In his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard Zbigniew Brzezinski did say that if Europe went to war again it would start in Ukraine.
Some choice quotes:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”
This is one of the issues I see with books of prognostications, they aren't so much as predicting the future as advocating for a course of action. They are selling their own version of the future.
Dugin serves as an adviser to State Duma speaker Sergei Naryshkin, a key member of the ruling United Russia party who has loudly supported Russian intervention in Ukraine, and has made widely viewed television appearances to discuss the Ukraine crisis alongside high-ranking members of the government. [Economist Sergei Glazyev] is also an associate of Dugin's.
Few books published in Russia during the post-communist period have exerted such an influence on Russian military, police, and foreign policy elites as Aleksandr Dugin’s 1997 neo-fascist treatise Osnovy geopolitiki: Geopoliticheskoe budushchee Rossii (Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geo-political Future of Russia).
The Foundations of Geopolitics sold out in four editions, and continues to be assigned as a textbook at the General Staff Academy and other military universities in Russia. “There has probably not been another book published in Russia during the post-communist period which has exerted a comparable influence on Russian military, police, and statist foreign policy elites,” writes historian John Dunlop, a Hoover Institution specialist on the Russian right.
The publication of The Foundations of Geopolitics in 1997 was received with great interest, and brought Dugin to the attention of powerful figures in the Russian government. He wisely befriended the oligarch Aleksandr Taranzev, who recommended him to the military general staff.
...
Dugin’s book was incorporated into the curriculum of the Russian military academy and became required reading for the next generation of officers. One year later, Dugin was appointed senior political adviser to Gennadiy Seleznyov, a former member of the Communist Party and chairman of the Russian parliament, who headed the Center for Geopolitical Analysis, a think tank dedicated to policy recommendations on internal security matters.
...
The radical intellectual’s stature reached new heights with the appointment of Vladimir Putin to the Russian presidency. Slowly but surely, Dugin succeeded in ingratiating himself with the new president’s inner circle. He forged strong ties with a hawkish, security-oriented clique of insiders, mostly composed of ex-members of the military and the security services. First and foremost among them was Igor Sechin, a former KGB official who has served as Putin’s closest adviser for the past fifteen years and is now deputy prime minister. Other members of this powerful faction include Security Council secretary and former head of the FSB Nikolai Patrushev; former deputy prime minister and Security Council member Sergei Ivanov; and Boris Gryzlov, the speaker of the lower house of parliament and chairman of Putin’s ruling United Russia party.
The activities of the copious and studious Eurasianist intellectual Alexander Dugin are making progress, and it is known that he has close relations with the Academy of the General Staff and once headed an advisory group in the office of Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznyov.
> With "unofficial" translations you will never know if the translators didnt censor/change the meaning somehow
With official translations, you don't know that, either. In fact, for the same reasons that politicians who speak in multiple languages often give speeches, on a given subject, with substantially different content in different languages, official translations of books that are designed as political propaganda or advocacy often shade the content to different anticipated audiences in different languages.
> “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
He claims that without any proof. This maybe would have been true in the 19th century given the technologies for war and power at that time.
But we have the 21st century now. Why should the Ukraine be so important? Why could Russia not be an empire without Ukraine? Russia is the biggest country with the most sources of raw materials. It has the most nuclear weapons. It has a huge fleet. It is feared by all of its neighbors.
But that all doesn't matter nowadays. Because if you want to be a world power in 21st century what you need is a huge economy. And Russias GDP is as big as Italy. But invading Ukraine wouldn't help Russia to increase its GDP.
And that is why what Zbigniew Brzezinsk writes is outdated nonsense. Everyone who believes that still lives in the 19th century.
It would be easier to take your opinions seriously if they weren’t contradicted by events happening right now; events which match Brzezinski’s “outdated nonsense” from the 90s perfectly.
You could very well be correct, perhaps the leaders of these countries are living in the 19th century. But the fact that the current leaders of Ukraine, USA and Russia are acting in line with/on these older assumptions makes them relevant still today.
Also there’s plenty of information backing up his claims in the book, you’re welcome to go read it. It’s an excellent window into the way geopolics is rationalised, written by one of the people who have shaped it!
Predicting the future is hard, specially if you think in 20-30 years forward.
But, giving enough predictions, you will have a lot of hits in a sea of misses. A lot of development happened in the middle that could had turned things in different directions. Also, beware of hindsight bias.
Anyway, it is not just one data point what matters. What comes after in his predictions and how adjusted is to what happens in reality (without creative accounting, like with Nostradamus predictions) may tell how right that was.
> But, giving enough predictions, you will have a lot of hits in a sea of misses.
I somehow doubt that he made the range of varied and contradictory predictions necessary to make this hypothesis correct. I don't know what to call this muddled assertion that so many people seem to be making about hindsight bias or survivorship bias. It's like a bias towards claiming bias, which seems absurd to me. Is everyone just hunting for places where they can use some witty sounding assertion that they saw someone else use and so they're incorrectly applying it everywhere with little discrimination?
The creative accounting was done by others. They say that Nostradamus "predicted" this because they choose what they read, when they read, and apply it to particular situations that fit, and not to others that don't, being aware of that or not. There is a bunch of cognitive biases around that, with fancy names like selection bias or Texas sharpshooter fallacy, to name a few.
It may not be for this case, I just point out that you should be aware of the possibility.
Your whole NATO core staff been voicing this in unison for 2 decades in a row, only for Western politicians to dismiss it. Lookup my other posts today, and especially this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30453790
The Mongols didn't need an economy to create chaos and conquer most of Eurasia. Babylon was conquered by Macedonia, Constantinople fell to the Turks, and Rome to the Vandals. Mixing up economic power with willingness to bleed for a mythical cause is a mistake. Also, who needs an economy when you can just have a big army and take booty? Definitely not Russia.
This is not the modern-day version of USSR vs USA. It's the modern version of the Mongol Horde vs Civilization. (No offense to current Mongols; you guys are cool).
Modern Russia is not an unstoppable army of nomadic warriors with a strong martial culture arising from their making their living as herders. It's a badly run kleptocracy trying desperately to remain relevant.
Come and see. They don't have to hold land and in most cases, the strategic goal is to have puppets hold it for them. USSR was three levels deep in puppets (four if you count "republics").
They tried puppets in Ukraine for some time. They also have a dependent client state on another of Ukraine's borders, in Belarus, "led" by a terrified semi-lame autocrat who needs to prove his loyalty to Putin to continue in office.
Bad things (and increasingly belligerent, isolated psychopaths) on two sides.
Not only does Putin have nothing to lose from all of this, there is more than a hint that he has nothing to lose full stop. More than one analyst and political aide has observed that Putin has changed significantly on a personal level, and appears to be paranoid about Covid and about all his generals and advisers.
It's not just a threat; at this point it is a risk.
Agreed. The attack on Ukraine is actually rather later than I imagined that it would happen (I thought this would happen immediately after Trump lost the election).
What happens next is anybody's guess and that's a very bad feeling to have in times like these, the fate of the world as we know it is in the balance.
As we have seen before, only very recently: bad things happen when psychopaths start to unravel, especially malignant narcissists.
Putin has long kept his narcissism under a kind of control.
A bit of bare-chest, bareback horseriding. A few ice hockey matches with opponents who comically offer little resistance.
A gigantic pseudosecret palatial residence that looks like a seat of power for a Bond villain, but is actually his safe space.
But even in Russia's nationally televised broadcasts Putin appears to be struggling to control his emotions and his temper.
It's not particularly difficult to see that loyalty to a psychopath loses its currency when that psychopath has no use for you, but also that using your loyalty as a constant mediating influence becomes impossible when the psychopath departs from reality.
The question for any kind of diplomacy, hardball or softball, is this: is Vladimir Putin still in full control of himself? Because he's behaving unusually on the basis of his prior record. Only a handful of years ago he was a very different figure on the world stage. If his narcissism has no supply, no moderation, things could get even uglier.
And yet again he is signposting it -- "all relevant decisions have been taken."
We kept pretending his signposts were diplomatic noise, when in fact he's just a psychopath telling people what he is going to do to them.
Maybe he has nothing to lose from threatening. But he would have a lot to lose (namely Moscow, and any place where he's known to usually spend time) if he actually fired a nuke at some EU capital.
I'll bet that that would not be Paris or London. But to try to guess what someone who has nothing to lose will do is folly, Putin might very well be beyond caring even about such stuff: he wants his legacy cemented and there are two ways out of that that would satisfy him: the fact that he is remembered as a great Russian or that there isn't anybody left to remember what kind of an idiot he was.
For some idea of this mentality, if you haven't seen it yet I highly recommend the movie Der Untergang, which is as historically accurate as they could make it, and which gives a unique perspective on how things could get so bad that parents would poison their children to avoid them having to live in a world where they weren't the victors.
NATO article 5 is a meaningless piece of paper in and of itself if the will to retaliate isn't present and we will only find out about that at the moment someone wants it invoked. I would not necessarily bet on knowing how that ends. The response against what happened just now is underwhelming, and the various investments in fomenting nationalism/isolationism may well pay off. These are very dangerous times.
> I highly recommend the movie Der Untergang, which is as historically accurate as they could make it
And in case anyone didn't make the connection, is also the movie where the scene used in all those "Hitler hears about..." YouTube clips is taken from.
Nuclear weapons require constant, ongoing maintenance if they have any hope of going bang. Russia doesn't have the assets to keep that up anymore. Their nuclear arsenal is probably a fraction of its theoretical capability.
In addition, if Putin tried to launch nukes, I doubt the other oligarchs would go along with his mass suicide plan.
If there is one thing I've learned about Russian technology then it is that in general it will operate 'good enough' to do what it was designed to do even if that means that it isn't designed in a way that we would consider elegant. Assuming that Russia's nuclear arsenal is dysfunctional or even non-existent would be a very large - and possibly fatal - mistake, especially given that it never was designed as a precision tool anyway but relied on massive overkill. You may well be right, but if history is any guide here making assumptions without hard evidence about the nature of an enemy arsenal, either positive or negative will lead to trouble.
I had a couple conversations with an engineer who worked a long career on maintaining nuclear warheads. I was rather surprised when he told me that he didn't view nuclear war as likely.
As he explained it, plutonium warheads break down over time. They create helium gas pockets and sometimes internal fractures that prevent detonation.
The solution is to reform the warhead every few years.
The problem here is that plutonium has over a dozen crystalline forms. If they don't achieve a uniform crystal, the warhead will fail to detonate due to the imperfections along the lines where the different crystals come together. This takes a ton of time and money (and often many, many attempts).
Together these mean that the warheads are getting very old and the upkeep to keep them working is huge. Russia can keep a few in working order, but not nearly what their previous arsenal would imply.
I have always wondered this. Nuclear Apocalypse scenarios always assume the ICBMs will all function as specified. Maybe they will, but it's not like you can thoroughly test each one. But I guess they don't need to.
There were assumptions that lots of missiles would malfunction or not reach their intended targets and so various cities and strategic objectives were targeted with multiple warheads from different launch sites. This led to 'overkill':
Ukraine has excellent farmland. Russia has their own local economy and can produce most of the things they need just with their direct neighbors. French cheeses, American-branded phones, and Italian cars may be too expensive for the Russian economy, but the Russian government doesn't care. Close-enough products can be had for a fraction of the price.
Thinking of things in terms of raw GDP is what is getting the west into a total mess. For years now people have said Russia won't do anything and couldn't possibly be a threat because their GDP is so low. China will never be a major player because their GDP per capita is so low.
But that's, frankly, stupid. People in Switzerland pay $20 for a sandwich. People in Vietnam are paying $0.75 for a sandwich that tastes twice as good. People in China are getting locally made phones with the equivalent of US pocket change and riding high speed trains for the cost of a slow and janky NY subway trip. GDP means absolutely nothing outside of international trade within the global sphere. GDP didn't help America beat Afghanistan, one of the absolute poorest countries on earth. It didn't help them beat North Korea or Vietnam either. They still haven't succeeded in removing communism from poverty-stricken, bottom of the barrel GDP Cuba. If Russia decides to keep moving into western Europe, their GDPs mean nothing. Seizing that land just means Russia gets all of what those countries have, forever, without the high price tag.
GDP isn't motivating angry dictators to invade. They're doing it because they can.
All that might be true for consumer products, but it’s absolutely not true for weapons systems and cutting edge technologies. Their J-20 fighter jet has a cost between 30-120 million, whereas the F-35 costs 78 million. It’s also worth mentioning that the high speed rail in China only exists because of strict control over airways making trains artificially competitive. Despite this state rail system holds 850B in debt alone (with some numbers I’ve seen online indicating a total system debt of 1.8 trillion), and is losing money daily. Regardless of the rumored numbers, a debt level that high indicates that they have to pay near-western prices for advanced technology. Tanks, jets and high speed rail are considerably more challenging to produce cheaply than sandwiches or obsolete smart phones.
Agree 100%. The problem is really, GDP is in one currency. There should be a second metric, adjusted to local buying power, for countries with loads of internal resources, and production capability.
When I look at numbers, for example, which China spends on military spending, and research? Then try to equate it not in USD, but in local buying power?
And also consider many Chinese companies are state owned, including resources (mining), refining, and producing weapons...
Compared to almost everything the US GOV and the West do, being for profit...
It seems to me that China's military budget dwarfs all of NATO, in terms of buying power.
Yet most seem to not consider this. Even in planning.
US air superiority means little, if each US plane costs 40x a Chinese plane, and each US plane is swarmed by 100 planes at once...
> There should be a second metric, adjusted to local buying power, for countries with loads of internal resources, and production capability.
There is, it's called GDP PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). It adjusts for local prices, so countries like Russia and China rank higher than they would at a nominal level. Keep in mind though global commodities are typically priced the same (or similar) worldwide; PPP only applies to goods produced internally.
There's a difference between political failures and military ones. Apples and oranges. No amount of military power can compensate for a lack of (or unachievable) political goals.
Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan all lacked coherent political goals. "Destroy military forces supported by half the country" is not a valid strategy.
Side note: you've used the old-fashioned (and Putin-favoured) english nomenclature for Ukraine as "the Ukraine" in the first sentence, and the Ukraine-preferred nomenclature in the second.
This is actually the crux of the issue in two sentences. Ukraine is a sovereign state, but Putin politically asserts it is merely a territory they control, harking back to a pre-WWII time; Ukraine was a territory regularly divided up and under the control of different neighbouring states as a bargaining chip, gift, settlement, or conquest.
This is I guess why Brzezinski talked about it as it was and as it is. Ukraine used to be passed around and fought over as a set of territories without a home. Post WWII, it is a nation state and its existence as a nation state historically perturbs its neighbours, most notably Russia.
Ukraine still has all the geographical significance it had. It's the second-largest country by land mass in Europe, it is fertile (a nearby breadbasket, geopolitically), it is also mineral rich, etc.
So Brzezinski wasn't wrong to say it was still a source of conflict, a prize, but now being an independent nation state it has the right to defend itself and enter alliances. That makes it a risk strategic point -- even perhaps a pivot -- in a future conflict.
> Why could Russia not be an empire without Ukraine?
If Russia is to (re)build an "empire", it needs Ukraine to do it, for all the reasons above.
Bold to say Brzezinski wrote nonsense, though. Good for you: put yourself out there as an international statesman.
One of the reasons things like the EU are a good idea, is because there are very few if any nation states e.g Basque in Spain, Northern Ireland in Ireland/UK, Scotland in UK, Shetland in Scotland, Swedish Finns in Finland and so on and so on (and it's a global thing, Kurds in Iraq/Syria/etc). It's all a bit fractal and and subjective and shades of gray and often it's the drawing of sharp artificial boundaries over the top of that that causes the problems.
One thing that unifies the extreme socialist left and the extreme and alt-right in the UK is an almost rote belief in regional self-determination, as if all of those movements could have a place of their own if wider agreements can only be broken up. The paradox of both the extreme left and extreme right is that many among them admire Putin as a "strong leader" and believe Putin is acting out of Donbas's interests in liberating them. Their shock at the disconnect with what is actually happening -- that everyone free of motivated reasoning could see coming -- is fascinating.
But there is a funny thing going on right now at great speed. For a while in Europe it has been Putin's world and we just live in it -- he's been the most sophisticated single backer/instigator of discontent across the continent. But it looks like there is a chance, right now, that this bubble could burst for him, and burst domestically. It's going to be a turbulent fortnight.
Russia’s GDP is 25% smaller than the U.S. State of Texas.
It sounds like a joke but it isn’t.
Texas GDP is $2.0 trillion.
Russia GDP is $1.48 trillion.
Most of Russia’s GDP is selling oil and gas which is one of the reasons Putin is able to do this now. Through higher oil prices he’s amassed a war chest of $631 billion in foreign currency reserves that will enable him to weather sanctions. That along with the friendship treaty with China giving them a market to sell their oil and gas and sanctions will prove fairly toothless.
Also the Italy comparison doesn't take into account GDP PPP per capita (Italy 44th in the world, Russia 77th and below several former Comecon states) or the extensive difference in the amount of stolen wealth in their respective diasporas.
This is all assuming you share an underlying rational with the leader of Russia, which you don't. Putin obviously doesn't care about having a good economy or making life better for the average Russian. He cares about making himself look strong and maintaining power, and showing strength. In the long run Russia is going to hurt over this, but that's not what Putin cares about.
+1 to this comment -- as you state it's not possible to apply western success metrics to Russian politics or Putin. Of that Italian-sized economy, the spoils go to Putin's oligarchs and the average Russian is apathetic about political influence and fed government-owned TV news. Historically, they haven't been able to influence things and their needs matter little. It isn't a western democracy or economy -- it's more like an authoritarian regime where it's the needs of the political leadership that matter. They should have seized Putin's super-yacht before it fled Germany last week.
The flipside though is that Putin wouldn't be doing this unless he thought it would be popular and cement his legacy as a czar; and he wouldn't commit his Russians to it if he didn't think it would make Russia stronger and benefit Russia in the long term. His thinking is rational in this regard. Barbaric, but rational. And it will take more than sanctions to shake the foundation of this medieval belief.
Is there a strong reason to believe that Putin thinks this way? As recently as two days ago, people in my circles were presenting this as an argument for why Putin wouldn’t invade, since it seemed so obvious that Russia would be stronger by claiming to occupy the moral high ground while protecting the separatist regions through deterrence.
There is no reason. People are just projecting because geopolitical war is too nuanced. For more informed takes on this check out Peter zeihan. I’m not saying his take is gospel, but at the very least he reveals the plethora of factors that are at play that the news will never tell you about.
Putin's move here is like what you do when your character is about to die in CK3 so you just throw all your armies at a neighboring territory while you still have a claim you can press, even if your casus belli isn't accepted by the neighbors.
The strongest reason for me to believe his thinking is rational in terms of the Russian interest is that there is very little that could make Russia worse after his rule, and there are many reasons to suspect he's facing his own mortality. So here he's making a high-price choice which will dent his bank account and possibly his short-term popularity. As the richest man in the world and the most popular man in Russia, he must be dying and trying to make one last push. Otherwise there's no reason for him not to rest on his laurels: His massive wealth and the total ownership of Russia he has already. The man should retire. But he wants to make himself Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible; to put himself into the annals of the Orthodox Church, he must conquer the cradle of the Rus'.
My theory on Putin is that he may be suffering from cancer. It would explain his terror of close contact with people, and this extreme move --
My fear about him is that he may want to take the rest of the world with him when he dies, including Russia.
I've met little "non-political" Russians like Putin playing guitar, working illegally at restaurants; accidentally overstayed a visa, have to go home to visit Moscow; you know because there's a soviet pin inside the jacket. Yuri Gagarin, or something. He's one of a type that exists and travels around Europe now.
[Edit: I saw this article had never been posted on HN so I just put it up... but it's been immediately deleted, for reasons I don't know].
Hah. Wild. I had read this a few years ago and never saw the comments. It's a pretty great piece of writing, maybe even more brilliant if it's totally fake; but yeah, his comments call it into doubt. It's hard for me to tell whether he's being sarcastic, on drugs, or admitting to making it up. Or all three.
One theory being discussed is that Putin will declare Russia + Belarus + Ukraine a new country, and thus can be the leader of it and avoid difficult changes needed to continue to serve as President. They've done quite a bit of dancing to keep him in power despite term limits, and a new constitution would greatly facilitate his (and his cronies) ability to hold power
> They've done quite a bit of dancing to keep him in power despite term limits,
Wasn't it hilarious how in 2008-2012 (? or thereabouts) the Prime Minister was suddenly more important than the President, when before and after it's been the other way around?
There seems to be an "anschluss" underway with Belarus already. But it doesn't appear today that Putin needs any legal grounds to declare anything he wants; he's essentially president-for-life already, without changing the borders.
Ukraine has gas reserves that seem to be mostly untouched because of regional turmoil and therefore a temporary inability to get that gas out of the ground.
Russia is close to a modern day feudal state if you think about it. The only difference is that Putin splits the country's mineral resources with the oligarchy instead of the land. This is coming from an acclaimed Russian novelist, Vladimir Sorokin. This Spiegel interview with Sorokin dates from before the 2008 Russo-Georgian war:
at some level, it’s fair to say that serfdom just never stopped: you can call the leader “tsar”, “comrade”, “president”, or whatever else you want if it makes you happy, but “prole” and “serf” are more or less cognates too.
> Because if you want to be a world power in 21st century what you need is a huge economy.
Lol being a world power was never about the economy, it had always been about military strength. Americans might think that they are a superpower because they have one of the largest economies in the world, but that’s being totally small-minded and missing the fact that the reason why their economy is that big in the first place is that the purpose of economies is to power the military with networks, talent, and money.
So many commentators did not live through post-USSR 90s to completely miss the mentality and culture which shapes Putin's decisions.
First, you need to understand values of a person, then their goals, then their methods to achieve the goals. 90s in post-USSR countries were a relatively free environment (from state prosecution) and it naturally selected for individuals which wanted as much power as possible and were willing to take it. For these individuals power is given only to those, who are powerful enough to have it, and must be taken from those, who are not powerful enough to keep it. If you are having your power, than it is moral for you to keep it until you don't.
This way of thinking is not something new or unique to post-USSR 90s - we as humanity have lived with this way of thinking for millennia and our thinking gave birth to countless empires and kingdoms. Those, who were powerful enough to be emperors, also had a right to be. Those, who challenged them in their power, would be new emperors, if proven powerful enough, otherwise would be painfully killed, their property and wives taken and their name forgotten. Let's call this mentality a "Cult of a Warrior". When you are living in this mentality, nothing is worse than feeling shame of abandoning your ideals or friends; you must be a truthful Warrior of the Cult until you die. But in the same time you can freely take anything you like which does not already belong to any of your friends, because if somebody is not powerful enough to fight you, than this person is not worthy of keeping this thing in the first place.
Some of us (humans) during a course of time have countlessly discovered and rediscovered that people can be treated as equal in principle, independent on their physical/economic/political power. This arrangement led to a more productive economic environment where zero-sum-game of Cult of a Warrior changed to a positive sum game of "Everybody Must Be Soft Cult". Also less overall human suffering is kind of cool, but economy thing is always first. In Everybody Must Be Soft Cult power over people can be used only with great care, everything is governed by a bureaucracy and no-one is unwilling to take too much responsibility for any action. This Cult uses a strong moral system to prohibit each of its members from using too much power on the others and those, who do not accept this system, are gradually punished with worse and worse strikes of punishment each time to learn their lesson. At the end, those individuals, who do not understand the reason for given punishment (its always abuse of power over others), are brought to death or exiled. Welcome to the Western civilization as we know it.
So let's go back to Putin and Ukraine. If we accept as an axiom that Putin is an adept of the Cult of a Warrior, then we can make the following conclusions:
1. Putin sees himself as a Chief Warrior of his tribe and therefore has factual and moral power to make any decisions for his tribe as he likes it. I will call him the "Chief Warrior" from now on.
2. The Chief Warrior sees that as time goes on, more and more fellow members of his tribe are turning from Cult of a Warrior to the Cult of Everybody Must Be Soft. From a point of view of a Warrior nothing is worse than to convert yourself to an Everybody Must Be Soft person. Worse is only when your children convert to Everybody Must Be Soft Cult and become all PC and LGBTQ drug loving hippies. No Warrior wants that to their children.
3. So from the Chief Warrior point of view he (in the Warrior cult its always he) does not have any choices at all regarding what to do with his life and how to guide his tribe next. First of all, he must save the tribe from this fucking Everybody Must Be Soft epidemy which is happening right now and must do so ASAP.
4. To save the tribe from Everybody Must Be Soft epidemy it must be separated from the source of the illness in the first place. That means economic and information blockade. All key technologies and industries must be developed in house, all external communication must be ceased, the nation must be quarantined until it find its Warrior soul again. Also its awesome if some of the most active bad blood from the Everybody Must Be Soft movement emigrates in the process.
5. So how to turn a course of a nation of 100+ million people, rapidly integrating from 1990s into Western economy and system of values? It is not so easy. You nee some help from your opponent in doing so. Remember Eastern martial arts - it takes less power to use your opponent against himself, then to do everything all by yourself? So you need to use Everybody Must Be Soft system of punishment to get yourself excluded and expulsed from its system. Economic sanctions is the name for it. For all sanctions the national economy will get a strong hit in the short term, but will become independent from the Everybody Must Be Soft economic system in the long term. Everything, which does not kill us, makes us stronger - said a fellow Warrior (or something like that) once.
6. How to get economic sanctions from the West? Everybody Must Be Soft always punishes for abuse of power, so we must show it to them. Crimea in 2014 was a nice start and we also reminded our fellow Warriors that our soul of the Warrior is not lost yet to the illness, that the times are turning. Also have to make internal reforms regarding freedom of speech, independent news media and political parties to smoke out all the Everybody Must Be Soft elite, so that this liberal pus comes out of an ill body of the Warrior which always has been and always will be Russian Empire, or Russia as it is simply called right now.
So what can people from Everybody Must Be Soft Cult can do to gain advantage in this fight? First of all, get their heads out of their arses and imagine that some people from another culture living on another continent might think differently than they are regarding fundamental ways of living and morality. Take some LSD and watch Chinese martial arts movies for Christs sake if you have so limited imagination.
Second, launch a program of giving free Western university education to Russians with a condition of returning back to their shitty dictatorial country as it is right now and starting improving something in this regard. Subsidize creation of Russian voice-over for all Western movies, give free English language classes to people over 30 and overall increase cultural transfer to people living currently in Russia. To kill Putin you have to convert all these people into the Everybody Must Be Soft mentality.
Third, in NO CASE create any new economic sanctions to Russia and repel all the old ones. Going the sanctions route would be like giving the Chief Warrior exactly what he wants on a silver plate. Give large amounts of aid to Ukraine to compensate for inconvenience of having a bully neighbor at the same time.
Fourth, either Everybody Must Be Soft Cult wins by converting everyone over, or it dies from hands of the Great Russian and Chinese Warriors who are getting stronger in the meantime.
PS. Sorry for my grammar and typos, not a native speaker.
