> ... if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
Considering some of the calls from those who should know better for no-fly zones over Ukraine, Option (2) is indeed going to be the harder path. All it would take is a humanitarian incident such as the extended siege of a city. The calls for military action would be ferocious. The accusations of weakness would cripple many leaders trying to hold back a military response. The lack of any sense of what nuclear escalation actually means throws yet more fuel on the fire. And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s, if not earlier. Confidence in the US military to solve all problems, foreign and domestic, is alarmingly high.
The easy path is, unfortunately, the one that ends with the unthinkable.
So fortunately these kind of life-and-death decisions are far above my pay grade. My personal skin in the game is roughly: live in San Diego. So my opinion and five bucks gets you a latte.
There might come a point where a cautious, politically-acceptable, consensus-driven approach actually increases the risk that the big game starts.
When the stakes are this high, if there is a realistic path to de-escalation that has to be the goal.
But there may or may not be a realistic path to de-escalating the situation.
Money may be a lever: 2T+ stimulus packages are becoming the norm in the US. That’s significantly more than the GDP of the RF. If a ton of aid gets the world to a better place, that’s most likely way EV+. Russian sovereign debt it yielding 20%+, maybe money can help.
But if the internal dynamics of Putin’s situation make it impossible for him to back down? It’s probably better to do something decisive than to wait for the wrong sanction or just ambient pressure to kick off the big one anyways.
> the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s
Wait so Russia is struggling to even take Kyiv and you’re implying that they are an equal foe to the highest spend armed forces in the world? Allied with the countries that constitute 75%+ of global wealth?
You don't seem to have a good understanding of the difference between the kind of war Russia is waging on Ukraine right now and an all-out war with all options on the table. The two are not comparable.
Yeah the kind of war Russia is fighting right now is already a snipe hunt because no modern nation has occupied an unwilling people since the fall of the Raj. The US’s involvement is more a function of time to Russian failure.
I think you’re the one who doesn’t understand the nuance of war.
That’s the thing. A big part of Ukraine’s citizens are willing. Crimea and the two breakaway republics are for sure.
The other issues are that Russians view Ukraine as their ancestral homeland[1], every major invasion of Russia has gone through it, and they view Ukraine in NATO as an existential threat.
On the other hand if Russia wins the only real consequence for the USA and EU is basically the status quo.
There is no way Russia backs down here and anyone with even a modicum of historical education knows it.
> A big part of Ukraine’s citizens are willing. Crimea and the two breakaway republics are for sure.
This is over-simplifying it: Crimea has a big divide between the 60% ethnic Russian population and everyone else (e.g. the Tatars know they’re much better off in Ukraine as an ethnic and religious minority), and while the other occupied territories definitely have some supporters of rejoining Russia it’s not clear that this approaches even a plurality — and especially after the invasion, a lot of people will have reconsidered their positions as they see an illegal war featuring indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
At what point in history was Chechnya an internationally recognized free state a la Ukraine?
Sure there was a period of time when Chechnya was a semi-recognized failing state [0], but to say that it was in anyway comparable to Ukraine is disingenuous at best.
Because what evidence do you You have that the majority of Chechnyans supported the non-Russian government?
When they briefly broke away from Russia, they were dominated by warlords. Not exactly a clear indication that there was a popularly supported free government (unlike Ukrainian which has formal elections with broad turnout).
Because what evidence do you You have that the majority of Chechnyans supported the non-Russian government?
When they briefly broke away from Russia, they were dominated by warlords. Not exactly a clear indication that there was a popularly supported free government (unlike Ukrainian which has formal elections with broad turnout).
Maybe apply a critical thinking lens?
I've been seeing the word "propaganda" thrown around a lot lately. It's been bothering me how quickly people stop seeking the full picture when they start using that word. That is a really vulnerable position to place your intelligence and curiosity.
Propaganda: Propaganda is communication that is primarily used to influence an audience and further an agenda which may not be objective and may be selectively presenting facts to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is being presented. - from Wikipedia
Question: How can you determine when an individual is under the influence of propaganda?
Answer: When they stop looking for the truths that either or both sides of a conflict use as the foundation of their propaganda.
>Putin’s propaganda is WILDLY effective.
I'd argue so is the United States, much more so than Putin's. If you compare the evils committed by the US to Putin's, Putin cannot hold a candle to the US. The difference is that Putin bears that burden across multiple decades, while the US changes figure heads every 4-8 years, and with that washes away the stains of the country into the haze of time.
With all that being said, I am not pro-Putin nor pro-US regarding this conflict, and I agree with the article that the best course is for the United States to admit defeat, (and additionally, not in the article) stop expanding eastward (through NATO), and to keep their promise to Russia (which was to stop expanding NATO).
Edit: I'd like to add, the seed of Putin's "fascist/nazi" claim is that in 2014, Ukraine's new government eliminated minority rights (i.e. the Russian minority, which represents less than half of the population). And, the US started funding the neo-Nazi faction (Azov battalion) of the Ukrainian army. A quick duckduckgo search will pull up articles for both of these claims.
Putin is a particular kind of evil; the autocratic, personally liable kind. He murders and jails opposition, which I find more abhorrent than the bureaucratic and societal evils of American power. While American atrocities have equaled autocratic ones, there’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors.
Yet the United States have tortured POWs, arguably worse than murder for the immense suffering that causes both physically and psychologically.
>There’s rarely a single person you can hold accountable for embodying our bad ideas and behaviors.
Which is much more dangerous than being able to place responsibly on a non-amorphous, single person. The US has an extensively long history of interfering in the matters of other countries. You can overthrow and point fingers at one figure head, but you can't overthrow a system, systemic, and systematically unaccountable foreign policy that changes face every 4-8 years.
>I am not pro-Putin nor pro-US regarding this conflict
I wasn't aware that the US was a party to this conflict where Russia invaded a neighbor without cause. Weird thing to hear from an enlightened centrist.
I don't think you've made it as convincingly as you think you have. I might go a step farther and say you haven't made a point at all. You implied the Russian military could beat the US military. How? In what circumstance[s]? Based on what evidence?
>> You implied the Russian military could beat the US military. How?
If it goes nuclear both sides will defeat each other. Neither is known to have any viable defense against nuclear missiles. It seems really odd to have to make that point. It seems even more odd that putin is threatening it.
1812 the US achieved none of its war goals and had its capital burned to the ground. If the British hadn’t had higher priorities in Europe things could have gone much worse. Not like they won in Korea either.
I don't know as much about the European theater but had a few major battles gone differently in the Pacific the war would have, at the very least, ended much differently.
Indeed, if the US had just blockaded and mined the seas around the Japanese home islands and ignored the rest of the Pacific Theater the war would have been over in a year, possibly two. Surrender or starve to death. Those are the joys of not being self-sufficient in food and going to war with an economy more than four times the size of yours.
yeah but could have Japan defeated the US? It's clear they could have won their objectives, but Japan could not have rolled tanks all the way to New York to defeat the US.
Once Japan was at war with the US it had already lost. They’d have been better off invading the British and Dutch colonies and hoping the US wouldn’t get involved.
Russia has not taken on any power it can defeat nor does it have the economy, allies or even approval of it's populace. The neighbours that has been invading lately don't really count for "powers" and it's already struggling as it is.
I'm not convinced this appeal to authority proves there are only two ways out. Beyond escalation or occupation plenty of scenarios look just as plausible. And there's a risk that fixating on only these two suggested outcomes may reinforce them, like a self fulfilling prophecy.
- Z and P after further destruction of Ukraine agree to ceding Crimea and some Eastern Ukraine and promise not to host nukes just to stop further carnage. Russia throws in some funds to rebuild
It's often framed as that, but Ukraine didn't really have nuclear weapons at the dissolution of USSR. There were nuclear weapons located on its territory, but they were all controlled by military units that regarded themselves as answerable to Moscow, not Kyiv. What Ukraine really agreed to was to agree that they didn't own them, and allow them to be physically removed, in exchange for the security guarantee.
