remain politically independent becomes very weak. Russia will of course support pro-Russian groups in Ukraine. Money talks, and if all the money is Russian, many Ukrainians (regardless of ethnicity) will listen. One must always remember that both Russian and Ukrainians are in the main fatalistic. They will make the best they can of what happens. They have been doing that for generations. Often we in "the west" can't understand "why they put up with it", but they do.

FWIW in the 19th and 20th century, Alsace changed hands four times. Every time it did there were plenty of people who emigrated, in both directions. Many others went into hiding while others came out of hiding. There were also plenty of Quislings on both sides who were more than ready to "assist" the "new" occupying power. There were quite a few arrests and prosecutions for "collaboration". Veterans of the previous wars were often physically abused simply because they were drafted into the "wrong" army 50 years ago.

Very good points!  We forget that Krushchev, Brezhnev and Chernenko all came from what today is called Ukraine. It is sort like Texas declared independence and we forget all the Texans that contributed to our country.  I think Russian leaders have always considered everything East of a line drawn South from St Petersburg to Romania to be historically Russia. Putin probably considers Poland and the Baltic States defacto parts of Russia which will be hard sell in those countries.  Poland is clearly spending the money to make its Armed forces a significant force.  They have not forgotten the 22,000 Poles killed by Russia in the Katyn Forest  My experience with the Poles tells me they won't forget and they won't forgive.

[BostonCard]

Interesting… Germany issues a warrant for the Ukrainians who blew up the Nordstream pipeline, and Donald Tusk’s response is basically “pound sand”

https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/18247839...15854?s=61

BTW, The WSJ had a story of the plan to blow up Nordstream.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-st...y-da24839c

BC

[BostonCard]

Interesting… Germany issues a warrant for the Ukrainians who blew up the Nordstream pipeline, and Donald Tusk’s response is basically “pound sand”

https://x.com/donaldtusk/status/18247839...15854?s=61

BTW, The WSJ had a story of the plan to blow up Nordstream.

https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-st...y-da24839c

BC

[Goose]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and its people should do what they collectively decide, but I can’t imagine the prospect of becoming another version of Belarus would be that appealing.

BC

It isn't, but it depends on what your options are. If you can't be a "client state" of the west, your only options are to go it alone or join Russia. The latter can look pretty good, especially if you are going to be (or hope to be) one of the "nomenklatura"/"siloviki". Belarus made that choice because the vast, vast majority of their trade was with Russia. They tried going it alone and it became immediately obvious that wasn't viable. Ukraine almost went that way too. It was a near thing.  Russia is Ukarine's most obvious trading partner. If the "rump" Ukraine can't build a trade relationship with the EU that is pretty favorable to Ukraine they may be forced to go hat in hand to Moscow. Keep in mind Ukraine doesn't get back it's ports on the Sea of Azov and Crimea. They also don't get back that part of their railroad network. All they will have is Odessa, which isn't all that great to begin with. On their border they have an economically (if not politically) hostile Hungary and Slovakia. Poland can't absorb all Ukraine's agricultural output, and Romania is dirt poor.  Not a nice situation for a severely damaged country that needs money.

[Goose]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and its people should do what they collectively decide, but I can’t imagine the prospect of becoming another version of Belarus would be that appealing.

BC

It isn't, but it depends on what your options are. If you can't be a "client state" of the west, your only options are to go it alone or join Russia. The latter can look pretty good, especially if you are going to be (or hope to be) one of the "nomenklatura"/"siloviki". Belarus made that choice because the vast, vast majority of their trade was with Russia. They tried going it alone and it became immediately obvious that wasn't viable. Ukraine almost went that way too. It was a near thing.  Russia is Ukarine's most obvious trading partner. If the "rump" Ukraine can't build a trade relationship with the EU that is pretty favorable to Ukraine they may be forced to go hat in hand to Moscow. Keep in mind Ukraine doesn't get back it's ports on the Sea of Azov and Crimea. They also don't get back that part of their railroad network. All they will have is Odessa, which isn't all that great to begin with. On their border they have an economically (if not politically) hostile Hungary and Slovakia. Poland can't absorb all Ukraine's agricultural output, and Romania is dirt poor.  Not a nice situation for a severely damaged country that needs money.

[M T]

Besides, if Russia imposes its terms, I'd think a lot of the anti-Russian Ukrainians will disappear or be helped out a window.
Fear will be a strong motivator for the rest of the not-so-Russian Ukrainians.

And, of course, there will be an "election" that shows that 97% want Putin to take over the country.

----
As far as losers in a war and their attitude about the victors, it seems Germany, Japan, and Italy would be examples.  But I'm not sure that Ukraine would feel the same -- they weren't the aggressors in this war.

