The Ukraine war thread

[George K]

Putin Halts Nuke Pact With US, Vows to Push War in Ukraine

President Vladimir Putin said Russia will suspend its observation of the New START treaty with the US, dealing a blow to the last accord limiting their nuclear arsenals, as he vowed to press on with his faltering invasion of Ukraine.
Russia is fighting for its “historic lands” in Ukraine and “will fulfill the tasks set step-by-step, carefully and consistently,” Putin told the Russian parliament and top officials in Moscow on Tuesday. Russia won’t be the first to resume testing of nuclear weapons as a result of its suspension of New START, though it will do so in response to any US test, he said.
Russia’s suspension of the treaty is “deeply unfortunate and irresponsible,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Athens. Putin’s decision “makes the world more dangerous” and means the entire infrastructure of arms control has been dismantled, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Brussels, urging Russia to reconsider.
US President Joe Biden extended the nuclear treaty by five years to 2026 as one of his first acts upon taking office in 2021 shortly before it was due to expire, after Putin had pressed his predecessor Donald Trump without success to agree to a deal.

Despite the anticipation, the speech lasting nearly two hours covered mainly Putin’s usual efforts to shift the blame for the conflict to the US and its allies, where he claimed godlessness and pedophilia have become “the norm.” Much of the address also focused on domestic issues, with new benefits offered for veterans and their families, as well as defense workers.
Russia’s suspension of New START means the US could lose access to inspections and monitoring data about the number of deployed Russian nuclear warheads, as well as the land- and sea-based vehicles used to launch them. About 200 inspectors drawn from the Department of Defense, intelligence community and State Department are assigned to carry out verification under the treaty, according to Steven Pifer, the former US ambassador to Ukraine who conducted arms-control negotiations with Russia.
“What the Pentagon values most about the treaty isn’t the numbers, it’s the transparency,” said Pifer, who’s now a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

[Renauda]

@George-K

The treaty itself has already been moribund for some time. Well before last year’s offensive against Ukraine, Russia began obstructing or even refusing verification inspection under the treaty.

Putin is just resorting to his usual bluster and extortion tactics. The fact that his speech focused on domestic issues and avoided altogether an assessment, even falsified, of what is actually happening on the battlefield, indicates he is at least aware that his prestige and authority are more vulnerable now than ever. It boils down to damage control of his desired legacy.

[George K]

@Renauda said in The Ukraine war thread:

his speech focused on domestic issues and avoided altogether an assessment, even falsified, of what is actually happening

I read a similar assessment. Other than the usual "always part of Russia," "Nazis," etc bullshit, there was really nothing he said of any substance.

[Renauda]

@George-K

As my late father would have described, it was two hours of very thin gruel.

[Renauda]

“There is a large group in power who believe that victory is needed and that is all. At the same time, they can't explain what the victory is, except for reaching Kyiv."

But most government officials and top business executives, according to the government source, are interested in a peace agreement as soon as possible.

"The general mood overall is negative, everyone's tired," he said.

Russians react to Putin’s 2 hour harangue:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/21/everyones-tired-acceptance-and-exasperation-in-russian-elite-as-invasion-anniversary-looms-a80289

[Jolly]

Wonder how much you can learn in five weeks?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/1st-class-ukraine-fighters-finishes-advanced-us-training-97292982?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==

[Mik]

35 days? Quite a lot, I should think.

[George K]

US basic training is 10 weeks. I imagine at least half of that is learning "how to soldier."

Yeah, 5 weeks might be OK.

[Renauda]

Whatever it is, 35 days more training, care and attention than any conscripted Russian grunt after a year of national service gets.

[Mik]

It's specific training on the weaponry they will be using and tactics for them. Like Renauda said, far greater than Russian grunts.

[Renauda]

@Mik

It’s safe assume that these Ukrainian troops have already been “blooded” and have thus learned a practical degree of technical and combat savvy.

[Mik]

I should think so.

[George K]

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/21/qa-dr-pavel-felgenhauer-russia-ukraine-war

Some of the comments:
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Al Jazeera spoke to Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian defence analyst who served as a senior research officer in the Soviet Academy of Sciences.

Al Jazeera: Why do you think an escalation is imminent?

Pavel Felgenhauer: We cannot totally predict everything. But I believe that an escalation right now is imminent. An escalation in the fighting; everyone is talking about a Russian offensive. Western military commanders in Brussels are also talking about how the Ukrainians should go on the offensive.

Al Jazeera: Isn’t Russia faring better than expected? Doesn’t the economy seem to be stable even after strict sanctions?

Felgenhauer: Russia, of course right now, has very serious financial problems with a deficit that’s being financed by printing money. It has problems on the battlefield at the same time.

I don’t see how this can continue in the present pattern for a long time. It’s like football, you never know what’s going to happen actually on the battlefield. There’s a well-known saying that “Russia is never a strong as your fear”, as we see during this year, but “Russia is also never as weak as you hope”. So you can’t just write off Russia. The intensity of the fighting is too high for it to be maintained for long.

Al Jazeera: If it is such a drag, why did Russian President Vladimir Putin go to war?

Felgenhauer: There was a military reason — to prevent Western missiles appearing in Ukraine for a direct strike on Moscow.

There was a geopolitical reason — to reunite the Russian people, assuming that Ukrainians are Russian people, and to defy the West and actually undermine Western unity.

Also, to cause friction within the Western alliance and also establish a new multipolar world.

Al Jazeera: So what went wrong for Russia?

Felgenhauer: The Russian military turned out to be not as strong as not only the West believes, but its own leadership believes. It’s not ready for modern warfare.

The Ukrainians are much better, they were better prepared organisationally and in terms of command and control, in terms of command personnel, and then they got better weapons than the Russians.

The Russian military has been isolated for more than 100 years from world tendencies in war-making. They are still living in the world of tanks, believing that if you mass enough, victory falls into your lap.

Al Jazeera: Do you believe that this conflict will come to its end soon?

Felgenhauer: I believe it will end this year.

They tried talks in March, then meetings in Istanbul, which hinted that they’re moving towards some kind of an agreement. But Russia and Ukraine were miles apart.

Ukraine was more or less ready to agree in February 2022. Now Ukrainians say they want more and Russia also says it wants more. So again, two sides are miles apart.

[Mik]

Problematic polarization between Russia and Ukraine notwithstanding, it’s a hopeful assessment.

[Renauda]

@Mik

Check out my link with Stephen Kotkin’s analysis in the Bolton thread. A decidedly more sober assessment.

[Mik]

My concern is what does Putin do if and when his conventional forces are exhausted and no victory in sight.

[Renauda]

@Mik

That might prove to be the opportunity for a position of strength diplomatic solution imposing an armistice on both sides. That is more or less Kotkin’s solution in the link.

[Mik]

Only had time to listen to half of it. He was talking about that when I had to leave. He made great points about it being a war of attrition and that we are not ramping up production. A mistake in my book.

[Renauda]

@Mik

I agree, Kotkin makes a lot of sense regarding it being a war of attrition and just what that means to all parties. You’ll see how he ties everything together later on when he adds China into the mix of his analysis.

[Mik]

Massively ramping up production would be a much bigger message than a trip to Kiev. I’m not dissing the trip, I just think that action would have spoken louder.