In other words, Ukraine "had" nuclear weapons in the same sense that North Dakota does: the bombs were just parked there under someone else's control and authority. The locals were never in the position to use them.
But approaching NATO membership is a huge factor in causing the invasion to happen (not to excuse Putin's aggression and other war crimes, but it is true, this was a foreseeable consequence, and many foresaw it). You can read Russia's public statements and Wikileaks' US diplomatic cables from 2007/2008 giving credit to this position, and the trail of evidence carries all the way to the present and to policy thinkers like Mearsheimer (who I don't agree with at all philosophically, but he's one of the "realists" who is excellent at analyzing where the pressure points lie and what are the degrees of freedom). Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be taken as further evidence that leaning too heavily towards NATO membership is what spurs invasion in the first place.
As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.
Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?
Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.
But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse.
By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve.
Not trying to hijack this thread, but I think that logic doesn't hold, because the US Monroe doctrine is backed up by a lot of "inappropriate" actions. There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda.
And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.
> There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda.
Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time.
> And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen.
Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.
It's hard to militarily inflict a limp on an opponent who may use nukes, without creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. And NATO policy has always been that first-strike on nuclear-armed opponents is always an option. Election debates in the UK have hinged on whether the candidate will commit to first-strike, with staunch establishment criticism if the answer is not a clear "yes". China officially forecloses the idea of any first-strike, and the SU did too in the 80s, but that was reneged on by Russia when it broke up in the 90s. Just in the last 4 years, the US head of state referred to using them, relatively transparently. The point is that it is shockingly common to reserve the nuclear option, and even to highlight it. I am absolutely not saying "therefore it's not that bad" -- quite the opposite, I'm saying that we should be glad that nations seem don't have a knee-jerk reaction to such psychotic statements from their opponents, and we should follow suit. Let cooler heads prevail.
And economic sanctions can be just a slow version of carpet bombing. The figures are disputed, but some claim hundreds of thousands of children alone died under the Iraq sanctions. I haven't read enough to judge the issue, but the official position was that even if true, it "is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." I wouldn't support that kind of logic in trying to inflict a limp either.
So my main point is that it's hard to come up with any "harder the better" approach that isn't suicidal or pure cruelty for ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, and bad for NATO member citizens too. I think the invasion is evil too, but the punishment talk is just empty talk -- everyone's getting punished pretty hard right now as it is.
If you back a scared animal in a corner, they will attack you, even if in a minority. You don't understand how the west is seen outside the west. Spoiler: we have lots of blood on our hands. We are not seen as the good ones, like our propaganda would sell to us.
How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe.
Unless one accepts the argument that because there were different historical borders in the past Russia is now entitled to demand Ukraine either remain a buffer state (with no guarantee except Russia's boyscout promise) or join the Russian federation--by force if necessary.
I think the point of the analogy is not that it generally maps to the Ukraine war, it's just that you can't really reason with a scared animal, and it's pointless to make moralistic arguments if it causes harm, so you can still be responsible even if the "other" is behaving poorly. If you insist on walking your own dog extremely close to a scared and aggressive dog, when there is ample space for you to walk with a minor diversion, then there is no sense in saying "I have a right to walk my dog here" or "it is unjust for this other dog to threaten my dog" as an excuse if your actions lead to your own dog being attacked. You are meaningfully responsible because you failed to account for very predictable consequences. Of course, others have responsibility for the situation too, but on the immediate question of whether you can justify walking your own dog extremely close, you would be hugely culpable.
Please don't take what I've said as a claim that this is a perfect analogy for the Ukraine war -- it fails to be a good analogy on so many levels. It's a suitable analogy only on the question of responsibility for predictable consequences, regardless of the just/unjust behavior of the thing/being that directly causes the harm. I can easily be the case that you are not the proximate cause, but are still meaningfully responsible.
> How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe.
Haven't you heard the news? This isn't Russia's war. This is Putin's war. Putin is in a corner. A resource endowed democracy with Russian roots next to his border with oil, gas and coal is the worst thing that can happen to an oligarch.
Europe's dependence on Russian fossil fuels makes Putin untouchable. Anything that competes with him erodes his shield against the EU.
The same treatment should apply to the US or any other great/middle power. You’re responsible for predictable consequences. Especially when nuclear weapons enter the equation.
There is no sense or satisfaction in ascribing the “blame” to Putin when the ICBMs are in the air. Some even explicitly extend your logic to those ludicrous ends, though I don’t presume to know your own thoughts.
Moral considerations of course matter, but there is no such thing as “morally” doing something that leads to an innocent people being invaded for “just” reasons, when perfectly reasonable alternatives exist. Never mind that no major power reaches the level of minimal moral integrity.
And to be clear, NATO is not guilty of war crimes (for Ukraine), but the Russian government is — not that Ukrainians will feel the difference of my moral ranking either way. It’s clear who deserves more moral consternation. But I have zero influence over Putin. I have almost, but not exactly zero influence over NATO. I have no responsibility for Russian actions, and some for NATO’s. And the comment I was replying to was advocating for what I think is the diametric opposite of what NATO should do. Those policy choices are the kinds of actions that will have a material effect on peace or war in Ukraine.
This is my issue with your use of word "cause". To me it insinuated culpability by NATO and the lack of agency from Russia.
So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.
I wish to clarify that I am not talking about blame or morality, but simply to address the underlying implication that one that caused it ought to be the one to make concessions to fix it, and by removing agency from Russia and placing cause on NATO, you essentially suggests that NATO ought to be the party that ought to make concessions, and my post should've be abundantly clear that I don't agree with that position.
I think causation is not a binary, and tried to mitigate thinking along those lines by saying "factor in causing to happen" not just "causing", but admittedly I didn't make that aspect fully clear. I meant "influenced a chain of events" not "is the absolute most significant factor in the chain of events". I think NATO's actions were a hugely significant factor though, because it's the factor that we control! As I said, we don't control or have responsibility for the actions of the Russian government, so in our decision-making process, we must take those largely as a given. I support the various stop-the-war movements that were making this all plain -- an invasion would be evil, and it would be evil for us to knowingly fail to take reasonable actions to avoid invasion, and likewise for us to knowingly pour fuel on the kindling of war.
> So would you agree that the cause of invasion is not necessary Ukraine sought to join NATO, but Russia simply decided to invade, and this could be avoided if they decided to not invade.
I'd quibble with the negation of causation for NATO's actions and the use of "simply", but, if I understand the final clause correctly, then yes I ultimately agree, there was absolutely a reasonable chain of events under our control that would have lead to there being no invasion, but also, there absolutely exists a plausible Russian government that would not have invaded. But we don't live in a world with such a government, and we have no control over that fact.
I don't disagree with the premise that "we ought to avoid war if we can", but pacifism and appeasement to an actor not acting rationally or in good faith is not fruitful, historically speaking.
My question to you is, where do you draw the line between "I am willing to make such a concession to avoid a war" and "then let there be war"?
I am clearly more hawkish but I am curious to where you stand.
I don't think there's a need to create much in the way of hypotheticals, because there is nothing in the 13 clauses of Minsk 2, even extrapolating out to the most concessionary outcomes of the clauses that are effectively TODOs, that is a concession "too far" that would justify war -- even IR so-called "realists" don't see the strategic logic. You can find a reasonable summary of the clauses of the Minsk agreements here: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/what-are-minsk-agreemen...
The faults for the failure of Minsk 2 lie with both Russia and Ukraine, and NATO for effectively incentivizing the Ukrainian government to fail to implement key clauses, and for publicly signaling and pushing for continued talk of NATO membership, which effectively shuts down meaningful action on clause 13.