[M T]

Besides, if Russia imposes its terms, I'd think a lot of the anti-Russian Ukrainians will disappear or be helped out a window.
Fear will be a strong motivator for the rest of the not-so-Russian Ukrainians.

And, of course, there will be an "election" that shows that 97% want Putin to take over the country.

----
As far as losers in a war and their attitude about the victors, it seems Germany, Japan, and Italy would be examples.  But I'm not sure that Ukraine would feel the same -- they weren't the aggressors in this war.

[GK3]

Besides, if Russia imposes its terms, I'd think a lot of the anti-Russian Ukrainians will disappear or be helped out a window.
Fear will be a strong motivator for the rest of the not-so-Russian Ukrainians.

And, of course, there will be an "election" that shows that 97% want Putin to take over the country.

----
As far as losers in a war and their attitude about the victors, it seems Germany, Japan, and Italy would be examples.  But I'm not sure that Ukraine would feel the same -- they weren't the aggressors in this war.

Amen!  If Ukraine loses, the anti Russians in Ukraine will have limited options. Get out while they can, go underground, or spend the rest of their lives in a Gulag in far Eastern Russia. We don't really understand how deep the dislikes or even hate goes.  More like the Hatfield and McCoy's on steroids.  As in the Middle East, the conflicts are severe and lasting.

[GK3]

Besides, if Russia imposes its terms, I'd think a lot of the anti-Russian Ukrainians will disappear or be helped out a window.
Fear will be a strong motivator for the rest of the not-so-Russian Ukrainians.

And, of course, there will be an "election" that shows that 97% want Putin to take over the country.

----
As far as losers in a war and their attitude about the victors, it seems Germany, Japan, and Italy would be examples.  But I'm not sure that Ukraine would feel the same -- they weren't the aggressors in this war.

Amen!  If Ukraine loses, the anti Russians in Ukraine will have limited options. Get out while they can, go underground, or spend the rest of their lives in a Gulag in far Eastern Russia. We don't really understand how deep the dislikes or even hate goes.  More like the Hatfield and McCoy's on steroids.  As in the Middle East, the conflicts are severe and lasting.

[Goose]

As if Ukraine doesn't have enough problems:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-freez...23606.html

Germany has been "cheating" on their federal budget for years. They have laws in place to limit deficit spending. Previously the government would get around them by defining the spending to be in categories that were exempt from the laws even though that wasn't the case and everybody knew it. As long as the German economy was humming along (at least in most places) it was "don't ask, don't tell". When that ceased to be the case it was taken to court and the government predictably lost. This isn't a "fake" issue being used to justify cutting off further aid. It is a real issue in Germany and will have plenty of consequences.

Unfortunately the current governmental coalition has neither the popularity nor the will to actually confront the issue and start a meaningful public discussion on what to do. Germany isn't poor or disadvantaged. The cost of fuel and natural gas has gone up dramatically, due to the Ukraine war and policy decisions. That is part of the problem.  It isn't the main problem however. Like many other countries Germany has been living beyond their means. They have definitely skimped on maintaining an adequate military. The can't do that anymore (maybe, who knows).  The policies adopted by the Green party and implemented in Germany for political reasons have not all worked out, to say the least. Their laws are now forcing them to confront that fact. Unfortunately this is happening when the German body politic is fractured much more that ever before in the FRG history.

As a side problem, it is clear the "reunification" is still a work in progress. In regards to the above discussion on Ukraine, note that the eastern part of Germany that was under Russian control in the Warsaw pact is the are of the country most supportive of Russia and opposed to Ukraine. One would think it would be the opposite. It is also worthy of mention that Angela Merkel  is an "Ossie".

[Goose]

As if Ukraine doesn't have enough problems:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-freez...23606.html

Germany has been "cheating" on their federal budget for years. They have laws in place to limit deficit spending. Previously the government would get around them by defining the spending to be in categories that were exempt from the laws even though that wasn't the case and everybody knew it. As long as the German economy was humming along (at least in most places) it was "don't ask, don't tell". When that ceased to be the case it was taken to court and the government predictably lost. This isn't a "fake" issue being used to justify cutting off further aid. It is a real issue in Germany and will have plenty of consequences.

Unfortunately the current governmental coalition has neither the popularity nor the will to actually confront the issue and start a meaningful public discussion on what to do. Germany isn't poor or disadvantaged. The cost of fuel and natural gas has gone up dramatically, due to the Ukraine war and policy decisions. That is part of the problem.  It isn't the main problem however. Like many other countries Germany has been living beyond their means. They have definitely skimped on maintaining an adequate military. The can't do that anymore (maybe, who knows).  The policies adopted by the Green party and implemented in Germany for political reasons have not all worked out, to say the least. Their laws are now forcing them to confront that fact. Unfortunately this is happening when the German body politic is fractured much more that ever before in the FRG history.

