Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[Mike S.]

Luckily so far they have given up Chernobyl without a fight. Fighting in that part might be dangerous as it could stir up radioactive sediments and dust or worse bombing could destroy the fuel containers stored etc which could release a fallout, I think both Russian and Ukrainian military does not want this scenario as that would affect them

Recently some sources have started to question whether Ukraine giving up the last of their nuclear weapons in 1996 was really a winning move. But to my eye it looks like this was the last of their nuclear weapons. What would have happened had they loaded up those sites with explosives and blown them up to match the Parthenon? If the Ukrainians were willing to pay the cost of deterrence, their country (and Belarus also) might have been much less desirable territories for conquest. That idea may seem extreme, but any nuclear armed country including the U.S. and Russia has made a large financial commitment to do much more!

 

[artis]

Recently some sources have started to question whether Ukraine giving up the last of their nuclear weapons in 1996 was really a winning move. But to my eye it looks like this was the last of their nuclear weapons. What would have happened had they loaded up those sites with explosives and blown them up to match the Parthenon? If the Ukrainians were willing to pay the cost of deterrence, their country (and Belarus also) might have been much less desirable territories for conquest. That idea may seem extreme, but any nuclear armed country including the U.S. and Russia has made a large financial commitment to do much more!

I'm not sure I understand what you just wrote or meant? Do you mean Ukraine loading up Chernobyl with explosives and blowing it up to create a kind of "dirty nuclear weapon"?
I think that would be a really dumb idea that not even Russian/Ukrainian troops would want to consider.

Well it seems the border with Russia is still fluid.

The same way peace in middle east is "fluid", I hope not to offend anyone but there simply are some unwritten rules known to be true by almost anyone.
There are certain parts of the world where due to multiple complex and interrelated issues matters like "lasting peace" or "democracy" really never become a reality.

Russia is a nuclear bomb with a timer, always has been always will be, I recall this was told to me by an ethnic Russian , we were "comrades" back in University both studied political science.
He was a really smart guy, (alot of Russians are in fact) he was also very honest with me, he agreed that there is something about Russian sentiment that always creates political turmoil in the long term.
If you don't believe me, check Russian history, literally every form of government has been tried out there in some form for some time at some point, everything from theocracy to autocracy to monarchy to pure tyranny to socialism to anarchy at some point and pure chaos in between. Right now it's a weird mix of capitalist driven, autocracy with the facade of a democracy and some minor democratic form (basic elections etc) (although for those that don't know back in the USSR they also held elections, there was one ballot and one party on it...but they were free ), divided between ideological communist fanboys, oligarchs of great wealth and rationally thinking moderates who are patriots but share no illusions for the bloody and imperial past nor it's ideology.
I hope the latter ones prevail, otherwise "Houston we have a problem"

 

[fresh_42]

Russia is a nuclear bomb with a timer, always has been always will be, I recall this was told to me by an ethnic Russian , we were "comrades" back in University both studied political science.
He was a really smart guy, (alot of Russians are in fact) he was also very honest with me, he agreed that there is something about Russian sentiment that always creates political turmoil in the long term.
If you don't believe me, check Russian history, literally every form of government has been tried out there in some form for some time at some point, everything from theocracy to autocracy to monarchy to pure tyranny to socialism to anarchy at some point and pure chaos in between.

I think this is a bit too much simplification. It is probably harder for a nation to overcome the mental structure established over nearly a hundred years of socialism than it is for people who weren't exposed for as long, or to even understand for people who never have been exposed.

Single statements of some Russians don't mean a lot. One Russian once told me that Hitler's occupation wasn't that bad after all, because crime rates were low. Does this mean anything? It is as it is in any nation: people just want to get along and are mostly friendly and nice. Politics is something different. I am pretty sure that a poll four weeks ago asking "Should we declare war on Ukraine?" would have resulted in "Hell, no!".

