There are all kinds of wars fought for all different kinds of reasons. Some, like the American wars in the Middle-East are fought for the national interests of a foreign country - Israel. Others are fought for internal ideological reasons, like the war in Ukraine. The Galician nationalists, even in the 90s, wanted to provoke a war with Russia to forever split the two countries. Peoples have long memories - take the Swedes for example. Swedes today who were not alive to be offended are still mad over wars that were fought centuries ago and take offense at Russians who were not alive to offend them.
The non-war war can only end with more war. The final accounting will come down to how much territory UA will hand to Russia and the decision is not up to UA.
I think it’s more Putin’s insistence on international law and its particulars. He very clearly wants a case where the precedents are all NATO/US actions. Not that the whole thing will ever be tried in court. He’s been very specific throughout so that it’s pretty much citations of UN articles and the aforementioned precedents. Is it helpful? No idea and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s going according to plans or hopes, but other developments make that fact less pressing. The only 54 votes at the UN condemning Russian action (down from 141) is telling. The US and EU impaling themselves on Ukraine is asinine, and there’s no way the kremlin could have or should have predicted that, even accounting for the known idiocy and incompetence in Oceania. So now it makes a certain amount of sense to just keep blowing shit up as Ukraine feeds it to Russian artillery.
De-nazify = destroy nazis; separate captives into: mercs, regular army, draftees, nazis (id'd by insignia, tats, social media, interrogation); tried & treated accordingly
How far to go? = How close to Russia's border do NATO arms reach?
Why not take over all Ukraine? = Who wants Galicia? Novorossiya has the majority Russian people & most valuable parts, from ports to factories, to arable land to rare earth elements.
Victory is how the leader defines it.
Yes, it appears the US is demilitarizing itself, & building a national police force in its place. Consider: 1st purged conservatives, 2nd forced toxic jabs, 3rd pulling arms from training & active forces to send to Ukraine, 4th enabling/allowing advanced weapons to be sold on dark web to terrorists & whoever, 5th bought up huge amounts of small arms & ammo for domestic agencies, 6th hirings additional 87,000 IRS agents "willing to use lethal force"
"even some units in the American army are having their equipment sent over, leaving their own units weaponless" There is a report here that special forces formations are losing certain advanced weaponry in this way ("weaponless" probably overstates the current status; rather, "readiness" is being impaired).
This may be a feature; not a bug. Ever since 24 Navy Seals (special forces) were shot down in Afghanistan in a single incident it has been my hunch that US Rulers find Special Forces units potentially threatening; claims were made that the fix was in this event: the Seals suddenly found their stealth helicopters were unavailable and were in a basic helicopter; claims were made that the Taliban were informed of their flight path.
In any event: " several agendas at work" is key. Always assume: "it's never one thing". At a minimum, the one thing that has been ruled out is a decisive outcome anytime soon. Europe needs at least one winter of impoverishment in order to "defend freedom".
There are a range of logical reasons why the Kremlin calls this an SMO, firstly what is the objective? Denazification & demilitarisation, & securing the Donbass. These are not the traditional objectives of wars of invasion - if we accept that Russia, technically "invaded" Ukraine (which, as it happens, I do not accept & personally do not call it an invasion, but a liberation from a combination of ZOG/Nazis, because Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 as far as I am concerned, after the Maidan coup). The traditional objective of an invasion is the occupation of a country & either its annexation & absorption into the invading state, or the establishment of some kind of protectorate, or series of protectorates from the remainder. Essentially, I think, Russia is first of all avoiding the war terminology to avoid the "invader" & "occupier" terminology, both for legalistic reasons, as well as for posterity & historic collective memory. If we agree that the territory Russia has under its control now, the south east, from Lughansk to Herson, & that this territory will be at some stage incorporated into Russia, then we are talking a liberation - & I think it is very important for the Kremlin, for Putin personally, for this to be seen as a liberation. As with Crimea. As with the Donbass. The issue about the broader enterouge, the government chinovniks & their attitude, well, I refer to Sergei Narshkin. Did anyone take note of his performance when Putin asked him if he is in agreement with the launching of the SMO? Narishkin had no idea what was going on, he said yes, I agree with the incorporation of the Donbass into Russia, & Putin totally humiliated him by correcting him that this is not what the Russian Federation is actually seeking to do - & Narishkin just looked the total imbecile. What does this tell us about the administration? I'm not really sure - anyone who has worked in a profession, especially say, in my case the criminal justice system in a particular Anglo country, it is hard to find competent people. In Russia there is the legacy of the Yeltsin years, a whole load of interest groups that have to be contended with, & then just the matter of getting the right people in to the right posts - I think Putin has overall, done a commendable job, all in all. All things considered. And I suspect that outside of the military, in the presidential administration, not everyone is overly enthusiastic about the SMO. Putin is taking this thing slow, & going carefully. But above all else, the most important thing of all, is the pace of escalation with the West/NATO. I personally believe this to be the most important consideration of all, on a previous post I stated my view that this is why the SMO goes slow, to control the pace of escalation, because this is going to lead to a direct confrontation, sooner or later. When it does, Russian troops will be combat tested & combat ready. In the meantime, Putin can sort out what needs to be sorted out amongst the chinovniki & soloviki.