And note that I am in no way a pacifist. I have no problem with NATO article 5 (up to a point -- I don't want any conflict to go to nuclear war, of course).
Final note: this type of conversion comes up very frequently when anti-war arguments are made. Someone asks "is there nothing you would go to war to defend?", when, regarding the issue under discussion, there are usually relatively clear and reasonable terms already on the table that are totally absent from the public discussion. It's nobody's fault but that of our politicians and media that the discussion is so hollow and bombastic at the same time, but it is frustrating.
By that point Crimea has already been annexed so I cannot exactly fault Ukraine for trying to join a defensive alliance instead of trying to re-kindle the relationship with the invader.
The chain of causation for Crimea annexation was very similar to the one for the current invasion. Just being practical, doing more of the thing that has led to two invasions is not going to end, shorten, or curtail the current one -- we don't like the logic, but as I said, this has been the official Russian government stance for about 15 years, and the cost of going against that stance has been very high and the cost of accepting it would be very low. And I see no practical way for Crimea to ever return to Ukraine, no matter what. I know territorial integrity is a thing countries hold very dear, for a lot of good reasons, but Crimea is as much an artifact of the breakup of the Soviet Union as anything to do with NATO expansion. That is truly a lost cause at this point.
> The chain of causation for Crimea annexation was very similar to the one for the current invasion.
Yes, Putin’s desire for territorial aggrandizement for both image and resources reasons.
> Just being practical, doing more of the thing that has led to two invasions
Having land that the national mythology Putin appeals to views as Russian and/or has economically and strategically useful resources and features is all anyone else has done which has led to the invasions (and it's more than two; as Georgia bears witness to.)
Can't really insist people stop doing that.
> this has been the official Russian government stance for about 15 years
You are confusing pretext with causation (and also ignoring much of the public pretext, like the claims of WMD programs.)
I am ignoring much of the pretext. Much like the Iraq War, I'm trying to focus on the real ideology and material factors driving the decisions, not the rationalizations designed for the public and the salons. Obviously this is not an exact process and there is no way to verify, so here we are.
Given there's a clear historical parallel (not identical, but appropriate enough) with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Monroe doctrine, I don't think it's rational to ignore the NATO "encirclement" argument as pretext. Look through the Wikileaks cables for all the talk of particular "neuralgia" over Ukraine entering NATO, and even talk of Crimea, all the way back in 2008.
One reason I'm so unconvinced this is pure pretext, is that I think it's highly unlikely that the same few people (Lavrov, Putin, etc.) would be making these specific claims and complaints in advance, just to be used a decade and a half later as pretext.
Another is that there are numerous high ranking people in the US foreign policy establishment, both in actual positions of power and attached to semi-official think-tanks, etc., that have agreed with their argument or at the very least identified it as sincere on the part of the Russian government.
As for me saying two wars, I was speaking about Ukraine only (depends on how you count, but I was counting Crimea, and the current invasion, though you could add another for the "breakaway" regions where Russian forces have been involved for years now). I'm aware of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I think you and I might have already discussed those regions on HN in the past.
> Given there's a clear historical parallel (not identical, but appropriate enough) with the Cuban Missile Crisis and Monroe doctrine, I don't think it's rational to ignore the NATO "encirclement" argument as pretext
Given that there is much more recent precedent (e.g., Iraq 2003, including the preceding advocacy by groups like PNAC from which key Bush policy officials were selected) that actually fits the chain of events much better, I don't think it's rational to ignore “false and exaggerated claims of geopolitical threat, ideological terrorism, and WMD as a pretext for a war for economic gain and imperialism from people who don't even bother to not keep saying the imperialist parts out loud”, either.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you about Iraq 2003, and I'm not saying that claims like that are always true or always false (I think it's obvious that it only makes sense to assess such claims in context). All Putin's talk of "de-nazification" as a war aim, of WMD, and a whole host of other stuff is total pretextual fiction, and absolutely makes it harder to negotiate any kind of end to the war now, because pretext has a zombie-like ability to live on and prevent peace, even if there is agreement to resolve the real causes.
But this war was a serious possibility even without those pretexts. Russia was incredibly weak, militarily and economically (both are closely linked) at the time of previous NATO expansions that mattered to Russia (1999, 2004). It's not strong now. Ukraine may be a worse quagmire than the SU in Afghanistan. But it does now seem to be able to stretch itself and probably win the immediate war against the Ukrainian military proper. They have complained about NATO expansion for 15 years, and finally have the capability to do what all great powers do: force their will through unjust means, and call it just.
The sooner there is some agreement to resolve the real causes, the less impact the pretextual bullshit will have in preventing that peace. And as I said before, if I'm wrong, possibly WW3 will just be delayed slightly, but Russia is still not strong enough to do what everyone is implying with their WW2 references, so I don't see it happening.
I should have said, they have complained about NATO expansion since the fall of the USSR (and obviously before, but that's irrelevant), when NATO gave Gorbachev assurances that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" after German reunification. They've been very vocally critical of NATO expansion into Ukraine for 15 years (and probably longer), and the West has known that Ukraine was specifically significant for 15 years (and probably longer).
If you felt compelled to acknowledge the exceedingly small influence you have on NATO, why not acknowledge the exceedingly small chance you would cause a Russian revolution by leaving a five star review on the website of an eatery in Moscow?
I mean this as a genuine question, but is your comment just to say that I was technically wrong to say I have “exactly zero” influence over Russian government policy, given unlikely butterfly effects exist?
Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?
I liked your comment and didn't mean to come across overly critical. But one of the scenarios I hear discussed in the media I consume is for this crisis to be resolved through internal changes in Russia, and that de-escalation through western actions is unlikely. I don't know enough to know how realistic that is. But in that case support for Russians could be more valuable than our voting power toward NATO.
There is a path to a peace agreement. Obviously these wouldn't be unilateral actions, but offerings or part of a final agreement with concessions on all sides:
- no NATO membership for Ukraine (it has already been invaded, there is no loss in taking this position now, and much to gain even if it leads to Russian withdrawal)
- some wider security agreement for the region -- if this means no more events like the NATO bombing of Serbia without UN authorization, that is perfectly acceptable
- repeal of discriminatory language laws, etc., and implement some meaningful degree regional autonomy for eastern parts of Ukraine (and western if they want it), basically Minsk 2 clause 4; or some internationally observed (so not like Crimea) referenda in those regions
- relax and withdraw most/all sanctions, but absolutely those on the central bank and SWIFT (though Russia will obviously and rationally accelerate economic links outside of Western control, as will many other countries)
I think a crucial condition should be no imposed change of government in Ukraine (so like what Russia wants in its military intervention in Syria, and not what the US wanted in military interventions in Libya, Iraq, and wants in Syria, etc.)
As for supporting Russians, I totally agree. One of the problems with the sanctions is that they are going to hurt ordinary Russian people, and are just as likely to strengthen the authorities as much as "encourage" ordinary Russians to change their government ("encourage" through collective punishment). The long legacy of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc., shows that this tactic far more often just hurts and even kills ordinary people rather than anything else.
There are many news pundits and analysts with prominent positions and exposure in print and television news in the US, who say things like, "There are no neutral Russian citizens now, they are all responsible for the invasion now" (this is paraphrasing, but not an exaggeration), at least on their personal twitter feeds. Unfortunately, I think most of the focus on "internal changes" is focused on severe collective punishment of ordinary people, rather than anything else, and so I find most of it counter-productive and cruel.
Putin is an oligarch. He is doing what keeps himself in power. The risk he is taking on with this war can easily wipe him out. If you just want to stay a regional oligarch you simply wouldn't take this risk unless you had to.
> Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.
Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best.
Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border.
Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it.
Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated.
This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials.
So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership.
Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war.
Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.
How many times were the Chechens offered to join NATO?
This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks.
These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.