As a side problem, it is clear the "reunification" is still a work in progress. In regards to the above discussion on Ukraine, note that the eastern part of Germany that was under Russian control in the Warsaw pact is the are of the country most supportive of Russia and opposed to Ukraine. One would think it would be the opposite. It is also worthy of mention that Angela Merkel  is an "Ossie".

[Goose]

Amen!  If Ukraine loses, the anti Russians in Ukraine will have limited options. Get out while they can, go underground, or spend the rest of their lives in a Gulag in far Eastern Russia. We don't really understand how deep the dislikes or even hate goes.  More like the Hatfield and McCoy's on steroids.  As in the Middle East, the conflicts are severe and lasting.

Very true. As in the Middle East it often causes people to adopt positions and policies that an outside rational observer would believe to be simply insane. This often leads to miscalculations, where one party thinks "If we do X, they will do Y", when in the event the other party in fact does Q.

---

Besides, if Russia imposes its terms, I'd think a lot of the anti-Russian Ukrainians will disappear or be helped out a window.
Fear will be a strong motivator for the rest of the not-so-Russian Ukrainians.

And, of course, there will be an "election" that shows that 97% want Putin to take over the country.

----
As far as losers in a war and their attitude about the victors, it seems Germany, Japan, and Italy would be examples.  But I'm not sure that Ukraine would feel the same -- they weren't the aggressors in this war.

I would add financial gain to fear. It is known that several wealthy families in the Ukrainian areas occupied by Russia in 2014 sent some of their sons to Ukraine, where they proclaimed Ukrainian loyalty. The rest of the family stayed and declared Russian loyalty. That way, whoever wins, part of the family is on that side and "wins" too. They hope to preserve their fortunes that way. It is a very 15th century Italian model, but it is alive and well in Ukraine.

IMO the "aggressor" status matters little. Each individual rationalizes "I didn't start the war, I am a victim". Some nations continue to resist after defeat in conventional war, either by actual guerrilla warfare or passive resistance. If there are ethnic or religious differences involved such outcomes are more probable. Arguably neither apply to Ukraine. While some actively resist there are always plenty of collaborators who take advantage of opportunities to "get ahead" by working for the "victors". Most people do neither and just try to get by. In many cases they were "oppressed" before and are now just oppressed by different people :-). In the case of Germany, Italy, and Japan it was very quickly made clear that the US wasn't interested in taking over these countries. That legitimizes not resisting and taking advantage of what is available.

It must be added that the Stockholm Syndrome is real and that "converts" often attempt to prove their loyalty via excessive zeal.

[Goose]

Amen!  If Ukraine loses, the anti Russians in Ukraine will have limited options. Get out while they can, go underground, or spend the rest of their lives in a Gulag in far Eastern Russia. We don't really understand how deep the dislikes or even hate goes.  More like the Hatfield and McCoy's on steroids.  As in the Middle East, the conflicts are severe and lasting.

Very true. As in the Middle East it often causes people to adopt positions and policies that an outside rational observer would believe to be simply insane. This often leads to miscalculations, where one party thinks "If we do X, they will do Y", when in the event the other party in fact does Q.

---

Besides, if Russia imposes its terms, I'd think a lot of the anti-Russian Ukrainians will disappear or be helped out a window.
Fear will be a strong motivator for the rest of the not-so-Russian Ukrainians.

And, of course, there will be an "election" that shows that 97% want Putin to take over the country.

----
As far as losers in a war and their attitude about the victors, it seems Germany, Japan, and Italy would be examples.  But I'm not sure that Ukraine would feel the same -- they weren't the aggressors in this war.

I would add financial gain to fear. It is known that several wealthy families in the Ukrainian areas occupied by Russia in 2014 sent some of their sons to Ukraine, where they proclaimed Ukrainian loyalty. The rest of the family stayed and declared Russian loyalty. That way, whoever wins, part of the family is on that side and "wins" too. They hope to preserve their fortunes that way. It is a very 15th century Italian model, but it is alive and well in Ukraine.

IMO the "aggressor" status matters little. Each individual rationalizes "I didn't start the war, I am a victim". Some nations continue to resist after defeat in conventional war, either by actual guerrilla warfare or passive resistance. If there are ethnic or religious differences involved such outcomes are more probable. Arguably neither apply to Ukraine. While some actively resist there are always plenty of collaborators who take advantage of opportunities to "get ahead" by working for the "victors". Most people do neither and just try to get by. In many cases they were "oppressed" before and are now just oppressed by different people :-). In the case of Germany, Italy, and Japan it was very quickly made clear that the US wasn't interested in taking over these countries. That legitimizes not resisting and taking advantage of what is available.