Also slightly edited regarding grammar/typos.
I think the Sanctions/No Sanctions debate is mostly moot. North Korea has been in the status of pariah state for decades and hasn't bent an inch. Compare that to China for whom we gladly swept the Tiananman Massacre under the rug, respected their sovereignty, made them a top trading partner and they have also not bent an inch. And we have hosted thousands of Chinese grad students at our universities. They are also watching the events in Ukraine right now and thinking "Why not Taiwan?" Modern dictators have learned very well the propaganda game. "We're rich because our enemies fear us" or "We're poor because our enemies are mistreating us" both work pretty well.
North Korea has definitely bent. Their nuclear program is moving slowly. Their cruise missile program is moving slowly. Without the sanctions they would have had missiles to carry out a global nuclear strike decades ago. South Korea launched satellites in the 90s!
China also bent. But in a way that is very different from what people expected. There was this idea that economic freedom must lead to political freedom. It was the cornerstone of political calculations for a century in the west. But it turns out China bent on the economic side without bending on the political side. This wasn't preordained, if hardliners in China had won their battle against reformers China would still be trapped. But by the time that it became clear that this was the greatest miscalculation of the last half century, it was too late. China became too entrenched economically in the global order for any sanctions to be possible.
But sanctions have worked. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons because of sanctions.
What sanctions don't do is they don't lead to regime change. But they absolutely lead to massive behavioral changes.
"Bent" meaning in their intentions. Opening up to China was always meant to show them that capitalism was to everyone's advantage and that in a few decades they'd trend away from authoritarianism naturally. That absolutely hasn't happened. They are not the same country as they were 30 years ago but in many ways they are much worse.
> North Korea has been in the status of pariah state for decades and hasn't bent an inch.
There are sanctions on the NK leadership and you have to convert them and their children into the Western way of thinking before they can even give open information to regular people. Right now Russia just started to censor its internet and Western values together with Western media cat still freely flow to Russia's people. This window of opportunity is closing rapidly, over though.
> Compare that to China for whom we gladly swept the Tiananman Massacre under the rug, respected their sovereignty, made them a top trading partner and they have also not bent an inch.
Because China has ~ 1B people and it heavily censors its media from the start. You cannot change mentality of so many people so fast.
Yeah China censors media. So does Russia. So long as the control media they can make the population believe nonsense. Even countries with statutory freedom of speech are getting bombarded with propaganda very effectively. It's never been easier to get huge swaths of a national population to believe abject lies. Once they believe that government abuses are necessary for security they will get away with them forever.
Thank you, this is a very useful model of the philosophical differences between Russia and the west since the fall of the soviet union and provides some quality food for thought about how to change the direction geopolitics are going with the resurgence of strongmen across the globe.
I have traveled to Ukraine and Russia several times, dated a Russian briefly, then a Ukrainian, worked with Ukrainians in DC for several years, learned a bit of Russian and Ukrainian along the way... One of the things that I did not anticipate at first was the shared philosophical heritage with the west - my Russian ex-girlfriend's favorite book was Seneca's Letters to Lucilius, for one random example. For another, take a visit (in better times) to the Hermitage in St Petersburg and notice how the museum honors greek/roman philosophy and empire as much as any western museum.
The philosophical position upon which this country was founded - the rise of what recon517 is calling the "Everybody Must Be Soft" philosophy - has only been a dominant force recently, really only coming onto stage in the 20th century. It is not what has ruled the world for the majority of our 6,000 years of civilization and there is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. The idea that those who take and keep power by whatever means have a moral right to it is not new. I recently finished reading Xenophon's Anabasis (aka The Persian Expedition), and this philosophy seeps through just about every page as the Greek army lays waste to anyone not deemed of benefit to them, even fellow Greeks. Xenophon was a close friend of Socrates, remember.
Xenophon addressing the army, Anabasis book 6:
"As long as you stay together united as to-day, you will command respect and procure provisions; for might certainly exercises a right over what belongs to the weaker."
My point with all of this is 1) we have more shared history than you might think, and 2) that if you enjoy the fruits of an equality mindset over the fruits of a winner-takes-all mindset, then do not take it for granted. Its dominance in politics is not guaranteed, at home or abroad.
Live it, understand it, be it, calmly share it, never force it. We cannot win this war of ideas by treating it like a war. The irony is that in the end it is far more powerful to cooperate than to take, but the success rests upon preventing individuals from concentrating and exercising that power.
My two cents, another imperfect model for consideration.
What do you suppose makes it so impossible for a soft cult politician to recognise a warrior when they see one? Because warriors seem to have no problem seeing the other way around.
The Americans had their noses rubbed in it for 20 years in Afghanistan, only to see the warrior Taliban spring right back up overnight. I can’t imagine a more effective wake-up call than that.
It would have been better if they had just called Gorbachev and asked if invading Afghanistan could ever work or they should just drop it. He has the experience and I’m sure he would have been happy to share it.
I don't think they have a problem recognizing those that subscribe to the warrior cult mentality - notice how often our politicians publicly call Putin a "thug"? It's dealing with it that's the issue. You literally have to change a culture - how does one do that? Clearly sanctions are a blunt tool and often backfire. And violence is supposed to be the last resort for those of the equality mindset, whereas it's the first for the warrior mindset. It's tricky.
I've tried to map this model onto Afghanistan but I think that's a bit of a different beast. America was 100% foolish to invade, I agree. But an equality mentality and a warrior mentality are not the only cultural philosophies. Religion alters the picture in yet another way.
Perhaps, but the way the last cold war ended was by economic collapse. The warrior cultists needed somebody feeding and arming them, so they needed an economy, and their economy wasn't up to the task. I'm pretty sure the folks pushing the sanctions understand this.
Also, you could choose more neutral labels. The point of the egalitarians isn't that people should be soft but that people have rights even if they can't defend them. And really Putin believes this too, he just ignores this when convenient. He isn't okay with harms done to Russia when it was weak. If he really accepted this warrior ethos, he would think they were perfectly fine. Russia couldn't defend its interests, so it deserved whatever it got.
A neutral term for might makes right is kraterocracy. "Democracy" doesn't quite capture the alternative, but will do. Perhaps "egalitarianism" is better.
> Perhaps, but the way the last cold war ended was by economic collapse. The warrior cultists needed somebody feeding and arming them, so they needed an economy, and their economy wasn't up to the task. I'm pretty sure the folks pushing the sanctions understand this.
Except currently Europe desperately needs oil and gas from Russia.
> Also, you could choose more neutral labels. The point of the egalitarians isn't that people should be soft but that people have rights even if they can't defend them.
It was partly irony, partly an attempt to show how we (West) could be seen from their (Warrior) side. Because Warrior clan's people deeply despise the other ones.
> And really Putin believes this too, he just ignores this when convenient. He isn't okay with harms done to Russia when it was weak. If he really accepted this warrior ethos, he would think they were perfectly fine. Russia couldn't defend its interests, so it deserved whatever it got.
If your friend is badly beaten physically, you do not leave this friend behind to die because he is a weakling, you help him heal his wounds and make revenge later. If your friend has became weak emotionally, than it is time to dump or even kill him because of mercy. Because true strength of the Warrior lies in his spirit first and in its body second.
Russia in 90s was very weak economically, but spiritually was at its peak of Warrior (or bidlo/gopnik) ethos.
> A neutral term for might makes right is kraterocracy.
Do you want NYC to be a glowing rubble? An American direct attack on Putin would all but guarantee that outcome and likely a few more cities with it. Remember they also have subs right off our coast and I am not interested in finding out if their sailors are willing to follow through with their strike.
Russia is outclassed by NATO both economically and militarily.
If NATO intervenes economically, Russia will lose much.
If NATO intervenes militarily, Russia will lose much (but at great cost to NATO).
The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? Russia understood this before invading, right? So it seems Russia is accepting a high risk of loss.
But it doesn't make sense that a nation as sophisticated as Russia would accept such a high risk of loss. Which means that they might actually believe the risk of NATO intervention is low.
How could the risk be low without some kind of collusion or hidden knowledge (hidden from us common folk)? Are "they" ("the global elite", "the military industrial complex") all "in it" (profiting) together? Is Russia just suicidal? If (when?) Russia loses out, how do they react?
I think the risk of direct NATO military intervention is very low, due to Ukraine not being a member state. As the Nato secretary said, they will support Ukraine, but made it clear the security guarantees are only for allies.
"I think also that we need to realize that Ukraine is a highly valued partner. We support them with military support, with political support, with the cyber defences, with equipment. Different Allies provide different types of support.
But when it comes to NATO Allies, we provide absolute security guarantees. Meaning that we make it absolutely clear that an attack on one Ally will trigger a response from the whole Alliance. One-for-all. All-for-one."
Not only is Ukraine not a member state, but Russia is a military power and NATO countries have a very low appetite for war (which is good so long as there are other options for resolving conflict).
For sure Putin has thought most scenarios through and have guessed correctly that the West will not intervene.
The West however cannot be seen to do nothing, so sanctions are the logical next step.
A part of me thinks that Putin at 69 years old, senses that he have to create a great legacy for himself and invading Ukraine seems like a perfect opportunity.
I sincerely hope that the sanctions will include removing Russia from all sports and excluded from as much trade as possible.
I agree. I definitely think Putin wants to be the hero who re-established the Russian empire or something. I really hope we hit hard with sanctions and they aren't just for show like various European weapon contributions (never mind Canada sitting on its hands in that regard and Germany actively blocking Estonia's weapons and instead sending helmets ffs).
That said, I'm worried that the sanctions will be weak/ineffectual as I doubt NATO countries will want to risk economic harm, especially in Europe where they've allowed themselves to become so dependent on Russian natural gas. Personally I think Ukrainian lives are worth an increase in energy prices.
Same here, but in Denmark many house owners are already struggling with prices on electricity going from DKK 2.000/month to 5.000/month. And this is before Putin invaded Ukraine.
And now gas and oil prices seem to be rising, triggering Biden to state that these increases will be dealt with.
So no, I'm not optimistic about sanctions even though I also think Ukraine must come first.
>I think the risk of direct NATO military intervention is very low
I agree the military intervention risk seems low, but what about economic intervention? Isn't this going to have some serious economic repercussions for Russia?
Russia has grown its gold reserves drastically over the last decade, has relatively little debt and is increasingly trading with China without using US dollars at all.
I'd say they've anticipated those serious economic repercussions to some extent. But I also suspect Russians may be more willing to tolerate things such as a weak economy if it helps achieve other goals. I kind of see it like a parallel with Russia shooting a bullet at its own economy, while the Soviet Union in the 20th century shot plenty of bullets at its own people...for various reasons.
I thought the last round of sanctions was so inpactful because they targeted russian oligarch investments rather than the russian state. Hurt the oligarchs and they get angry with putin.
It's proven to have an opposite effect. Cutting their ties with the west just consolidates their loyalty. It's painful for them once that happens, but long term effects are actually not serving the purpose.
Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission said they have spent weeks prior to this getting assurances from other countries to increase their gas deliveries. They named Azerbaijan, Egypt, Nigeria and Norway.
She said, they are now in a state, where they can't be pressured trough gas deliveries from Russia. Whether this is true, I have no idea.
Just passing on what was said, I don't have much knowledge on this topic. As I understood, they were implying importing more gas from other countries on existing infrastructure, not building entirely new one.
Looking at this, Russian LNG imports makes up 20%. Doesn't seem to be completly impossible for the other countries on that list to cover for it at maybe a higher price.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51358
It looks like Putin is making the correct calculation that the west would suffer more.
Look at the Chinese reaction, it is very unlikely he would be making this move without at least tacit Chinese support. He has an outlet for all of that energy and grain.
Yes, except now the Iranians also suddenly have significantly more leverage in negotiating a new treaty. Coming to a timely agreement there is not a foregone conclusion.
The key balance here is with the Iranians and the saudis. In all likelihood the nato response hinges on how much support they can count in the Middle East.
We're relatively economically powerless here. We've spent the last thirty years deindustrializing on behalf of China, which runs a trade surplus of a trillion dollars a year with the United States and can afford to use to keep Russia afloat in spite of whatever sanctions we think we can push.
As an aside, I wonder why more people (especially on this forum) aren't discussing the likelihood of increased cyber attacks, not just on government and military institutions but on private businesses. If we sanction Russia, they might hit our hospitals, banks, etc. Seems like we should start ratcheting up our security.
I work at the big fintech with a large footprint in Eastern Europe. We have been ramping up our cyberdefence capabilities intensively for over a week now based on various public and non-public advisories. As far as I see from my extended network, we are definetly not alone doing that.
What worries me is the idea that some ex-soviet apparatchik (someone like Vladimir himself) might want to take eye-for-eye, and reduce western infrastructure to the same level of ruin of the Soviet’s, after ‘89.
Their industry and economy was struggling and fell apart overnight but the West wasn’t happy to just win, it wanted to Win Big. We rubbed the unproductivity of it in their face, kicked the market wide open to fire sales and mass demobilization… these humiliations create resentment, and you never know who’s the more spitefully determined.
> Their industry and economy was struggling and fell apart overnight but the West wasn’t happy to just win, it wanted to Win Big. We rubbed the unproductivity of it in their face, kicked the market wide open to fire sales and mass demobilization
I'm not familiar with this; can you elaborate or link me to something?
Post-communist states sold off their remaining assets after 1989. Many people think (correctly in many cases) that there was a lot of corruption during the process. That allowed people (usually foreign) to buy a lot of key infrastructure and other stuff for nothing.
> Isn't this going to have some serious economic repercussions for Russia?
Russia's been sanctioned for nearly a decade. They're probably the most resource-rich nation on earth and have a nearly fully self-sufficient economy. What little they need they can get from China.
Also, when people look at Russia's GDP, they need to look at REAL numbers (ie. Adjusted for PPP). Russia's real GDP is ~3x higher than their nominal GDP (because sanctions drive down currency trade and make the nominal number basically useless).
> Russia's been sanctioned for nearly a decade. They're probably the most resource-rich nation on earth and have a nearly fully self-sufficient economy. What little they need they can get from China.
It might look so like we have a self-sufficient economy, but it's not true. We have lots of resources, but to mine them and produce things you need technology. We're mostly importing needed technology and it's not something that can be changed fast. And things didn't change much for the last 10 years. China is a good partner, they can produce and export all needed tech things, but I doubt that in the current world is a good option to depend on one partner.
I'm Russian and I don't understand the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine. And I don't agree with our country leaders' decisions. It doesn't look the peace could be brought by war and aggression. And I'm feeling that we already lost. We lost opportunities to partner with Ukraine and other countries. We lost momentum to grow our own economy.
> I'm Russian and I don't understand the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine. And I don't agree with our country leaders' decisions. It doesn't look the peace could be brought by war and aggression. And I'm feeling that we already lost.
When you talk with people around you in Russia, does support for the invasion feel like a wedge issue? No pressure to respond if you feel like it's not easy to talk about.
For a bit of context, where I live there's some controversy of whether or not the federal government needed use certain reserve powers. [1] I personally felt the government's actions were pretty measured, but I understand (at least on a theoretical or emotional level) why other people might not have been comfortable with it. I sometimes wonder if support for Russia's invasion is very polarizing internally. That said, I don't speak Russian or know much about the public consciousness there.
> I don't understand the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine.
I think I do.
It seems to be the same as the reason for invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Ukraine also started a transformation, slipping away from Russia's influence and opening to West. Russia's rulers (whether that is Putin or whomever) understandably got pissed by this loss of influence "in their backyard" and they decided they have to do something.
It was clear to Russians for a long time now that NATO was fractured on Ukraine and that even the hawkish Western powers won't go into direct war with Russians because of Ukraine. It's not that important to anybody in the West.
Considering the fact West won't fight in Ukraine, and it did not provide any real concessions to Russia's demands, it is not surprising that Russia has taken initiative. It makes perfect sense, for Russians it is the only way to make sure NATO/EU won't happen and also win control and resources in Ukraine at the same time (which may be a substantial reason as well, despite the fact Putin does not talk about it).
Considering the disproportion in military powers, I think now it would be best for Ukrainians to capitulate, admit defeat and avoid unnecessary deaths. Also, the West bears some responsibility for this misery in Ukraine. Even from western point of view, West should have never started this overture process with false promises and predictable bad results. Unless the Russian invasion was actually a desired result in some secret mastermind plan made in the West... which does not seem likely.
> Isn't this going to have some serious economic repercussions for Russia?
Russian economy is in decline since 2014. COVID-19 pandemic has increased its decline even further.
So it seems that the upcoming EU + US economic sanctions will be used by propaganda as the ultimate explanation of the decline. I mean Kremlin actually looks forward to more sanctions in order to have plausible explanation ("we are at war and our enemies made your life worse; we need to stay strong around our leader mr. Putin" shit).
The vast, vast majority of the growth in US and EU economies since 2014 (really, much earlier than that, though) has been in fundamentally non-productive sectors like finance, real estate, entertainment, social media, and hospitality.
This is all well and good in peacetime, but the GDP calculation changes dramatically when you're on a war footing and need to produce actual tangible things. Russia looks much, much, much better economically than GDP suggests in the context of its ability to produce theater materiel, power that materiel, and man that materiel.
It's going to be a fun day for us when our pathetic "service-based economy" workforce of ad spent optimizers, real estate agents, attorneys, starbucks baristas, ReactJS programmers, UI designers, Buffalo Wild Wings servers, twitch streamers, instagram influencers, and "hustlers" of all kinds get drafted to fight hardened alcoholic roughnecks who've spent the last 20 years actually building things, backed up by Chinese rangefinders, optics, and target acquisition systems.
Russia does 5 times more trade with China than the US. Most of the west is reliant on Russian oil or Russian allies oil making it difficult to put down hard sanctions as Russia holds more power that the west would like to admit.
Military intervention is the best solution Russia has a large army but its old and would be unable to deal with western military, but there is no real path for that to happen.
Perhaps, but there are already significant economic sanctions in place since the previous invasion of Ukraine in 2014. Russia has survived those reasonably well. More sanctions will probably come but they can only be incremental. Several key NATO members are highly dependent on Russian energy supplies and can't afford to shut those off indefinitely.
We're talking about the 2 biggest nuclear powers here. A tiny mistake or misunderstanding is all that's needed. Google Vasily Arkhipov.
After the EU sanctions overnight, it seems that Russia felt it had not much to lose, and they launched their attack.
Well, if you were looking a bit more closely you would have noticed a lot of little steps all leading to that goal, so as far as I'm concerned it was inevitable, but you are of course entirely entitled to your own worldview.
Then you did not listen to Putin's speech where he declares all territories which have once been part of the Russian empire as illegitimate states which should be forcibly reintegrated. He outright declared himself an Imperialist with dreams of empire. The only thing which would have dissuaded Putin was overwhelming force.
I have trouble understanding your point of view. What are you suggesting? I hope not that US starts nuclear war with Russia over disagreement about Ukraine?
The only way it would have been avoidable is for the EU and NATO to withdraw their support (economic, political, military) from Ukraine, in order to enable the Kremlin to bring about a Russia-friendly regime by non-military means. Putin’s goal was always to turn Ukraine back into at least a vassal state of Russia. Given the western-oriented developments in Ukraine since 2014, the opportunity window was slowly closing, time was running out.
You couldn’t prevent the Ukrainian people to predominantly prefer a western orientation, and to vote for a government with western values. The only conceivable way to really satisfy Putin would have been for the Ukraine to be controlled by Russia-aligned propaganda and media, probably with rigged elections, similar to Belarus.
Of course, Putin may have hoped that the Ukrainian public would "see the light" and realize that they are really Russian people (as Putin seems to think they ought to) and align themselves accordingly, but that would have been a pipe dream.
The West was ambivalent about eventual Ukraine membership in Nato for 8+ years. What has that achieved?
- If Nato had put a memorandum on Ukraine membership: Russia would have less of a reason to attack but Nato wouldn’t be able to help defend Ukraine in case of an attack
- Nato stays ambivalent about eventual membership: Russia is more likely to attack and, as stated by the Nato general secretary and the US president, Nato won’t help defend Ukraine in case of an attack
Ah, the good old “YOU made me do it” line. So, Putin had beed moving his 160,000 soldiers to the border for weeks because of the sanctions that were taken 2 days ago?
These arms are probably what will give them their country back in the end. Nobody is under any illusion that the Ukrainian army can defeat Russia in a conventional war. But Russia is signing up for possibly decades of guerilla and insurgencies and is going to bleed dry like the USSR did in Afghanistan.
You know of what Ukrainians are even sicker than this conflict? Russian imperialism. Each instance of sabre rattling brings them closer to the West.
Ukraine is not owned by Russia. If Ukraine invites NATO troops in, that is their right to do so. Ukraine does not want to be part of Russia, which is why Putin just had to launch an attack against the whole of the nation. Kharkiv is Russian-speaking majority and right next to the border, why didn't it voluntarily join Russia 5, 10, 20 years ago? It didn't want to is the correct answer.
Remember how the Russian government was recently talking about how what goes on inside of their borders is only their business? That they may move their troops anywhere they like inside of their borders (the obvious lie by Putin & Co that was obvious at the time)? Yeah, that's the same principle.
> Imagine Mexico for any reason would invite Russian army.
I've heard this "analogy" brought up several times in the last couple days, but I just don't find it persuasive or similar, or really actually matter.
If Mexico decided to invite the Russian army in for whatever reason, that is their choice as a sovereign nation. I (as an American) would be super worried about that, but I would also think that the US should probably be asking itself why Mexico had chosen to do this instead of allying itself with the US.
And that's really the heart of this for me: despite Ukraine's history with Russia, they seem to feel that joining NATO is better for their security and safety. Russia should take a hard look at themselves and ask why that's the case, and maybe adjust their behavior so they'd be considered a more trustworthy partner.
But of course that would never happen; instead we have a dictator who believes Russia has some natural right to Ukraine's lands, and will take it by force if necessary. If the US were behaving that way toward Mexico, I absolutely wouldn't blame them for looking for outside help. It would be irresponsible for them not to.
Ukraine is not getting nuclear weapons on its territory. If that were really the issue, Putin would have invaded the Baltic states and Poland. You know, where the weapons actually are.
In which way does what I want matter? I merely point out Putin's hypocrisy, consisting in attacking a country that gave up voluntarily its nuclear weapons and that would not be getting American weapons at all if it weren't for its aggressive neighbour. If Putin were really frightened by NATO, he would not be destabilising Ukraine, he would be undermining Poland.
I'm reasonably convinced that the only reason for anyone relevant to float around the idea of a NATO-Ukraine relationship was to drag an already economically fragile Russia into a conflict that they may "win" but at a high cost for Russia and for Ukraine. I say "win" because Russia will poison Ukraine for NATO, making it less (or not at all) desirable for NATO but will pay a heavy price. Overall that's a win for NATO as many (most?) members can breathe a lot easier around a weakened Russia.
Ukraine had been interested in joining NATO and the EU for 10 years now. The west has used this conflict very well but that is not the reason for the conflict. The reason for the conflict is entirely in Putin's head.
> Ukraine had been interested in joining NATO and the EU for 10 years now
When Ukraine was flirting with the idea of a relationship with the EU in 2013-2014 the Crimean invasion happened. It was absolutely predictable even at that time and in fact many EU officials I have spoken to (including high ranking ones) agreed as much since back then. The signs of a regime which doesn't stand any proximity of a threat to their rule was obvious.
> The reason for the conflict is entirely in Putin's head
I have never been in Putin's head, nor met or talked to him. But to my pride I do forget more history every day than most people will learn in their lifetime and can't think of similar example of a superpower happily accepting adversaries at their border.
In recent history look no further than when the US ordered a naval blockade on Cuba after Cuba's request for Russian missiles to be placed on the island to defend in the event of another US invasion attempt. Putin is literally taking a page from that book.
I don't need to be in Putin's head because he's not some brilliant tactician doing something unheard of, he's just playing an old song to a new audience. If it's the first time you hear it you just have to pay more attention to what came before today.
> But to my pride I do forget more history every day than most people will learn in their lifetime and can't think of similar example of a superpower happily accepting adversaries at their border.
Not to burst your bubble, but the USSR accepted Turkey with nukes on their border, and before them, Japan. China accepts being essentially surrounded by hostile powers, many of whom are part of NATO.
The Black Sea separates Russia and Turkey while an invasion staged from Ukraine could cut Russia off from the Black Sea in a few days. Very different security concerns.
(Of course “Turkiye” becoming a member of Nato in these times would have been a joke considering Erdoğan. But maybe I’m just showing my naivete.)
I don't like bubbles anyway :). All those countries have consistently acted exactly with the same methods you see now. Trying to avoid direct war but with no issues interfering with each other's conflicts and "buffer countries".
Georgia, Syria, Libya, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan are all places Russia and Turkey banged heads one way or another. Just like Russia is taunting NATO to bang heads in Ukraine. China, US, India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, Turkey are other powerful countries constantly putting out a fire and starting another one. The single larger difference being that the sphere of influence of most of those countries expands far less than US' so their conflicts are generally closer to their actual geographic border rather than on the other side of the world. Otherwise they're all fighting to maintain that buffer in all possible ways.
And at a completely different scale, people in rich neighborhoods rarely accept inconvenient buildings or neighbors right next to them as long as they can do something about it. It's not an indictment on either the people or the countries named above. Just the state of things.
Perhaps the only place with nukes and no sabre rattling today is Western Europe. Then again they have the US to do the rattling for them and pay for the service. The picture will be a lot clearer when this too becomes history.
China is in the midst of a decades long effort to not be surrounded by hostile powers. They went to war over Korea & would have over Vietnam if the US had invaded the north.
As a sort of redux, I guess my feeling is that obviously, every state would prefer to be surrounded by allies, or better still, by seas.
However, the idea that all superpowers inevitably go to war to preserve this state is just wrong. If you consider superpowers starting from antiquity to today, the only state that has achieved this situation (at any point?) is the USA. Every other has had at least one significant land border with an adversary.
(PS: Probably the biggest one is, of course, between the USSR and China, which was a very hot border since the sino-soviet split).
In general, I think you are correct. Neighboring states will learn to coexist or at least one of them will cease to exist as a state. Some Americans imagine that "exceptionalism" exempts us from this dynamic, but most of us are wiser.
Russia isn't a superpower, by most commonly accepted definitions only the US is and someone called "Vladimir Putin" has stated that too, for whatever that's worth. China, India and the EU have a better claim to that title though they're not superpowers either.
"In recent history look no further than when the US ordered a naval blockade on Cuba after Cuba's request for Russian missiles to be placed on the island to defend in the event of another US invasion attempt. Putin is literally taking a page from that book."
Well, except for the fact that the US never actually invaded Cuba.
It was a grave mistake for Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons they inherited from the USSR.
Yes... US "only" financed, coordinated, and offered active military support for the invasion. Then imposed a blockade on Cuba for asking for nuclear help from the USSR.
And in 2014 forces which were definitely just pro-Russian militias as they clearly had no Russian insignia invaded Crimea the moment Ukraine started contemplating a relationship with the West/EU.