Do you want to make a comparison between the populations abused by post-USSR Russia and the populations abused by USA/NATO/Europe? Trust me, it wouldn't bode well for the west. If you talk about the Chechens, I could talk about Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghan, Iraquis, Iranians, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Lybians, Congolese, Palestinians, Chileans. I stop here, but we know the list goes on.
Where were you while we oppresed and slaughtered millions of innocent civilians across the world?
It would be insane to agree to any Russians promises given that they don't respect their current agreements. The only solution is for Russians to retreat from the occupied territories or have endless guerrilla war.
Putin/The Russians aren't insane, they're looking after oil/NG interests. That's the entire reason they captured Crimea in the first place. The Ukrainian government then stopped the flow of water to Crimea to make it basically unusable.
NATO backed oil/NG companies also are annoyed because, despite investing a lot in gas fields in the East and the West, they haven't been able to produce much of anything because the region is under constant military conflict, funded by both the US and Russia.
I agree with the parent comment. If Russia can finally and absolutely control gas fields in the East and have assured access to not only Crimea but water to run the region they'll be getting much more out of this situation than they had prior. They will be interested in stability as much as NATO backed energy companies. Given the conflict in the region, and the recent (2014) overthrow of a government friendly to them (coincidentally right after Shell and Chevron signed contracts to develop gas fields), Russia is, rightfully, as wary of promises from the West as we are of them.
For purely, selfish, greedy reasons Russia would want peace in the region as much as NATO backed oil/gas companies have been hoping for it. There are still gas fields in the West that are waiting to be exploited and already have their resources under contract. Once these resources can be split up in a way everyone can deal with, there won't be conflict until the gas dries up because both parties make tremendously more money with stability after that.
I wouldn't underestimate the value of the Ukrainian NPPs and fertile land too, as well as access to the Black Sea. Maybe even the human capital shall not be underestimated.
I also wonder about the "Putin loses power in Russia" scenario that the author brushes aside.
It seems to me that we could fight Putin on the "internal politics" front in a way that A) forces a choice between escalation of the war and stabilization of his regime and B) Has enough plausible deniability that failure doesn't immediately trigger a nuclear response.
I find that also an appealing scenario. But Putin does not, hence the propaganda and the censoring. So it may for that reason alone be a complete pipe dream of the West.
The problem with that scenario is I have a hard time seeing Putin agreeing to anything that doesn't also include a major change of government in Ukraine.
And while I think there is small chance Zelenskyy would cede Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, he wouldn't accept any interference with their government. There is a huge risk that the new pro-Russia government would just make more concessions to Russia later, making the whole deal worthless.
I don’t get the “appeal to authority”? His analysis is some of the best I’ve read and seems to layout the two options the west has: nuclear war or cold war. I hope your outcome is correct, but that choice is really up to Putin. As a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and former fighter pilot, I’m amazed at the naive warmongering on social media. People who ignored twenty years of war in the middle east are now all in for WW3. A no-fly zone means US jets shooting down Russian jets (and possibly Ukrainian jets or we aren’t neutral). And when US jets are shot down what do we do? People want to use NATO ground forces. When a tactical nuke is used against them, what do we do? People want regime change in Russia, when they counter and assassinate our politicians, what do we do? If we want to stand up for our values and Putin doesn’t change course, the best we can hope for is cold war 2. Cut off economically from Russia and any other country (China) that supports them. This will bring economic hardship across the world but it is better than armageddon. Maybe Putin changes course, I hope to god so, but we only have two options to really escalate if he doesn’t: cold war or hot.
Well said.
Also do you think that Russia military is capable of achieving air superiority? And how this the status changes in case they manage to do so? Ie would NATO be "forced" to respond?
You assume that the US can simply tell China what to do, which is not the case. China always keeps a balanced position and seeks to extract value from each relationship - US or Russia.
This article assumes so much of the worst in The West when so far, everything has been done cleanly and adequately. For example, the article mentions calls for no negotiated peace. No such thing has happened from anyone so far.
I guess my point is that every NATO government has been respectful of Russia, while at the same time economically dissociating from it.
That is getting more likely the more time passes. Obviously for biological reasons but also because more and more people are incentivized to make it happen.
Except that, like Trump during his Presidency, there is no shortage of true believers in his propaganda so the question is how much more likely it is. Are we talking about an infinitesimal technically true increment, or will Putin be out within the decade?
His close circle of oligarchs and military chiefs are not Putin groupies they 're just getting massively greased. When the tide changes the calculations change. They signed up for a kleptocracy not to get sanctioned and their assets seized.
The people next to Trump did not see everything they had built up in their lives torn down, they saw the opposite. Contrary to Trumps entourage Russian oligarchs in general are not stupid. They can clearly see the writing on the wall and they know that if this goes on for too much longer they can kiss their and their children's futures goodbye. Ditto for the various other functionaries.
Except it’s just totally incorrect to think that oligarchs have any degree of control over the situation and any meaningful access to Putin. The relation is reversed, he was the kingmaker and have been controling them fully for quite a while now.
The only force that can stop him is army now and I reeeally don’t think this is what any of the sides (except them) would want because it’s them who pushed him or at least helped him to start the war, obviously. We don’t want another Myanmar, but 100x in size and with a bunch of nuclear warheads.
I didn't know Putin is that old. However in that case you would have expected him to insist on a nice and boring retirement. After all, if you only have 10 good years left (assuming above average life expectancy in russia), why risk turning them into bad years?
I think it'll end when the Russian populace is squeezed hard and turns on the government. Forces will be withdrawn from Ukraine to deal with civil issues. A bloody military coup will occur, supported by sympathetic members. New government will be appointed. This government will eventually end up a NATO member and piss off China and then we'll have to do the same thing again.
Don’t think this will happen. Russian have been hardened historically thru wars, 90s and other crises. Common people are very resilient and many grow their own food up to this day.
Genuine question: Has this strategy ever worked? When has economic stress imposed by a competing power turned a populace from being supportive or apathetic to their government waging a military campaign(against an external target or even against an internal target, either in a genuine conflict or a genocide) to them overthrowing it?
Economic pressure hastened the fall of Soviet domination. If you believe Regan, it was the primary cause. It you don't (and you shouldn't), it was a contributing cause.
I'm not commenting on the broader topic; just that this strategy has worked before.
Sanctions played a major role in forcing Apartheid South Africa to the negotiating table regarding its military actions in Angola, giving Namibia independence, and starting negotiations with the ANC and other groups to end Apartheid. They were bankrupting the regime and white South African businesses were increasingly applying pressure on the government to find a solution as the economy crumbled.
> I think it'll end when the Russian populace is squeezed hard and turns on the government.
Castro died of old age, sanctions still in place for his entire decades-long tenure. While I do believe that sanctions can weaken a regime, I do not believe history shows that they lead to regime change.
Don’t underestimate Putin’s ability to convince the Russian public that this is all the West’s fault. It’s kind of been their (my former) country’s greatest trick.
I know many USSR immigrants here in the states who once despised anything to do with Putin and his ilk, are now buying into Putin’s rhetoric. It’s really weird to see.
Oh I believe you. I just expected that it had a limit. Also I believe the amount of streamed videos could be a factor too. Unless Russia is now equal to North Korea in terms of brainwashing.
The problem is that a significant chunk of the population only watches the Russian TV broadcasts, many don’t even have access to the internet. Though many immigrants here in the states watch the same shit. It’s sad.
I do think Putin’s days are numbered. With the way the war is going, combined with the global support for Ukraine and the sanctions. I don’t see how the oligarchs, the people around him, and the Russian public will take much more of this. Though, of course, I could be wrong and we could be witnessing a new North Korea type situation.
Weird? It’s the same as Trumpism. They see the same messaging over and over which is largely based on fear and hated and some people lose their minds. Luckily it’s not the whole populace.