It must be added that the Stockholm Syndrome is real and that "converts" often attempt to prove their loyalty via excessive zeal.

[M T]

As if Ukraine doesn't have enough problems:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-freez...23606.html

The first article (Goose's direct link) was from Saturday morning (our time).  There were 2 or 3 updates below it.  AIUI, that's about next year's money, which is of course important, and there's pushback on the August 5th letter from the Chancellor.  It sorta sounds like the political positioning that we see in the US.  (Then, there's also mention of using interest from frozen Russian assets for this purpose.)

I find it interesting that (at least the English site) Die Welt doesn't have anything about this.  But, I haven't been following Die Welt so I'm not sure how their coverage is these days.  (BBC doesn't have anything either, yet.)

P.S. Goose uses many acronyms and terms that sometimes obscures his knowledge from those of us hoping to learn from him. "Ossie" indicates one from the eastern part of Germany. I had to look it up, but it seems it would be a term you'd not want to use in a public venue.

P.P.S. Since we're talking German politics, the leaders of the far-left Die Linke party have just announced they're stepping down. The party's support was apparently low. For this forum, this may help to indicate the overall leaning of the German populace.

[M T]

As if Ukraine doesn't have enough problems:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-freez...23606.html

The first article (Goose's direct link) was from Saturday morning (our time).  There were 2 or 3 updates below it.  AIUI, that's about next year's money, which is of course important, and there's pushback on the August 5th letter from the Chancellor.  It sorta sounds like the political positioning that we see in the US.  (Then, there's also mention of using interest from frozen Russian assets for this purpose.)

I find it interesting that (at least the English site) Die Welt doesn't have anything about this.  But, I haven't been following Die Welt so I'm not sure how their coverage is these days.  (BBC doesn't have anything either, yet.)

P.S. Goose uses many acronyms and terms that sometimes obscures his knowledge from those of us hoping to learn from him. "Ossie" indicates one from the eastern part of Germany. I had to look it up, but it seems it would be a term you'd not want to use in a public venue.

P.P.S. Since we're talking German politics, the leaders of the far-left Die Linke party have just announced they're stepping down. The party's support was apparently low. For this forum, this may help to indicate the overall leaning of the German populace.

[M T]

This might be interesting to some:  BBC did a few man-on-the-street interviews of Russians in a small town 100 miles south of Moscow about the Ukrainian incursion.

I found myself wondering how much their answers were influenced by the fact that authorities would be listening and could throw them in jail for spreading "false information" about the military.   The most dangerous statement was by one younger (40s?) couple who said they were getting info from TV and the Internet and there was a lot of conflicting info.

Speaking of control of information, I hadn't previously heard of the conflict between Musk/X and Brazil.  This conflict again shows the differences of opinion and the strong desires to control the story.

[M T]

This might be interesting to some:  BBC did a few man-on-the-street interviews of Russians in a small town 100 miles south of Moscow about the Ukrainian incursion.

I found myself wondering how much their answers were influenced by the fact that authorities would be listening and could throw them in jail for spreading "false information" about the military.   The most dangerous statement was by one younger (40s?) couple who said they were getting info from TV and the Internet and there was a lot of conflicting info.

Speaking of control of information, I hadn't previously heard of the conflict between Musk/X and Brazil.  This conflict again shows the differences of opinion and the strong desires to control the story.

[Goose]

As if Ukraine doesn't have enough problems:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-freez...23606.html

The first article (Goose's direct link) was from Saturday morning (our time).  There were 2 or 3 updates below it.  AIUI, that's about next year's money, which is of course important, and there's pushback on the August 5th letter from the Chancellor.  It sorta sounds like the political positioning that we see in the US.  (Then, there's also mention of using interest from frozen Russian assets for this purpose.)

It is quite possibly politically driven. However, as I understand it the Chancellor was stating that the Bundestag could not appropriate any more money this year for Ukraine because government spending is up against the stops. That isn't political. The decision of the Constitutional Court has, as the Chancellor stated at the time, created new constraints on what can be designated "special" funding. Ukraine is suffering from a lack of ammunition for their German made PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers (among other things). As I understand it, the Chancellor is saying there can be no "quick fix" to that problem.

Next year's budget in Germany potentially has significant issues as well. The spending levels allowed are directly tied to tax revenues. In the past the Bundestag could blow through those limits by declaring a "special" program and spending money that way. If tax revenue wasn't "up to snuff", that was a way around it. It isn't allowed anymore. In the past, tax revenues were usually adequate and in fact often money would be appropriated outside the original budget because it was "available". That won't be true next year, most probably. The budget may actually have to be cut, and that will not be easy. Ukraine's notional 4 billion may be an easy target.