This kind of rationalization or nit-picking in order to reach the conclusion you had already settled on has no value, just because there are sides doesn't mean you have to blindly take one. Education and critical thinking help.
It only offered very limited military support. You entirely ignore that Castro came to power under a different pretext than communism but Cubans only learned this too late. Unfortunately Kennedy didn't give the air support needed. Cuba could have been in much better shape today.
Don't compare an authoritarian regime sending militias to conquer the territory of a democratic country to a democratic country training and supporting exiles to get rid of their tormentor. Intent matters.
Let's not kid ourselves with this kind of rationalization. Intent matters when you failed to achieve your claimed results. When you need to explain why the crap you pulled smells so much better than the same crap the other guy pulled. But it's still crap and rationalizing it from a safe place where you just get to send thoughts and prayers rather than taking it is not only completely worthless but also insulting to anyone who ever had to suffer from someone else's "good intentions", particularly a superpower's. You'd appreciate those intentions a lot less if you were at the wrong end of them.
When you do a good job you don't need to explain your intentions. It's a lesson you learn the very first time you do a good job.
Russian and Ukraine combined account for 29% of global wheat exports, much of that to the EU.
Near term climate change will most certainly lead to massive crop failures, particularly in currently bountiful parts of the EU.
Countries like the UK (I know not EU) already cannot feed their people without imports, something like 50% of the UKs food supply is imported.
It is nearly certain that within a few decades, perhaps even sooner, we will be at a point where there is not enough food. We've already see notable crop failures in the EU.
Most of us have grown up in a time of plenty, but that time is running short.
All of this is fairly well established, so is my "delusion" in that Putin is aware of this and acting on it?
One obvious answer is that the US massively overproduces food on a scale that's hard to fathom, which is part of why we make extremely inefficient biofuels (corn ethanol) out of a big chunk of it and use it for inefficient meat production.
After some conversion through various bad units of measure (bushels->pounds->calories), and assuming ~2250 calories a day average), it looks to me like current US corn production could feed somewhere around 1.6 billion people their entire yearly caloric needs, if it was actually directed entirely at feeding people as efficiently as possible.
And that is rather obviously not the only crop or source of food originating in the US.
In short, I don't think it's very realistic to think that Europe is going to face a literal inability to get enough food even if the entirety of Ukraine never grew another plant again.
Additionally, Russia has a significant nuclear arsenal. The word on the tweets is that NATO going head-to-head with Russia would mean two significant nuclear powers fighting directly, making a significant risk of escalation. (NATO contesting air superiority over Ukraine would mean launching attacks on Russian air defenses over the border, for example.)
Your domestic fab capability can't run without thousands of consumables, and services only available in Asia. USA is not semiconductor self-sufficient since eighties, and cannot be any more, just like anybody else.
Semi is the most globalised industry spanning 28 countries, with USA, China, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, SK, Japan, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands being able to singlehandedly stop the whole of it.
It's a naive thinking "once TSMC will complete Arizona megafab, we can abandon Taiwan." There, are as I said, hundreds of critical single supplier globally pieces of equipment, services, and materials that most of the world had zero idea about. How about nanoneedle probes capable of testing M0 the entire industry depends on, for which there is 1 small company for the entire world.
The USA has a long, long history of being able to move when it has to. I'm pretty sure that if they want to re-create a particular level of expertise that they will be able to do so, given enough time.
The DoD has identified the loss of manufacturing capability as a national security risk. Maybe lower labor costs were the impetus of off-shoring manufacturing, but nearly 40 years since globalization took hold there's also a lot of manufacturing that has to go overseas simply because America is no longer able or willing to do it. Could the US bring back that capability? As you said, even if there was the will it wouldn't happen overnight.
I think you have no idea what entails what you are talking about. The world of semi has moved enormously since eighties, when the only country outside of USA with serious chip industry was Japan. Aside from "end of the pipe" fabs, and fab owners, everything else moved out, or never ever been a thing in USA.
US semiconductor equipment from LAM, and Applied Materials are more than half imported parts. US semi industry never used OSATs, until it had to ship their chips to Asia for that, and thus missed out on most of new packaging, and test tech which evolved outside of the US. Similarly for almost everything else.
Replacing Asian material suppliers for the US will be as hard as for China to develop a domestic photolithography stepper.
I am not telling you to shut up, and I am telling you to take a deep breath, and think this over after reading up on topic a bit.
"We will betray our allies, and they will leave us alone" is a form of defeatism, and entertaining others into this way of thinking is not what a citizen of NATO country should do, let alone a public figure.
I don't think the argument should really be framed that the goal is for the US to become fully fab self-sufficient. Rather, this is about a very specific risk scenario. I think the distinction is that Taiwan is in a particularly precarious situation with a rising superpower openly wanting to reclaim it. And that rising superpower has some cultural distinction that make it a liability to US interests. The other single-point failures in the supply chain don't appear to be at that level of risk.
This was my thinking as well. Even the verbiage is similar to what China has said in the past about Taiwan, except now it is Russia saying it about Ukraine.
China is estimated to have approximately 100 nuclear warheads and delivery systems that can reach the continental United States, anything over that would not make much sense anyway. Smaller is a relative term, in absolute terms this is a devastatingly powerful set of weapons.
China has a more powerful military than Russia at this point and vastly superior manufacturing and economic means to sustain it and push further. China's nuclear arsenal is merely smaller, but so what, nobody needs 10,000 nukes anyway. A thousand well-aimed nukes will do the job.
And I once again asking the age-old question: Are you really sure that the people in power would choose a military conflict with China to stop the invasion, when simply destroying TSMC can be the alternative? Surely, if the fabs are destroyed, half of the world’s semiconductor market would evaporate, but the cost of a military conflict with a superpower like China is extremely high as well.
There have been unsubstantiated rumors for years that the Taiwanese military has outfitted TSMC fabs with explosives that can be rigged to go off in the event of a mainland invasion in order to deny China access to TSMC capabilities. Even physical destruction may be unnecessary. Due to the complexity of the semiconductor supply chain, many say that an embargo of materials and the removal of experts are enough to paralyze the fabs for many years.
Taiwan has never been a NATO member. Taiwan has semiconductors western industry depends on. And the primary reason for AUKUS and giving the Aussies nuclear sub tech is precisely so their subs will have the range to help counter China. China just "sanctioned" (largely performative) Lockheed and Boeing over a $100 million arms sale to Taiwan.
Never mind various economic measures from all parts of the West. The developed world is already doing things about China's Taiwan ambitions, and have motivations far stronger than altruism to continue doing so. Ukraine by contrast is not as well integrated as Taiwan, and it's their desire to be integrated that set Putin off in the first place. If said integration meant nothing, Putin wouldn't be invading.
Well, let's see what happens when Taiwan applies to NATO then.
> Taiwan has semiconductors western industry depends on.
For once it isn't about oil.
> And the primary reason for AUKUS and giving the Aussies nuclear sub tech is precisely so their subs will have the range to help counter China.
I'm sure the Chinese are most impressed. But Australia too will stand by when the Chinese invade Taiwan.
> China just "sanctioned" (largely performative) Lockheed and Boeing over a $100 million arms sale to Taiwan.
You need to separate out the economic incentives from the political ones there to get a clearer picture of what is happening.
> Never mind various economic measures from all parts of the West. The developed world is already doing things about China's Taiwan ambitions, and have motivations far stronger than altruism to continue doing so.
China doesn't care about any of that: they care about the United States and them alone because that is the only country that can credibly put up enough force projected into that region to put a stop to it if they decide to move.
> Ukraine by contrast is not as well integrated as Taiwan, and it's their desire to be integrated that set Putin off in the first place.
You could Swap Ukraine and Taiwan and substitute Xi and you have a winner at some point in the future, provided Taiwan would express a desire to join NATO.
> If said integration meant nothing, Putin wouldn't be invading.
Put would invade regardless, and this is the mistake that everybody is making: the NATO approach is a figleaf, that only happened after things had already started to slide inside Ukraine. But I'm pretty sure that only a very small fraction of HN is aware of that.
Was placed to serve as a Russian puppet to keep Ukraine out of the influence of the West, which the country overwhelmingly wanted. After being tossed out (he's since moved to Russia) the whole separatism affair started fueled by Russia. Ukraine had every right to do so, and the occupation and subsequent invasion are proof positive that Ukraine was right about Russia's intentions, not the other way around.
You will find a lively corresponding sentiment in lots of other former USSR states.
I don't think Taiwan will apply for NATO membership. They'll run out strategic ambiguity as long as possible.
Regardless, when I say "western integration" I don't mean hard NATO membership. Taiwan is a greater economic player than Ukraine, and a very defensible island, with a very different set of political entanglements. The situations may look similar in the abstract, but it's comparing oranges to lemons.
I'm also not sure why you think the Aussies would stand by. They're already in their own economic war with China and by joining AUKUS have made their position abundantly clear. New Zealand would probably stand by, but honestly they don't matter that much militarily.
China is making enemy after enemy on the assumption that their enemies are fundamentally weak/corrupt and can be rolled over, while uniting under an ethno-nationalist/cult of personality leadership. They aren't the first in history to make that mistake. And if they continue down that road it ends in bloody defeat.
...was placed to serve as a Russian puppet to keep Ukraine out of the influence of the West, which the country overwhelmingly wanted. After being tossed out...
Could some trouble have been avoided if Yanukovych had left office via election rather than via coup? How many Ukrainians really considered his negotiation tactics with EU so unbecoming that he should have been summarily removed via "extralegal" means?
It's not "a simple question", it's a simpleton question. Either in the sense that it's posed by a simpleton, or that it's posed by someone who hopes that the recipients are simpletons.
Either way, the reason it can't have a simple answer is that it's an invalid question, since it presupposes something which isn't true. (As further explained in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30539775 .)
And IMO it's a bit suspicious that so many of the "simple questions" on this subject just happen to be couched in Putlin propaganda terms.
We can click through and read wikipedia just like you did. They held that vote after he had fled the nation due to the violent occupation of many government buildings. In fact they held that vote while the parliament building was so occupied.
"Settled history" is for fools. I'm on the side of Ukrainians who want to live in peace and prosperity rather than suffering violence and privation. For that particular interest, it seems that holding elections could be superior to violently occupying government buildings. This "Revolution of Dignity" smelled even more CIA than January 6 did. Mrs. Robert Kagan was just one of the many spooks who left her bloody fingerprints on this supposedly sovereign nation. You call Yanukovych a stooge literally because he negotiated too firmly with EU. This seems similar to Trump being impeached because he delayed sending the same armaments to Ukraine that Obama had refused to send his entire time in office. (It seems maybe those armaments have not had the advertised effect?) Any molehill can be puffed up to a mountain, when the USA military-industrial complex might thereby grind more human lives into dollars...
Goodness, it's enlightening to be told what I mean. Yes you've consistently avoided answering the question with which I started this thread: are elections better than violent coups?
One guess how I'm inclined to take that...
The vast majority of Ukrainians are not responsible for their misfortunes over the last decade. Certainly they have my sympathy. Violent coups usually harm the societies in which they occur, so the tiny minority of Ukrainians who took part in that coup have harmed their nation and their fellow Ukrainians. That harm has taken the form of a Russian invasion, but if it had happened somewhere else at some other time (e.g. Iran, in 1953) the harm would have come anyway.
Eventually, if we survive long enough, humans will learn to organize (and re-organize!) ourselves without large-scale violence. Some had imagined that democracy might be a part of that, but few today seem to agree.
The problem is that Taiwan is 20 miles from China and 5,500 to the U.S. (6,500 to the lower 48). It's easy to say that we will defend Taiwan now when the war would be a quick victory. Less so as China continues to close the military gap making it a difficult war. Even less so when victory becomes questionable or impossible.
The US made their commitments when their opponents were at their nadir neglecting that they'd be challenged when the opponents were at their strongest. Walking back those commitments to what the US is willing and able to defend will continue to be the challenge of the 21st century. There needs to be a strategic re-evaluation of what the US should defend and what they can defend.
IMHO, ultimately the either should not or can not defend Eastern Europe bordering Russia, The Caucasus, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan. How to wiggle out of those commitments without giving Russia, China, & Iran ideas is the tough part.
A bigger concern to me is that Taiwan is probably more disposable to China than it is to the rest of the world. China would significantly benefit its internal semiconductor industry by destroying fabs in Taiwan while the rest of the world would be starved of critical semiconductors, and given the active US sanctions towards Huawei in China... The balance of invade vs don't invade for China regarding Taiwan is slowly shifting.
The possible what-if scenarios arising from unchecked expansion of superpowers is disturbing.
[0] clarified to be within TW relations act, i.e. help TW defend itself, aka, basically no boots on ground in Ukraine tier of promise. US has even less capability of defending TW within first island chain then it does Ukraine. The idea of course is there will be some sort of naval contest, but that will likely change once PRC expands nuclear arsenal to the point of "That’s a world war when Americans and China start shooting at one another".
> USA has gone on record saying it will fall on the sword for Taiwan.
I'll believe that when I see it, under Biden, maybe. But that may also just be posturing and probably won't last longer than the moment that the USA can become independent of Taiwanese manufacturing capabilities at which point it would actually be in the US' interest if Taiwan would no longer be able to produce.
I am very concerned about exactly this. I think it would be very well at this moment to visibly increase our support for Taiwan, and our preparations for a confrontation with China.
i thought the same about Ukraine back in 2014 when Russia took the Crimean peninsula. after all we told them we would defend them if they handed over their nuclear missiles. I thought the west would do something about Hong Kong... I have thought a lot of things I was sadly wrong about.
> As the Nato secretary said, they will support Ukraine
With words.
EU has also supported Ukraine with words recently.
I've seen ads on the telly making an emotional statement that "Ukraine is Europe".
Europe as a continent does not exist: it is a small corner of Asia. Eurocentricism needs to stop. This us-vs-them game needs to stop.
This invasion is terrible for normal people, Ukrainian (bombs), Russian (sanctions) and everyone else (instability, high prices). It could have been prevented if the "west"/NATO was not "pulling on" (arming) Ukraine. The NATO already have plenty places to make bases on Russian border.
See what happened to Cuba. The US/NATO also do not like bases on their border. They should have understood Russia also does not like that.
But then I believe NATO is more into the business of war then the business of peace.
> But it doesn't make sense that a nation as sophisticated as Russia would accept such a high risk of loss. Which means that they might actually believe the risk of NATO intervention is low.
Or they see it like Poker as an "all in" move. Either lose now on their own terms in Ukraine or eventually they lose anyway as Ukraine joins NATO and Russia's nuclear advantages are "neutralized". Meanwhile there's the chance NATO may not intervene so take the risk...
The “all in” move was when they suggested they NATO not meeting their demands to permanently commit to excluding Ukraine and withdraw allied forces from Eastern European members of NATO was an aggressive act pushing them to war in Ukraine. When NATO didn't fold, they either had to invade or show the Putin regime as a paper tiger, which is a mortal blow for an authoritarian regime.
They spent many years on efforts to weaken governments of the West and relations between them for the purpose of doing something like that and having Western unity collapse. Maybe they misjudged and thought that would pay off.
Let's not pretend we can just torment Russia until a "good Russian leader" emerges to attend to our every desire. No politician who would ever receive 1% of the vote in Russia would support Ukraine joining NATO. NATO was formed to impoverish Russia and its allies, and that is still its obvious and declared purpose. Likewise, USA has relatively few politicians who would support China installing missile batteries along the Mexico border.
> Let's not pretend we can just torment Russia until a "good Russian leader" emerges to attend to our every desire
Let's not invent ridiculous strawmen to argue against. Pointing out that Putin was politically all-in long before the invasion began doesn't even remotely imply what you are arguing against.
[Apologies for the delay in replying; I am rate-limited on HN due to excessive pacifism.]
Perhaps I misunderstood because the idea that Russia has no options remaining is goofy. Putin wasn't "all-in" years ago, not least because he isn't "all-in" even now. He hasn't even turned off the existing pipeline yet, and it's still February.
You agree that tormenting Russia is unlikely to bring about the political changes many claim to desire. That being the case, why do we persist in tormenting Russia?
Because we saw what happened when a dictator took one country and we let him, thinking it would bring "peace in our time". We've learned that you can't just do nothing. If you do what is unacceptable, we have to push back. And Russia is doing what is unacceptable. We need to make it as painful as possible.
> [Apologies for the delay in replying; I am rate-limited on HN due to excessive pacifism.]
Snide comments insinuating that penalties on HN are based on particular views are always a dumb idea, but not nearly as bad as characterizing your apologia for Russian aggression as “excessive pacifism.”
> Perhaps I misunderstood because the idea that Russia has no options remaining is goofy.
I never said Russia has no options remaining. I said that Putin, having setup the propaganda position he did of framing NATO failure to accede to his withdrawal demands as a provocation of war I Ukraine, had no good option to avoid showing weakness from the standpoint of his domestic political position within Russia except invading Ukraine when the threat of force failed to get the West to capitulate.
> You agree that tormenting Russia is unlikely to bring about the political changes many claim to desire
I have neither agreed with that, nor agreed with your ridiculous characterization of Western actions as “tormenting Russia”.
Let's not pretend we can just torment Russia until a "good Russian leader" emerges...
. . . .
Let's not invent ridiculous strawmen to argue against.
. . . .
You agree that tormenting Russia is unlikely to bring about the political changes...
. . . .
I have neither agreed with that, nor...
Either you agree with it or you don't? Perhaps I should leave this argument, as you seem capable of continuing it all by yourself. Anyway, those who have a clue about sanctions agree that they harm innocents most of all. [0]
>>> You agree that tormenting Russia is unlikely to bring about the political changes...
>> I have neither agreed with that, nor...
> Either you agree with it or you don't?
No, an invalid statement requires neither agreement nor disagreement. And statements of the form "You agree that [premise] is likely / unlikely to bring about [consequence]" are invalid if the premise is invalid. I can't answer either "yes" or "no" to "You agree that the Moon being made out of green cheese is likely to bring about an oversupply crisis in the dairy industry once it comes crashing down"; the only valid answer is "Mu".
Likewise nobody here knows whether "tormenting" Russia would be likely or unlikely to bring about political changes there, since nobody in this world is doing that. You'll have to pop back over to your alternate reality and check how it works out there.
If NATO had met the Russia's demands, wouldn't the invasion have been prevented?
I don't understand how the west didn't see that they should at least accept to exclude Ukraine from NATO. Why, giving in to Russia's demand (even partially) would be a loss for NATO?
> I don't understand how the west didn't see that they should at least accept to exclude Ukraine from NATO.
What would the world have got in return from Russia? A solemn promise, a ratified agreement in writing and everything, that Russia would make no demands or incursions on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity?
Yeah, something like that would be great.
Except that's what the world already got from Russia, in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes back in the 1990s. And look how much that piece of paper was worth.
Maybe there was a chance for a solution without invasion. But it seems West did not believe/want this. Either this was because West not wanting to look weak or they have a secret plan and wanted Russia to invade... Either way, Western actions leading to this weren't in Ukraine's best interest.
What "game" is lost? Nobody is threatening to invade them. Why don't they create better future for their people the peaceful way - pursue math, education, science, even encourage tourism.
Because that's now how a kleptocracy works. Russia is essentially a failed state, a Mafia group with nuclear arms. They simply don't think in those terms, because in that world the people who are currently in power would have no role to play.
Russia recognized weakness and appears to be correct about that. The head of the German army just confirmed they are not prepared! Google translation and source below.
"In my 41st year of peacetime service, I would not have believed that I would have to experience another war.
And the Bundeswehr, the army that I am allowed to lead, is more or less blank. The policy options we can offer in support of the Alliance are extremely limited.
We all saw it coming and were unable to get our arguments through to draw and implement the conclusions of the Crimean annexation. That doesn't feel good! I'm eaten!
NATO territory is not yet under direct threat, even if our partners in the East feel the constantly growing pressure.
When, if not now, is the time to put the Afghanistan mission behind us structurally and materially and to reposition ourselves, otherwise we will not be able to implement our constitutional mandate and our alliance obligations with any prospect of success."
> Russia recognized weakness and appears to be correct about that. The head of the German army just confirmed they are not prepared! Google translation and source below.
> Among the failures: none of Germany’s submarines is operational, only four of its 128 Eurofighter jets are combat-ready and the army is short dozens of tanks and armored vehicles needed for NATO missions.
> In addition, troops are short on the basics: body armor, night vision gear and cold-weather clothing.
> The situation is so dire that 19 helicopter pilots from Germany’s Bundeswehr were forced to turn in their flight licenses because of a lack of training time.
> The reason: not enough helicopters for the pilots to fly.
The risk of US/UN intervention should be high, because that was the quid pro quo for Ukraine to abandon its nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum.
No country with nuclear weapons is ever going to give them up again. No security assurances will be seen as sufficiently reliable.
The risk of NATO direct military intervention barring an attack on NATO is very close to zero. (Increased material support for Ukraine could happen, but that doesn’t have the same impact.)
Economic response by the Western powers (not through NATO, but independently and through the EU and other institutions) is already happening and certain to escalate.
> But it doesn't make sense that a nation as sophisticated as Russia would accept such a high risk of loss.
Anthropomorphizing nations can be misleading. The risks born by the nation are largely not born by the people committing the nation to a particular course. “Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I’m willing to make.”
From what I heard recently, Russia has two benefits:
1. Tactical - chokepoints are a major element of military tactics, and I guess there's a spot that leaves Russia completely defenseless with wide-open spaces if it doesn't own Poland and Ukraine.
2. Wheat - apparently, Russia owns quite a bit of the market, and Ukraine would carry another minority.
With that in mind, I see this entire thing as a coercive and brutal M&A, but with people's lives being destroyed instead of just their long-term career plans.
And the Minsk agreement, the charter of the UN, and a bunch of treaties signed within the Council of Europe that are supposed to safeguard self-determination and deter agression.
When the other party is painted as the enemy, tearing down treaties is seen as an act of national pride. See Germany with the Versailles “Diktat” and Trump with the Iran nuclear deal and Paris agreement.
I had this mind as I wrote up my post but didn't mention it because I didn't consider the nuclear option as a serious option. Or maybe I'm just optimistic/delusional.
But how would the nuclear option play out?
Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes
I think the mistake here is to assume that the invasion is dictated by economic interests (be they oligarch interests). I don't think what's happening is driven by oligarchs, but by other geopolitical ideas (insane as they are).
As far as I can see it there's no bet. Russia pretty much knows the US will not react, and the US has no interest to start WW3 over Ukraine.
I dont understand how someone in the western world could read history and still believe that doing exactly what they did at the start of WW2 will bring a different result.
Germany invaded Austria and Czechoslovakia just before WW2, and the allies didn't do much. Only when Germany invaded Poland did they declare war on Germany.
> Russia is a waning power clinging to significance, not an ascending one.
I don't believe this, unless you define "significance" as nothing more than having your name in the world newspapers, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
Look at where they sit strategically. The amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world. The amount of math and science talent. The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry.
Look at what they are doing militarily right now and how effectively they are doing it.
They are an extremely significant country. This is true no matter how you feel about their government.
Italy's GDP is $1.87T.
Russia's GDP is $1.48T, down from around $2.3T in 2013.
Russia's economy is dependent on fossil fuels. While the decrease in Europe's use of nuclear power has been a gift to Russia, the future for fossil fuels is not bright and Russia's kleptocratic government has starved the nation of economic innovation.
I don't know what "extremely significant country" means here, but Russia is objectively a country in decline both in terms of economic and cultural power.
In terms of real GDP (PPP), Russia is at $4.3T while Italy is at $2.6T. Russia has the 6th largest GDP by this metric. However, I'm not sure how to think about real GDP vs. nominal GDP when it comes to war.
Hitler in 1939 had economic/industrial parity with at least one, if not two of his primary combatants (France and UK). He then had good reason to believe that other countries either would not engage (USA) or were highly overrated (USSR). He also had allies of significant weight. (1)
Russia in 2022 has a GDP of $1.5T, and NATO has a combined GDP of $42T (2). Even if you make the case that Russia's current economic activity translates more effectively into wartime industry, I don't believe you can possibly make the case that it is 28x more effective.
Germany also had military technology and strategy advantages (see France in 1940) over its (early war) opponents. As good as Russia's "math and science talent" is, I would be shocked if it was even a quarter of the capability that the US alone has.
So no, Putin in 2022 is not comparable to Hitler in 1939.
The problem is that it won't likely be a direct invasion. Estonia has a significant Russian minority and we've seen this play book before:
Does NATO intervene when Russia starts (or really continues) courting pro-Russian politicians?
Does it intervene if that minority starts protesting?
Does it when that minority starts resisting?
Does it when Russia smuggles them arms?
Does it when little green men show up?
Does it when the rebels (now mostly little green men) advance West?
This go around the West tried sanctions and it obviously didn't work. Estonia is far more Western and fewer historic ties to Russia than Ukraine did. So it might not progress past step 1 in the playbook. Almost certain that Putin is going to try and likely will try for at least a couple decades to come.
They absolutely will, I have zero doubt. Because otherwise NATO would be completely pointless and this would strengthen Putin even more, making him an even bigger treat for western countries.
I think it's in NATO's interest to believe in this steadfastly, but my imagination says that there are other scenarios. It's a gamble, but the best way to damage NATO is to make an ambiguous or small attack that makes it not invoke article 5 or to not respond properly.
My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war. Of course this fails the overarching theory (MAD, tit for tat etc), but I wouldn't think it's impossible. Maybe for example USA would say it wants to respond with sanctions to avoid a larger war.
* Use natural resource control to pressure countries
* Use military as a last resort when influence fails
Basically, make energy deals with Germany, ignore the US and UK and install puppet governments in Eastern Europe through bribery and propaganda until they can be annexed or granted “special status”.
> My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war.
But how can you establish facts, when you have to kill hundreds or thousands of US soldiers in NATO country first? Do you think that the US will say "shit happens" lets do some financial sanctions? Biden already said that as soon as russians shoot US troops we have WW3. And I think no other conclusion could be drawn here.
The US has troops in the eastern NATO states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania ...), more than ever and likely more to come. Biden made it very clear, if russians open fire on US troops (NATO), we have WW3.
If that Russian oligarch is deluded into believing MAD is now obsolete due to some top secret technology or military maneuver or whatever than all bets are off
That's what has been causing more tension than the actual nukes for a while now - effective countermeasures, or ICBM countermeasures. If one party has an effective countermeasure against ICBMs, it takes away MAD and the one holding the countermeasure gets to claim military superiority.
Of course, I don't believe there is such a system, or if there is it's very local; if it comes to nukes, they will come from anywhere (e.g. nuclear submarines) and can end up anywhere. If there was an effective anti-nuke system, we'd see launchers pop up everywhere, or if it's a space based one, see many launches of those to get enough coverage (like starlink).
I think fear of countermeasures unbalancing MAD is also what’s driving development of Russia’s non-ballistic missile based warhead delivery systems, like status-6 [1].