However, there is still the dream of being a superpower in the heads, or the grief about its loss. I mean, look at the UK. In my opinion, was the lost empire - to some extent subconsciously - the primary motivation for the Brexit: "Who is the EU to tell us what to do?" (@PeroK: just my opinion.) I think that political decisions, e.g. about the expansion of NATO, have to be seen in this light.

 

[phinds]

Even in China, the Communist Party and the president sh*t their pants when certain chinese companies raise their voices...

SERIOUSLY ? You really have that exactly backwards

 

[artis]

Even in China, the Communist Party and the president sh*t their pants when certain chinese companies raise their voices...

In China corporations are the party and the party are the corporations, they merge into one giant octopus
This was the same in the USSR, all major factories were not only government controlled but had government spies within them. In modern China the factories are not entirely government owned but they do have a government "blessing" on top.

 

[artis]

I think this is a bit too much simplification. It is probably harder for a nation to overcome the mental structure established over nearly a hundred years of socialism than it is for people who weren't exposed for as long, or to even understand for people who never have been exposed.

Single statements of some Russians don't mean a lot. One Russian once told me that Hitler's occupation wasn't that bad after all, because crime rates were low. Does this mean anything? It is as it is in any nation: people just want to get along and are mostly friendly and nice. Politics is something different. I am pretty sure that a poll four weeks ago asking "Should we declare war on Ukraine?" would have resulted in "Hell, no!".

However, there is still the dream of being a superpower in the heads, or the grief about its loss. I mean, look at the UK. In my opinion, was the lost empire - to some extent subconsciously - the primary motivation for the Brexit: "Who is the EU to tell us what to do?" (@PeroK: just my opinion.) I think that political decisions, e.g. about the expansion of NATO, have to be seen in this light.

I agree it is simplification but based on reality, after all squeezing thousands of years of history of a whole continent in a post is impossible. All summaries have some drawbacks.

 

[fresh_42]

"What is taken by force can only be kept by force." (Mahatma Gandhi)

 

[artis]

"What is taken by force can only be kept by force." (Mahatma Gandhi)

True but if the "taker" has a lot of force, he can essentially keep whatever he took indefinitely...
Ancient Rome conquered Greece and Greece was then for couple of hundred years under Roman rule, after Roman empire fell Greece was never the same as it was before.

It's somewhat like taking hostages, sure they may be set free some point afterwards, but the damage done will linger for the rest of their lives.

 

[russ_watters]

Before I give you insights on what is going on (I'm from Baltics) I just want to clear out this one but very popular misconception that is mostly in the west, @russ_watters please don't be upset about this, it was not the US that defeated the USSR , the USSR defeated itself , it simply died because the hard core communists refused to change the country to a more capitalistic system, meanwhile people living in the USSR began to think differently you know generations change etc) and there was a growing anger from within and a will to change things. Then in the late 80's Gorbahcev tried to implement the changes that the people were asking for "perestroika policy" (perestroika - a Russian word for rebuilding, a new unfinished building)...

It is also somewhat personal to me as my father was standing there.
Then came the troubling events of 1991, a year before on 1990, we declared our independence from the USSR , but physically we still had Red army forces here and nuclear bombs etc.

Basically the reason the USSR fell began some time before due to mainly social unrest and the economy that wasn't working as people wished.

I don't mean to minimize the people in the Soviet Union who ultimately made/were the collapse. The most difficult and important part of a revolution is the revolution. But this all happened as soon as Gorbachev loosened the USSR's grip (Glasnost and Perestroika were adopted in 1986). He loosened his grip because of the economic problems associated with communism and in particular the USSR's relationship with the West/US. The cold war related economic problems were the fertile ground, and the loosening of the restrictions was the seeds. In his words, when he stepped down:
"We’re now living in a new world. An end has been put to the Cold War and to the arms race, as well as to the mad militarization of the country, which has crippled our economy, public attitudes and morals."
https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/fall-of-soviet-union

 

[WWGD]

I was under the illusion, hope, that Russia would slowly develop the needed institutions to the point these would be strong-enough to allow for more of a conventional , healthy, democracy. That it was a matter of time and a bit of luck. So much for that.