To name it "war" is to commit Russia to a goal up to and including the destruction of the Ukrainian military, and the capitulation of Ukraine as a state - by 'not' naming it anything other than SMO "Z," Russia frees itself to move in any unorthodox direction it choses. Russia has punched hard - Ukraine can say what it wants to the rest of the world, but at the point of their spear, Ukrainian troops understand that if they're moving backwards, they're not winning. Only victories beget victory.
«the people running this war don’t want the war to be referred to as a war. But why?»
The primary reason is obviously legal: "war" is a crime in RF law, and "war propaganda" is also a crime (see note below).
The RF legal position has been that the DPR and LPR are sovereign states, the ukrainian government have started a war of aggression and ethnic cleansing against them, they are in a mutual defense pact with the RF, and they are currently counter-attacking against ukrainian aggression with the help of a small RF expeditionary force. On a scale much, much smaller than the "police action" by the USA and others in Korea in 1950.
The secondary reason I think is that it is too small an operation to be a "war" between the RF and Ukraine, and V. Putin wants to make it absolutely clear that escalation is possible.
Note: I read an interesting article that an U.N. commitment for member states was to enact laws against "war propaganda":
“Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, obliges states to impose certain restrictions on freedom of speech. ... The final wording of Article 20 states clearly: “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”
In the aftermath of the Covenant, communist countries in many cases enacted suitable provisions in their domestic law. For instance, a Soviet law entitled ‘The Defence of Peace’ stated that ‘war propaganda’ of any sort was a criminal offence. East Germany similarly made propaganda for a war an offence punishable by up to eight years in prison. To this day, many post-communist states retain similar provisions in their law. Moldova’s constitutions, for instance, prohibits incitement to war; Armenia’s constitution bans speech ‘for the purposes of … propaganda for violence and war’; and the criminal codes in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzia, and Latvia similarly ban any ‘advocacy for war’. Some other countries, such as Morocco and Kenya have also enacted legislation to this end. Apart from Germany, however, states in the Western world have not met their obligation under the Covenant.”
Note: I think comment #161 in this page is a good explanation of the RF legal position:
That analysis is not quite correct, as Art. 51 technically does not apply in this situation. However, I do think that it does in fact apply anyway, and further that it is Ukraine that violated Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter with its aggression and war against the LPR and DPR. Accordingly, the so-called "West", along with Ukraine, are the actual parties acting illegally under international law and illegally attacking LPR and DPR, while Russia, LPr and DPR (and Belarus) are acting in accordance with international law. Analysis follows. [...] Accordingly, when Ukraine attacked and shelled DPR and LPR, it violated international law. Accordingly, DPR and LPR had every right to defend themselves. As observed above, Russia had the right to come to their defense.”
«It is little wonder then that the West appears to be acting erratically»
So far the USA have played their cards consistently and skilfully, except perhaps for overestimating the impact of sanctions against a country rich in both fuels and cereals.
«retaking Ukraine is advantageous for Russia as a whole. But, on a factional level, the cost of doing so - sending in the entire army and using the top tier equipment»
The RF are sending in General Winter, a very russian thing to do.
«appears to be a cost that, for one reason or another, the Kremlin isn’t willing to incur.»
Well, let's see what General Winter does to the ukrainian fascist government, if that does not work then perhaps V. Putin will start doing something serious.