It’s weird because they live here in the states and feed on Russian propaganda. These are all people that escaped the USSR to get away from this same rhetoric. Now they are pulled back into it. I’m not saying it can’t happen elsewhere, but feeding on propaganda from someone you used to know as a KGB piece of shit, is weird. It’s weird how effective his shtick is.
Who knows, maybe the cutoff will lead to a new command economy? It might be challenging, but it’s been done before. And, if russia ends up building its own tech infrastructure from bottom to top, it could even be in their rational interest.
On the other hand Causcescu, and Milosevic ended up in a coup/mass revolt, and both dead.... (one by his own people, the other awaiting sentencing on a criminal tribunal)
People are being told that they are fighting a just war. It will be very difficult for people to go against their leaders when they think the government is working for their own good. They will fight harder and longer against their enemy because in their mind they are doing the heroic thing.
So many people cheering on the "inevitable" nuclear escalation. I wonder why. For those of you cheering it on, are you personally suicidal? An accelerationist? Do you wish others to die (maybe you're one of those "humanity is a plague" types)? Do you live far away from any cities and thus feel safe? I don't understand.
I second this question. In the last few days I've heard pretty heavy reference to "people cheering on nuclear war" but haven't seen it first hand anywhere. A link to an opinion piece that explicitly states this, or even a few high-profile twitter accounts espousing this view would at least convince me it's happening.
Heck, even browsing reddit comments and hacker news comments I've seen no view encouraging nuclear war. Even 4chan doesn't seem to have any posts proclaiming this view.
In realpolitik terms, nuclear war is the most likely outcome of any further escalation w/ NATO including the US / West refusing to lose face / back off. It's just that most folks do not think in such terms and are crafting delusions where that doesn't take place: Revolution in Russia! Putin will be overthrown! Minor nuclear escalation then everyone will back off! Let's have NATO get involved in Ukraine then it'll be on the Russians if they pull the trigger! They would never dare!
People are talking about the Russians being brainwashed, but read most of the comments in this thread and you'll realize they're far from being the only ones.
> further escalation w/ NATO including the US / West refusing to lose face / back off.
Here's a sovereign nation that tries to save its independence, pleading with the West / EU / NATO for protection. Then you have a ruler who has been saying for years that that nation should not exist and should be part of his empire, then proceeds to invade.
The framing of this as a NATO vs Russia issue, where NATO should "back down" to prevent further escalation, making Ukraine merely a pawn in some greater game, is absolutely disgusting.
I haven't seen people cheering on the idea of nuclear conflict.
What I have seen is large groups of people taking the position that the West should not let Russia use threats of a potential Nuclear war to bully the west around too much. That the West should not back down just because Russia has Nukes and is threatening to use them.
Some of them may offer views that Putin might be bluffing, or that his command structure might not follow the order to launch a large scale strike. Or that Russian Nuclear weapons are probably so poorly maintained that they won't even get off the ground anyway.
But these people seem to generally accept that their position might lead to a full-scale nuclear conflict, and that's a risk that is worth taking.
I personally don't think these views should be descried as "cheering on the idea of a nuclear conflict", but there probably people taking on the position that anything other than avoiding further escalation counts as "pro nuclear conflict". I have absolutely seen Russian diplomats taking this position.
That's not exactly "cheering on nuclear escalation" though. I'm against further escalation, but I'm also against the notion that even the slightest western intervention is immoral because it might anger Mr. Putin into starting a nuclear war.
NATO enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would entail NATO blowing up radar and SAM installations manned by Russian soldiers in Russia near the Ukrainian border. I'm no expert on politics or warfare but it sure seems like NATO directly attacking Russia like that would be pretty likely to result in MIRV launches.
perhaps i am too young and naive, but i am terrified of playing that game. i'm very glad i took up a career where these are dinner-time conversations and that i don't have to bear the weight of making those kinds of decisions. can i ask why you think it's a bluff from putin?
for my entire life, the media has portrayed him as either an evil genius or a mad-man (sometimes, both). in any case, it's painted a picture of a man perfectly capable of taking everyone down with him. why should i think otherwise?
note: i am being completely earnest in this response. in the last week, i have thrown up several times post doom-scrolling on twitter. i had to delete the app. i am convinced this will end up with everyone in dust. my mind has reverted to the following quote from The Wasteland several times:
<< "And I will show you something different from either
> perhaps i am too young and naive, but i am terrified of playing that game.
The problem with this approach is that in every future conflict this argument will be in play and so in every future conflict there is no plausible way to finish the conflict other than let the aggressor roll with it.
This might be the first time when a nuclear weapon is used offensively without being fired.
Exactly bacause he's evil genius, and a madman or both or none of those why would we consider any word comming out of his mouth to be related in any way to his behavior?
He might use nukes just because he's loosing in Ukraine.
He might use them at any point because he already feels threatened.
He might use them because he had a bad dream.
How can we take any of this into account?
The only thing we can do is to choose the fiction we believe in.
And I think correct fiction to believe in is the one that Putin won't use too many nukes if NATO won't cross Russia borders and clearly advertises that intent.
And if Putin really uses some nukes (probably against military targets in Ukraine) and NATO won't respond with their nukes, just with conventional means, nuclear restraint won't be broken, by anyone except a clear madman
I do, because I believe we should call Putin's bluff. He wouldn't dare to shoot down NATO planes above Ukraine and would have to back down. In line with that, I don't believe NATO planes shooting down russian planes above Ukraine or vice versa would lead to a nuclear escalation.
He shot down a passenger airliner and got away with it. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't give two fucks about shooting down NATO war planes. Just so we're clear on that.
Are you sure the world would react the way you expect to a NATO shoot down? To a nuke in Poland? Maybe our side isn’t willing to roast 100s of millions of Russians if push came to shove.
I don't know how you arrived from "shooting a plane above Ukraine" to a "nuke in Poland".
And no, of course we don't have any guarantees either way. But just like Putin puts his troops in Ukraine and says "what are you going to do about it", I believe we should do the same thing back - impose a no fly zone above Ukraine and call his idiotic bluff, he knows what attacking NATO would mean for him too.
Normally, I'd find your comment amusing, but I know there are policy folks out there with decision-making power that are pushing similar utterly idiotic narratives. That's very scary.
I think there has to be a component of “jadedness” in this attitude, for lack of a better term. It feels as though there are so many problems in the world (income inequality, climate change, covid, homelessness, political polarization, and now the very real possibility of a nuclear war). The world doesn’t feel like a place we can save anymore, which I think can be a driver of the “bring it on” attitude you mention, not unlike the Monty python scene with the defeated knight…
I think there is a latent apathy in the United States; or a fervor to "shake things up" (not unlike people voting in Trump to see what would happen). I have a feeling that things aren't really that stable at all.
I think this is true across the entire political spectrum in the US. Our social media reads as a mix of apathy, nihilism, signaling and historical ignorance. In other words, many of the people who by all rights should be happy with their comfortable lives in the wealthiest country on earth have somehow decided the world is a terrible place, everything is terrible, it's all going to hell, so let's just pull whatever thread seems likely to piss someone off who's got it slightly better than me and see what unravels.
Americans are ingrates.
USA is just a nation that invents their enemies and imbues them narratively with demonic power which they are later really too scared of to efficiently act upon in any manner.
Europe had no common enemy a few months ago. European countries wanted to subconsciously tear each other apart. Now Putin has created a common scapegoat. As long as nukes don't fly, the west is actually better off than before.
I'm one of those who thinks the likelihood of Putin using a nuke is quite high. I don't cheer that. Once the nuclear threshold is crossed, there's a non-negligible chance the escalation leads to full-blown nuclear war, and since I live in the center of one of largest cities in the US, my family and I could face at the minimum the loss of our home, and obviously, we can also all die.
I certainly don't like that. My lease renewal won't come for quite a few months, but I'm seriously considering moving to the suburbs, depending on what happens in this period.