I doubt it. I really don't think he would choose a nuclear option, but rather an option in which his Russian troops fight NATO to the very end, something like Japan in the end of WWII. Except that this time, we can't use nukes.
> Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
This is just a slightly different version of a Cuban Missile Crisis. It has nothing to do with economy.
> But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
I am a NATO Commander, I order the attack on Russian Troops in Ukraine. Russia retaliates with Nukes and I fire mine back and they fire theirs back on my Home Nation.
Isn't it some kind of game theory problem? If you don't strike and they strike, you are guaranteed to lose. If you strike first, there is, however slim, chance of neutralizing enemy forces and surviving. Opposite side thinks the same.
There is no chance of survival. As soon as your missiles leave the earth or the sea, the enemy launches their entire salvo before your strike has time to hit its targets, and the world ends.
Yes, it's called MAD. I think it's been settled fact for decades that any country launching a nuclear strike against another nuclear armed country will be in turn annihilated. There is no survival.
War is complicated, confusing, and messy. An all out conflict greatly increases the odds of a situation where Putin thinks a nuclear attack is imminent and decides to strike first.
Or the war could turn into a route against Russia and defeat would mean the end of Putin's life. Why would he not draw a red line of threatening nukes, and mean it, in that situation?
This is a classic game of "chicken", and NATO has basically told everyone they wouldn't get directly involved.
All your arguments happen to apply to NATO commanders too.
Here I am, head of a NATO member. I see Russia invade a country that we don't really care that much about. If we intervene there's a chance the world might end (and I will die). If we don't do anything except say some stern words online we'll lose some face but our money and lives are safe.
Do I intervene?
In a game of "chicken" the side with the most to lose and the side that believes they are most "rational" will lose. That losing side seems to be NATO now. Putin's image of being an irrational dictator willing to win at all costs is why he's winning this "chicken" game easily.
It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine? What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania?
After all, Putin told 2 days ago he wants NATO out of Romania and Bulgaria:
Russia is most likely incapable of carrying any sustained conflict as far as Serbia, Bulgaria, or Romania, particularly when the last 2 are NATO members. They can cause disruption in other ways but no effective open conflict.
But Russia doesn't need to fight those countries. They are hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian border. Ukraine on the other hand is hundreds of meters away. Having Ukraine in NATO or in the EU is a threat to Russia and its leadership today. So Russia will look to poison Ukraine for these 2 organizations and make it an unattractive member.
When EU got too close in 2013-2014 Russia responded in exactly the same way. Both the US and Russia have reacted in the same manner when the enemy tried to reach their borders in any way (via Cuba or via Ukraine). So in 2022 pursuing any relationship particularly between NATO and Ukraine could not have had any other result. It is absolutely inconceivable that this was unexpected given the obviousness, so it's a safe assumption that the goal is to keep Russia fighting and draining the little they have left, with Ukraine paying the (biggest) price. "Buffer" countries always do.
Ukraine was already 'poisoned' for NATO, due to the Crimea annexation and the Donetsk and Lugansk separatists. No need for an invasion to poison anything further.
My view is that this is about maintaining a fading colonial empire. Ukraine has been drifting away from Russian influence at least since 2014 and since Russia does not have the economy to re-assert its influence through trade it has to do so by military means.
I have no facts to base it on other than news propaganda, but I think they are too late to re-capture Ukraine and this rather desperate move will only bolster the Ukrainian nationalism. The Russian forces also will not be able to hold the Ukraine well enough to extract any sort of economic benefit from it. 45 million is a lot of people.
It's unlikely that they want to hold on to Ukraine. They have recognized Donetsk and Lugansk and will protect their borders but their stated intent with Ukraine is to "demilitarize" them. If they have any sense they will demolish every military asset they can find and then get out. They will unfortunately probably kill a large number of soldiers and people relevant to their political interests as well. I just hope they can avoid mass civilian casualties.
Putin has stated that he views Ukrainian membership in NATO and the presence of NATO forces on their border as an existential threat to Russia so that is at least the public reason that they are doing this. If we take that at face value then the objective is to destabilize Ukraine to the point where they are ineligible to join NATO for a long time. That doesn't bode well for the Ukrainian people.
Why would they get out and let Ukrainians to recover and then continue active military opposition? It takes so much effort and money to even get in. Invasion shows commitment, Russians are going to stay just like Warsaw pact did in Czechoslovakia after 1968. They will attempt to install new puppet government and start draining out Ukraine's economic output.
> They have recognized Donetsk and Lugansk and will protect their borders but their stated intent with Ukraine
Any intent with Donetsk and Lugansk -- such as "protecting their borders"; which "borders", the ones with Ukraine? -- is an intent with Ukraine. Donetsk and Lugansk are "countries" only in the eyes of Russia and Belarus; in the world the rest of us live in, they're parts of Ukraine. (Like Crimea.)
> Putin has stated that he views Ukrainian membership in NATO and the presence of NATO forces on their border as an existential threat to Russia so that is at least the public reason that they are doing this. If we take that at face value...
This is Putin‘s excuse but it’s so damned tragic. NATO and the EU have precisely zero interest in preemptively invading Russia and haven’t since 1991, as he well knows—in fact he’s counting on it. All of Russia’s “security” issues are of his own making. This is about fulfilling a dream of reclaiming lost greatness.
> have precisely zero interest in preemptively invading
And yet no single (super)power in the world would accept this assurance and allow adversaries to take positions at their borders. The US didn't allow Russian missiles in Cuba, and most definitely wouldn't allow China to set up base there today despite any assurances that China would never preemptively invade the US.
There may be many reasons behind this war that we'll never know but the one you don't have to guess. It's been tested and proven accurate over our entire history.
Small countries fear invasion. Superpowers know that they're too large to be outright invaded, but are much more concerned that somebody's nukes (or whatever missiles) can reach their capital before their anti-missiles gadgets can intercept them. It's like having a gun to your head. When you attempt to point a gun to a mafia boss' head, they will remove the gun and neutralize you.
This seemed far fetched to me, but I am starting to think this is the only rational strategy behind Western actions... poor Ukrainians, they did not deserve this.
> What if they aim to "liberate" Moldavia, Bulgaria, Serbia and encircling Romania?
An attack on Moldova is not beyond conceivable. Bulgaria and Romania however are NATO members with US troops stationed there - Russia will not risk WW3 over those countries.
Serbia is a bit far to be invaded without a lot of other things happening before that.
I see this a lot, why is it assumed that Russia invading a NATO member state and NATO responding with force => WW3? NATO would repel the attack, but it would be completely unwilling to attempt significant aggressive action due to MAD. NATO states have absolutely nothing to gain by invading Russia.
I don't trust the assumption that there aren't still a large number of hawks in the various governments of NATO that would still love an excuse to try to destroy Russia once and for all. There's probably a >50% chance that once shooting starts between NATO and Russia it doesn't stop until one or the other is incapacitated.
What would make Russian leaders desperate enough to launch a Nuclear strike against the West? Comprehensive embarrassment by NATO and the US flag towering over Red Square seems to be just about the only one that I can think of.
It's more likely that a nuclear exchange would start with limited use of tactical nuclear weapons. Let's imagine that Russia does invade a NATO country and is beaten back by NATO forces after significant fighting within NATO territory. Maybe some of those hawks higher up the chain of command want to make sure Russia can't regroup and try again so they pursue Russian forces into Russia itself in an attempt to encircle them and force a surrender of a significant number of their troops. Russian higher ups misinterpret this as a push to capture Russian territory or the start of a larger invasion and decide to use a small number of low yield nuclear weapons to destroy the invading forces. Now you have thousands of dead NATO soldiers and a mess of confusion with multiple nuclear detonations on the Russian border. NATO counterattacks by targeting airbases and missile assets using cruise missiles and aircraft with conventional warheads in an attempt to prevent any further strikes. At that point things can heat up quickly.
In a hot war where multiple countries are involved you can't expect the fighting to just stop once you hit a border. Even when you have the upper hand, the temptation to carry through once you are already engaged in a conflict is real.
You're assuming both sides remain rational and calm when dead bodies get piling up and the safety protocols for mobilizing nukes get lifted.
Imagine you're the engineer involved with launching a nuke. In times of peace even if you get a phishing call to launch a nuke, you'd have second thoughts and probably take a couple more steps to confirm. In war time, you're already primed for the possibility of the nuke being used and it takes far less for a malicious actor to end the world as we know it.
Same for all levels of decision makers. It really just takes one trigger-happy maniac to make a wrong decision somewhere.
I was specifically responding to throwaway4aday that I do not believe that hawks in NATO that desire the full destruction of Russia will win the argument to pursue an offensive war against Russia.
One reason I think this to be true is exactly the risks that you mentioned - the more hot the war gets, the more bodies, the more likely mistakes are made.
I'd expect lots of Russian targets outside of Russia proper to receive some ballistically-delivered nastygrams if Russia attacked a NATO member. They'd all have to be treated as hostile. Forces in Syria, in Belarus, ships outside Russian waters, et c., would all be at grave risk. Not a great move if they've got a large percentage of their forces outside their own borders (i.e. in Ukraine) when that goes down.
I agree that NATO would be very reluctant to so much as fire an artillery shell over the Russian border, but Russia might well forfeit a great deal of personnel and equipment in such a move, anyway. Having troops & equipment abroad is a major liability if you pick a fight with a country (or coalition) that badly outclasses you.
Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia. As much as we like to think Putin is unhinged or desperate, as much as Putin says a nuclear response could happen, he knows this.
What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?
When you are 70 years old, spending half your life revered as a great leader of a nation, you would be desperate not have your historical legacy ruined by losing a war and possibly your status and pride in your final years.
I'm definitely of the opinion that this would be an unlikely scenario, but then, are you willing to bet the future of the planet on a hunch that a single person that you don't know personally is actually not unhinged and desperate?
I don't know about you, but I'm personally going to avoid betting on anything that has a mere 1% chance of resulting in nuclear winter.
I don't think you can clearly state anything about my imagination based on a handful of comments on the internet.
The scenario that we have been discussing is NATO's response to a Russian invasion of a NATO member such as Estonia. What are NATO's options?
1. Full scale (offensive) war. They attacked us, we will end this in Moscow
2. Repel the attack, take no aggressive action beyond what is required to come to a stalemate
3. Do nothing
I have argued elsewhere with you that I don't see 1. as being at all likely due to NATO's goals, defensive posture, and military superiority.
Doing nothing would only embolden Russia and destroy any pretense of an alliance at all. If not in Estonia, when would NATO intervene? Poland? Germany?
Thus, repel the attack and take no aggressive action. De-escalate and give options for Russia to save face.
We don't have to bet that a single person is not unhinged enough to press the button. There are command and control limitations purpose-built into even Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin also wouldn't want his historical legacy ruined by the thorough destruction of the present and future of Russia. I'd go further to say that he knows all this, and wouldn't invade a NATO member in the first place.
> Any nuclear attack by Russia on a NATO state guarantees the utter destruction of Russia.
I hope this is not how nuclear strategy and tactics is prepared. If sane people are in charge, retaliations will be proportional and exchange will be limited.
Russia obliterates Katowice, one of several countries obliterates Volgograd. What is the next move? You just ended the lives of a million of your citizens. You just stop there?
It all depends on the situation. Why did they obliterate Katowice in the first place? Was is it an error, was is a retaliation, was it nonsensical move of a madman? Hopefully at some point both sides will realize that neither the other side wants to continue and they would all stop at some point. Like in the movie By dawn's early light.
Serbia is not Russian ally. It strives to join the EU and is neutral in military sense. They declared armed neutrality in 2007 and there was no change since then. They regularly hold exercises with both NATO and Russian Federation.
> It's an horrific idea, but what if Russia does not stop after invading Ukraine?
This is a very good question.
My guess is there will be a period of consolidation (one year, maybe two) and then the next target will be set, either Belarus will be pulled back in or Kaliningrad will be re-connected to the mothership. The fact that it isn't is a serious issue for Russia, they have to cross NATO controlled territory to get to one of their more important bases.
Completely agree with that. Belarus has already joined its armed forces with Russia and they are de facto part of Russia today, even if it is not in a formal way (yet), and exactly the same will happen to Ukraine after the consolidation you mention.
I'm pretty sure also that there will be some consolidation in NATO too. My bet would be on Finland joining formally NATO in the near future. Finland was already invaded by Russia in WW2 during which they managed to seize the Karelia territory of Finland, which is still in Russia today.
But there are other countries which are probably wondering what will happen to them in the next few years: Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Armenia...
So maybe the best asnwer to Russia would be to expand NATO quickly to the ones wanting to join in.
Opinion here has swung significantly pro-NATO in the last week since the above was written.
For instance, I think it's not one but two separate Citizen's Initiatives for joining that have each gathered enough signatures to qualify for debate in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament. (Not that it was all that far below that before this either.)
My assumption is that they will continue the propaganda campaign they've been doing for at least ten years now; they fuel right-wing political parties that have an insular approach, "eurosceptics", an "own people / own country first" mindset.
look at the US: Trump is Putin's buddy, and he pushed the 'America First' tagline.
Look at the UK, they broke away from the EU.
Look at the eastern countries, Poland and Hungary; they have right-leaning governments that broke the rule of law and the separation of legislative branches, which caused them to get sanctioned by the EU, which fuels anti-EU sentiments. And in eastern Europe, anti-EU is pretty much equivalent to pro-Russia.
I haven't heard about it myself, but I'm sure anti-NATO sentiments will increase as well. It's only a matter of time before they get people to leave NATO. Especially if NATO does not come to the defense of a NATO country, they will lose their trustworthiness then.
While I agree that in Eastern Europe anti-EU often means pro-Russia, Poland is a more of an exception here. Poland still has a very negative aftertaste of Russia after WWII.
But if anything, Eastern European countries will cling to NATO more than ever, they most certainly won't leave it.
Just look at the most recent speech of the Czech president, who is generally pro-Russian (the president, not the whole country). In the speech he absolutely condemned Russia's aggression and expressed support to Ukraine. Moreover, he urged to kick Russian Federation out of the SWIFT system as soon as possible.
NATO can easily deny Russia using first strike nuclear attack.
Without centralised command issuing computerised targeting info, it will be for missile officers own initiative to launch them, fully knowing from what they learned in the military academy that an uncoordinated launch will likely be futile.
USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.
Raytheon has never guaranteed anything. GMD tests have been very limited with many failures. And I don't mean that as a criticism of Raytheon or the other defense contractors involved; ballistic missile defense is extremely hard and getting it working at all was an amazing technical accomplishment.
>USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.
Russia has >6000 Nukes. If most were launched and missile defense systems have a 99% success rate that is still 10s of Nuclear strikes on the US Mainland. This would be the end of the US and likely irradiates large parts of North America...
46 R36, 6 with 20MT warheads, 40 with 10 1MT MIRV. 406 warheads total.
36 UR100
162 Topols
The Russian airforce doesn't have serious nukes, the land force don't have megaton scale weapons either.
R36, and UR100 in silos are the only genuine first strike option, everything else is a retaliation weapon. Only a coordinated first strike gives Russia a chance on victory, it's impossible with military C3 beheaded. The surviving military officers in bunkers in far reaches of the country would know that each of them don't have enough forces under their command to continue the war.
The idea is to use bribery and propaganda to destabilize Eastern Europe countries until puppet governments rise to power or can be installed, while holding Central Europe at bay through leverage on natural resources. Make deals with Germany and ignore the US and UK.
Basically, take over Europe and break up NATO. Military action is the backup plan when the above coercion fails.
Well, all of this has gone down the drain now, hasn't it? Because this tactic requires enough elements within the targets to go along with it and call for appeasement and understanding. The Russian government has shown its true colours today. People who were on the fence have switched sides now against Russia. No excuses anymore.
Even Finland itself came out of Finlandization beginning thirty-plus years ago, so it's doubly ironic that Putler at least partly succededed in bending much of the rest of Europe to something similar since. The main culprit in falling for this is, AFAICS, Germany; from about the Schröder administration and onwards.
Economically I'd say the oligarchy is so wealthy and diversified in Russia that it doesn't hurt them that much. Russia does have much to gain in this and yeah it could lose some money. It's a shot across the bow for western political alliances. Let's hope it stays that way.
World War II was suicidal for Germany too, that was part of how it happened, sane observers knew it was idiotic for them to start a war and assumed it wouldn't happen as a result.
There is always a reason but there isn't always an endgame. Political leaders are often just trying to keep their head above the water and they assume things will work to their advantage until they don't at which point they aren't in charge anymore.
What was Andropov endgame in invading Afghanistan. If you read the planning strategy sessions that lead to Afghanistan, it is clear there was no endgame. First it was Afghanistan is not strategically important let it fall. Then it was Afghanistan appears to be important to the US so we should involved. Then finally Afghanistan is strategically critical the Soviet union must invade and do anything it takes to ensure they remain pro-Soviet.
What was the US endgame in Afghanistan after Al Qaeda was defeated? What was Bernie Madoff's or Pol Pot's endgame?
Now we are going into the realm of psychology (maybe) where I am merely a simple internet reader:
I think in case of someone who attacks there is always an endgame (something they want to gain/achieve/posses ...) and reasons are post action justifications.
I could actually say this in general: everybody is doing something (or choose not to) to gain something. What is true is that sometimes the final stage is not consciously expressed. But in my view se are an organism that is spending energy to gain something at the final of the exchange. In this inaction is also a form of exchange.
> I think in case of someone who attacks there is always an endgame (something they want to gain/achieve/posses ...) and reasons are post action justifications.
I do think we are using the term endgame to mean different things. I'm thinking about it not as a mere end they wish to achieve them like a chess endgame.
I agree people have reasons for the things that they do, but endgame implies that they have a longer term plan that wraps up the follow on consequences of that decision. For instance someone might rob a bank for the reason that they want lots of money, but they might not have fully considered how they are going spend that money without getting caught or how they will evade capture by law enforcement over the next twenty years if they are exposed.
Or consider the American Civil War, the South did not have an endgame. They had a bad plan to break away from the US by aggressively attacking the US, but they didn't have a good strategy for winning the war and even if they did, the what would their post-war state look like? Given their internal factions and divisions the CSA would almost immediately have had another civil war within themselves. The north could then play the warring factions against each other. It was remarked at the time by people in the know that the Confederations didn't really have a workable long term plan and their short term one was bad. They had reasons but no real endgame.
What was Bernie Madoff's endgame? Die of old age before the house of cards came down?
Putin is Slobodan Milošević with less hair and a nuclear arsenal. Milošević was clearly a clever man but what was Milošević's end game? Did Milošević expect to die in a cell in the Hague?
Much can be said about the causes and effect (invasion of Ukraine) and Russias motivation.
If you look at this with Russian eyes there is much history to give cause.
From the promises of no NATO expansion in the 90s, to Russias (perceived) bad treatment by the west.
To the Wests unwillingness to accept Russia's need for security (from the russian perspective).
In essence Russia has chosen a Ukrainian hill to fight on, and that hill is no more eastward expansion of western powers/alliances or unions.
The more direct initiation of this conflict was the EU which was to enter into an Association agreement with Ukraine in 2013.
When the signing of this agreement didn't go through you had the Euro Maidan protest in Ukraine and the Russian puppet government where thrown out as a result. In response to this Russia backed 2 break out regions in the east of Ukraine and annexed/claimed Crimea with sevastopol(navy base).
So the endgame here, no matter the cost it seems is that Russia defines Ukraine to be in its sphere of influence and will not accept any encroachment by western powers - so Putin is basically saying back off.
Georgia also tried to align itself more towards the west and agreed to become a NATO member and the Russian response was resolute back in 2008 as well.
Obviously there might be a number of other reasons, this is just what I have gathered over the years and I am by no means a expert.
I find the rationale for Russia's aggression fuzzy at best, but I think to view this as a Russia versus NATO or Russia versus Ukraine is, perhaps, less helpful than it first appears.
In short, I suspect this may be Putin's way of applying pressure to Russian elites. The actions proceeding from him appear desperate (i.e. the brazen assassination attempt of Nalvany) and suggest that Putin feels much less secure than his strongman portrayal suggests.
This war achieves something Putin lacks hegemony over, restricting the lifestyles and wealth of Russia's nomadic elite (and especially their assets). Elite members of Russian society will almost surely be targets of Western sanctions. This may secure Putin and his cronies and ensure a desirable transition of power by kneecapping potential contenders of the Russian throne (for lack of a better word). No doubt western sanctions will be leaky and allow some elites through relatively unscathed, but it may restrict their latitude of choice sufficiently.
I think this is Putin versus the elites. Elites who may be feeling comfortable usurping Putin and installing someone pliant to their interests. Putin may be simply reminding them of what he is capable of.
I suspect Ukraine was selected due to the presence of a large minority of citizens neutral or proponents of Russian rule. Other former Soviet states seem much more reluctant to be Russian subjects. I think Russia is simply conquering territory of peoples who will not oppose its rule.
Perhaps Putin is insane, or delusional, but evaluating public actions without knowing what went on behind closed doors feels too rash.
First I've read of this line of thinking. The rational makes sense and nothing seems glaringly wrong with this scenario. To your last point I believe it's also that it secures his corridor to Crimea and will secure the three pipelines that run through Ukraine. Supply of gas is a point of leverage Putin has on Europe. Securing the channels for it and also of the second largest source of reserves (Ukraine's) furthers to solidify that point for him.
>" Elite members of Russian society will almost surely be targets of Western sanctions. This may secure Putin and his cronies and ensure a desirable transition of power ..."
I don't understand this. Putin and his cronies are the elite. And by extension the children and other extended family of those cronies are the elite. That's what the oligarchy system is.
> Putin and his cronies are the elite. And by extension the children and other extended family of those cronies are the elite. That's what the oligarchy system is.
Yes, but within that elite, he may have felt that his cronies and minions had too much freedom: They have homes, bank accounts, and yachts abroad to retreat to whenever they need a break from him, and worst case -- if any one of them starts to to fear he's made Putler too angry with him, or suspicious of his loyalties -- they could just stay abroad indefinitely. Sure, at some risk from FSB assassins, if they've really annoyed him, but they can afford high walls around their mansions, CCTV to monitor those walls, and security services / mercenaries of their own to patrol them.
The GP's thesis (as I understood it) was that by more or less deliberately provoking the West into targeting the oligarchs, he'd weaken that option for them and thereby at least partly confining them to Russia, where he has more direct power over them.
(Dunno if I buy that this was his main goal with the whole thing, but certainly not claiming that it can't have occurred -- and counted as a plus -- to him.)
There is 0% chance that NATO intervenes military, even without the fact that Putin basically told the world that any country that intervenes will be nuked.
Regarding economic sanctions: yes Russia will suffer from them, but the thing is that it is impossible to know how high Putin values the prospect of dissolving Ukraine into Russia, so it's pointless to try to reason about it (not that I'm saying you shouldn't).
Putin is 70 years old. He might just feel like he hasn't done enough with his life and decides to go all in, who knows?
People on HN tend to be in denial about the current state of the world, but I don't think Putin is.
We're already starting to see some food shortages across the globe due to climate change, this will only intensify. Together Russia and Ukraine produce 29% of the worlds wheat exports. As climate change worsens food will become as big of a concern as oil.
We are also running out of oil, and not for the naively optimistic reasons most people hope. We're not getting "greener" we're depleting resources and oil still runs economies.
If Russia secures Ukraine they will also secure a place in the end game of civilization, radically altering the power dynamics of the EU.
The point of all this is there is a lot more at stake here than people realize (or are willing to admit). Russia has a lot to gain by control of Ukraine, and therefore can also justify tremendous risk. They have a powerful nuclear arsenal, and are likely more willing to use it than ever before.
MAD only works if you have a future that nuclear war risks throwing away. People that understand energy and climate understand that these things are going to very rapidly change the world stage. All of our futures are at risk, and the time to secure a spot is now. People on HN might be deluded in to thinking "this is fine" but I very much doubt Putin shares this naivete.
On the other end of all this, NATO countries have lived in relative security for a long time. They are still largely terrified of nuclear threat and I believe many of them don't fully realize the situation we're in. Liberal democracies likely have plenty of people in power that really believe Germany is near a truly green future.
I absolutely believe Putin is willing to go nuclear if necessary and I do not believe NATO is really ready to go nuclear in return. I don't believe the US would immediately attack Russia even if Russia wiped Paris off the map, because doing so would guarantee we are all wiped off the map. There is a risk asymmetry here which weakens MAD and give Putin a lot of power, especially if his immediate goal is simply to take Ukraine.
> I don't believe the US would immediately attack Russia even if Russia wiped Paris off the map, because doing so would guarantee we are all wiped off the map.
France also has nuclear weapons, estimated as the fourth largest stockpile in the world. Even if the rest of NATO were to hesitate Moscow would already have been hit unilaterally by the french in retaliation. No one is going to fold here.
How is that? I can follow his thoughts 100% and it's very plausible.
Also his reference to the german green party hits home because I'm from there. And I can see my electricity prices right now go to 90 Cent/kWh _before_ the war.
> I don't believe the US would immediately attack Russia even if Russia wiped Paris off the map, because doing so would guarantee we are all wiped off the map.
I think it is obvious that FRANCE would retaliate with nukes.
> The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? Russia understood this before invading, right? So it seems Russia is accepting a high risk of loss.
I don't think they saw the risk as high. Crimea was their 'soft-launch' to test the waters and find out what would happen. Answer - not very much. Effectively they invaded and took over a country and everyone tut-tutted and did nothing about it. Given that, I'm assuming that they didn't think the international reaction would be as strong as it is.
Obviously they miscalculated, but if the whole thing had been over in 48 hours with little resistance would it have been as strong as it is now or would there have been an effective shoulder shrug like there was about Crimea? I don't think it would be the same, but I believe the conflict being dragged out has made the reaction worse (well done Ukraine).
Putin, as a dictator, doesn’t necessarily respond to the same voices and lobbies that an American administration would. Sure he’d like Russia to be economically stronger, but his own situation will always be fine so it’s hard to care about a few sanctions. Territory and USSR’s old glory though, that talks to a dictator.
You also have to think that this plan was started in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea. There was no going back from that point on. Ukraine was only growing stronger and angrier at Russia. You either assimilate them, or withdraw. The latter is not very Russian. So it is possible that the Russian gov also saw this move as inevitable not to lose face after what they started 8 years ago, and they will now suffer the consequence of western sanctions.
What is sad really, is that China doesn’t give a fuck.
> What is sad really, is that China doesn’t give a fuck.
They give loads. They are watching from the sidelines, committing to nothing but learning a lot, and thinking about how they will proceed with Taiwan and the bits they like in South-East Asia.
> Sure he’d like Russia to be economically stronger, but his own situation will always be fine so it’s hard to care about a few sanctions.
Mussolini certainly didn't expect to be hanging by his toes either. Stalin didn't expect someone close to him to dose him with warfarin. Hitler didn't expect to be cowering in his bunker, ending with blowing his brains out. Gaddafi didn't expect the rebels to capture and shoot him. Saddam didn't think he'd end up hiding in a rat infested spider hole and then hung by his adversaries. And so on.