I would think that they call it SMO for things that have to do with international law. One must also follow certain protocols in the Duma, so as not to get into trouble later on. Once one plays the war card, consequences may follow that one doesn't intend.
As far as I know, Ukraine has never declared war on Russia either. Why?
I'll be curious to see what happens in the winter. I guess in Feb/March when the SMO started it was pretty cold out but how will Ukrainian supply lines hold up this coming winter? And will Russia put the nat gas squeeze on Europe? And Ukraine itself - is it still getting gas from Russia? Or does it have domestic sources in the west? Kiev ain't Siberia but I guess it's cold enough.
«Others are fought for internal ideological reasons, like the war in Ukraine.»
The recreation of Greater Ruthenia and the expulsions of the malorussians and muscovites does not seem to me very ideological, it is just a grab for power and land.
«The Galician nationalists, even in the 90s, wanted to provoke a war with Russia to forever split the two countries.»
The fascist xenophobe ruthenians are not just in Galicia, they also are a significant part of the population of other western ukrainian (and western belarussian) provinces.
«For the Galician nationalists, the war is supposed to get as many Ukrainian families as possible to swear a blood vendetta against the Russians»
Here I would use the older terms "ruthenians" and "malorussians".
«If the goal was to actually invade Russia-proper or put nukes on the border, it has failed spectacularly.»
Obviously the goal has always been regime change in the Russian Federation, and ideally splitting it; the prize is a chain of DOD/CIA biowarfare labs and based around the chinese borders. It is sad for the russian nationalists, but in the USA view the RF is just a domino towards China.
«If the plan was more modest and was aimed at simply getting thousands of Slavs killed in a campaign of attrition»
The Russian Federation is avoiding a campaign of *people* attrition as much as possible, on both sides: on the Russian Federation side because the number of troops involved is quite small and not so easily replaceable, and on the other side to minimize resentment.
«Actual victory over Russia makes sense on a higher, strategic level.»
Actually it does not: regime change is much more likely after a slow ukrainian defeat to take RF soldier lives as possible, followed by many years of resentful insurgency, Taliban style. The USA could afford to fund 20 years of counter-insurgency in both Iraq and Syria, the USA government calculation is that the RF cannot.
The non-war war can only end with more war. The final accounting will come down to how much territory UA will hand to Russia and the decision is not up to UA.
I think it’s more Putin’s insistence on international law and its particulars. He very clearly wants a case where the precedents are all NATO/US actions. Not that the whole thing will ever be tried in court. He’s been very specific throughout so that it’s pretty much citations of UN articles and the aforementioned precedents. Is it helpful? No idea and maybe not.
I don’t think it’s going according to plans or hopes, but other developments make that fact less pressing. The only 54 votes at the UN condemning Russian action (down from 141) is telling. The US and EU impaling themselves on Ukraine is asinine, and there’s no way the kremlin could have or should have predicted that, even accounting for the known idiocy and incompetence in Oceania. So now it makes a certain amount of sense to just keep blowing shit up as Ukraine feeds it to Russian artillery.
De-militarize = destroy bases, arms warehouses & depots, training centers, fighter planes, copters, drones, artillery, soldiers...
De-nazify = destroy nazis; separate captives into: mercs, regular army, draftees, nazis (id'd by insignia, tats, social media, interrogation); tried & treated accordingly
How far to go? = How close to Russia's border do NATO arms reach?
Why not take over all Ukraine? = Who wants Galicia? Novorossiya has the majority Russian people & most valuable parts, from ports to factories, to arable land to rare earth elements.
Victory is how the leader defines it.
Yes, it appears the US is demilitarizing itself, & building a national police force in its place. Consider: 1st purged conservatives, 2nd forced toxic jabs, 3rd pulling arms from training & active forces to send to Ukraine, 4th enabling/allowing advanced weapons to be sold on dark web to terrorists & whoever, 5th bought up huge amounts of small arms & ammo for domestic agencies, 6th hirings additional 87,000 IRS agents "willing to use lethal force"
"even some units in the American army are having their equipment sent over, leaving their own units weaponless" There is a report here that special forces formations are losing certain advanced weaponry in this way ("weaponless" probably overstates the current status; rather, "readiness" is being impaired).