But why do you get the impression that some people would be happy to see a nuclear war happening?
It's not a "non-negligible chance" it's guaranteed, that is the point of nukes. Putin would die along with everyone else if he launched a nuke. It's actually unlikely that his orders would be carried out for this reason.
I think that's the point where NATO should show restraint. To not respond to nuke with a nuke.
But before that, given the apparent weakness of Russian conventional army NATO should show no restraint and pay no attention to a single word out of Putins mouth.
Basically demand from Russian system of power to deliver war criminal mr. Vladimir Putin to Hague before talks can be resumed and Russia may have any hope of loosening economic sanctions.
People seem to have no idea how nuclear deterrents work.
It's a matter of policy that the US will launch all its nukes if even one nuke is launched by the other side. It only makes sense that the other side would do the same.
There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. If someone launches a nuke, all nukes are launched.
And that's why nukes work, they take war to its logical conclusion: everyone dies.
The US and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the entire world many times over. It doesn't matter where you are, you'll either die quickly or slowly, but you'll die none the less.
The US states that that is an option it make take. It does indeed make no sense, that's why it's called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it works.
If it didn't take this position, it then makes nuclear war more likely. It is actually a logical position to take since you can assume tit for tat nuclear strikes are a given, so there is no advantage to drawing it out.
It may of course not take the option, but the opponent doesn't know what it will do. It's all a part of the nuclear force being a deterrent to war.
It requires only equal or greater response if the country is attacked.
It's completely within the doctrine to respond to a single nuke detonated by Putin on Ukrainian soil targetting Nato military forces, with a single Nato nuke, also on Ukrainian soil targetting Russian military forces.
If NATO fails to respond in kind or to escalate, then the deterrence policy has failed and everyone will be free to blackmail the West. NATO cannot show weakness in this regard. Please, think it through.
If MAD collapses, you won’t be around to say the same things from the smoldering radioactive ruins of your home town. Loss of the ability or will to retaliate at scale means death on a vast scale. Those that survive face demilitarization and slavery, forever.
MAD has protected the peace for 70 years. Going around saying that it’s best to take the morale high ground is a nice sound bite, but it is not reality. Your freedoms and lifestyle is paid for by the mutual unwillingness of a handful of governments to not destroy the Earth. This balance has been in place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year for 70 years.
When you’re out at movies, playing soccer with your kids, or protesting some injustice, the only reason you’re able to do those things are because there are another group of far more serious people ready to glass the Russians and the Chinese if they try anything.
A nuclear weapon is not like a bullet. A bullet doesn't leave the ground uninhabitable for a decade. A bullet doesn't level infrastructure and burn its occupants into the walls. Your approach opens the door to nuclear terrorism: maybe we lose a city every now and then, but that can't go on for very long.
The idea that a limited nuclear exchange is OK, even inevitable in this conflict, and that things will somehow magically go back to normal afterwards is ludicrous.
All leaders must know that any use of nuclear weapons will be met with the complete annihilation of their country. This is the ONLY sane policy.
Sure. That's why I'm saying that even if Putin uses one or few nuclear warheads, NATO should restrain itself and not use any, just beat Russian army in Ukraine purely with conventional and economic means.
Why on earth would you want to survive a full-blown nuclear exchange? If things get to the point where the largest US cities are being targeted, the aftermath of the war will almost certainly be worse than immediate vaporization.
I live in a comparatively rural area, having moved out of Boston just over two years ago. Maybe longer-term residents have a better network here, but I'm personally pretty reliant on food from afar.
Setting aside any concerns about radiation sickness, a massive refugee crisis and literally every other short-term effect, I think it's safe to assume that there will be no fuels available to transport food, or anything else for that matter.
In the event of nuclear winter, there will be few options to grow food, at least not what we're accustomed to growing in our current climate. Wild sources of food may fail, or quickly become exhausted.
And I live in an area with fairly reliable perennial streams (for now. Let's set aside questions of how nuclear war might impact the water cycle). Imagine if you live in the desert Southwest, where your access to water is wholly dependent on electricity unless you have the excellent fortune to live near one of the few large rivers.
No, my biggest fear of nuclear war is that I might survive it.
>Why on earth would you want to survive a full-blown nuclear exchange?
because death is for all we know very permanent. I would rather be alive and miserable than be dead. I know i will die one day but i would rather put that off as long as possible.
We have just experienced the Covid pandemic for the last 2 years, and society didn’t collapse. In the event of a nuclear war, I think the survivors will come together, rather than turn on each other. Food and gasoline may be rationed, maybe curfews imposed, there could be shortages of various necessities (remember the toilet paper thing?). But most of the people will understand. People tend to get united after an external attack. Think 9/11 or Perl Harbor times 10000.
Because the media keep saying that word, someone should tell them to shut up. And maybe a Russian speaker could tell me if Putin did actually say "nuclear" because it sounds like he just said "deterrent forces".
And then there are all these batshit crazy rumours about them destroying nuclear power plants or holding it hostage. Why the fuck would Putin do that?
> if you do not mean a nuclear threat, then you explicitly say so.
That's not how people make threats. They are ambiguous for their own reasons. The media is supposed to report what's said, then people who know these things will tell what Putin actually means. The media jump the gun and put words in people's mounth is highly unethical, given the stake.
Yes, and that's my point. That's why 'deterrence' is understood to be nuclear. If someone threatened you with 'dark consequences' would you understand that to mean they were going to egg your house, or something worse?
I don't care what you think it means because your opinion on this matter is wordless. My point which you don't seem to get is that the media should report honestly, then opinion men like you can jump the gun and say nuclear. It's not the media's job to do that.
Deterrence isn't synonymous to nuclear why do I have to explain this. If you aim normal missiles to someone that's deterrence too.
Nobody in national security would fail to understand the threat. That you fail to understand what 'deterrence' means is entirely your ignorance. You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
No one is "failing to understand" there is a nuclear threat here. What is not understood is that I'm talking about the media and I don't really care about Putin's statement. In my opinion this statement is deliberately made ambiguous because if he said nuclear and something happens and he does not use nuclear he would look like an idiot wouldn't he. There is a difference between saying the word, hence making a commitment, and not saying it.
Again, that is NOT the point here. The point is, the media's job is to report exactly what he said. "National Security", or whoever can then interpret it as "nuclear", and make a statement about it, then the media can report on that too. The media dubbing "nuclear" over what Putin said, is wrong. If we can't trust them on doing the basic job, then we can't trust them on anything.
> That's why 'deterrence' is understood to be nuclear.
“Deterrence” is not generally limited to nuclear deterrence, though there are contexts where that is implied.
One of the functions of the conventional forces being deployed to NATO’s eastern flank in the present crisis is deterrence, of the non-nuclear variety.
(Putin’s reference to “deterrent forces” given the context of recent highly publicized nuclear high alert and other circumstances pretty clearly implies strategic nuclear forces, but you are way overgeneralizing.)
I obviously don't want any of this nonsense, however I personally believe that we deserve it. We failed to get along, now we must pay the price.
World peace is trivial and inevitable, yet we mess up all the time. Every single person subconsciously votes against world peace. Some votes may count more than others but ultimately it's not a tiny minority that wants to see conflict. It's absolutely everyone.
I've stopped believing all conspiracy theories that involve small groups of elites running the show. Sure, there is always going to be a handful of people at the top but this is true for everything. The elites may benefit disproportionately, however, they benefit precisely because the vast majority support them directly or indirectly. Sure, you can make some people a head shorter but the people that granted them power aren't gone.
For Russia the trail is pretty obvious. We buy Russian oil and directly support Putin. Even if you get rid of Putin, someone else will take his place because we still want to buy the oil after the war.
I am not cheering it one but I think it may be sadly inevitable, and it scares the shit out of me. Putin thinks he can't back down with out loosing face and looking weak which from his prospective is a danger to him from both internal and external threats.