I don’t know where you’re drawing such an assumption from.
Russia has repeatedly invaded its non nato neighbors for years (including Ukraine!) with zero military response from NATO.
Would NATO have the upper hand militarily? Yes, sure. Does NATO have the political will to incur that level of cost? No.
This isn’t “globalist” conspiracy, there is just no appetite for it at any level of society in nato countries. Not in France, not in Germany, not in the US.
There's no country like Russia that is accepting such high risk. Russia is a dictatorship. It's Putin taking risks to settle old scores that he feels weren't addressed when the Soviet union collapsed as a way to distract from Russia's severe internal problems.
Putin sees the west as weak. Germany has a new leader. France is about to have elections. The UK is still dealing with Brexit. The EU is fractured with Poland and Hungary and has no out. The US is so divided that a previous president is encouraging Putin to invade and the current president is likely to lose the House and the Senate very shortly.
This is the perfect time if you believe the west is weak. The problem is that what's next on the menu (maybe after Moldova? But that's not very tasty, sorry friends!) Are all NATO members.
And.. Putin lives in the echo chamber you create when you're a dictator who regularly throws people out of windows to their death. He might decide it's time to test NATO. And that's world war territory.
But you'll always be lost if you assume there is a them. There's no them. There's Putin. Read his speech from last night, this thinking and desires are very clear.
> "The US is so divided that a previous president is encouraging Putin to invade"
I've started hearing this a lot this morning and I don't see where Trump actually said this. From what I can tell he's blaming the current administration for allowing this to happen and saying that Putin is brilliant for taking advantage of Biden and outsmarting him. Seems like he's primarily calling Biden inept rather than encouraging Putin to go further.
He's not - and never has - condemned or opposed it either though; I think the US may have dodged a bullet with not re-electing Trump, because if he used his position as supreme commander to not act on Russia's aggression (which he would be required to due to NATO etc), it would destabilize NATO and make it a toothless tiger. He's always been a fan of Putin, and especially early on during his presidency there were accusations and rumors of him being in Putin's pocket (via extortion, 'kompromat', but given the quotes over the years I don't think that would have been necessary).
Those accusations and rumors were paid for by the DNC [1] and ultimately found to be false [2].
Crimea was invaded under Obama. Russia made no expansionist moves under Trump. The current conflict was started under Biden. Hate Trump all you want, but to say that he would have been worse under these circumstances is a hard argument to swallow.
Reading though the quotes I don't sense a particular affinity for Putin. I just see these quotes as extensions of how Trump likes to talk. He likes to dole out praise, probably thinking it helps his negotiating position by trying to endear the subject to him.
Here is what Trump said. He very clearly praised Putin's invasion.
> “Putin declares a big portion of the Ukraine — of Ukraine — Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful. ‘I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. ... We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.”
Trump said this on a podcast, and I wonder how the quotes are interpreted differently when you hear his tone of voice: https://youtu.be/ebHVsWQThMU?t=41
I suspect "Oh that's wonderful" is not meant to be literally interpreted as him thinking it's wonderful. I also don't think he actually sees those military forces as true peacekeepers either. "That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right." To me that sounds like he's mocking the idea that the force is actually for peacekeeping because it is the size and composition of an army.
> I suspect "Oh that's wonderful" is not meant to be literally interpreted as him thinking it's wonderful.
Yes he abso-fucking-lutely means it's "wonderful", only not in the way you apparently misinterpreted it.
> I also don't think he actually sees those military forces as true peacekeepers either.
No, of course not. Where on Earth do you even get such an idea from? You're literally the first person I've seen even entertaining that hypothesis.
> To me that sounds like he's mocking the idea that the force is actually for peacekeeping because it is the size and composition of an army.
Yes, of course he's mocking that -- in admiration of the sheer audacity of using such a transparent lie. That is what's so "wonderful" about it, in his world -- it's exactly his own MO, but on a scale he has never got close to himself. He's (possibly literally) pissing his pants with glee over Putler's chutzpah.
And that's why you can clearly hear from his voice that "We should do that on the Mexican border" was not sarcasm: It's a 100% serious recommendation that the USA should do the same, unilaterally declare some piece of Mexico "independent" and then go in and "peacekeep" it for themselves.
Exactly what Putin's always maintained: that Ukraine joining NATO is a red line, so they're preventing Ukraine joining NATO.
> The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? Russia understood this before invading, right? So it seems Russia is accepting a high risk of loss.
The risk of NATO intervention is exactly zero. NATO hasn't done shit except attack random non-NATO countries (Serbia, Libya, Syria, etc...). What did they do when Turkey invaded Cyprus? Nothing.
US-led NATO is sacrificing Ukraine in order to get at Russia, the real question is why getting at Russia is so important? Ukraine could have joined NATO in the 1990's, or 2008, or NATO could have given them a guarantee of security. But no, instead the EU and NATO rolled out some long road-map and antagonized Russia along the way.
Hell, why didn't the west try to integrate Russia when Gorbachev and Yeltsin were amenable to the idea? Or when Putin was trying to increase cooperation with GWB's US government before the Color Revolutions?
Edit - for those downvoting me, it's obvious the west sold-out Ukraine. They forced Ukraine to leave an economic cooperation union with Russia in order to have more European integration (Yanukovych wanted both FYI) but didn't provide a road-map to join the EU, they sold them on NATO membership but without any actual guarantees, etc... Why isn't the west defending Ukraine?
Edit2 - also Joe Biden is useless. What was the point of all his warnings? What was the point of every western country pledging to "support" Ukraine? Now the news is talking about Biden announcing "sanctions". No real support. What's the point?
It already was the case since 2014, NATO wouldn't accept a country which isn't at peace because they'd be forced to intervene and that would mean a war between Russia and NATO, Russia didn't need further intervention for that
So what about prior to 2014? NATO first pitched the idea in 1997, but hadn't actually given Ukraine any guarantees... It feels a lot like the west has been using Ukraine to poke at Russia versus simply integrating Ukraine.
Ah yes, when the EU forced Ukraine to choose between Europe and Russia for economic cooperation (Yanukovych wanted both, FYI) which led to protests that put a literal CIA asset (Poroshenko was, it's not a secret) into power...
Ukraine got played by the West... Even Zelenskiy realised it... Where did any of this lead? The West didn't give any actual guarantees but kept forcing Ukraine to choose between the two...
I thought this part of Putin's address on the 21st was surprising and interesting if true
> "Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO.
> I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans’ true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO’s continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. It raises the question: why? What is all this about, what is the purpose? All right, you do not want to see us as friends or allies, but why make us an enemy?"
It is true. Anyone who followed Russian politics from the mid-late 90's to ~2004 remembers Russia trying to "join" the west. Geroge Bush famously talked about looking into Putin's eyes...
But the west was more concerned with encircling them and "winning" the Cold War than actually having good relations...
Being of Ukrainian descent and interested in where I come from, I've followed the politics there (Russia and Ukraine) since the late 90's... I remember when Putin and Bush cooperated after 9/11 too. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2021/09/08/t...
Getting to where we are today was a long road where the US chose to antagonize Russia many times...
Don't you need to be a democracy to really integrate with the west and they are scored squarely as authoritarian in the democracy index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Considering that Putin came to power in Russia's first (and possibly only) democratic election, I'd say a lot hinged on his view of how the West would treat them. Sentiment at the time was that he enjoyed an unfair media and power advantage due to his former position within the government as Prime Minister and then acting President but it was still a remarkably open election for a formerly autocratic state. From reading his rationalization of his actions in Ukraine, it seems to me that he is motivated by his perception of the US and NATO as an ever encroaching threat to Russia. He likely believes he is effectively a war time president and sees it as his duty to remain in office until he has secured his country against her enemies.
These are the sections of the address that back up this view:
"they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO's military organisation to the east. This is a quote."
The quote referenced is by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker speaking to Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990
"There can be only one answer – this is not about our political regime or anything like that. They just do not need a big and independent country like Russia around."
"its military infrastructure has reached Russia’s borders."
"positioning areas for interceptor missiles are being established in Romania and Poland as part of the US project to create a global missile defence system. It is common knowledge that the launchers deployed there can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles – offensive strike systems."
No one can know if history would have played out differently after that meeting in 2000 if he had been assured that Russia could join NATO if it worked towards meeting the requirements. We also cannot know his true motivations, perhaps all of this talk of the West as a threat to Russia is simply a ploy to justify their actions. His statements are consistent with reality though and so this could actually be the way he feels about the relationship between Russia and NATO. If that is true, then his actions in Ukraine would be motivated by a now or never viewpoint. If he does nothing and Ukraine eventually joins NATO, they will have two fronts placed very close to Moscow and Belarus will be held in a pincer rendering it next to useless. His gambit seems to be to secure the breakaway republics as a buffer and perhaps extend them to the Dnieper or even further creating a more advantageous position when Crimea, Moldova, and Belarus are considered.
Putin probably views it as a price tag. The cost of invading is lower than the benefits of invading.
One benefit is that China (supposedly) approves of this invasion. So it's possible that the sanctions won't have as much of an impact as they otherwise might've.
As others have pointed out, there is no risk of NATO retaliation due to Russia's nuclear arsenal. If China also reduced the risk of sanctions, then the net result is that there's very little downside for Russia to invade.
If we want to make a difference, we need to think of ways to make it a net loss for Putin to invade. Right now it's a net benefit.
Hm. I'm not sure it's as rational of that. Do the benefits of invading really pay off? Sure, the slow escalation over the last two months have made it possible for Russia to get a preview and understanding of what the sanction cost etc is.
Maybe he views it as a price tag but in a different way - it has a cost, but what use is resources/money if you can't use it to do what you want? I.e it has a big cost but it's how we wants to use the resources he has at hand, no matter the bottom line.
What Russia is doing is a defensive move. Russia wants to ensure the safety of its people, not to expand its land. Sadly the majority of all this disturbance is because of USA manipulations... It's not their first time (Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, ...) and I doubt it's the last time.
I think the only thing that makes sense is Putin's unchecked power (inside Russia) has essentially made him not give a damn anymore. He's rich and powerful and reaching end of his life. He might be physically ill - we don't know. And this is his chance to try to rebuild the USSR consequences be damned.
Did you actually listen to the speech? There was none of it. He stated that Soviet National republics were created by taking historical Russian territory and giving them to newly formed states. All true.
You mean "historical Russian territory" that the Russian Empire took with conquest? Maybe France should retake historical French territory from the Napoleonic era too?
His power outside Russia seems largely unchecked as well. He still has Crimea and he's probably only a few years away from having another powerful political ally in the US White House (which I'd argue is worse than having an ineffective opponent).
Ukrainian is not a part of Russia and has not been a part of Russia for 150 years, which is good bit longer than the 100 years ago that it was part of Russia
Russia has predicted that the wests sanctions will be mild because they depend on Russia for oil and wheat. Everyone is more afraid of a recession than of future wars. Are they right? Would you be willing to risk your retirement investments from your faang jobs to sanction Russia? Or do you think it’s worth the cost to help discourage future military actions? Honestly curious what individuals think here
>If NATO intervenes militarily, Russia will lose much (but at great cost to NATO).
This is extraordinarily unlikely. Nuclear Weapons are in the mix which in my opinion closes the possibility of any actual confrontations between Nuclear Armed nations. I don't think any of the involved partied are actually suicidal so this doesn't seem a possible endgame.
The risk of a NATO military intervention is non-existent. Biden said it explicitly.
Wrt economic reprisals, Putin probably did the math and found it acceptable. They might be kicked out of SWIFT, they will probably get closer to China.
> Putin probably did the math and found it acceptable
I assume military belligerence, aggression is about domestic political power moves. Meaning, in this case, Putin's calculus gives more weight to tightening his grip on Russia than any economic impacts.
--
IIRC, studies have shown that economic sanctions empowers the hardliners. The hardships impacting the citizens drives them to embrace the hardliners more. Also, the sanctions expand their internal domestic inequity.
So while I totally understand the European and US response to Russia -- what else are they gonna do? -- the cynic in me knows it'll prove counter productive long term.
Nor do I support military involvement. That option is even worse.
You can in fact strangle these regimes and it's very effective. We did it to the USSR, we did it to Cuba, we did it to Venezuela, we did it to North Korea. The outcomes were excellent in fact: those regimes were largely held in check and their ability to maneuver was made far more difficult. Crippling regimes like Putin's and making it difficult for them to function at max power, is a very reasonable outcome. Putin isn't going away whether we make it hard or easy on Russia most likely, so the rational choice is very obvious. Containment and strangulation is just fine.
The best options are what should have occurred over the prior eight years, for which it is now too late.
The good options going forward are to topple Lukashenko in Belarus (civil war, flood the nation with weapons, arm the resistance at any cost), aggressively move on Moldova and Russia's interest there (immmediately; as in eight years ago), and generally take Russia's few proxies away from them to weaken Putin's dreams of a new empire, that includes declaring a proxy war on Russia's off the books military activities in Africa and elsewhere. We have drastically more resources and reach than they do, we should kill their proxies anywhere we find them by funding it appropriately.
Very aggressively target Russia's currency and any international use of it. Attempt to destroy their economy. That includes by working with Western Europe to build nuclear energy and move away from Russian energy. This isn't solved in a day, but it can be solved over 10 and 20 years.
Cyber attack Russia's interest anywhere and everywhere they can be reached. They do the same to us, stop pretending we can be their friends. Russia isn't interested in being a liberal democracy or a pal to the civilized world, Putin's Russia is interested in power and conquest.
Blockade Russia off from the global Internet, which would be relatively easy for the US to accomplish. Enhancing their isolation that much more.
Remove them from Swift and make them a global pariah economically ex China and select few others.
Return the people of Russia to the conditions they enjoyed under the Soviet Union economically by strangling the nation, until or unless they get rid of Putin and return to the civilized fold and give up their ambitions to conquer more of Europe. It's probable that only the people of Russia can stop Putin, that includes people nearest to him (which is always an outsized threat to dictators; I assume Putin will do some purges if the pressure gets too great). Russia is well acquained with revolutions, our task now is to squeeze Russia until another one occurs. We outlasted the USSR trivially, the next task is to end the Russia that exists today (prompt revolution and see it broken into numerous smaller nations).
"The stability of the EU’s energy supply may be threatened if a high proportion of imports are concentrated among relatively few external partners. In 2019, almost two thirds of the extra-EU's crude oil imports came from Russia (27 %), Iraq (9 %), Nigeria and Saudi Arabia (both 8 %) and Kazakhstan and Norway (both 7 %). A similar analysis shows that almost three quarters of the EU's imports of natural gas came from Russia (41 %), Norway (16 %), Algeria (8 %) and Qatar (5 %), while over three quarters of solid fuel (mostly coal) imports originated from Russia (47 %), the United States (18 %) and Australia (14 %)."
Exactly. Things have not gone very well in Russia in recent years. Average people getting poorer. Many casualties in Covid after population has been going down already for longer time. Russia's economy being pretty small internationally if you take the size of the country into account.
Putin just wants to move domestic attention away from all the misery that people will hold him reponsible for. Now war will dominate the agenda. And if someone complains about life getting worse, it's the war, not the incapable president.
I think this is merely an attempt to regain territories that Putin and Russian leadership see as "theirs". These are territories that were previously part of the Soviet Union or Warsaw pact and before that were part of the Russian empire. This is an old and deeply seated belief about what they consider their traditional sphere of influence. This likely includes nations like Poland and Finland which were under the thumb of Russian hegemony until recently in historical terms.
However not all of these nations are within their grasp because many have joined NATO since the fall of the iron curtain. The ones that haven't have mostly been for the most part brought back within Russian influence through political manipulation. Belarus is a good example. The leadership there a little more than proxies for the Kremlin. Ukraine was like that until 2014 when its people chose self determination and overthrew their Russian puppet. This invasion is the result. If Russia can't have its puppet states through non-violent means then it will take them by force.
most likely Putin and his cronies are too isolated from reality, i.e. the information they receive is filtered/doctored to fit whatever they expect. Not dissimilar to the kings of old, or Dictators like Hitler, or Fidel
Sociologist Greg Yudin explained what the leadership might think in an article[1] (he wrote the same on Facebook in Russian on January 19).
TL/DR: Putin and the exKGB elites are dissentful of the cold war lost to the US, see NATO as a direct threat (even though military generals don't think it is), and the internal dissent with Putin seems to them inspired from abroad. They were shocked by Libyan rebel and by the Ukrainian in 2014. Of course, the only thing they do is brute force, and every step they make only makes the conflict more real.
Regarding the common folk, here's a survey[2] from December or January. TL/DR: they accepted the propaganda's POV that it's all the West's fault. When shown evidence of earlier military build-up, they'd suggest it was fake news.
IMHO the only logical explanation is either that Putin is truly delusional (which doesn't seem very far fetched if you saw his 1h speech/theater) or he wants to reinstate a soviet union'ish government (just consider how he dealt with oligarchs that didn't comply with him)
It is the right timing for Putin as he is betting NATO, Europe and the US will not intervene due to their recovery from the pandemic, as their (and global) weak economic situation can worsen.
War means higher oil prices due to decreased supply, lifting the Russian economy (60% of its exports), while if the US intervenes it will mean further supply chain disruptions and higher inflation - as seen in 1980s: oil price spike, gov. overspending.
Putin is testing the new administration, while China is watching on the sidelines over Taiwan.
Sanctions (by US, Europe, Japan etc rather than NATO) are going to mean Putin supporters can't spend their money in Paris, London, or New York, their companies (and Russia) can't sell bonds on the international money markets, and (possibly in the future) sell oil and gas to the west. If things got nastier then Russia could be possibly be cut off from SWIFT and the rest of the global financial system too.
Aside from providing arms I doubt we're going to see much else from NATO. That of course assumes Russia won't do anything truly diabolical.
Putin's playing a long game here and on an economic front he's likely betting most of the sanctions won't stick. With 2024 looming large I wouldn't be surprised to a gradual reset in US-Russia relations depending on the election result.
It's really not about Russia, it's about Putin desire to be a famous dictator like Stalin and Hitler.
He already got high-score as a billionaire dictator of Russia with gigantic palaces and whatnot. He already did some 'small' wars and expanded Russia's territory.
Now he wants to play big and defeat a major country and be considered a major player like USSR was.
Your opinion is very biased and without a strong foundation. Here on hackernews we expect to have in depth detailed discussions where we try to unravel certain actions. In this why Russia invaded Ukraine.
1. Putin is a dictator. He is able to change Russian constitution to stay in power, etc.
2. He murders people in a very cynical way. Polonium tea, novichok, etc.
3. He is filthy rich, owns billions of dollars worth of assets, possibly hundreds of billions.
Do you have doubts that a dictator can have an ambition to get more fame after he got all the money he wanted? Or that dictator can send troops?
Look, I know about game theory, microeconomics and such. I was a co-author of a paper submitted to NetEcon conference, for example.
But in this case, you need to understand that money, or prosperity, or safety, is not the only metric people optimize for. Many people optimize for fame. This is what a lot of people on hackernews are missing.
The risk of NATO intervention is extremely low considering Ukraine is not in NATO. The whole NATO narrative was just Russian propaganda to try and justify Putins land grab. Russia wants Ukraine back and are willing to take it by force thats all that is happening here, there is no big complicated global politics here just more cold war fallout.
What Putin is doing to Ukraine right now is absolutely horrific.. but quite frankly, NATO intervention is unlikely and the Ukraine is going to be taking the L here.
This isn't a 1-dimensional scale (NATO > Russia). China can always weigh in. Europe can have mixed reactions. etc. That's how world wars start, which would be catastrophic for everyone. Nukes are also on the table if Putin really feels cornered.
Economic sanctions won't deter Putin. Europe still has to deal with them for energy, and a pro-west Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia. (Imagine if Mexico were to join the Russian Federation.) This is Russia's sphere of influence, which has historical precedent. Stalin's post WWII foreign policy was to maintain a buffer zone in eastern Europe.
Further, Ukraine has little real geopolitical value to the west. They're not a major trade partner, they don't have strategic resources, or control strategic ports. The west only wants Ukraine in order to gain leverage against Russia.
If you're wondering what the catalyst was, this is basically retaliation for 2014. [0] Russia believes the west is responsible for the revolution that ousted their puppet.
February 22nd, 2014 - protesters control Kyiv and Yanukovych has fled to Russia. [1]
Almost exactly 8 years later (Feb 23rd) this happens.
We have to assume Russia has been unable to "counter coup" Ukraine and regain a foothold, thus leading to this drastic action.
Putin has threatened severe consequences if any other nation meddles in the war, but he's not out for conquest. His mentality is simply: "I'd rather wreck Ukraine before letting it fall into the hands of the west." [2]
Putin will likely stop once the message is received.
I buy every one of your arguments except "A pro-west Ukraine is an existential threat to Russia," and I think this one deserves significant pushback:
How is this not the case for Latvia and Lithuania (not to mention Estonia), which are both NATO members directly bordering Russia, and in fact separating them from their Kaliningrad exclave? On the other hand, if those countries _are_ an existential threat to Russia, then why is Russia "starting" with Ukraine?
More to the point, who gets to decide what makes for an existential threat? Doesn't "existential" mean "at risk of destruction from"? Does anybody really suppose that a Ukraine that is pro-west, or even belongs to NATO, poses a direct threat of invading/destroying Russia? This sort of language frustrates me, because it seems to carry more heat than light. To your specific hypothetical, I would not welcome a pro-Russia Mexico, but I would not consider it to be an existential threat to the US for precisely the reasons I suggest here - a pro-Russia Mexico does not mean a Mexico that is even somewhat likely to invade the US.
> How is this not the case for Latvia and Lithuania (not to mention Estonia), which are both NATO members directly bordering Russia, and in fact separating them from their Kaliningrad exclave?
Latvia et al are not slavic. They don't share the language, they don't share the culture, and never were "Russia proper". Their success is easy to write off the same way americans argue that socialized healthcare would never work in the US due to cultural differences.
Belarus and Ukraine, in contrast, are very similar. Their threat to Putin's power is not physical, but cultural - if they became successful as free countries, they would set a blueprint for Russia (without Putin) to follow.
The discussion about NATO and nuclear weapons is a distraction. Putin is not playing a grand game, that's intellectualizing him too much. He is a paranoid thug who is afraid of getting overthrown and executed like Gaddafi. It's a very real possibility and almost happened to Lukashenko during the recent wave of protests.
The pro-Russia Mexico argument is a bit off, I agree. But please don't compare the Baltic countries to a 44 million population country. We'd barely fill half of Kiev.
That's fair push back. I stated it affirmatively, but I meant it in the sense that Putin / Russia sees it as an existential threat. Whether or not it truly is I do not know.
Maybe it has to do with pipelines or ports.
Maybe it has to do with a critical mass of bordering NATO states.
Maybe Putin is just short bald and angry and wants to flex on the west.
Foreign policy often seems more art than science. More poker than chess.
W.R.T Mexico, consider the Cuban missile crisis. It's not always about invasion.
W.R.T destruction, consider that the Axis lost WWII but Germany and Japan still "exist". It might be more correct to say "a pro-west Ukraine is an existential threat to the Russian Empire and their ability to project power beyond their borders, but Russia itself will always exist."
Russia (Putin) is doing this now because Nato members are experiencing internal political discord, and the alliance itself is not presenting a unified front. The past US president threatened to stop aid to Ukraine unless they produced evidence to be used against his political opponent. Germany is tied to Russian gas. Internally, member state politics are reflecting and fomenting social division. Russia chairs the UN Security Council. The world is grappling with Covid.
This move by Russia is intentionally timed because countries themselves struggle to act with a unified voice, much less transnational alliances.
And because the US has a weak president, weakest in decades. Biden also started with a political gaffe, in his first week he lifted the Trump-era ban on the NS2 project for no apparent gain.
Trump might admire Putin as a leader, but he actually shored up the eastern flank of NATO and banned the NS2 pipeline, which Biden rushed to open back up.
Russia is in a lose-lose situation. I think the potential consequences for it are greater than it would appear here. The greater risk (to Russia) is that this will have a long-term effect similar to Napoleon's Grand Armée, which had the effect of coalescing nation-states and national identities across Europe. This invasion will have the effect of bringing France and Germany closer together. There were already grumblings from both PMs that they weren't so sure about having their foreign policy on the matter dictated by the U.S. And that points to a real kicker. Germany doesn't lose wars when it fights on one front, but always loses wars when it fights on two fronts.
You contrast this with the knowledge and memory of 1931 (when Germany was in no shape to fight a war) and 1941 (we all know), Russia does indeed have much to fear from NATO, even though NATO doesn't seem capable of threatening it today.
So on one hand, Russia does not want to coalesce a threat to it in Western Europe. On the other hand, Western Europe has already come to its doorstep. I think there's a lot of people who are legitimately asking, why are they doing this, and why now? I think you should listen to what Putin says (without reading the media commentary on it), and read between the lines. It should also be considered that Macron forced Biden to offer direct talks with Putin. That seemed rather telling. Consider the domestic situation in the U.S. Put two and two together, and also that Obama mis-stepped when he said that chemical weapons were a red line in Syria. There isn't really so much a "global elite" or just "military industrial complex" as there are heads of state, their diplomacy and spy corps, diplomatic backchannels, and then the human element. Something happened, we don't know what, but from the effect, it seems obvious enough.
Ultimately, Putin knows that the nuclear card is time-limited. Originally, they were the U.S./NATO's bulwark against the USSR. Now they are Russia's card vs the West.
Nukes are only useful if they can be delivered to their target. We've been living in a world where they have made major wars too dangerous to be waged, and the state of technology has been like that for the entirety of our lifetimes, and we don't remember it any other way. But history shows that the balance between offensive weapons and defensive weapons swings back and forth. Indeed in Israel they are steadily gaining credible (and cheaper) ABM. When that nuclear card is undone, I think we will see some terrible wars recurring through the world because a whole lot of geopolitical tension will be released.
Putin is calculating for that. Russia's only reliable defense is strategic depth. Something has pushed him to err on the side of possibly uniting Western Europe. There again, he may be ironically counting on the U.S./U.K., which have historically not been too favorable to a solid Franco/German-led EU. But the influence of the U.S./U.K. may further wane in this matter, and we are seeing a real gambit. Putin cannot possibly know. He is making a decision based on imperfect knowledge.
Maybe the interesting bits are the other players here. What will be the ultimate effect on France/Germany/EU? And what about China? This puts them in a tough spot and they seem to be caught a tad flat-footed. I bet that underneath all the official rhetoric and alliances talk, the rest of the world is pretty "annoyed" at the dynamic between the U.S. and Russia, both of them troubled/declining empires whose "traditional" power structures are stirring for legitimacy. It's been some interesting times.
Long story short, Putin's plan is, depending on how Ukraine goes, to further attack Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, maybe Finland (they'll join NATO by the end of the year if not sooner as will Sweden), maybe Poland , and push the United States and UK out of Europe. If Ukraine goes very well, this will be sooner. If Ukraine goes poorly but he still wins and installs a puppet government, it'll be on a longer time frame once he consolidates forces and adds the remnants of the Ukrainian and Moldovan militaries to the Russian and Belarusian ones.