I find it interesting that (at least the English site) Die Welt doesn't have anything about this.  But, I haven't been following Die Welt so I'm not sure how their coverage is these days.  (BBC doesn't have anything either, yet.)

P.S.  Goose uses many acronyms and terms that sometimes obscures his knowledge from those of us hoping to learn from him.  "Ossi" indicates one from the eastern part of Germany.  I had to look it up, but it seems it would be a term you'd not want to use in a public venue.

I could be wrong about this, but for sure in the time around reunification the term was in common use. That may have changed somewhat, but back then and as far as I know today, it isn't pejorative. It is like saying somebody is a New Englander, a mid-westerner or a Texan. For that matter it is phonetically similar to Aussie, which is definitely not pejorative :-). It is true that some biases (and jokes) have grown up on both sides of the Ossi-Wessi divide. FWIW Wikipedia says

While some people in Germany may consider these names insulting, others regard them as part of the German culture.

I expect that is pretty accurate. It may be less socially acceptable now than it was 1990 in response to the inevitable problems that ensued, but it isn't "impolite".

P.P.S. Since we're talking German politics, the leaders of the far-left Die Linke party have just announced they're stepping down.  The party's support was apparently low.  For this forum, this may help to indicate the overall leaning of the German populace.

IMO you are correct but for a couple of reasons I don't think the lack of support for Die Linke is a good indicator. Talking more about this is "interesting" but too close to the Terry Rule, so I won't :-).

[Goose]

As if Ukraine doesn't have enough problems:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/germany-freez...23606.html

The first article (Goose's direct link) was from Saturday morning (our time).  There were 2 or 3 updates below it.  AIUI, that's about next year's money, which is of course important, and there's pushback on the August 5th letter from the Chancellor.  It sorta sounds like the political positioning that we see in the US.  (Then, there's also mention of using interest from frozen Russian assets for this purpose.)

It is quite possibly politically driven. However, as I understand it the Chancellor was stating that the Bundestag could not appropriate any more money this year for Ukraine because government spending is up against the stops. That isn't political. The decision of the Constitutional Court has, as the Chancellor stated at the time, created new constraints on what can be designated "special" funding. Ukraine is suffering from a lack of ammunition for their German made PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzers (among other things). As I understand it, the Chancellor is saying there can be no "quick fix" to that problem.

Next year's budget in Germany potentially has significant issues as well. The spending levels allowed are directly tied to tax revenues. In the past the Bundestag could blow through those limits by declaring a "special" program and spending money that way. If tax revenue wasn't "up to snuff", that was a way around it. It isn't allowed anymore. In the past, tax revenues were usually adequate and in fact often money would be appropriated outside the original budget because it was "available". That won't be true next year, most probably. The budget may actually have to be cut, and that will not be easy. Ukraine's notional 4 billion may be an easy target.

I find it interesting that (at least the English site) Die Welt doesn't have anything about this.  But, I haven't been following Die Welt so I'm not sure how their coverage is these days.  (BBC doesn't have anything either, yet.)

P.S.  Goose uses many acronyms and terms that sometimes obscures his knowledge from those of us hoping to learn from him.  "Ossi" indicates one from the eastern part of Germany.  I had to look it up, but it seems it would be a term you'd not want to use in a public venue.

I could be wrong about this, but for sure in the time around reunification the term was in common use. That may have changed somewhat, but back then and as far as I know today, it isn't pejorative. It is like saying somebody is a New Englander, a mid-westerner or a Texan. For that matter it is phonetically similar to Aussie, which is definitely not pejorative :-). It is true that some biases (and jokes) have grown up on both sides of the Ossi-Wessi divide. FWIW Wikipedia says

While some people in Germany may consider these names insulting, others regard them as part of the German culture.

I expect that is pretty accurate. It may be less socially acceptable now than it was 1990 in response to the inevitable problems that ensued, but it isn't "impolite".

P.P.S. Since we're talking German politics, the leaders of the far-left Die Linke party have just announced they're stepping down.  The party's support was apparently low.  For this forum, this may help to indicate the overall leaning of the German populace.

IMO you are correct but for a couple of reasons I don't think the lack of support for Die Linke is a good indicator. Talking more about this is "interesting" but too close to the Terry Rule, so I won't :-).