I haven't seen anyone "cheering it on" but I have seen many people point out that it isn't a 0% chance endgame and we should all be aware of how unstable Putin has gotten as he ages and sees his dream of a united USSR becoming more remote
I'll chime in, though I am sure Dang will ban because he doesn't appreciate honesty. I want humanity to perish.
Abused my whole life, but promised my college tuition would be paid for by parents. That was a lie so I have no family and 110k in debt. 15 years out of college and I still can't get a development job.
Been working as a Baker most of my life. I saw an ex girlfiend become big time designer at Microsoft with a portfolio of stick figures. An old friend with no high school diploma get a job at Facebook. Meanwhile, fuck me. I have designed and developed my own apps, started my own businesses, learned to fly a plane, and earned a black belt. Meanwhile, I can't convince an HR person with a sociology degree to notice anything (which why am I even talking to someone that isn't in the same field as me?).
Everyone who claimed to love me has back stabbed me emotionally and financially.I am half Mexican and white and fit in with absolutely no one. I have experienced extreme racism my whole life, but I look white so no one gives a fuck. Individualism makes absolutely no sense to me. Humanity doesn't really seem to be working together towards anything so I don't see a future worth living for. People seem to hate space exploration, so why bother continuing.
Ultimately, I was probably going to kill myself when the government starts garnishing my wages since I am not paying back my college loans and don't intend to. I would rather die that be an indentured servant for something I never would have done if it wasn't promised to be paid for. So a nuclear strike sounds way more fun than sleeping pills.
It's incredibly selfish, but most of you are spoiled and privileged that you think the majority of people have time to think about pronouns, which I find far more selfish of an act.
I appreciate honesty very much, including yours. I'm sorry that it has been so hard for you and wish you everything you need.
There are a bunch of moderation issues raised by posts like this, but none of them have to do with not caring about the people who are writing them, and that certainly includes you.
For those that don't know, this is a reference to "Manufacturing Consent", a book by Chomsky and Herman, and the term is code for media manipulation.
But, mjfl, are we to reduce every article that espouses an opinion or conducts an analysis (as this article does) to simply a "manufacture of consent" against us unthinking sheeples?
This is root of all hyper-partisanship in my opinion. You feel your opinions are the sensible majority, even though it stands to reason we all have quite a few minority opinions. Any media, especially from well funded, well educated, more-or-less well respected sources, that goes against your sensible majority opinion is clearly part of a vast conspiracy from a cabal of one or more of: [financiers, corporate elite, Hollywood, environmentalists, socialists, conservative, liberals, globalists, lizards, whatever]. The unthinkable alternative is that you just happen to be on the fringe of society for one or more issues you find important.
Does not wanting to not die in a nuclear hellstorm put me on the fringe? Because it seems obvious to me that the most powerful people and institutions in the West are all gearing up for a direct war with Russia. Frankly I’m totally indifferent as to whether or not Ukraine ends up being annexed by Russia. I don’t want to die for some country that’s thousands of miles away from where I live.
I have known a few people who have that same mentality and it's either they are fatalists or believe they will have some sort of tactical superiority if it did happen. The former is sad and the latter is stupid.
It is a likely scenario. Rather than avoiding escalation (thus, given Russia a free pass as it is now), we should prepare for the worse and feel more comfortable for Russia's (almost) inevitable escalation to nukes.
For one, the Cold War bunkers in the United States can be replenished and ready.
The weird thing about nuclear deterrence is: the deterrence is only as strong as one's willing to use it. By showing unwillingness to escalate (as the United States now), it may give false impression that further nuclear escalation (particularly with tactical nukes) is OK.
It is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging and empowering the dictator who is threatening it.
It is not possible to avoid nuclear war by encouraging those who would seek nuclear weapons, by letting Russia throw its weight around because it has them.
And it is not possible to avoid nuclear war by discouraging those who, like Ukraine, would disarm, by letting Ukraine be overrun.
The situation in Ukraine is an operational challenge. We cannot let its resolution undermine strategic goals.
Our desire is to avoid WW3. But our stance cannot be "to avoid WW3 at any cost". The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasions, possibly to a NATO ally, that would be a very undesirable situation for the United States.
At the moment, there is no need for further escalation (however, Putin already said the "economic sanction" is a "declaration of war" by the Western countries). But preparations, IMHO, is a must now.
> The latter gives aggressor free pass for future invasionss, possibly to a NATO ally.
Does it? Ukraine is not a NATO ally. Russia is doing this because they don't want Ukraine to be a NATO ally (and other reasons).
Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement. We shouldn't go to war beforehand because "maybe our allies might be attacked in the future" that doesn't make any sense.
None of this is in support of Russia, but in support of relative world peace.
But yes you should be prepared for anything as an individual. The US is always in constant readiness to fight wars (2 to be specific) as a policy..
I've always prepped, but I don't want WW3 nor do I think we should escalate due to the Ukraine invasion.
> Yes we should defend our allies in NATO as that's the agreement.
We had an agreement with Ukraine as well.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994 to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[1]
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons
Presumably if Ukraine still had those nuclear weapons they wouldn't be facing an invasion right now. If we fail to defend them, the lesson for every country is "Don't give up your nukes, because you're going to need them when you get invaded. And if you don't have nukes now, get them as soon as you can."
1) In response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, you think that action A should be prefered to action B if the latter will be perceived by Russia as more aggressive - increasing the probability of a of a declaration of war by Russia.
2) If Russia was to invade Sweden - for example - I imagine that you'll find that action A2 should be prefered to action B2 if the latter will be perceived by Russia as more aggressive - increasing the probability of a declaration of war by Russia.
3) If there is Russian attack on a NATO country you see war as a consequence.
Some people think that taking action B now may actually decrease the probability of finding ourselves in scenarios 2 or 3 later. Maybe you don't, or you think that it increase the total risk.
But at least we may all agree that to minimize the probablility of war you have to consider the whole sequence of potential events.
It ends with an insurgency war in which people from different countries will come to Ukraine and kill other people, including civilians, for money given by "US and allies", indefinitely. But you know, not the first time "US and allies" grow terrorists in someone else's country, for the greater good and all
For people who a) have this as a serious option, and b) are seriously considering it, there's almost certainly still time to do something unless escalate extremely quickly.
The real question is whether you'd want to survive anything that would require that bunker to live through.
This is a real thought I've shared with friends. Though it's incredibly morbid, I am thankful I live close enough to a city center that I will be mercifully unmade in an instant should the bombs drop.
We'd better hope that a third possibility is more likely...
... That this turns into something like one of the cold-war proxy wars. The West does not cross the line by sending NATO troops or planes into Ukraine to fight Russian forces. The West does send in arms, but Russia limits its attempts to stop that to actions within the borders of Ukraine (not, for example, bombing Polish rail lines used to ship arms to Ukraine). The conflict in Ukraine goes on for more or less time as a hot war. An unlikely possibility is that Ukraine wins the hot war, humiliating Putin, and probably leading to his downfall (hopefully without any disastrous last gasp of aggression), or possibly the overflow of Putin comes first, with the new regime negotiating a way out that's at least somewhat tolerable for Ukraine. The more likely possibility is that Russia wins the hot war, imposes a puppet government, and the West opposes this outcome only by economic sanctions and covert arms shipments to insurgents (who will quite likely exist). This doesn't lead directly to escalation, though the stage might well be set for further crises. If further crises don't cause drastic change, Russia (current or future regime) may eventually tire of fighting an insurgency in Ukraine, and perhaps settles for absorbing the eastern part, while letting the western part become independent again (but probably "Finlandized").
A lot of people die. Once the immediate crisis is over it would be worth thinking about why people in power, on all sides, let it get to this point. I think it's unlikely that the situation was just that there were good guys, and bad guys, and all that one can say is that the bad guys were bad... Treating this as a simple morality play is likely to lead to a repeat performance.