The reasoning here is pretty sound, and the more I think about it the more I come to believe that NATO should be fighting Russia right now - at least deny them air superiority. Russia wants a war, whether NATO wants one or not, so you might as well give it to em' with the other consideration being letting the Russian military get ground down in Ukraine and seeing how that plays out.
What will happen is that if Putin wins Ukraine and invades, say, Latvia, he'll invade and then when NATO responds he will use one or more tactical nuclear weapons on the military bases that forces are responding from. So if NATO is launching air assets from a Polish airbase, he'll nuke that. And then he'll say - let me have what I want or I'll use more. Now what? Will NATO nuke a Russian base in exchange? Will it be a base in Belarus? Ukraine? Russia itself? It's easy to see this spiraling out of control. But if you believe Putin will use nuclear weapons (and I do) the endgame is that he destroys NATO and pushes "western" influence out of continental Europe.
Putin believes there are 3 pillars: US, China, Russia. He does respect the US, but thinks he can win. His goal is to create an ethnostate, similar to China, centered around Russian culture. Taking Kiev is super important to that because despite his rhetoric that Ukraine isn't a state or whatever, it is the historical cultural home of the Russian people. So he's going to want that to create a new shared ideology around the glory of the Russian people. He'll then look to cut out the US, UK, and any "liberal" sympathies.
> What about sanctions?
He doesn't care. He doesn't want to integrate with the US or the west. Russia has plenty of natural resources. Ukraine gives them plenty of farmland. Why would he need western money?
Currently we're playing along just like he planned. We tried negotiating, he went through the motions. We enacted sanctions, which he knew would happen. They shut down Nordstream 2, which he knew would happen (and leave Europeans with higher energy prices). And now he's just executing his plan and NATO is saber rattling about defending NATO territory, which... goes back to the Baltic question. Will NATO go to nuclear war over those countries? I think conventional war absolutely. But when Putin nukes a Polish air base or a Romanian one. Now what?
So we need(ed) to do something unsuspected. And I think the only option was to immediately go to war and force the issue on NATO's term. Unfortunately I think NATO is in a bad position.
Oh... and that's without literal traitors like Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard, and others who are "pro-russia" while we're about to be in a war with Russia. So now we have to figure out how to deal with those people too.
The Russian Army is not the powerhouse the Soviet Army once was, relative to NATO. If the Russians go after Estonia/Lithuania/Latvia/Poland/etc conventional NATO forces can stop said invasions, no need to launch nukes.
Hell the German military might do some actual fighting for once if their Polish buffer state is threatened.
Of course, NATO's conventional forces can demolish Russia's conventional forces if they go toe to toe. But what do you do when once NATO war planes or a carrier strike group engage and shoot down Russian planes or bomb Russian tanks when Putin literally nukes an airbase with a small yield tactical nuclear weapon? Keep going at it? Try to stop? I mean that's the crux of the issue. Putin knows that he can't beat NATO toe to toe right? So why is he doing anything? It's because he thinks he can use nuclear weapons to get NATO to back down. IMO. Just taking these two eastern regions isn't enough, because he could have gotten those via diplomacy.
My take is basically he has gigantic ambitions, because otherwise everything he is doing makes no sense whatsoever and I can't help but think he's a rational actor.
If Putin is a rational actor, then what's he following up his tactical nuclear strike with? His conventionally defeated Army?
If he's willing to risk that level of escalation then we're beyond rationality. The world is not going to let Putin dictate international politics of entire continents at the point of a nuclear gun. Even the Chinese wouldn't be on board with that. I'm not sure what the best course would be in such an event, but if Russian forces can be otherwise conventionally defeated nuclear retaliation may not even be necessary.
If nuclear retaliation is deemed necessary, it would likely be of similar magnitude (targeting invading Russian military formations or something). To turn the question around, is Putin willing to launch ICBMs because NATO won't let him take Estonia?
So I'd say it's a little bit of timing right? Putin builds up forces yet again, says he won't do anything, "NATO at the border of Belarus this is for security", etc. and then he just goes right in and starts fighting. When the fighting starts and he starts attacking NATO forces and they start responding, he launches a tactical nuclear weapon on an airbase somewhere nearby in Central or Eastern Europe and now what? I mean if nothing else what worries me is the prospect of this spiraling way out of control. To your point about Putin being a rational actor... I mean this is rational for him if your world view is that these countries should be united under Russian leadership. If he were rational, then why would he even invade Ukraine? Why is he so paranoid about NATO? All we want to do is respect human rights (and we have tolerances even) and just have open market economies and democracies. If he were rational why not just integrate Russia with Europe and help Russians become fantastically wealthy?
I'm also not sure about the Chinese. I don't think they care. I think they love this.
> To turn the question around, is Putin willing to launch ICBMs because NATO won't let him take Estonia?
My take is yes. I don't think he's nuking New York and London... but military bases in central and Eastern Europe? I mean will NATO nuke Moscow and then actually trigger MAD over that? If we're being honest what are our actual red lines? For America probably US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany. I honestly don't know about any other country in Europe.
What do you think?
-edit- (really sad to see people have downvoted you for having an interesting discussion and different point of view. I'm sorry to see that has occured at this point.
No worries, I don't structure my opinions for HN Karma :)
If he opened an attack on NATO with a tactical nuke he's just escalating things faster. After the shock wore off that would probably increase the odds of a tactical nuclear response in kind, at which point the Russian forces remain defeated. Or perhaps if the West remains restrained and no further nukes are launched, a conventional defeat in spite of Russian tactical nukes.
If his goal is to restore the Soviet Union's influence there are reasons to conquer Ukraine (food supply, gas line, black sea access, etc). Starting a war with NATO would be a quick end to those dreams, tactical nukes or not. The West has already proven less complacent than I think he anticipated. He was probably hoping for us to just collectively shrug our shoulders "oh well it's just Ukraine, something something human rights" and just let him have it. Instead we sent Javelins and canceled Nordstream 2, among other measures. On the spectrum of possible responses from "loud noises" to "all-out military intervention", we're closer to the latter than the former. Over a non-NATO country.
The West's institutions may be diminished, but they only diminished in the absence of a common adversary. If Putin wants to restore that adversary, the best he'll accomplish in the medium term is restoring our institutions.
> If he were rational, then why would he even invade Ukraine? Why is he so paranoid about NATO?
Because Russia in general has always seen Europe as posing a threat of invasion, and with reason. In WWII, Germany invaded Russia. In the Crimean War a bunch of European countries invaded Russia. In the early 1800s Napoleon invaded Russia. Putin is taking advantage of this general Russian attitude towards Europe to improve his own political position.
Which is all irrelevant now because Russia has an estimated 6,000 nuclear weapons and if the rest of Europe started moving all the required troops to invade Russia to the West Russia would be ready and could actually have a credible nuclear strike justification. And considering everyone in the West is cool just making money and dealing with internal problems I just do not have sympathy for the point of view anymore. If nuclear weapons can’t protect Russia then that’s just their problem.
I'm not the one you need to convince of all this (especially the "everyone in the West is cool just making money" part). Putin and the Russian people are. From where I sit, they aren't convinced.
> I just do not have sympathy for the point of view anymore
Considering that Russia's history for many centuries has been one of having to deal with external invasions (it took them three hundred years to learn how to deal with the Mongols, for example), and that Europe's history up until World War II has been filled with wars, I have a hard time having sympathy for a point of view that thinks that half a century of so of Europe apparently behaving itself must be sufficient to outweigh all that and convince Russia that they can chill because everyone else is ready to play nice.
> I think in that case we will just wind up in nuclear war.
I don't think so. I emphasize Russia's history in order to explain why it is entirely credible that Putin does not intend to continue invading country after country after the Ukraine. He is not trying to conquer countries just for the sake of conquering. He is trying to establish a buffer around Russia. And, in doing so, to consolidate his domestic political power.
In other words, your belief that Putin must be bent on invading country after country was based on your inability to see any other rational reason why he would be invading the Ukraine. I am giving you such a rational reason. The fact that the beliefs on which it is based appear to you to be out of sync with current reality in Europe is irrelevant because your beliefs about current reality in Europe are not driving Russia's actions; Russia's beliefs are. Rationality does not require that all of one's beliefs be correct, only that one's actions make sense in the light of one's beliefs.
We can set aside this discussion about rationality, because I'm not suggesting that Putin doesn't have rational reasoning for doing what he's doing, what I'm suggesting is that Ukraine would not suffice for any rationale I've so far been exposed to. I'm also suggesting that he is objectively wrong about his beliefs, even if he follows them. It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint - it does have a lot of resources though. NATO is much closer to Moscow from the Baltic states. He's also going to have to occupy a country, on his border, with 44 million people. If even 1% of them are violent anti-Russians because of collateral Russian damage caused by the invasion then how does he expect to protect Russia from terrorist attacks? How does he protect a potential puppet government from such attacks? Not to mention now he's galvanized NATO, Finland and Sweden are going to join (in my view) by the end of the year, and people aren't going to associate with his country anymore.
If Putin wants to I guess further expand his buffer, then we'll have a nuclear war because there is no doubt that the United States will absolutely go to war with full force against Russia over any NATO country. There is no reconciliation to be had here. If Russia believes NATO is out to get it, despite a world of evidence to the contrary, then they can stop at Ukraine or keep going, but if they keep going, which is likely (because Ukraine isn't worth the devastation being caused to Russia) then we will just have nuclear war. If Russia believes this then we might as well just go ahead and have it out. I mean there isn't anything else to that. I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I'm "out of sync with the current reality in Europe". The reality is that the United States will go to war and fight Russia to defend NATO. That's why I'm concerned (OP) - it can easily spiral out of control.
> It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint
Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come.
> He's also going to have to occupy a country
He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO.
> he's galvanized NATO
I think "galvanized" is a little strong. No NATO country is going to actually try to help Ukraine resist the invasion. The worst consequence is economic sanctions, and the historical track record of economic sanctions is not good. I expect Putin believes that his country can manage no matter what economic sanctions NATO nations throw at it.
> Finland and Sweden are going to join (in my view) by the end of the year
I think that's highly likely, yes. And it doesn't change Russia's threat environment in the least because no invasion of Russia is going to come via Sweden and Finland. If Russia intended to invade Finland and Sweden, them joining NATO would be a negative consequence, but I doubt Putin intends that.
> and people aren't going to associate with his country anymore.
I don't think Putin cares about that either.
> the devastation being caused to Russia
What devastation? If you mean economic sanctions, I think you are drastically overestimating their effects on Russia.
> The reality is that the United States will go to war and fight Russia to defend NATO.
So all Putin has to do to avoid that is to not attack a NATO member country. Which Ukraine is not. In fact, your argument here is an argument for the view I've been taking, that Putin does not intend to keep on invading country after country--because he knows invading a NATO country would bring consequences he doesn't want.
> Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come.
Well it's in Europe. But yea you can just keep on invading that same route. Not that an invasion is going to happen anyway.
> He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO.
???? What? Yes he does? If Russians leave than Ukraine goes back to what it was. Unless he tries and installs a puppet government, and then he might be facing some insurgency. Not fun.
>
pdonis 1 hour ago | parent | context | flag | on: Russian forces invade Ukraine after Putin orders a...
> It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint
Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come.
> He's also going to have to occupy a country
He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO.
> I think "galvanized" is a little strong. No NATO country is going to actually try to help Ukraine resist the invasion. The worst consequence is economic sanctions, and the historical track record of economic sanctions is not good. I expect Putin believes that his country can manage no matter what economic sanctions NATO nations throw at it.
I mean now all of a sudden we're about to add Finland and Sweden to NATO. NATO allies just got woken up to the fact that war can still break out in Europe, which means militaries that have been languishing are going to get beefed up. Etc. The sanctions may not "work" but it also doesn't matter. No reason to deal with Russia if they're going to be a bad actor.
> I think that's highly likely, yes. And it doesn't change Russia's threat environment in the least because no invasion of Russia is going to come via Sweden and Finland. If Russia intended to invade Finland and Sweden, them joining NATO would be a negative consequence, but I doubt Putin intends that.
Gotland
> I don't think Putin cares about that either.
I agree - this was in my OP.
> What devastation? If you mean economic sanctions, I think you are drastically overestimating their effects on Russia.
Why?
> So all Putin has to do to avoid that is to not attack a NATO member country. Which Ukraine is not. In fact, your argument here is an argument for the view I've been taking, that Putin does not intend to keep on invading country after country--because he knows invading a NATO country would bring consequences he doesn't want.
But then his invasion of Ukraine doesn't make sense. All he did was cost himself a bunch of money to invade a country that definitely doesn't want him there and is now pissed off, he lost the Russian people a lot of money, and he's no more "safe" than he was before because the Baltics are still on his doorstep. What was gained?? If he believes that he gained security by attacking Ukraine than I do believe he's not a rational actor.
> If Russians leave than Ukraine goes back to what it was.
I'm not sure that's true. But that may be because I have a different view of Ukranian internal politics than you do. See below.
> Why?
Because, first, I don't think Russia's economy is all that dependent on the products that Western sanctions would cut off, and second, I don't think the sanctions are going to be all that well enforced long term, since that is the way sanctions usually are. (And I expect Putin thinks that too.) For one thing, Europe is dependent on some key products from Russia, such as the natural gas that is now not flowing. Past experience suggests that European countries will find ways to route around the sanctions while publicly giving them lip service.
> a country that definitely doesn't want him there and is now pissed off
Some Ukranians are. I'm not so sure a majority of them are, at least not in any sense that matters for Russia. Eastern Ukraine, in particular, I think is generally sympathetic to Russia.
I mean I'm not sure either. I don't think anybody is really sure. Now, NATO has deployed thousands of troops to the Baltic states, the US has deployed elements of the 82nd Airborne to Europe. Estonia is tweeting that it will do more to supply munitions to Ukrainian forces. Sweden said they're escalating military intervention. So now instead of having very few troops on his border, Putin has more than he's had in decades. The security angle is complete bullshit.
I agree that Russia isn't "dependent" on the west. Again going back to my OP I assert that this is a non-factor for Putin as he seeks to create a Russian-lead Slavic ethnostate in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Baltics, and more. Ukraine is a key piece not for security reasons - again Russia has 6,000 nuclear weapons and if you feel insecure than you are actually irrational - but because of the extensive amounts of resources which he'll need to feed the Russian people and create industry. Russia has all the resources it needs, they won't have iPhones but they'll build rockets and cars and stuff like that.
> he seeks to create a Russian-lead Slavic ethnostate in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Baltics, and more.
Since, as you point out, the consequence of invading the Ukraine has been to cause a lot more troops to be deployed in the Baltics and other places you say Putin wants to eventually conquer, I don't see how this "Slavic ethnostate" is a rational goal.
I agree that the resources in the Ukraine are a rational goal, but if that is Putin's goal, we would not expect him to invade other countries. The resources in the Ukraine might be worth what it will cost Russia to get them (or at least that might be how Putin has calculated it); the resources in other countries, particularly NATO countries, would not.
Right - the question just comes down to what his goals are. I'm worried that he's looking to roll up Ukraine and Belarus and start conscripting people and sending them to die fighting NATO forces. And when NATO forces resist he'll say something like "I'm here to free the people of Lativa and if NATO intervenes further I'll nuke NATO bases wherever they are in central and eastern Europe". It's completely rational and it'll cause NATO to dissolve if he follows through and NATO backs down.
I just have such a hard time thinking he invaded Ukraine just to get resources. Or just for security.
There's another way to look at this: Putin is a rational, risk-averse actor who only engages in territory acquisition when he can encircle the target and guarantee a win in days during winter (because spring and fall are too muddy for vehicles). Crimea follows this pattern: Russia has a navy in the Black Sea and Sea of Azoz.
The New York Times map [1] of the build up prior to invasion is enlightening and encouraging for Finland and Poland, less so for the Baltic states.
And... the US and allies and also Russia because if Russia attacks them we're 100% going to war with Russia to defend those allies. There's 0 question of that. It goes back to my OP which is what happens after that starts. Putin knows he can't take on NATO 1-1, so why would he attack those countries? Well he has nuclear weapons and can launch tactical nuclear strikes on NATO airbases and dare the west to risk nuclear war over these countries.
> It's because he thinks he can use nuclear weapons to get NATO to back down.
When Putin intends to use nuclear weapons against NATO members, then the one and only answer that NATO will come up with is nuclear. This brings us either back to a cold war scenario or doomsday.
I disagree. These plays have been available since the establishment of the nuclear deterrent. The soft-peddling from the US and NATO is indicative of their respect for the deterrent. People calling for NATO to counterattack are delusional. NATO and Russia still benefit from minimizing shared borders, so I don't think Russia will annex Ukraine and instead will leave it demilitarized.
Look I hope you're right. I want to agree with you 100%. But just neutralizing Ukraine I'm not sure what that actually gets him. He could have gotten diplomatic agreements of some fashion to not have Ukraine NATO (and it wasn't seriously on track to join either). Idk. I hope you're right.
Kiev is 529 mi (~10h) from Moscow. If Ukraine were to join NATO, there would be a NATO base inside that range in days. Lockheed Martin claims its Precision Strike Missile has a 310 mile range [1]. I can understand why Putin would want Ukraine to be a friendly puppet or be demilitarized.
Diplomatically, it wouldn't be advisable to give an adversarial foreign power control over the membership of your alliance, so NATO can never give those guarantees. My belief is that Putin only sought those guarantees to fabricate a casus belli.
I think you forgot your own argument. Let me remind you: "If Ukraine were to join NATO, there would be a NATO base inside that range [529 mi] in days."
You are trying to justify Putin's actions by inventing a hypothetical while ignoring the fact that the NATO borders within 500 miles of Moscow is a reality for years.
Sure but the US and NATO had no interest in doing anything like that. Nobody gives a crap about Russia as an enemy except to the extent that they make themselves an enemy.
NATO alliance members have NATO military bases, but you're right that US and NATO have no interest in adding Ukraine as a member. As we are seeing, the country is in a weak geographic position: Russia was able to stage forces to encircle >80% of the country prior to the invasion. Who would want that kind of ally?
Ukraine has warm water ports in the Black sea, huge oil pipeline capacity from Russia, and farmland, all of which are valuable to Russia. I won't claim to understand the reasoning but I believe Russia intends to control all three of those either directly or through a puppet state.
This whole Trump being pro-russia needs to die. It's so dumb. If repeated enough times it'll become truth unfortunately.
Trump looked to increase NATO defenses and aggressively pump oil and gas to crash the global price of Russia's chief source of foreign exchange. That's hardly pro russian. Ironically, Biden comes in and kills oil production in the US, forcing us to then rely on external oil markets for our resources which gives Putin money to pull shit like this.
Trump also unilaterally left the assymetrical US-Russia missile accord. Hardly pro russian.
Trump ordered lethal force to be used against large numbers of Russian mercenaries who attacked a U.S. installation in Syria. He also sold offensive weapons to Ukraine.
The oil and gas pumping you mention started under Obama, and responding to an attack on American forces with lethal force is an incredibly low bar. The other state department actions don't change that his administration was vocally pro-Russia.
Me too friend. Me too. I think that as described is the worst-case scenario, but also the only one IMO that explains his actions. Hopefully someone else can come in and demolish everything I wrote so I can feel better.
You would have said the same thing if someone had written that Putin was going to invade Ukraine two weeks ago.
What is paranoia and what isn't has just materially changed, the question now is not whether or not the poster is paranoid, but whether they are too paranoid or not paranoid enough.
> They shut down Nordstream 2, which he knew would happen
I heard that the German president's speech mentioned Nordstream being done. He didn't specify Nordstream 2 as expected. I read somewhere that referring to both Nordstream 1 & 2 caught Putin by surprise.
>Russia is outclassed by NATO both economically and militarily.
Especially now, after NATO's quick and easy victory in Afghanistan it's clearly seen that Russia is far behind NATO militarily. Putin is just stupid and suicidal.
In most traditional contexts, risk is defined as severity x probability.
You outlined the severity of NATO intervention. That is to say, you only described half of the equation. It could very well be that Russia assumes the probability of NATO intervention is disproportionately low, meaning the risk calculation is also low. Maybe they think that balance outweighs the economic risk.
Russia has no other choice. When USSR in 1962 [0] did something similar to USA, USA was not happy and it could end up really bad. How is this situation is different? National security is paramount.
I keep hearing this comparison. Tell me, when has NATO threatened to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine? Because that's the only way this comparison holds water.
No NATO country has ever invaded Russian soil and never will due to their massive nuclear arsenal.
I'm willing to admit Putin may have convinced himself and some Russians that there's a national security concern, but the evidence is severely lacking.
>>>Tell me, when has NATO threatened to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine? Because that's the only way this comparison holds water.
The comparison is that missiles in Cuba = "disturbs the Mutually Assured Destruction equation". Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Russia's near abroad....disturbs the MAD equation. That is the national security concern. It's the same thing Russia has been saying since....2007? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6599647.stm
Do you think Putin wants to until US ABMs are already deployed in a NATO Ukraine to then voice his concerns? That would be too late. Consider this a very drastic preemptive action, but it's entirely in keeping with Russia's approach to security in their near abroad for the past ~15 years, for anyone who has been paying attention.
No one is going to risk a nuclear war under the stupid assumption that their ABM systems will be 100% effective. Also Biden mentioned missile deployments in Eastern Europe were a potential bargaining point, although I'm not sure exactly how those talks went.
Regardless, the only thing Putin has to fear from NATO ABM systems, and NATO membership for Ukraine in general, is an end to their ability to conquer Eastern Europe militarily.
I'm sorry if that explanation doesn't suit Russian paranoia, but I see no upside to tolerating said paranoia either. And neither, apparently, does Ukraine, despite standing to lose the most in this situation.
>>>the only thing Putin has to fear from NATO ABM systems, and NATO membership for Ukraine in general, is an end to their ability to conquer Eastern Europe militarily.
Later in the 2000s, Russia discussed NATO and EU membership but had generally been rebuffed. Still, they tried to maintain dialogue with NATO, even after slapping down Georgia: https://euobserver.com/news/27890. I think they considered their point made about keeping NATO in check, but we didn't get the message.
For about 15 years, Putin ran Russia without even possessing the capability for a major nation-state offensive in Europe. That changed with the reformation of the 1st Guards Tank Army, stationed west of Moscow, in 2014. The question so few people are investigating is "What are the things WE ("the West", generally speaking) have done to trigger the changes in Russian foreign policy? This is the introspection that I find deeply lacking. Everyone just chalks it up to "clearly he's a megalomaniacal madman! Nothing else needs be said!"
>>> What are the things WE ("the West", generally speaking) have done to trigger the changes in Russian foreign policy?
Exactly this. The western world has this infallible belief that what they are doing if right and everyone else is wrong. They don't even stop to think the consequences. They are doing things which if reciprocated they won't accept and they say .. Oh we just want to spread democracy everywhere"
> Tell me, when has NATO threatened to place nuclear missiles in Ukraine?
I never said it has to be nuclear missiles. Tomahawks will do for 800km range. And that's a threat for national security.
>I'm willing to admit Putin may have convinced himself and some Russians that there's a national security concern, but the evidence is severely lacking.
If your neighbor says your dog is a concern, you better listen to your neighbor and do not adopt 10 more.
The Cuban missile crisis was over nuclear missiles, not conventional. NATO put nukes in Turkey and Italy, Russia tried to match with Cuba. The crises ended when both sides agreed to withdraw nuclear missiles from said countries.
If my irrational neighbor says my quiet, well-behaved dog is actually barking all day and night, growling at him as he walks by (even when the dog is inside), and if I don't stop it he'll break into my house and kill my dog: I keep my dog inside, put up some cameras, clean my gun and file a police report.
Yeah, Ukraine is downright angelic compared to Putin's Russia. They actually had the potential to become a thriving democracy and regional economic power, something Putin can't have on his border. Makes him look bad and destabilizes his legitimacy, same reason the Soviets put up the Berlin wall.
Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian. The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger than Russia's. The combined economy of all of NATO is 25x the size of Russia's. This does not even include Pacific allies like Japan and ANZUS.
For historical perspective, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the US economy was 7x larger than theirs. At the end of WW2 the red army had 12 million soldiers in uniform compared to the estimated 120K Russian soldiers now invading Ukraine.
> Some economic perspective. The Russian economy is 10x the size of the Ukrainian.
This is the fact that matters.
> The US economy is 14x larger than Russia's. The Canadian economy is larger than Russia's. The combined economy of all of NATO is 25x the size of Russia's. This does not even include Pacific allies like Japan and ANZUS.
That doesn't matter. Many countries may have larger economies than Russia, but none of them have been willing to translate that into anything that can counter Russia's actions.
IIRC, the US gives far more military aid to Israel than it has to Ukraine, and it's too late to change that. Germany sent Ukraine 5,000 hats for its defense.
> but none of them have been willing to translate that into anything that can counter Russia's actions.
It gives perspective to how Russia knows not to mess with anyone with a larger military or economic presence. These countries aren't getting involved because doing so means they have a lot more economic prosperity to lose compared to Russia.
The count of soldiers doesn't matter; you can only fit so many on a battle line anyway and a war in which you run through a full battle line of infantry is so costly that even that insane regime wouldn't go for it. The red army required millions of soldiers because it ran through them so quickly due to their battle doctrine. This conflict will be nothing like World War 2.
The size of the economy doesn't so much matter, either - there's a limit to how much aid economic power can provide to a nation at war, especially one with such deep connections to illicit markets like Russia. It's really anyone's game if war breaks out over central Europe.
That economy means we can pump out more ranged weapons than the Russians can. We could literally keep shooting missiles until they ran out of things to block them with and keep shooting until there's nothing left.
A lot of times I think about how brutal modern warfare would be today if it weren't for nuclear weapons. Imagine a WW2 style scenario but with smart weapons, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, modern main battle tanks, drones, and computerized artillery/MLRS. All being employed in industrial scale quantities by major nation states without the risk of nuclear war. It would be unimaginable carnage.
Did the firearm make warfare more or less brutal? I would have said less, if you discount the scale at which they allowed war to happen in by the transitive property that they allow reliable control of a population.
Similarly, I don't think advanced weaponry make fighting more brutal. Also, MBTs are going out of style pretty fast, and some of those other things are outdated too.
>Did the firearm make warfare more or less brutal?
It absolutely did. Ancient warfare almost never really consisted of the grand bloody battles you see in movies. A vast majority of it was siege and intimidation tactics. Routing your enemy from the field was the goal, not the annihilation of their forces. This old world of warfare persisted through the invention of early firearms into the Napoleonic era, but came to a crashing halt in the American Civil War, when generals finally had to leave those tactics behind in the face of modern artillery, repeating rifles, and industrially driven "total war". From that point on, warfare changed completely. The objective became destruction of the enemy forces, and their country's ability to wage war, and this came to a head with the American bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII; an event unparalleled in world history for its sheer brutality and number of innocents killed.