[TrumpCard]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

The Ukrainians have indicated by dropping one and at least damaging another bridge that they do not intend to cross that river on offense anytime soon. It is impossible to know if they are doing this to prevent the Russians from easily reinforcing via these bridges or if Ukraine intends to occupy the area all the way up to the river. My supposition is that Ukraine dropped the bridges because it is a good idea either way. They will take what they can, whatever it is. The entire area becomes the "upper limit".

If I'm interpreting the new correctly, it looks like Ukraine took out that second bridge:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/18/europe/ze...index.html

If we believe the ISW map, then Ukraine also at least should have fire control of the railway that comes from the north into the southwestern part of Kursk (to the east of Snogast).  

I wonder whether Russia is going to find it difficult to re-supply troops in that part of Kursk now, or whether the pro-Ukraine media is just trying to give that impression.

[TrumpCard]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

The Ukrainians have indicated by dropping one and at least damaging another bridge that they do not intend to cross that river on offense anytime soon. It is impossible to know if they are doing this to prevent the Russians from easily reinforcing via these bridges or if Ukraine intends to occupy the area all the way up to the river. My supposition is that Ukraine dropped the bridges because it is a good idea either way. They will take what they can, whatever it is. The entire area becomes the "upper limit".

If I'm interpreting the new correctly, it looks like Ukraine took out that second bridge:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/18/europe/ze...index.html

If we believe the ISW map, then Ukraine also at least should have fire control of the railway that comes from the north into the southwestern part of Kursk (to the east of Snogast).  

I wonder whether Russia is going to find it difficult to re-supply troops in that part of Kursk now, or whether the pro-Ukraine media is just trying to give that impression.

[GK3]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

The Ukrainians have indicated by dropping one and at least damaging another bridge that they do not intend to cross that river on offense anytime soon. It is impossible to know if they are doing this to prevent the Russians from easily reinforcing via these bridges or if Ukraine intends to occupy the area all the way up to the river. My supposition is that Ukraine dropped the bridges because it is a good idea either way. They will take what they can, whatever it is. The entire area becomes the "upper limit".

If I'm interpreting the new correctly, it looks like Ukraine took out that second bridge:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/18/europe/ze...index.html

If we believe the ISW map, then Ukraine also at least should have fire control of the railway that comes from the north into the southwestern part of Kursk (to the east of Snogast).  

I wonder whether Russia is going to find it difficult to re-supply troops in that part of Kursk now, or whether the pro-Ukraine media is just trying to give that impression.

It can't be easy as Ukraine has now cut a big section of that line and are close to it further North and probably have recon drones all over the place checking for anything moving via road or rail.  Also, there are two new points further West where ISW shows Ukraine having crossed in to Russia. One looks more or less like a move to cut off that little piece of Russia that extended West over the river, making the river the defacto border.  The other incursion looks more like another attack, but maybe Russia has been pulling people off that part of the border and sort of left things open for the taking.

[GK3]

https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1824453307760357399

Ukraine may be slowing down with their deeper recon, but they are mopping up and consolidating, and isolating Russian forces. This could be another big chunk.

The map in this post suggests that Ukraine is trying to seize the entire valley to the south and west of Snagost (which is as far west as ISW currently marks the Kursk offiensive).  I'm not sure I would call that "mopping up" because it would mark a pretty dramatic increase in the scope of the Kursk offensive.  Nevertheless, if feasible, seizing that land would help with straightening the bulges along the border and provide the Ukrainians with natural defenses to help them secure the land they've seized.

The Ukrainians have indicated by dropping one and at least damaging another bridge that they do not intend to cross that river on offense anytime soon. It is impossible to know if they are doing this to prevent the Russians from easily reinforcing via these bridges or if Ukraine intends to occupy the area all the way up to the river. My supposition is that Ukraine dropped the bridges because it is a good idea either way. They will take what they can, whatever it is. The entire area becomes the "upper limit".

If I'm interpreting the new correctly, it looks like Ukraine took out that second bridge:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/18/europe/ze...index.html

If we believe the ISW map, then Ukraine also at least should have fire control of the railway that comes from the north into the southwestern part of Kursk (to the east of Snogast).  

I wonder whether Russia is going to find it difficult to re-supply troops in that part of Kursk now, or whether the pro-Ukraine media is just trying to give that impression.

It can't be easy as Ukraine has now cut a big section of that line and are close to it further North and probably have recon drones all over the place checking for anything moving via road or rail.  Also, there are two new points further West where ISW shows Ukraine having crossed in to Russia. One looks more or less like a move to cut off that little piece of Russia that extended West over the river, making the river the defacto border.  The other incursion looks more like another attack, but maybe Russia has been pulling people off that part of the border and sort of left things open for the taking.

[Bruce Wang]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and its people should do what they collectively decide, but I can’t imagine the prospect of becoming another version of Belarus would be that appealing.