I'm curious how these war games are actually run. I'm genuinely curious, but I'm also somewhat skeptical having seeing how people play poker when no money's on the line.
For me the only good solution is beating Russian army to the borders of Russia and no step further, using only conventional methods (regardless of what Putin decides to do about the nukes). Then all bordering nations joining NATO and some EU.
And sealing Russia economically completely while developing bordering states. And gradually allowing Russia to rejoin global economy on the condition of demilitarization of Russia. At first it might be that the only thing west should be allowed to buy from Russia is their war machines no matter how old or crappy.
In a fashion akin to buyback of guns in Australia.
NATO needs to win this and needs to win this with conventional methods and economy. Nothing else.
the problem with that is it would end up like the cobra bounty in india, which resulted people breeding cobras to turn it for the bounty. when their only allowed export is weapons they will make more weapons to export
If Russia economy would be still locked out of advanced components we'd be buying their newly manufactured crap tanks at prices we dictate, which would be the price of recycled steel and smelt them back to raw material once they leave Russia. Since customer always buys those new tanks would be crappier and crappier.
Eventually we might offer them more money for ore than for tanks so making tanks to sell them is uneconomical for them.
I don't think that the scenario where Putin detonates a nuclear weapon as a demonstration, or within the border of Ukraine would cause the US/UK/France to detonate one of their nuclear weapons to prove they are serious. Only an attack on a Nato country, with casualties, would bring a nuclear response.
I really, really hope so. if NATO used a nuke of its own in response to one in Ukraine, this just confirms Putin's rhetoric that NATO isn't just a defense alliance, that we would launch outside of Article 5. that's the "existential threat."
I just wish we were less hawkish, because it seems like we're playing with fire by supplying arms to Ukraine.
(gentle) Escalation till the point where Russia will have to give up or concede, something far bigger than Ukraine, from an region with an strategic resource to something digital, like encryption keys or forcing West backdoors in their systems.
That assumes that Putin will prefer to surrender and keep avoiding by all means falling into an end of the world scenario. At least while the push keeps being gentle.
Anyway, the situation is pretty fragile. There are more players in the game, from big economic players and tech companies to individuals that may, by a direct or a false flag operation, do something (like a hack attempt or destruction of system/information) that could trigger a big reaction from one of the sides.
Diplomacy is the ONLY way this can end relatively safely without nukes. At some point, Russia will be exhausted, and cannot continue the invasion except by mass destruction. At this point, Ukraine should enter peace talks and formally hand over Crimea to Russia (something they already lost) in exchange for a cease fire, the dropping of sanctions, and Ukraine EU/NATO membership. That will protect them going forward, and allow Putin to skulk away with 'victory'. In reality, he will have been defeated and his economy crushed.
if Putin drops dead suddenly? power struggle for succession, the generals either withdraw and place the blame on Putin (like de-Stalinization) or dig their heels in. probably largely to do with how military leadership fares in the shakeup.
if Putin dies slowly? he could become irrational, convinced the West has poisoned him even if it's natural, and seek thermonuclear revenge.
it'd be easy for Russian media to spin it as assassination and rile up the hardliners either way.
I have faith in the third way: somebody takes down Putin, Russia goes into chaos, Ukraine Gottes back free and Russia breaks into even more sub states.
We all hope this to happen, as it is the best outcome. However, from what I can find, the support for this invasion, and Putin, is strong within Russia.
A lot of people with family in Russia will be able to tell you that their Russian side of the family supports Putin so much that they will not even believe their Ukrainian family members when they're telling them that they are getting bombed. I've seen it in my own extended family, heard it from others and there's also an article about it from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487
We should really not underestimate how much support there is for Putin in Russia.
Implying what? That the BBC is explicitly tagging their own articles as disinformation because they're just that inept at propaganda? Or could it be that they have a unit fighting disinformation? https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/people/rebecca-sk...
> there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
A third option that I don't think should be discounted is that Russia falls apart politically, either from assassination or a coup.
A status quo is usually tolerable, but the man is acting unpredictably and really rocking the boat right now, that's rarely beneficial for a leader's longevity, not even among despots.
That's only in the short term. Weeks, months from now. "A bitter peace imposed on a deafeated Ukraine" ... how long until an equally bitter peace gets imposed on a third country?
Consider the potential for civil war in that scenario, and the opportunism of other nations. Consider the consequences of that, and more. Glib ideas are fine, we all have them, but please do yourself a favor and extrapolate a little before it becomes an "obvious solution" to you or anyone else. Never know who you might influence.
Hey, no need to be Sour Grapes, Jimmy. It seems likely to me that Putin eventually meets the same fate he has given so many others. Does that solve all of the world's problems? Nope, but it solves one of the world's problems.
There is a dark strand in many fundamentalist Christian and Islamic beliefs that portend a judgement day brought on by world destroying calamity. There are evangelical Christian’s who cheer on for a nuclear conflict between Israel and their Muslim neighbors because it will bring about this prophesy.
I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives.
There is no 'destruction of the world' in Muslim eschatology related to the return of Jesus and Mahdi. That has to wait for "the Hour" which is an entirely a different matter and related to 'Resurrection' and the actual Judgement Day (you know, in 'here-after' when the entire material universe is "folded").
As for the Christians, in the Gospel Jesus very clearly commands to "ignore" wars and rumors of wars.
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." [Matt 24:6]
> I think this can explain a portion of people who want escalate our current situation. I’m terrified by these people and their motives.
What "terrifies" me are people who form strong opinions and speak from ignorance, and, try to pin great power politics, and geopolitical adjustments on people who believe in God.
I grew up in and around Christian fundamentalists who believe precisely what the parent was referring to.
If you want to “not all Christians,” that’s fine - but Armageddon fetishists absolutely do exist in fundamentalist Christianity. Start with the “Left Behind” book series if you want an introduction to the way that group thinks.
On the other hand, don't underestimate what little regard Russia and China both have for human life. Russia lost 27 million in WWII[1], many times the numbers lost by the West, combined. China's record on human rights also speaks for itself. Xi and Putin both see themselves as messianic, and both have grand visions for their countries gaining power. They want to act, and it has begun. They're thinking in terms of the next century, and great losses of people will just be part of a great reset (as a broken egg is to an omelette). It's what follows in centuries to come that matters to them.
I wouldn't put it past them, and that thinking is of course not mutually exclusive from those who are seeking Armageddon as you note. That both kinds of minds are in charge of each side is downright terrifying, indeed.
Sure, pure eugenics by genocide might be a quick fix. But how long does that last? You think radiation only affects those who fit your stereotyped profile?
What about all the opportunity to forgoe scorched Earth policies and work through compromise. You would think ending up with more supporters would be more self serving than making glass and gambling you can intimidate the left overs into ideological submission.
> This would put the United States in the near-impossible position of having to choose between further escalation and compromising on the very principles that drove it toward the war in the first place—the right of a nation like Ukraine to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule.
Is this guy for real? Since when does the US hold a strong principle for the right of a foreign nation to be free and independent of subjugation to foreign rule? It's actively supporting perhaps the worst ongoing subjugation over several decades. Half decent writeup, but tarnished by the overt deification of the US.
> ... if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
Considering some of the calls from those who should know better for no-fly zones over Ukraine, Option (2) is indeed going to be the harder path. All it would take is a humanitarian incident such as the extended siege of a city. The calls for military action would be ferocious. The accusations of weakness would cripple many leaders trying to hold back a military response. The lack of any sense of what nuclear escalation actually means throws yet more fuel on the fire. And the real clincher: the US hasn't taken on a power capable of defeating it since the 1940s, if not earlier. Confidence in the US military to solve all problems, foreign and domestic, is alarmingly high.
The easy path is, unfortunately, the one that ends with the unthinkable.