 

[russ_watters]

A journalist here put it that way: "I and all my friends couldn't actually believe he would do it. We got used to the fact that politicians meanwhile negotiate like we discuss the import of tomatoes or bananas from the Netherlands."

Thirty years is quite some time and humans tend to forget the bad things...

I guess, Putin simply didn't make this development.

The reaction from 'West' feels rather disappointing so far. This will not be stopped with talk only. I thought Russia would be out of SWIFT, and an official offer about fast NATO membership delivered to every country around Russian borders by now.

Agreed, I am very disappointed in our preparation and response. Yes, Putin never got the memo that the USSR was dead and the cold war over. But I thought we all knew that a decade ago? I guess there's a difference between knowing and believing and doing something about it. We've finally achieved stage 2.

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

A whole lot to say:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610397193/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The ascension of Vladimir Putin-a former lieutenant colonel of the KGB-to the presidency of Russia in 1999 was a strong signal that the country was headed away from democracy. Yet in the intervening years-as America and the world's other leading powers have continued to appease him-Putin has grown not only into a dictator but an international threat. With his vast resources and nuclear arsenal, Putin is at the center of a worldwide assault on political liberty and the modern world order.

 

[WWGD]

How long could Russia occupy Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainians ( my assessment is that a majority disapprove)? Specially with the upcoming sanctions.

 

[fresh_42]

How long could Russia occupy Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainians ( my assessment is that a majority disapprove)? Specially with the upcoming sanctions.

Interesting question. Ukraine started to arm civilians and men are requested (forbidden?) not to leave the country. The Ukrainian ambassador in Germany reported some impressive figures about Russian losses already on TV. He spoke of 2,800 dead Russian soldiers and dozens of destroyed vehicles of all kinds. If he was right, then this war will be not as smooth as Putin might have thought it will.

 

[WWGD]

Interesting question. Ukraine started to arm civilians and men are requested (forbidden?) not to leave the country. The Ukrainian ambassador in Germany reported some impressive figures about Russian losses already on TV. He spoke of 2,800 dead Russian soldiers and dozens of destroyed vehicles of all kinds. If he was right, then this war will be not as smooth as Putin might have thought it will.

I've read Russian weapon performance has been subpar , so far. And there have been large antiwsr demonstrations in Moscow, so even at home, support for him, the war is suspect.

 

[artis]

Interesting question. Ukraine started to arm civilians and men are requested (forbidden?) not to leave the country. The Ukrainian ambassador in Germany reported some impressive figures about Russian losses already on TV. He spoke of 2,800 dead Russian soldiers and dozens of destroyed vehicles of all kinds. If he was right, then this war will be not as smooth as Putin might have thought it will.

I would be cautious myself to as of yet speculate on the outcomes in terms of numbers, both sides are known to lie for different reasons, Ukrainians have to keep their spirits up they too would have a reason to overestimate.
I am somewhat in the dark as to why major news channels have very little actual footage. I am getting half my info from those I know there on ground the other half from local news.

So far I can definitely say there have been instances of Ukrainian opposition carrying out some successful attacks and counterattacks. A bunch of guys used the chance and got onto a slow moving tank or armored vehicle and dropped a gasoline filled molotov inside (the hatch wasnt properly closed), then shot the escaping crew to death, I have a video of that but it's so graphic I think I will refrain from posting it here.

 

[PeroK]

I've read Russian weapon performance has been subpar , so far. And there have been large antiwsr demonstrations in Moscow, so even at home, support for him, the war is suspect.

That's why I honestly believe if the West could accept an economic sacrifice and pile the pressure on, this invasion could fail. If his backers are seeing their fortunes at risk, the army is not having it all its own way in Ukraine and there are protests at home. Putin cannot be invincible.

I must confess I fear the EU in particular has no backbone; no stomach for a fight. Donald Tusk seems to agree.