BC

It isn't, but it depends on what your options are. If you can't be a "client state" of the west, your only options are to go it alone or join Russia. The latter can look pretty good, especially if you are going to be (or hope to be) one of the "nomenklatura"/"siloviki". Belarus made that choice because the vast, vast majority of their trade was with Russia. They tried going it alone and it became immediately obvious that wasn't viable. Ukraine almost went that way too. It was a near thing.  Russia is Ukarine's most obvious trading partner. If the "rump" Ukraine can't build a trade relationship with the EU that is pretty favorable to Ukraine they may be forced to go hat in hand to Moscow. Keep in mind Ukraine doesn't get back it's ports on the Sea of Azov and Crimea. They also don't get back that part of their railroad network. All they will have is Odessa, which isn't all that great to begin with. On their border they have an economically (if not politically) hostile Hungary and Slovakia. Poland can't absorb all Ukraine's agricultural output, and Romania is dirt poor.  Not a nice situation for a severely damaged country that needs money.

Was Finlandization ever (or still) a possibility for Ukraine?

[Bruce Wang]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation and its people should do what they collectively decide, but I can’t imagine the prospect of becoming another version of Belarus would be that appealing.

BC

It isn't, but it depends on what your options are. If you can't be a "client state" of the west, your only options are to go it alone or join Russia. The latter can look pretty good, especially if you are going to be (or hope to be) one of the "nomenklatura"/"siloviki". Belarus made that choice because the vast, vast majority of their trade was with Russia. They tried going it alone and it became immediately obvious that wasn't viable. Ukraine almost went that way too. It was a near thing.  Russia is Ukarine's most obvious trading partner. If the "rump" Ukraine can't build a trade relationship with the EU that is pretty favorable to Ukraine they may be forced to go hat in hand to Moscow. Keep in mind Ukraine doesn't get back it's ports on the Sea of Azov and Crimea. They also don't get back that part of their railroad network. All they will have is Odessa, which isn't all that great to begin with. On their border they have an economically (if not politically) hostile Hungary and Slovakia. Poland can't absorb all Ukraine's agricultural output, and Romania is dirt poor.  Not a nice situation for a severely damaged country that needs money.

Was Finlandization ever (or still) a possibility for Ukraine?

[Goose]

Was Finlandization ever (or still) a possibility for Ukraine?

Good question! IMO Finlandization was possible only because of some unique circumstances. First, Russia had achieved a victorious peace against Finland in WWII but only at great cost. The Finns are not Slavs and have a very different culture than Russia. Finland and Russia have fought each other fiercely and often. Russia would never in their wildest dreams think they could "absorb" Finland culturally. Ukrainians and Russians are both East Slavs. They are linguistically and culturally "related" and Russia had more or less successfully absorbed Ukraine. Russia under the Tsar did conqueror several  Muslim states but by 1945 Soviet Russia was aware of the serious difficulties this involved. Therefore Finland was a pill the Soviets didn't want to swallow.

Second, a compliant Finland  with a very long arctic border is much superior to a border with a militantly neutral Sweden. It might have driven Sweden into NATO much earlier. The Soviet Union could rely on NATO not violating a "neutral" (though compliant) Finland's border to attack Russia. On top of that, the vast majority of the Finnish border is in very hostile arctic territory. NATO would not have an easy time attacking that way, if they could do it at all. This allowed Russia to minimally garrison the border. It is unlikely Russia could rely on that in a "neutral" Ukraine. Ukraine is just too natural an approach path to Russia by NATO and visa-versa. It would be involved in such a war either way. Therefore leaving it as "neutral" (let alone a NATO state) is regarded as an existential danger by Russia.

Third, Finland was a great conduit for the Soviet Union to import and export high technology items it could not do directly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektronorgtechnica touches on the issue but talks about video games much more than the other very serious games played between Russia and Finland. This trade obviously did not exist in 1945, but it definitely grew rapidly over the years. Enough said. When Ukraine split from the Russian Federation few such import/export restrictions existed, so that path was not open to Ukraine.

For these reasons IMO "Finlandization" was not and will not be an option in Ukraine

[Goose]

Was Finlandization ever (or still) a possibility for Ukraine?

Good question! IMO Finlandization was possible only because of some unique circumstances. First, Russia had achieved a victorious peace against Finland in WWII but only at great cost. The Finns are not Slavs and have a very different culture than Russia. Finland and Russia have fought each other fiercely and often. Russia would never in their wildest dreams think they could "absorb" Finland culturally. Ukrainians and Russians are both East Slavs. They are linguistically and culturally "related" and Russia had more or less successfully absorbed Ukraine. Russia under the Tsar did conqueror several  Muslim states but by 1945 Soviet Russia was aware of the serious difficulties this involved. Therefore Finland was a pill the Soviets didn't want to swallow.