I don't think this is correct. I could mention many cases where the objective was annihilation of the enemy and the destruction of a country. The men were killed and the women and children were enslaved. This was the ancient norm.
I'll mention the battle of Cannae, where 60% of the Roman army of 86,000 was killed in one day, in hand to hand fighting with spears, lances, and swords:
>I'll mention the battle of Cannae, where 60% of the Roman army of 86,000 was killed in one day, in hand to hand fighting with spears, lances, and swords:
Point being, Cannae is in the top 3 battles for the entire history of ancient Rome. That's 500 years of warfare, with a few instances of casualties at that level. Whereas, those kind of casualties were a normal occurrence that would hardly make the news on the Western Front in WW1, or the eastern front in WW2.
It's also about the sheer brutality of modern warfare. People were never disembowled into hundreds of pieces on a regular basis in ancient warfare. You never had the experience of watching an entire column of troops next to you be vaporized instantly. It's a completely powerless experience, as opposed to hand to hand fighting with an enemy you can confront face to face.
And I'm about to get shot by dog with a handgun[0]. Of course nuclear is a concern to be aware of -- but that is why NATO et. al. aren't responding with boots on the ground. In our current situation, where that has been unequivocally ruled out by the NATO leadership, the risk is still tiny, and we have plenty of other more pressing systemic risks to deal with first.
It matters at least in the sense that Russia's modest forces are so hyper exposed right now.
The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field. They're entirely unprepared for it and they're going to be operating far from their optimal protection (embedded in Russia where defenses are far greater).
The question is, when would Putin throw the nuclear card on the table.
I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure, including assassinating Lukashenko and pushing a revolution there by any means necessary. Russia is weak militarily outside of their borders and the US could trivially defeat them. It would take most of 2022 for Russia to regroup for a full force projection into Ukraine if they're under attack from the US while doing it, and I doubt they have the manufacturing capabilities right now to sustain (that would take time to enhance).
Just sensible climate policy at a global level would be enough to crush Russia economically. I feel like this recent drama effectively stems from trying to distract the Russian people from this looming fact while the oligarchs get as much money as possible out the country.
>>The US and NATO could trivially cripple Russia's army in the field.
The USA has not fought an symmetric war since WW2.
Russian has some of the most advanced surface to air missile technology in the world, capable of denying NATO air power from operating effectively. Russians S400 missiles can detect and take out even F35s. A direct air assault like you saw in 1990s Iraq war would be suicide.
You would be looking at defeating 100,000+ soldiers equipped with armored vehicles and tanks with primarily ground forces. This is not the kind of scenario we want to see.
I wonder if S-400 is as hyped as S-300 that has been less than performant in Armenia and Syria.
Pantsir-S1 has also shown limited success in Libya, Syria and Armenia.
Granted, it was the export variant. So we'll see how the "full fat" version fares in Ukraine.
Basically the problem is any action the US takes might prompt nuclear war, and Putin is gambling the US won't pull that card. It's political suicide to start a war with a nuclear power, and Putin doesn't have to worry about the votes.
I think the other thing Putin is betting on, is that after 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is not going to support another significant foreign war. Additionally one important thing that came out of the Trump presidency, is that the hawkish "Team America: World Police" wing of the republican party has been knocked from the dominant position they've held at least since Reagan. The Trumpish base of the party is now much more nativist and not all that interested in providing military support to other countries.
No one wants nuclear war. It has long been believed that those are mostly threats against countries that don't have them as for combat between nuclear powers it will probably stay conventional as there is absolutely no winner if it starts.
Indeed, if Ukraine hadn't given up its nuclear weapons after the fall of the USSR, it wouldn't be in this position. This attack is another reminder to Iran, North Korea, etc, that if you don't maintain a nuclear arsenal your nation is a colony.
your notion of winning might be different to Putin's. If you haven't heard him saying "Aggressors Will Be Annihilated, We Will Go to Heaven as Martyrs" [1], then you don't know your opponent.
> It could also a be a slower kind of suicide to let that nuclear power invade and take territory piece by piece, unmolested.
If this is how you feel, you should enlist. Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country.
> Otherwise, you're just demanding that other people's sons and daughters should be sent to die fighting for someone else's country.
That's how democracies work, and they can't work any other way.
I mean think it through: if what you say must be avoided, then no country could go to war, even to defend others, unless more than half the population was enlisted in a ponderously oversized military.
> Why is it a "tired trope" to say that you should not be asking other people to do things that you yourself would not?
Because it's a superficially appealing idea that actually makes no sense. In a democracy, anyone gets to ask its government to do anything. Putting extra conditions who can ask is just muzzling democracy. Should the decision to go to war only be up to only the members of the military? No, since that would be clearly undemocratic.
And your idea can be applied to so many different questions, to equal nonsense: Are you a member of the police? Then you better not express any opinion that high crime rates should be lowered, since you're not willing to be the guy to stop them. Don't like trash on the street? Better not complain unless you're willing to quit your job and become a garbageman.
What you're forgetting here is that there is a clear precedent for what I'm suggesting. People forget this, but in WWI, the British upper classes actually lost children at a higher rate to the war than those in lower classes. This was because, at the time, the British elite would never have been okay with the idea of sending people to die, without having skin in the game themselves. It was a matter of basic morality (and honor).
What you're suggesting is, on the other hand, completely immoral. It's far too easy for us to sit in our comfy homes, earning nice salaries for tapping away on our keyboards all day, while some poor kid from middle America or inner city LA has his life cut tragically short because people like us say, "Oh man, that Ukraine situation is really bad, someone should really do something about that"
That isn't actually a precedent for what you're saying, unless the UK at that point was sufficiently undemocratic that the lower classes you're saying participated in the war at a lower rate didn't have a say in the decision to fight it.
It's also a bit presumptuous of you to assume that anyone posting this kind of thing on Hacker News has never had "skin in the game." I was still part of the 1st CAV headquarters in 2014 when we sent two brigades to Estonia in response to Russia invading Crimea. Military veterans are not exactly unheard of in software development or any other field of work. And, for what it's worth, I don't believe my vote should be worth more than yours because of that. We're not living in the world of Starship Troopers.
For starters, not everyone is of military age. Does that disqualify them from having an opinion on matters of nation and international security?
Additionally, even if they aren't willing to enlist themselves, that shouldn't disqualify them from having an opinion on this. They pay taxes that fund the military and other agencies for the purpose of national security. Countries have militaries for exactly these purposes. Citizens enlist in the military with full knowledge that they could be called to battle one day. Do you think the military should only engage in war if every enlisted member agrees to do so? No other input should be taken?
I refuse to work in a solid waste plant, yet I ask others to do so.
I refuse to work as a Doctor, yet ask others to do so.
There are many jobs I refuse to be engaged in, but need doing.
So it's okay to give people who will never be forced to step onto a battlefield and die the power to decide who to fight and when to do it?
> That's how democracies work, and they can't work any other way.
Bullshit. This is how democracy works now because of universal suffrage. Historically it is not the only form of democracy and it is most definitely not a fair system.
I don't know about starship troppers. I'm just saying it's not at all fair when 50% of the population can elect leaders who have the power to order the other 50% to die on their behalf. That is the current situation with men and women in the vast majority of countries today, including mine: men and women can vote but only men are conscripted into military service.
True. But a democratic President may not still be President by the time it progresses. The problem is Putin can gamble on nobody willing to shaft their own career/party to oppose him.
Right, it might. We should press forward and see how far he's willing to go and encourage his leadership to kill him to save their families and save themselves from potential nuclear disaster.
Russia is exceptionally weak compared to their prime Soviet days. Both militarily in terms of bulk and economically. The rest of the world has gotten a lot bigger, stronger militarily and economically since those days. We should press on Russia and reveal their weakness. They would be obliterated exposed in the field as they are right now by NATO's forces.
Are the Russian people all willing to die for Ukrainian territory? Let's find out what Putin's answer is and what the consequences are for him, when the people (including those around Putin that can assassinate him) in Russia realize what he's leading them to. Putin's expansion doesn't end until there are very severe consequences; some other nation in Europe is next after Ukraine.
If Putin threatens to kill everyone with nuclear war, then we'll deal with that as it happens. It's important to understand what you're really dealing with, and with Putin we need to go further to find whatever his lines really are. So far Putin has almost never faced a real push back from NATO / the West, we have no idea where he'll go or not, and we need to figure it out one way or another. Putin made clear his return to Empire plans, we already know what he wants.
> I'm in favor of the US and NATO (or just the US by itself) immediately attacking Russia's forces inside of Ukraine and destroying the Belarus command structure
As an American, I'll support another foreign engagement when I see the sons and daughters of presidents and congressmen shipping off the the Ukraine. Until then, I can't support sending American boys and girls to die in yet another foreign war.
Any talk of U.S. involvement should cease until the American public sees AOC, Hunter Biden, and Donald Trump Jr. (or maybe Baron) in uniform and on the ground in the Ukraine.
Yep. I'm just waiting for our own border to be recognized before I'll support any foreign conflict. But we'll continue exploiting our neighboring southern countries for cheap wage cutting labor. We're promising a generation of people citizenship, but they'll be held in limbo and exploited.
Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. are above the maximum enlistment age for every service (though exceptions might be made for direct commission physicians if they happened to be licensed physicians). Barron is still a minor.
I guess that leaves AOC, but it might be worth remembering a fair number of Congressional reps and Senators actually have served or even continue to serve in the Guard and Reserve. A much higher rate than the population at large. It's currently 19% for Congress and 7% for American adults in general.
Hunter Biden already has an Other-than-Honorable Discharge (IIRC) from the US Navy, because of his well-known drug problems. Age can be waiverable but I doubt that drug discharge can.
>> What you seem to be saying is that we should be willing to fight...
Who is this "we"? For all the condemnation and claims about sanctions, everyone saw this coming and did not a damn thing. If sanctions actually are imposed, Putin can just turn off the gas to Europe. If anyone wants to engage militarily (and Europeans rightly had enough of that) they have to worry about nuclear weapons.
I see this as a big eye opener to the other European "Union" countries when they see nobody actually has Ukraine's back.
Ukraine is in neither the EU nor NATO. That was what this whole conflict ostensibly was about: Ukraine gaining allies and support outside Russia's control.
A country's economy may be a good indication of how long a battle of attrition would last, possibly, but at the same time, money is not really that important if you mobilize a country and have the raw resources.
In the era of industrialization economic size was a proxy for the capability of a state to mobilize its industrial capacity for war. Does that still hold true?
That's the wrong question. It assumes there is an upside. But the real question is: what is the downside of not defending Ukraine? and what is the downside of defending Ukraine? Because war doesn't really have an upside, it only has downsides.
Putin thinks there is an upside - It will deter west from integrating Ukraine into NATO. In a way this makes sense. West just don't want to deal with a Russian headache like this.
Except that that wasn't going to happen anyway... the desire was there on the Ukranian side but just as the EU did not want them to join NATO had already distanced themselves quite a bit.
It entirely rests upon how much damage can be inflicted upon Putin's new (10-15 years old, but really just being birthed with this invasion), aggressively expansive Russian Empire.
If you say a lot, then the ROI can be very high.
Russia formally has a new Stalin, a new Tsar, whatever you want to title him with. And the world should act accordingly. Putin will have to kill a lot of people domestically from here on out if he's moving into Empire mode, because the situation will get messy very fast and there will be real domestic opposition and he'll strongly dislike that.
Russia is a leper again.
And besides this, we should be defending the new, fragile democracy in Ukraine, on a moral basis. They're our friends and they want our help.
I believe I understood the point. In spite of all the post-industrial service economy and outsourcing we hear about, my understanding is that the US military industrial complex is still quite domestic; built and maintained by US citizens in the US at great expense for reasons that must seem obvious these days.
But ROI is all I can see that actually drives the US these days - why do you think the phrase "run the government like a business" is so ingrained? Personally, I'd prefer to run the government like a government, but I'm just one voter out of what... 150 million or so?
When your friend or relative comes back in a pine box, do you want to know it was just another bad decision with nothing good coming of that sacrifice?
That said, I think the US has options here. We don't need to "occupy" Ukraine as they have plenty of troops. What they need is air superiority.
We should consider establishing a no-fly zone around all of Ukraine (and maybe Crimea). The risk to American lives would be as minimal as possible while still severely restraining Russia's ability to wage war..
Kharkiv, 25 miles to Russia.
Just want to say that we are strong, we are confident about our army and I hope that everything will be fine.
I'm sorry that I share content like this on this platform, but that's my reality
Hi, I have friends both in Russia and in Ukraine who live in Lvov. I'm very sorry about what is happening and pray for the lives of people in Ukraine who will suffer from yet another senseless war. I will refrain from commenting on geopolitics but Ukraine is an independent and free nation and no amount of Russian aggression will ever change that.
My great grandfather was from outside L'viv, and almost as a little irony he is polish (and Poland was controlling l'viv at that time).
Not to make light of the situation, but the fact that you refer to l'viv as Ukraine (yes, I know we all agree it is) is a miniature proof that things do change and the way we look at things can be modified.
I mean, that was changed with massive forced relocations of the population (in both directions) by the Soviets.
It's not that the "people of Lviv" at the time stopped seeing themselves as Polish, it's that nearly the entire Polish population of the city was forced to relocate to Poland's post-war borders.
> we are strong, we are confident about our army and I hope that everything will be fine
I hope this correctness of this assessment has no impact on your safety and well-being. If it does, the people in this thread cheering you on who are not 25 miles away from the Russian border should be ashamed of themselves and you would be well advised to make contingency plans for alternative scenarios were everything will not be fine, say one where Ukraine faces complete military defeat within days.
God bless your people and army. I am so sorry, that I don't feel enough support being sent from the western world - from medicine to weapons and sanctions.
Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson said this 6 days ago:
> If Russia enters Ukraine, it is assumed that this will lead to large numbers of refugees fleeing the country. Amnesty International warns of a humanitarian catastrophe.
> But Sweden will not be a major recipient country, according to Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson. She believes that the responsibility lies with other countries.
Portugal's prime minister announced a simplified visa programme for any Ukrainian wishing to flee the conflict. If in need, get in touch with the Portuguese embassy in Kiev [1]. It is still staffed.
> Sweden did accept way more refugees during Syria war than any neighbor countries
Yup. And now the Prime Minister has pre-emptively declared that for refugees from a geographically, culturally, and politically much closer country, the gates will be closed. So how does that not support the thesis that Sweden's (Social Democratic / Left / Green / Centre Party) government prefers its asylum seekers to be MENA and Muslim?
> and Sweden simply wish for offloading from neighbor countries.
Funny how that doesn't seem to have been needed between 2015 and now, isn't it? At least I can't recall any other such pre-emptive declarations from that time span. Can you?
> The majority of these refugees were below the age of 20.
The majority of those refugees claimed to be below the age of 20.
> Yup. And now the Prime Minister has pre-emptively declared that for refugees from a geographically, culturally, and politically much closer country, the gates will be closed. So how does that not support the thesis that Sweden's (Social Democratic / Left / Green / Centre Party) government prefers its asylum seekers to be MENA and Muslim?
You are drawing conclusions out of thin air here.
> Funny how that doesn't seem to have been needed between 2015 and now, isn't it? At least I can't recall any other such pre-emptive declarations from that time span. Can you?
What other conflicts between 2015 and now would warrant that amount of refugees in our part of the world?
> The majority of those refugees claimed to be below the age of 20.
Again you are drawing conclusions out of thin air.
>> Yup. And now the Prime Minister has pre-emptively declared that for refugees from a geographically, culturally, and politically much closer country, the gates will be closed. So how does that not support the thesis that Sweden's (Social Democratic / Left / Green / Centre Party) government prefers its asylum seekers to be MENA and Muslim?
> You are drawing conclusions out of thin air here.
No. My hypothesis fits the available facts. The only thing drawn out of thin air here is your claim that mine is.
You "forgot" to answer how the available facts wouldn't fit with my hypothesis. But, we all know why you skipped that: Because you can't, because they do.
I'm so sorry. But the truth is that you don't stand a chance. Russia will get what it wants (it got the support of China that will offset any sanctions the the West might impose)
Ukraine will make Russia suffer though as they seem very determined to protect their country. And the rest of the world will make Russia suffer economically. So this is a lose-lose situation.
Ukraine was always going to lose, going up against Russia, as would most nations. Lose-lose is a better option for the people of Ukraine, if you accept they are desiring to defend themselves (which will entail a higher death toll); the other scenario is Russia wins (taking no losses) and Ukraine loses (nearly everything).
Ukraine can make Russia suffer if the West has given them enough weapons to do so. I'm skeptical that they did in time. They had seven years after Crimea to help Ukraine, and waited far too long to do it to a great enough degree.
That reminds me Finland's fights with the Soviet Union[1]. I can't find the quote now but at some point they said something along the lines of "We didn't win the Winter War but we came in a close second!"
Putin is alienating a lot of ordinary citizens, though. Do you think Ukrainians will peacefully consent to be governed for years after this? There is precedent in history for this kind of outcome, but that wound would be there for a long time.
Stay safe, brother, my thoughts and prayers are with you. I'm Russian and wholeheartedly despise this outrageous war crime act of our so-called government.
Hi Russian friends. Good to see you here and good to read your view.
You might see me se me support Ukraine or be angry about Russia, but rest assured that I have nothing against Russians as a people, only the ones who tries to invade Ukraine etc.
I'm living in the shadow of Russia too and I've just filled my spare water tanks with clean water and I'll fill my car and get some extra fuel for my cooking stove later today.
I've already been training for a few months now, but I'm still hoping for a good miracle to avoid a full European war.
For the rest of HN, don't forget the thing most preppers seems to ignore: as far as possible, be friendly towards everyone. If others want you to survive that should help a lot.
Have a nice day everyone.
Edit: when/if this ends maybe we can meet at the server again and play CS:GO or something :-)
Edit 2: if anyone wonders, the official rule for prepping here in Norway includes stocking up with 9L of clean water for each person in the household, keeping some food that has long shelf life, radio, lights, batteries, some way to heat food and rooms even if the electricity disappears and to cooperate with neighbors if you cannot fix everything yourself (e.g. not all houses here have alternative heating sources except electricity).
I am from one of the other countries bordering Russia. FWIW I have a lot of friends and relatives there, and don't know a single person who supports what's happening. The bald lunatic seems to have went completely insane. The problem is your voice doesn't mean much in that country.
I nearly teared up reading the news this morning. Stay safe.
I think sometimes when talking about Russia or China it’s mistaken for the people of Russia or China when in reality it’s not criticism of the people but of the governments. We know majority of the people in those countries are good people and really just want to live their lives in happiness.
It's all identity politics, and it's nothing new. Putin and his clique of oligarchs and criminals require a story that regular folks can identify with. It's the same in any sort of state, but in democracies due to the ability to actually participate, people can see for themselves that this identity is not entirely fiction. The so-called Russian state has not much more to do with average Russians than any other state. We might as well say that a Russian state does not exist. Russians do, but they don't have a state.
I hope that somehow they are someday able to grab their sovereignty into their own hands, and out of the hands of people who only see them as resources for their own gain.
People really fear war and economic sanctions, everyone around me are watching live currency exchange quotes and stock markets. Noboby around me supports the invasion or even understands why it's happening. It's like an abbyss between the head of the state and the people. Can't say for everyone of course.
Most people just want to live a relatively normal life with friends and family in their own little corner of the world. Unfortunately the vast majority of us are subject to the whims of those with greater power and ambitions.
Like many other famous quotes, it appears Trotsky himself never actually said this – although he did say something similar about "dialectics", which later got transferred to the more enduring topic of "war" – https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/08/02/interested-war/
It's a fair translation since the dialectic to him meant all countries would eventually become communist by revolution which in most cases meant some sort of civil war.
We live and benefit from nation-states. We didn't choose that structure, but it is "natural" and just the way it is -- until we have some major technological breakthrough that changes that.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state#History_and_origi..., "Most theories see the nation state as a 19th-century European phenomenon, facilitated by developments such as state-mandated education, mass literacy and mass media. However, historians[who?] also note the early emergence of a relatively unified state and identity in Portugal and the Dutch Republic."
Humans have been burying their dead for 100,000 years, living in cities for 12000 years, organizing states for 5700 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Age_state_societies), and organizing nation-states for 200 years. That is, for roughly the first 94000 years of humanity, there were no cities and no states; for the first 6000 years of cities, there were no states; and for the first 5500 years of states, there were no nation-states.
Even today, many people live in non-nation-state countries like the United States, Bolivia, and India.
It's not "natural", it's not "just the way it is", we probably don't benefit from it, and it's probably not even technologically determined.
I do wonder, though, if scientific and technological progress (at least on the scale and speed we've seen in recent centuries) does require a higher level of civilization centralization. How do you get enough people to agree to work on a particular avenue of research, and fund that research to a degree that it is likely to bear fruit, when you just have random unaffiliated, unassociated people wandering around hunting for food.
Certainly there was technological progress thousands (and tens of thousands) of years ago: tools for hunting and later farming, making fire, the wheel, and so on. But could a society organized like that eventually progress to discovering how to generate electricity from nuclear fission? Could they ever have built rockets and traveled to the moon? I'm skeptical...
> Even today, many people live in non-nation-state countries like the United States, Bolivia, and India.
For the purposes of this particular discussion, I think "nation-state" and the slightly looser-organized nations you describe can be lumped together in the same category.
I don't think it's at all true that the current United States is more loosely organized than nation-states like Poland and Lebanon, and if you want to lump nation-states together with their diametrical opposites like Belgium I have no idea what distinction between categories of polities you are trying to discuss. "Random unaffiliated, unassociated people wandering around hunting for food" is not a fair description of any state of human existence that has ever been documented by anthropologists or, to my knowledge, suggested by archaeologists. Certainly it isn't a fair description of the Holy Roman Empire.
Moreover, the particular way in which the United States discovered how to generate electricity from nuclear fission and traveled to the moon with rockets crucially depended on it not being a nation-state: it was consequently able to assimilate foreign immigrants like Fermi, von Braun, von Neumann, and Einstein.
Certainly it's possible for a nation-state to make such advances in theory, but in practice they seem to depend on the kind of diversity of intellectual and cultural traditions that is anathema to nation-states. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States nor the countries of the European Space Agency were or are nation-states.
I would make a counter point and argue that the history of the USA is one of building a nation state out of immigrants from various European countries (mostly).
It's an interesting point of view, even if it's not the mainstream political-science meaning of "nation state". Certainly the USA has a strong national identity, shared traditions, a couple of nearly unique dialects (though GA and AAVE are also spoken in Canada), and a state religion in which schoolchildren are forced to pray daily to the Flag, and to a significant extent the USA grew out of a tribal invasion and colonization of America by English colonists with shared descent.
Still, I think the US is better understood as a multiethnic, profoundly racist society, not a single tribe: 41 million people (12% of the population) speak Spanish, another 13% speak AAVE, and 2% belong to various Native American and Alaskan Native nations. In all cases most speakers also speak the language of the dominant GA-speaking tribe, and there are identifiable musical, culinary, religious, political differences associated with their varying descent, along with striking segregation in housing, schooling, and education. Subsequent to the initial English colonization there was also substantial immigration from Ireland (9% of the current population), Scotland (8%), Germany (15%, already 9% by the first census in 01790), the Netherlands (1%), Italy (5%), and Poland (3%), China (1.5%), India (1%), France (3%), as well as other countries. Some of these immigrants were also Romani (0.3%) or Jewish (3%). But, in the US system of racism, these differences are largely submerged in generalized "[non-Hispanic] white American" and "Asian American" (7%) ethnic identities.
Since only 62% of the US population belongs to its hegemonic "non-Hispanic white" nation, which is as you say built out of immigrants from various European countries, I don't think it's reasonable to describe the USA as a nation state. It's not even officially white supremacist, although its historical foundations are in genocide and slavery, and in practice its government treats its ethnic minorities very badly indeed even today. It's at least two more major genocides away from becoming a nation state, although Obama's horrifying mass deportations of "illegal immigrants" and their weaker continuation under Trump were a significant step in that direction, as is the ongoing GULAG-scale mass imprisonment of mostly African-Americans, many of whom are enslaved in prison.
That is an extreme liberal viewpoint, which often flourishes on Wikipedia. Not everything authoritatively stated on Wikipedia is fact, even if there is a link in the footer to someone who says so.
Nation-states were by far the dominant political entities up until the age of exploration, around the 15th century. Name any ancient society, with the stark exception of the Romans they are all nations or nation-states. The Egyptians, the Hebrews, the Ethiopians, the Persians, the Chinese, the Greeks, all nations or nation-states.
Today, it is fashionable to pretend that race doesn't exist as an effort to remove racial barriers. The goal is noble, but the rewriting of history is profane.
You are confusing tribes with nations. None of those examples you gave had any nation-states especially greeks, persians and you can add ottomans, ming, mogul so on, they all had empires with tribal ruling with a dynasty and tribes, with extremely diverse ethnicity impossible to form a coherent nation with a common denomination. There is hardly ever a turkish grand-vizier in Ottoman catalogue to give a trivial example contrary to what you would expect from a "national" point of view.
Race exists but not nearly relevant as you claim and has nothing to do with nation-states. I don't claim to side with the parent but you are not nearly correct either. IF there is a footnote to a source, you better read it next time. Wiki is not authoritative but not complete junk either.
Your point about the Ottoman grand viziers is well taken.
However, I don't agree with some of the distinctions you're making. Tribes are nations. Like, literally, "nation" is the Latin word for tribes that weren't one of the the three tribes of Rome. "Race" is another synonym; Webster defines "nation" as "A part, or division, of the people of the earth, distinguished from the rest by common descent, language, or institutions; a race; a stock." If a tribe or a race is roughly coextensive with a state, that state is a nation-state. So race has everything to do with nation-states; this is one of the main reasons I think it's important to point out that countries like the United States are not nation-states, despite the efforts of groups like the Ku Klux Klan, and that nation-states are something we can do away with.
Consider ancient Greece. Classical Athens was considered to consist of four tribes, and the state of Athens only governed a tiny minority of Greeks, so the political division into states just didn't coincide with a division by common descent, language, or institutions even very roughly; and Greece remained divided into such city-states until being conquered by the Romans. Mycenaean Greece was far more politically unified, but much more diverse in terms of ethnicity, language, and institutions; archaeological evidence confirms Homer's hearsay on this count. Biblical Israel was classically divided into twelve tribes, and the myths of Abraham and the Exodus was used to falsely claim a common descent for what archaeological evidence tells us were Canaanite people who spoke the same Semitic language as their neighbors but began to distinguish themselves by the cult of Yahweh; and we have both documentary and archaeological evidence of their subsequent divisions and reunions, continuing through the intertestamental period.
The meaning in Latin is almost irrelevant here. I know it’s confusing, but in American usage, the meaning of the word “nation” has largely shifted to mean the (entire) state or the country - as opposed to the “state” which is part of a “union.” So, the US and by extension Britain, Germany, France, Albania, etc. are all “nations” whether they consist of “states” or not.