 

[fresh_42]

I would be cautious myself to as of yet speculate on the outcomes in terms of numbers

I do not speculate. I quoted the Ukrainian ambassador.

 

[Mike S.]

Their roads aren't blocked, their bridges haven't been blown up.

In recognition of Skakun Vitaliy, I should note this impression of mine was in error, due to my lack of information. See https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress .

 

[artis]

I do not speculate. I quoted the Ukrainian ambassador

I did not mean that in the usual context just meant to say that at this point it's he said she said.

I don't mean to minimize the people in the Soviet Union who ultimately made/were the collapse. The most difficult and important part of a revolution is the revolution. But this all happened as soon as Gorbachev loosened the USSR's grip (Glasnost and Perestroika were adopted in 1986). He loosened his grip because of the economic problems associated with communism and in particular the USSR's relationship with the West/US. The cold war related economic problems were the fertile ground, and the loosening of the restrictions was the seeds. In his words, when he stepped down:
"We’re now living in a new world. An end has been put to the Cold War and to the arms race, as well as to the mad militarization of the country, which has crippled our economy, public attitudes and morals."
https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/fall-of-soviet-union

Yes true but it's in fact a much slower and longer process, somewhat like a cancer, those changes took about 2 decades to come, with slow pivots here and there. I can understand Gorbachev somewhat taking the victory of defeating communism onto himself and the Americans feeling like they were the ones pulling the strings but in all honesty it was just the system itself, it was like a bomb it had to go off at some point, either with WW3 like back in the Cuban missile crisis or with slow agonizing economic change that eventually pitted the hardline "bolsheviks" aka the "old guard" VS the newer more rational people.
This is I think why China survived, they saw the "writing on the wall" and understood that you cannot simply murder millions and pile them up in a gulag like both had done before, so they did what is known to work - they gave people more money through accepting capitalism to an extent.

Truth be told if you asked someone here or outside in say 1987 whether the USSR will break apart in an almost miraculously peaceful way just 4 years on, people would tell you you are nuts, even experts did not believe this, apart from some who advocated such position long ago.
Here is an interesting summary
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictions_of_the_collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union

Large empires especially ones that are ethnically diverse (arguably all of them) are very tough from an outside attack perspective but very fragile from within, in terms of socioeconomic factors, it's like thick glass with internal stresses, you might not brake it with a bullet but release that stress and it will shatter.
USSR had a major stress factor and that was the stubborn ideology to try to make everybody equal with planned economy. China went smarter and somewhat minimized this stress factor by allowing huge capital to flow in and kind of "disrespecting" the old Mao Zedong and his Karl Marx textbook on economy.

In a symposium launched to review Michel Garder's French book: L'Agonie du Regime en Russie Sovietique (The Death Struggle of the Regime in Soviet Russia), which also predicted the collapse of the USSR, Yale Professor Frederick C. Barghoorn dismissed Garder's book as "the latest in a long line of apocalyptic predictions of the collapse of communism." He warns that "great revolutions are most infrequent and that successful political systems are tenacious and adaptive." In addition, the reviewer of the book, Michael Tatu, disapproved of the "apocalyptic character" of such a forecast and is almost apologetic for treating it seriously

Now looking back one could say he was partly right, some of those systems are adaptive some are not, the USSR did not adapt, China did, Putin is now doing the same , question is how much can he adapt and still keep his way before he unleashes some deadly inside forces that will tear him apart.

Putin's personal villa , one of many, more like a palace, was placed on youtube some time ago by some Russian activists. It's not like Russians are that easy with someone stealing from them, it's just a question of how much one has to anger and how large of a crowd before the pendulum swings.Ironically enough US faces some of the same inner stability problems but for different reasons, it seems to me US could be the first major empire/country in history to risk stability/existential issues for reasons that are effectively "minority issues" aka issues that concern a small minority of population but get amplified with time within a larger population group.
My personal opinion is that this fact just goes to show how well off on average the US people have been for the past say 50 years (living standard, freedom etc all things considered) as compared to the rest of the world with maybe few exceptions like Switzerland or Norway, but those are totally different cases, small homogeneous societies.
Because minority issues only become a "thing" in big countries if the majority of the population has enough free time on their hands to actually care about all those issues VS being hard at work to fight for their own matters.