Second, a compliant Finland  with a very long arctic border is much superior to a border with a militantly neutral Sweden. It might have driven Sweden into NATO much earlier. The Soviet Union could rely on NATO not violating a "neutral" (though compliant) Finland's border to attack Russia. On top of that, the vast majority of the Finnish border is in very hostile arctic territory. NATO would not have an easy time attacking that way, if they could do it at all. This allowed Russia to minimally garrison the border. It is unlikely Russia could rely on that in a "neutral" Ukraine. Ukraine is just too natural an approach path to Russia by NATO and visa-versa. It would be involved in such a war either way. Therefore leaving it as "neutral" (let alone a NATO state) is regarded as an existential danger by Russia.

Third, Finland was a great conduit for the Soviet Union to import and export high technology items it could not do directly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektronorgtechnica touches on the issue but talks about video games much more than the other very serious games played between Russia and Finland. This trade obviously did not exist in 1945, but it definitely grew rapidly over the years. Enough said. When Ukraine split from the Russian Federation few such import/export restrictions existed, so that path was not open to Ukraine.

For these reasons IMO "Finlandization" was not and will not be an option in Ukraine

[fullmetal]

Agreed.  Ukraine is also able to claim the ancestral capital (Kiev) of the first East Slavic state (Kievan Rus').  Revanchist Russia would love to actually reclaim all of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

[fullmetal]

Agreed.  Ukraine is also able to claim the ancestral capital (Kiev) of the first East Slavic state (Kievan Rus').  Revanchist Russia would love to actually reclaim all of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

[Mick]

Agreed.  Ukraine is also able to claim the ancestral capital (Kiev) of the first East Slavic state (Kievan Rus').  Revanchist Russia would love to actually reclaim all of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

They also want Antarctica. And Alaska. And Fort Ross, for that matter...at least Oleg Matveychev does. And apparently, seabed territory off the coast of Alaska...
Does Russia Want Alaska Back?
Oleg Matveychev
Russian objection to U.S. territorial claims off Alaska complicates maritime relationship - Alaska Public Media

[Mick]

Agreed.  Ukraine is also able to claim the ancestral capital (Kiev) of the first East Slavic state (Kievan Rus').  Revanchist Russia would love to actually reclaim all of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27

They also want Antarctica. And Alaska. And Fort Ross, for that matter...at least Oleg Matveychev does. And apparently, seabed territory off the coast of Alaska...
Does Russia Want Alaska Back?
Oleg Matveychev
Russian objection to U.S. territorial claims off Alaska complicates maritime relationship - Alaska Public Media

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-rus...37775.html

This is a very "interesting" situation. If Ukraine can capture a significant portion of the 2-3K Russians that will make a statement, especially if many of them are recent draftees. To some degree that will shake the Russian public even more than killing them would. Russia seldom reports combat deaths if it can avoid it. Everybody is listed as MIA. Prisoners OTOH are reported by the Red Cross and are often allowed to "call home".

IMO the more important consideration would be the contrast with Ukraine's behavior around Kherson City. There Ukraine allowed a very large number of Russians to cross the river basically unmolested. It seemed Ukraine wanted them gone more than they wanted to strike a blow against Russia. Behaving differently in this case would indicate an improved understand of the war.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-rus...37775.html

This is a very "interesting" situation. If Ukraine can capture a significant portion of the 2-3K Russians that will make a statement, especially if many of them are recent draftees. To some degree that will shake the Russian public even more than killing them would. Russia seldom reports combat deaths if it can avoid it. Everybody is listed as MIA. Prisoners OTOH are reported by the Red Cross and are often allowed to "call home".

IMO the more important consideration would be the contrast with Ukraine's behavior around Kherson City. There Ukraine allowed a very large number of Russians to cross the river basically unmolested. It seemed Ukraine wanted them gone more than they wanted to strike a blow against Russia. Behaving differently in this case would indicate an improved understand of the war.

[TrumpCard]

I have my doubts that Russian troops are trapped. The maps all show plenty of escape routes for individuals on foot. It’s just that Ukraine blew the bridges needed to get the equipment out with the troops. Of course Ukraine would be thrilled to get 2k POWs, but just capturing the land and equipment still would be nice.

[TrumpCard]

I have my doubts that Russian troops are trapped. The maps all show plenty of escape routes for individuals on foot. It’s just that Ukraine blew the bridges needed to get the equipment out with the troops. Of course Ukraine would be thrilled to get 2k POWs, but just capturing the land and equipment still would be nice.