This may be a feature; not a bug. Ever since 24 Navy Seals (special forces) were shot down in Afghanistan in a single incident it has been my hunch that US Rulers find Special Forces units potentially threatening; claims were made that the fix was in this event: the Seals suddenly found their stealth helicopters were unavailable and were in a basic helicopter; claims were made that the Taliban were informed of their flight path.
In any event: " several agendas at work" is key. Always assume: "it's never one thing". At a minimum, the one thing that has been ruled out is a decisive outcome anytime soon. Europe needs at least one winter of impoverishment in order to "defend freedom".
There are a range of logical reasons why the Kremlin calls this an SMO, firstly what is the objective? Denazification & demilitarisation, & securing the Donbass. These are not the traditional objectives of wars of invasion - if we accept that Russia, technically "invaded" Ukraine (which, as it happens, I do not accept & personally do not call it an invasion, but a liberation from a combination of ZOG/Nazis, because Ukraine ceased to exist in 2014 as far as I am concerned, after the Maidan coup). The traditional objective of an invasion is the occupation of a country & either its annexation & absorption into the invading state, or the establishment of some kind of protectorate, or series of protectorates from the remainder. Essentially, I think, Russia is first of all avoiding the war terminology to avoid the "invader" & "occupier" terminology, both for legalistic reasons, as well as for posterity & historic collective memory. If we agree that the territory Russia has under its control now, the south east, from Lughansk to Herson, & that this territory will be at some stage incorporated into Russia, then we are talking a liberation - & I think it is very important for the Kremlin, for Putin personally, for this to be seen as a liberation. As with Crimea. As with the Donbass. The issue about the broader enterouge, the government chinovniks & their attitude, well, I refer to Sergei Narshkin. Did anyone take note of his performance when Putin asked him if he is in agreement with the launching of the SMO? Narishkin had no idea what was going on, he said yes, I agree with the incorporation of the Donbass into Russia, & Putin totally humiliated him by correcting him that this is not what the Russian Federation is actually seeking to do - & Narishkin just looked the total imbecile. What does this tell us about the administration? I'm not really sure - anyone who has worked in a profession, especially say, in my case the criminal justice system in a particular Anglo country, it is hard to find competent people. In Russia there is the legacy of the Yeltsin years, a whole load of interest groups that have to be contended with, & then just the matter of getting the right people in to the right posts - I think Putin has overall, done a commendable job, all in all. All things considered. And I suspect that outside of the military, in the presidential administration, not everyone is overly enthusiastic about the SMO. Putin is taking this thing slow, & going carefully. But above all else, the most important thing of all, is the pace of escalation with the West/NATO. I personally believe this to be the most important consideration of all, on a previous post I stated my view that this is why the SMO goes slow, to control the pace of escalation, because this is going to lead to a direct confrontation, sooner or later. When it does, Russian troops will be combat tested & combat ready. In the meantime, Putin can sort out what needs to be sorted out amongst the chinovniki & soloviki.
To name it "war" is to commit Russia to a goal up to and including the destruction of the Ukrainian military, and the capitulation of Ukraine as a state - by 'not' naming it anything other than SMO "Z," Russia frees itself to move in any unorthodox direction it choses. Russia has punched hard - Ukraine can say what it wants to the rest of the world, but at the point of their spear, Ukrainian troops understand that if they're moving backwards, they're not winning. Only victories beget victory.
«the people running this war don’t want the war to be referred to as a war. But why?»
The primary reason is obviously legal: "war" is a crime in RF law, and "war propaganda" is also a crime (see note below).
The RF legal position has been that the DPR and LPR are sovereign states, the ukrainian government have started a war of aggression and ethnic cleansing against them, they are in a mutual defense pact with the RF, and they are currently counter-attacking against ukrainian aggression with the help of a small RF expeditionary force. On a scale much, much smaller than the "police action" by the USA and others in Korea in 1950.
The secondary reason I think is that it is too small an operation to be a "war" between the RF and Ukraine, and V. Putin wants to make it absolutely clear that escalation is possible.
Note: I read an interesting article that an U.N. commitment for member states was to enact laws against "war propaganda":
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/war-propaganda/
“Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966, obliges states to impose certain restrictions on freedom of speech. ... The final wording of Article 20 states clearly: “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.”