Anyway pardon for my not entirely on topic post, I hope someone finds it interesting.

 

[artis]

And without diving too deep into politics (the forbidden fruit of the garden of Physics forums)
The folks saying that it's just Putin that has gone "off the rails" , well did you know (I forgot to mention earlier)
that the Russian parliament actually gave Putin the "A ok" green light to use the military outside of Russia ?

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/russia-moves-cement-ties-ukraines-rebels-83036990

Members of Russia's upper house, the Federation Council, voted unanimously to allow Putin to use military force outside the country

Putin also said this

Putin said the crisis could be resolved if Kyiv recognizes Russia's sovereignty over Crimea, the Black Sea peninsula that Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014, renounces its bid to join NATO and partially demilitarizes. The West has decried the annexation of Crimea as a violation of international law and has previously flatly rejected permanently barring Ukraine from NATO.

Which I think is not a flat out lie since he first and foremost wants Ukraine to be a buffer zone against the west, he saw this change with the ousting of his loyal government back in 2014.

This is somewhat similar as with USA and Cuba, only Ukraine is much closer to Russia than Cuba is to US but we cannot say US did not try to overthrow the communists in Cuba, just unsuccessfully

Before the Castro Soviet backed Cuban revolution Cuba also enjoyed large US influence being a "buffer zone" , all large countries have these zones, the same with China and their dispute over the territories close to them.
In the end of the day it is the question of geopolitical strategy VS ordinary people wanting democracy and prosperity irrespective of where they live, be it Taiwan, Ukraine or Cuba

 

[fresh_42]

Which I think is not a flat out lie since he first and foremost wants Ukraine to be a buffer zone against the west, he saw this change with the ousting of his loyal government back in 2014.

This is exactly the old way of thinking. You cannot demand from a sovereign country what to do and what not to do. Ukraine isn't the buffer for anyone. What about the buffer between Königsberg and Petersburg?

P.S.: I am under the impression these days that Ukraine had a first-class reason to seek protection by NATO.

 

[artis]

This is exactly the old way of thinking. You cannot demand from a sovereign country what to do and what not to do. Ukraine isn't the buffer for anyone. What about the buffer between Königsberg and Petersburg?

I agree personally, but I hope your not taking any of this personally because how could I know what the worlds richest and most powerful autocrat thinks, I can only guess based on knowledge and that's what I do.

All I see is that no big country has yet to give up this stance on having buffer zones, not US, not China, not Russia. To prove this, one just has to ask a simple question to one's self, what would US do if Mexico decided to join a Russian coalition of states (there actually exists one,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States) ? On top of that add the possibility of Mexico considering buying Russian military gear. Something like Mig 35 and so on... I doubt that would go over well.

But please I wish we don't get emotional over this, I'm just stating facts and expressing my own opinion but when I do so I always try to warn beforehand.

Given my geographical location I would much rather prefer to jump in a DeLorean and travel at 88 miles per hour to somewhere else...
But I only have a LADA and it goes just half that speed...

 

[fresh_42]

All I see is that no big country has yet to give up this stance on having buffer zones, not US, not China, not Russia.

I'm afraid this is correct. Not right, but correct. Sigh.

 

[artis]

A side note , I think the famous Beatles song "Back in the USSR" has a totally different meaning in Ukraine now... and not in a good way
especially given the song has chorus lyrics that go like

I'm back in the U.S.S.R.
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the U.S.S.R. (Yeah!)

 

[fresh_42]

I'm not the only one who draws the parallels!

 

[Jarvis323]

"UNICEF is seeking US$66.4 million to provide access to basic services including water and sanitation, immunization and health care, schooling and learning, psychosocial support, and emergency cash assistance for up to 7.5 million children inside Ukraine.