In the aftermath of the Covenant, communist countries in many cases enacted suitable provisions in their domestic law. For instance, a Soviet law entitled ‘The Defence of Peace’ stated that ‘war propaganda’ of any sort was a criminal offence. East Germany similarly made propaganda for a war an offence punishable by up to eight years in prison. To this day, many post-communist states retain similar provisions in their law. Moldova’s constitutions, for instance, prohibits incitement to war; Armenia’s constitution bans speech ‘for the purposes of … propaganda for violence and war’; and the criminal codes in Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzia, and Latvia similarly ban any ‘advocacy for war’. Some other countries, such as Morocco and Kenya have also enacted legislation to this end. Apart from Germany, however, states in the Western world have not met their obligation under the Covenant.”
Note: I think comment #161 in this page is a good explanation of the RF legal position:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/04/ukraine-doubling-down.html
“Daniel Kovalik: Why Russia's Intervention in Ukraine Is Legal Under International Law
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/04/no_author/daniel-kovalik-why-russias-intervention-in-ukraine-is-legal-under-international-law/”
That analysis is not quite correct, as Art. 51 technically does not apply in this situation. However, I do think that it does in fact apply anyway, and further that it is Ukraine that violated Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter with its aggression and war against the LPR and DPR. Accordingly, the so-called "West", along with Ukraine, are the actual parties acting illegally under international law and illegally attacking LPR and DPR, while Russia, LPr and DPR (and Belarus) are acting in accordance with international law. Analysis follows. [...] Accordingly, when Ukraine attacked and shelled DPR and LPR, it violated international law. Accordingly, DPR and LPR had every right to defend themselves. As observed above, Russia had the right to come to their defense.”
«It is little wonder then that the West appears to be acting erratically»
So far the USA have played their cards consistently and skilfully, except perhaps for overestimating the impact of sanctions against a country rich in both fuels and cereals.
«retaking Ukraine is advantageous for Russia as a whole. But, on a factional level, the cost of doing so - sending in the entire army and using the top tier equipment»
The RF are sending in General Winter, a very russian thing to do.
«appears to be a cost that, for one reason or another, the Kremlin isn’t willing to incur.»
Well, let's see what General Winter does to the ukrainian fascist government, if that does not work then perhaps V. Putin will start doing something serious.
Any idea what the rapping yids are saying?
I would think that they call it SMO for things that have to do with international law. One must also follow certain protocols in the Duma, so as not to get into trouble later on. Once one plays the war card, consequences may follow that one doesn't intend.
As far as I know, Ukraine has never declared war on Russia either. Why?
I'll be curious to see what happens in the winter. I guess in Feb/March when the SMO started it was pretty cold out but how will Ukrainian supply lines hold up this coming winter? And will Russia put the nat gas squeeze on Europe? And Ukraine itself - is it still getting gas from Russia? Or does it have domestic sources in the west? Kiev ain't Siberia but I guess it's cold enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv#Climate
«Others are fought for internal ideological reasons, like the war in Ukraine.»
The recreation of Greater Ruthenia and the expulsions of the malorussians and muscovites does not seem to me very ideological, it is just a grab for power and land.
«The Galician nationalists, even in the 90s, wanted to provoke a war with Russia to forever split the two countries.»
The fascist xenophobe ruthenians are not just in Galicia, they also are a significant part of the population of other western ukrainian (and western belarussian) provinces.
«For the Galician nationalists, the war is supposed to get as many Ukrainian families as possible to swear a blood vendetta against the Russians»
Here I would use the older terms "ruthenians" and "malorussians".
«If the goal was to actually invade Russia-proper or put nukes on the border, it has failed spectacularly.»
Obviously the goal has always been regime change in the Russian Federation, and ideally splitting it; the prize is a chain of DOD/CIA biowarfare labs and based around the chinese borders. It is sad for the russian nationalists, but in the USA view the RF is just a domino towards China.
«If the plan was more modest and was aimed at simply getting thousands of Slavs killed in a campaign of attrition»
The Russian Federation is avoiding a campaign of *people* attrition as much as possible, on both sides: on the Russian Federation side because the number of troops involved is quite small and not so easily replaceable, and on the other side to minimize resentment.
«Actual victory over Russia makes sense on a higher, strategic level.»
Actually it does not: regime change is much more likely after a slow ukrainian defeat to take RF soldier lives as possible, followed by many years of resentful insurgency, Taliban style. The USA could afford to fund 20 years of counter-insurgency in both Iraq and Syria, the USA government calculation is that the RF cannot.