"We will be working with UNHCR and other UN agencies in the coming days for a Flash Appeal for the surrounding countries and we have activated what we call the ‘Blue Dots’ which we used during the refugee and migrant crisis in Europe during 2015-2016, providing essential services en route where families and children have been evacuated in surrounding countries.

"I know that as we rush, and my colleagues will probably speak to this, to tally the civilian casualties, including among children, we clearly have to address the trauma of the living.

"So we count on the joint efforts of the entire UN family to support this response."

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-geneva-palais-briefing-note-situation-children-ukraine

 

[256bits]

Before the Castro Soviet backed Cuban revolution

Not sure what you meant by that, but the overthrow of Baptista was not of Soviet origins.

 

[Jarvis323]

This video was insightful, in terms of context.

 

[BWV]

The USSR after Stalin was run by a small elite that had lived through the most devastating war in human history whereas Putin is a lone autocrat who cares for nothing but his own power, which makes his control of a nuclear arsenal much more dangerous. Seems the best outcome would be for Russia to get bogged down in a bloody counterinsurgency that erodes his support among the military and intelligence agencies. Tsars generally did not survive losing wars

 

[DennisN]

This discussion has already started now in Sweden and Finland.

The leader of one of the parties in Sweden has voiced the opinion:
"Lööf: Sweden should join Nato now" (SVT) (my title translation, the article is in Swedish only)

Our current Swedish prime minister is however careful with her words and says that "not being in an alliance has served us well" and "in this moment it is not wise to do anything" (she means with regards to a membership in Nato). (source: Expressen, a Swedish newspaper, in Swedish only)

I just read a news article from The Guardian, and was a bit staggered by reading this:

...

Tremors from the invasion continued to spread around the world on Friday, demonstrating the potential for the already disastrous conflict to spill over Ukraine’s borders.

Nato activated its rapid response force which had been established as a contingency in the event of a serious threat on the alliance’s flank.

The Kremlin also issued a direct threat to Finland and Sweden, which have been openly contemplating Nato membership as a result of the invasion.

“Their accession to Nato can have detrimental consequences … and face military and political consequences,” the foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said.

...
(my bolding)

Maybe Russia sees us as a buffer state too.
Well, I can assure you, Sweden does not consider itself to be a "buffer state".

Source: Russian forces tighten hold on Kyiv in attempt to topple government (The Guardian, 25 February 2022)

 

[hutchphd]

Before the Castro Soviet backed Cuban revolution Cuba also enjoyed large US influence being a "buffer zone"

But please I wish we don't get emotional over this, I'm just stating facts and expressing my own opinion but when I do so I always try to warn beforehand.

We should be careful with parallels to Cuba here. The Soviets became enmeshed in Cuba in direct response to Eisenhower's blockade in 1960. Nobody in the US was happy about the 1958 revolution because Che Gueverra was an avowed communist and The US certainly had substantial economic interests in Cuba as well as less than clean hands. The root causes of that revolution was Fulgencio Batista and his henchmen, a CIA aided coup in 1952, and lots of murdered Cubans. Those are the unfortunate facts.

I am not drawing any parallels to Putin, who is what he is.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

My prediction: Putin takes more of Ukraine that he wants to keep and negotiates the return of what he doesn't want in exchange for lifting of some sanctions.

A good, prophetic (2015) lecture about the situation:

 

[Astronuc]

I just read a news article from The Guardian, and was a bit staggered by reading this:

I also saw news about Putin's warning to Sweden and Finland.

 

[fresh_42]

I also saw news about Putin's warning to Sweden and Finland.

And he repeated his nuclear threat if that wasn't from yesterday. Definitely F60.0. I do not see that he is less dangerous than who must not be named was. And that one didn't have nuclear bombs.

 

[Astronuc]

A good, prophetic (2015) lecture about the situation:

I think dangling NATO membership for Ukraine in front of Putin for so long was like waving a cape in front of a bull. The US and EU should have kept quiet about it and just done it already.