It is counterproductive to try to apply that local vernacular meaning of the word "nation" to understand the term "nation state", which describes a particular kind of state that is different from other kinds of states. It will only confuse you. It would be like trying to understand the term "laser cooling", which describes a refrigeration process, by using the vernacular meaning of the word "cool" that is "in fashion". Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state.
But that particular "vernacular" is important, and not only because American audience has a large presence here on HN, but also because it is influential and is imported into other world languages - one example being the term "national park" which has nothing to do with a nation-state (or a park, for that matter) but simply means what should be easily expressed in any language as "a state nature preserve."
The "in fashion" meaning of the word "cool" is also important and influential (and imported into other world languages!) but it is not the relevant meaning in the phrase "laser cooling". At best you can say that the American audience has a propensity to be confused about the term "nation state", compounded by its general historical illiteracy.
> in American usage, the meaning of the word “nation” has largely
> shifted to mean the (entire) state or the country
So in American usage nation-state means what exactly?
In any case, no matter how Americans call their political entities, the word "nation" in the term "nation-state" has a clear, unambiguous meaning, referring to a race/tribe/nation.
You don't sound mean, rather, I would appreciate enlightenment. I'm familiar with some of them, such as the Hebrews (I'm a Hebrew), Greeks (studied a bit, but not in an academic setting), Ahmans (which I call Persians for a modern audience), but I don't pretend to be an expert.
I called them nations because they were a people of a common race. For instance, the ancient Greeks have described the features of the Perisans whom they fought at Marathon - and from this description it is clear that a Greek could identify another person as Greek or Persian. Hence, they are different nations. And even today the Ethiopians retain very distinct features. My country (Israel) has many Ethiopians, I believe that we are the only Western nation to welcome African immigrants as equals. And would any Westerner argue that the Chinese have physical features distinct from those with European heritage? Does that not qualify - for you - as a different race?
If you are referring to the Proto-Indo-Iranian ancestors, then I counter that their descendants have diverged.
If you meant something else, I am always grateful for corrections or enlightenment.
I'm no expert on the time in question, so I may have some things wrong, but here's how I understand the situation.
I agree that the Greeks who fought at Marathon were a nation, but they were not a state; they came from Athens and Plataia, which were different states, allied with the Lakedaimonians, another state, also of the Greek nation but missing in action that day. The Persians, by contrast, were a state but, as you surely know, they included many nations: Datis was Median, Artaphernes ruled the Lydians (though he himself was also Median), and Hippias was actually Greek; the Persian forces also included Thracians, Mysians, Phrygians, Hebrews (!), Macedonians, and so on, though I don't know if they were present at Marathon. You can surely forgive Herodotus for not dwelling on the internal ethnic divisions among the Persian troops his interviewees were facing. (However, he did mention the Sakai alongside the "Persians" (Persai), Simonides called the Persian force the "army of the Medes" (Medon), and Aiskhylos also spoke in his epitaph of facing the Medes (Medos) at Marathon rather than the "Persians".)
So that's the sense in which neither Greece nor Persia was a nation-state at the time: Greece was a nation but not a state, while Persia was a state but not a nation. Or, rather, there was a Persian nation, but the plurinational Persian state was immensely larger than the Persian nation to which its rulers belonged.
If we consider Homeric Greece instead, the Greeks look more like the Persia that fought at Marathon: Homer's Akhaioi are, perhaps, all ruled from Mykenai by Agamemnon, but they worship different gods, speak different (but related) languages, and have different descent. And, although we know many things in Homer are historically wrong, modern archaeology does back up this plurinational picture of the Akhaioi. So Mycenaean Greece, like the Persian empire of Darius, was a state but not a nation.
As I understand the situation, we can make similar arguments about most of the ancient history of the Hebrews: beginning with ethnic and religious unity with neighboring Canaanite peoples subjugated by Egypt (despite the later invention of myths like Abraham and the Exodus, which are not supported by the archaeological evidence) and proceeding through many historical political divisions --- not just the division between Israel and Judea of which the Torah makes so much, but also, at various times, Samaria, various city-states in Palestine, the Maccabee state, and the Phoenician cities, as well as subjugation by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, and finally Romans. The Torah narrative of 117 years of a united monarchy preceding the Israel/Judah split is generally not accepted by modern scholars, though the debate is certainly open, but even in the Torah most of the historically plausible action happens at times when the Hebrew nation was either divided into separate kingdoms or suffering under the yoke of foreign powers.
So I don't think it's accurate to describe any of the ancient Israelite states as nation-states.
After a day digesting the ancient and modern situation, I've come to a conclusion that might be comfortable.
I don't know how diverged e.g. the Scythians were from the Amyrgians (of whom I'd never heard of until yesterday), but it is clear that they distinguished one from another. However, would an Athenian distinguish between them? Would a Scythian distinguish between a Spartan and an Athenian?
It seems to me that there are no clear boundaries between "peoples" or "nations". For me a Han and a Manchu are both Chinese, but they might see a Polish Jew as no different than a Lithuanian Jew. And yet the Polish Jew from Loz will see his identity distinct from the Jew from Warsaw.
So back to the conflict at hand, from the perspective of Slavic history there is merit to considering the Ukrainian and Russian peoples as the same people or nation. From the perspective of wishing to live under different systems of values and authority, there is also merit to considering them as distinct. Note that the gift of Crim to Ukraine during the 1950s was "a gift from the Russian people to the Ukrainian people" so at that time the Russians were making a distinction between the two.
As usual when considering human relationships, it's complicated )). There's an old joke about the Irishmen talking about how close they are - until the end. You've probably heard it.
Of your list, the ones I know about (the Hebrews, the Persians, the Chinese, and the Greeks) were plurinational (and frequently not states), though sometimes not in exactly the same way as the Romans.
It's true that I'm an extreme liberal! But I think the Wikipedia article gives a neutral point of view.
It’s actually more something that was invented in the treaties of Westphalia and which allowed the idea of the nation-state to scale in a way that prior forms of government could not. (With a few notable exceptions! Ancient Rome was basically a nation state, as was the Islamic empire in its height. Not coincidentally these both became large, stable empires.)
Something to create international connections, kind of a network, where people meet and exchange opinions or knowledge, without any border, no matter what nationality. Yeah, that would be great. I would call it "Internet"!
Long-time Russian HN user here, under a throwaway account and a VPN.
The majority public sentiment hasn't formed yet. The war started in early morning, and many people are still hung-over due to yesterday holiday (the Russian Army day, BTW).
My prediction is that there won't be a patriotic hysteria. People will be wary of possible consequences, which -- and I think everyone understands that -- may be severe. Medical drug prices will certainly go up, due to the fact that most drugs are imported. A high-tech / chip / electronics exports to Russia may be restricted. An oil & gas embargo may be imposed, which means that we're back to the 90's (though I think that Europe will be difficult to get on board, due to their dependency on Russia's energy).
My personal current sentiment is that we may get completely isolated from the west, and that we'll have to form a closer alliance with China -- which I don't like.
(A small consolation prize is that our corrupt "elites" will finally get what they deserve -- I expect heavy personal sanctions and foreign asset seizures).
Throwaway here. I work for a large US investment company that has a lot of Russian assets and staff. They are sticking their fingers in their ears and not even discussing this. I expect the sanctions will have minimal effect because there is such a complex web of investments. Individual staff are discussing exiting the company regularly over it rather than profiting from blood money. That’s all we can do.
Do keep in mind that, according to the official interpretation of events in Russia - which is all you get if you stick to the TV - it was Ukraine that started shooting and shelling civilians, and Russia is "peacekeeping".
From some of my own relatives, I can attest that at least some people sincerely believe this.
It’s interesting how US intelligence has countered Russian misinformation campaign by exactly predicting what was going to happen. For months Russia has denied they intended to invade. After finishing military preparations and the encirclement of Ukraine they suddenly changed tone in the course of a week.
Just 5 days ago Putin was claiming that their military exercises near the border were over and the Russian military was withdrawing. Putin's withdrawal seems to be going quite poorly.
Вижу горы и долины, вижу реки и поля.
Это русские картины, это родина моя.
Вижу Прагу и Варшаву, Будапешт и Бухарест.
Это русская держава - сколько здесь любимых мест!
Вижу пагоды в Шри Ланке, и Корею, и Китай.
Где бы я ни ехал в танке, всюду мой любимый край!
Вижу речку Амазонку, крокодилов вижу я.
Это русская сторонка, это родина моя!
Недалече пирамиды, Нил течёт — богат водой,
Омывает русский берег! Русь моя, горжусь тобой!
Вижу Вашингтон в долине, Даллас вижу и Техас
Как приятно здесь в России выпить вкусный русский квас!
Над Сиднеем солнце всходит, утконос сопит в пруду.
Репродуктор гимн заводит; с русским гимном в день войду!
Вот индейцы курят трубку, и протягивают мне -
Все на свете любят русских, на родной моей земле.
“Sincerely” is a deceptive word for such entrenched positions. People actively self-deceive (by, e.g., choosing their media sources) to beliefs that they think are personally beneficial.
I live in Crimea. People are sad, angry, and disappointed. And fatigued. Nobody wants war, but a lot of people feel like we're screwed either way. We avoided a war in 2014, and we can probably avoid it today, but that just means it will come tomorrow. And because people don't see a good way out of the situation, it feels like, whatever happens, just let it happen fast. "A horrible end is better than endless horror".
I don't know how to explain all this to my kids. And how to keep them safe. I feel really sorry for everyone involved on all sides.
Depends on where people live, how much do they make etc.
The general sentiment in this country for the past few decades is "it's not for me to decide".
Many people do agree however that while this kind of solution is not really a great one and likely not in our best interest - something has to be done regarding the NATO problem.
A number of former Soviet satellite states joined NATO, but they chose to do so of their own volition. NATO does not prevent their self-determination. In contrast, Russia is denying self-determination to Ukraine.
Sure, but what Russia was constantly telling NATO is that while Russia respects other countries' desire to join NATO - Russia believes that NATO should not allow those countries to join.
Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.
I believe the take from John Mearsheimer after the Crimean crisis in 2015 [1] to be a bit more elucidating based on realpolitik than just the reductive take based off Russian imperialism, the issue is larger than just a madman trying to regain control of past territory.
I have to admit that this video made me extremely sad and angry. I grew up in one of those countries occupied by Russians that later joined NATO and what upsets me in this kind of argumentation is that it talks about countries like us as if we had no agency, no say in the matter, no right to decide about ourselves. Mr. Mearsheimer uses the same language ("expansion") as if there is no substantial difference between a country asking to join NATO and a country attacked and annexed by Russia. It seems to me that the logic he uses to argue that Ukraine is the West's fault is indistinguishable from "it is your fault that bully beats you up because you refuse to give him your lunch when he wants it".
He is not correct though. I think it was 2003 when the US wanted to install a missile shield in Poland and Czechia. Obama did cancelled it again though.
> What we see happening in #Ukraine right now is, to put it bluntly, Russian (or more precisely, the Kremlin's) imperialism.
I read that thread and found it very persuasive. I took his advice and read some of the translations of Putin's rhetoric, and I found his characterizations accurate.
That thread is the actual situation and it's a travesty we have so many on this very site and the American far right that are Kremlin war apologists.
We have fools believing the Kremlin is actually afraid of NATO, the defensive alliance, when Russia has NUKES. Kremlin isn't even afraid of NATO confrontation when they're invading another country, because of nukes. They're sure as hell not concerned about NATO confrontation in their own territory. The whole argument is schizophrenic.
Again, why would Russia be concerned about NATO imposing themselves on Russia, when NATO won't even defend a Ukrainian invasion?
You're missing a small thing - NATO had had various plans for antimissile defences in countries in Central and Eastern Europe ( Poland, Czechia, Romania if memory serves me right). Those defences would potentially invalidate Russia nukes, and that's scary. ( Which is why there was a treaty limiting antimissile defences during the Cold War, to avoid one side thinking they can win a nuclear exchange). So Russia has plenty to be scared of, and then there's the imperialism, exporting problems, having a cause for the people to rally around, etc.
War crimes and abhorrent nonetheless. I hope at least this time the responsible end up in The Hague.
I think the defences would be useful against countries will very limited nuke arsenal. For example Iran. The is probably no defence that would protect you against hundreds of nukes. In a real nuke strike the attacker would probably fire many simultaneously, accompanied with decoys.
Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out. Nukes or not, if the "defensive" alliance, that used to be your sworn enemy for almost 5 decades (Putin used to be a KGB Colonel) sets up shop right across your border I understand why you might get worried a bit. Don't forget, that defensive alliance was invading countries as well since the 90s. Usually under the pretext of spreading democracy.
Does that justify Putin's invasion of Ukraine? No, absolutely not. Does it mean NATO could have been a tad more cautious when it comes to Russians security interests? Yes. Now it's to late for that so. And as usual it is innocent people, just wanting live their lives in peace, that pay the price.
> Regarding the last part, Putin is trying to find out.
Ok, so when Putin finds out NATO won't confront an invasion, then the Kremlin will back off their aggressions now, right? Now that they've found out there's no way NATO threatens the motherland? Does that sound right to you?
I'll make a guess. I've been on side "Russian invasion is imminent" for the past four months. I've been hearing a whole lot of "nothing to see here. Russia has no plans to invade. Just military drills. West should stop being threatening." for months. They were all dead wrong (sooo many on this site as of just days ago). So I'm inclined to believe I'm a bit more prescient on these issues.
Putin still won't back off, knowing Russia is safe from NATO, because that's not the issue.
Oh, you got me wrong. If Putin finds out NATO won't got to war over Ukraine, he will try again with other non-NATO countries. Or even smaller NATO countries like the Baltics. China might try too, with Taiwan. Just to name some of the more obvious candidates.
But isn't the real threat against Putin that the ideas of democracy spread via word of mouth?
I think problem with Ukraine is that Ukrainians and Russians have close ties and if Ukraine succeeds in becoming a western country their relatives in Russia will want to do so to.
That sure plays a role. Not that this word of mouth spreading of democracy worked out so well lately. But yeah, if I were Putin I would prefer a war in Ukraine over a potential civil war over my rule in Russia any day of the week.
One cannot ignore the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in this whole mess so.
You have to give it to the Finnish people that they have - what should I say - some institutional knowledge when it comes to Russia.
After all they still have around 200 000 Russian troops at their borders. (6 feet under the ground but still very alive in their memories.)
For anyone who isn't aware:
- The Finnish are the ones who said - as Kremlin sent a million poor troops towards them - we are only a small country, were should we bury them all?
- The "Molotov cocktails" started as a Finnish joke about their practical invention to stop Russian vehicles. Russian diplomat Молотов (Molotov) had started the wittiness by telling that their bombing raids were just friendly Russians dropping suppplies.
That was the USSR under Stalin. Quite different story. Not to forget, Finland was part of the Russian Empire before WW1. Doesn't justify the Russian attacks on Finland, context usually does matter so.
Putin is, in many ways, among the most dangerous and skilled world leaders. And the most daring one. That none of his actions have been seriously checked by anyone since he came to power surely didn't help either. If Putin had his way, it would not just be Finland, the Baltics and most of Eastern Europe as well.
IMHO, appeasement never worked with people like Putin (or Bush sen. & jun. or Napoleon,...). Thing is that war seems to be the only alternative. And most don't want that. At least not a shooting war against an opponent that can actually shoot back immediately.
He doesn't really need to grab some land, physically. He only needs a puppet government like in Belarus, that's all. Once he knows he can control a country, he will leave it in peace.
Unfortunately, this means misery for the citizens, and nobody sane wants that. Ukrainians want to have an independent modern country, not to be Kremlin slaves.
> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.
NATO does not have "systems". NATO is a cooperation office between militaries of member countries, despite relentless Russian propaganda that makes it sound as if tanks and missiles magically pop up after signing the membership agreement.
Russia can’t respect other countries’ desire to join NATO while holding the position that they shouldn’t be allowed to join NATO. That’s patent nonsense.
> Sure, but what Russia was constantly telling NATO is that while Russia respects other countries' desire to join NATO - Russia believes that NATO should not allow those countries to join.
It's funny how hard it is for Russia(ns) to get their head around the concept of self-determination: It's none of Russia's fricking business what alliances other countries join; and it's none of Russia's fricking business which countries other alliances accept as members.
See? It's not really all that hard.
> Russia does not care about Ukraine's self-determination as long as NATO's systems are not there.
Russia obviously does not care about anyone's self-determination except their own. (And even that only if "self" is defined along the "one man, one vote" principle: The dictator is The Man, and The Vote is his. The only people with any appreciable degree of "self-determination" are the dictator's cronies, and even that is fraught with risk.)
Putting myself in Russia's shoes for a moment, I understand why they are worried about NATO expanding East. Would be like, Mexico maybe, joining a revamped Warsaw Pact under Russian leadership. NATO, naturally, wouldn't be that thrilled by that prospect. Depending on leadership, war would definitely be on the table. We, as in the West, went to war and invaded sovereign countries for all kinds of reasons since the 90s. Some of those reasons were also completely made up.
All that is water under the bridge so. I think if the "free" West (I mean that non-ironically, just to acknowledge that there are various ways to define freedom, not all of which are compatible with Western views. And that the West usually doesn't have problems ignoring those freedoms when needed (Saudi, China, UAE, Turkey,...)) doesn't act now, we will have to either roll over later against an aggressor or react much harsher then we would have to now. If Putin can redraw the maps now, China will be next to try. Followed by any other large country that has territorial interests against a smaller one.
> In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation. To support the claim, he describes in length his views on the history of Russia and Ukraine, concluding that Russians and Ukrainians share a common heritage and destiny.
> The essay denies the existence of Ukraine as an independent nation...
There's no need to imagine, look at the treatment of Cuba, including the Cuban Missile crisis for daring to join "the other side". It's still under sanctions, decades later, for that..
I don’t understand “the NATO problem”. Even if Ukraine became part of NATO, all it would mean for Russia is that there will be consequences if they invade. How hard is it not to invade other countries, unprovoked?
Ukraine gave up its working russian-inherited nuclear warheads. So, no. This is not the same.
Putin is just another authoritarian ruler, a dictator. He will use any excuse he wants to invade; in this case he is using NATO membership and separatist movements.
In the practical sense, the "NATO problem" is that Ukraine is not going to give up on Crimea, and once it becomes a member of NATO that will lead to direct confrontation between Russia and NATO.
Yes, the "NATO problem". The "problem" that is actually defending countries from invasions instead of letting their people, in a country that is not even close to being in NATO, die at the hands of tyrants.
To make the metaphor correct, what would the US do if Mexico or Cuba asked Russia to build a military base just after the US took some of their territory and Russia continually said no.
Because Russia just took Crimea a few years ago and NATO refused to allow them to join. And Russia has agreed Crimea was part of Ukraine as recently as 1994.
Ukraine? No idea. Poland, the Baltics, the southern former Soviet republics (most of which end at -stan) to support the invasion of Afghanistan, a lot.
If you can't supply one the logical conclusion is that there is no good reason and all the reasons that flow from simple observation are terribly unsupportable morally and legally. You know that. You are vague because giving a better answer is impossible and the actual answer is unpalatable.
Yet the reason is an important subject, and in questions like that different reasoning lead to lost lives. So it's a serious, justifiable subject to discuss.
Everyone bombs everyone, it seems. NATO bombed Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq,... Sent "peacekeepers" to loads of African countries (funny enough those countries sit on tons of raw materials). Russia bombed Georgia (not the US state of Georgia), Ukraine. China isn't bombing as much with actual bombs for now, money seems to work just fine it seems. Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, Israel is bombing Palestine, while Palestine is bombing Israel.
No need to justify any of that, because it all sucks and is ultimately utterly pointless. It does help so, to understand the other side. Because it makes it easier to find a solution that doesn't lead to all out war between nuclear powers. And no, I don't consider just handing Ukraine to Putin to be that solution. Or Taiwan to China, as far as that is concerned.
NATO did not go to war in Iraq as an organization. That was done by an independent coalition. After Saddam's fall, they did however take part in training the new Iraqi military.
thanks, I suppose the NATO problem is that as the sole purpose of the forming of NATO was to act as a deterrent and implicit threat to the Soviet Union having a possible NATO country next to Russia itself, as opposed to having some buffer is seen as aggressive in itself?
Pure speculation, but maybe it’s calculated aggression based on an assumption that the west doesn’t have an appetite for war [with Russia] and will avoid doing so if possible.
How so? Hitler got away with it. The Allies declared war on him only nine months later when he also invaded Poland.
And even then, they only did it half-heartedly, and the French pretty much threw away their weapons when the first German panzers arrived. Hitler knew that he had the stronger will to fight. Had it not been for a few other factors (Churchill, Russian winter, and the Hitler's obsession with the jews), he could have taken the whole of Europe.
The NATO "problem" wasn't the continued existence of NATO after the collapse of the USSR, but rather the expansion into traditional USSR/Russian areas of influence (Slavic areas). That's what they resent. Of course, given economic realities, many of those areas would prefer to have better ties with the West than the kleptocratic alternative, but that's neither here nor there.
Sure, but two things. No one is contesting their Central Asia client states that's in their pocket --we're not trying to expand NATO there... and two they have a special affinity to Slavic peoples due to culture. (they treat them like an "ex-" with a certain amount of jealousy.
Central Asia, no (although China is actively making inroads there).
But there's still Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia to consider. These aren't Slavic, but they are of interest to both NATO and Russia. Well, Armenia is pretty firmly aligned with Russia for historical reasons and some semblance of security against Azerbaijan and Turkey. But the other two are already Western-oriented, and Georgia has applied for NATO membership in the past.
As far as Slavic affinity, it's a bit more complicated. For example, Bulgarians are Slavic, and Eastern Orthodox even, but being on the wrong side of WW1 and then WW2 vis a vis Russia/USSR overrides that. OTOH with Ukrainians, many Russians outright deny that they even are a separate nation or ethnicity, and claim that it's just a sub-branch of Russians who speak a dialect of Russian. From that perspective, occupying Ukraine is described as "re-unifying" Russia.
I wouldn't make it about ethnicity. Making it about former Soviet republics and members of the Warsaw pact is the problem, from Russia's point of view. A problem that, in hindsight maybe, is so obvious and so guaranteed to come (Russia complained about NATOs eastern expansion for decades) that it seems surprising that NATO doesn't seem to have an answer. Hell, when Russia annexed the Krim and tried to annex parts of Georgia one would think NATO would have gotten a clear wake up call.
Germany makes deals with Russia to get their gas (NS1 and NS2) and only recently they declined NS2.
Basically we (EU) are giving Russia money to create army, instead of ditching their gas, oil etc. and buying one from Scandinavia and US (now when Russian gas prices are higher than the ones form the mentioned countries). And destroying NS1 and 2.
Russia considers NATO's presence at its borders a national threat.
On one hand - NATO protects its members from our possible aggression, on the other hand Russia sees NATO's assets (lets say AA systems) as means to degrade country's capabilities to respond in case of attack from the West (no matter how are the chances of such an attack).
Russia is a like an abusive man with PTSD - always expecting an attack that doesn't come and victimizing himself while abusing others.
Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia? Why aren't countries in NATO worried about being attacked by other countries in NATO? Because *all the countries there don't want war*.
NATO is not to attack Russia, but to defend against it. The idea of protecting against counter attack from the West is like saying "I can't leave my house to protect against the possibility of a meteorite against my head."
> Has Russia perhaps thought for a moment why are countries making an alliance to defend against Russia?
Yeah, there's a lot of rhetoric coming from Russia denouncing "NATO expansion". NATO isn't some belligerent expanding force, annexing territory; countries are actively asking to join NATO. Perhaps Russia should ask themselves why all these countries feel safer being aligned with NATO and the West than with Russia.
What Putin actually considers casus belli isn't important for the moment - it could be anything, reasoned or not. Can we, here, present arguments that the desire of Russia to be able to attack neighbor countries should be honored? Do we extend MAD doctrine to non-nuclear matters - that is, everybody should refrain from defense, as defense reduces their neighbors' abilities to fight back in case those neighbors are attacked? Is it reasonable - for the moment - to think that countries, improving their defenses, actually offend neighbors?
Does Russia really think the West will attack them? Russia has nukes. The West doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia.
The West isn't even defending Ukraine from a Russian attack. Did Russia think the West would defend Ukraine? If so, why did Russia still attack? If not, then why would Russia think there's any chance the West will attack Russia unprovoked?
so the bottom line is that russia (or more correctly, putin) is unable to accept that their state cannot and would not be allowed by the west to become a superpower.
I think the inevitable result is war. I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart, and prevented this, but instead, the optimism that an autocratic state would not do so is the true reality. But of course, it doesn't have good optics at the time to do this. I guess the future will tell if this war escalates.
> I think the west should've decisively defeated the soviets when they broke apart,
That wouldn't have been feasible given military realities (nukes, the total impossibility of invading and occupying Russia), and even if it had been what would it have achieved? The age of imperialism is over. The west has won allies by respecting the right of their populations to self-determination. (And when it hasn't respected self-determination, it has often lost ground.)
The West (I live in a Western country by the way) did not respect self determination of people when it didn't suit the Wests interests. Not before WW1 (when there was no West), not between WW1 and WW2 (Austria wanted to join Germany and wasn't allowed to, the whole former Russian Empire as engulfed in a civil war over that very question, not to mention the colonial empires) or after WW2 (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring, Syria,...).
The war that is on the horizon is not about the "good" vs. the "evil". It is about one revisionist, power hungry leader going toe-to-toe with another power-hungry block over territorial dominance. And about those people just wanting to live in peace caught in the middle.
You're thinking of all the times the West waged war, while I was thinking of the times that it didn't. First in my mind were the countries joining NATO after the end of the Cold War: Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Albania.
Those countries became allies, not through force, but because we were able to devise a mutually beneficial relationship.
Personally, I'd attribute that more to the European Union. But yes, NATO certainly helped. Only shows that there are no simple answers. I only want to point out that NATO, and the EU for that matter, despite all the good the did in Europe are by no means the "good" benefactors in other countries. Also, just because I think some of Russia's actions are understandable, I don't think they are even remotely justified or acceptable. Same goes for the war on terror, the EUs handling of refugees, basically all NATO interventions with the possible exception of Yugoslavia (not the Kosovo) when they tried, and kind of failed, to prevent genocide.
In what way did the West not decisively defeat the soviets? Communism died, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, and several former Russian client states joined NATO. The current crisis is a revanchist attempt to revert that defeat.
Cold war is much more likely than hot war, I’d expect.
Russian grand strategy is defensive. Their primary threat is a large-scale invasion. It happened once in the 19th century and at least twice in the 20th century. Maybe three times if you count Russian Civil War.
To counter the threat of a potential invasion, Russia tries to maintain a buffer zone of friends, puppets, and occupied territories. This is a continuous process, as politics change. Today's friends may be tomorrow's enemies, revolutions may overthrow puppets, and the costs of military occupation may prove too high. Russia fights wars and organizes coups to maintain the buffer zone. The rights of their neighbors don't matter to them when national security is at stake.
Russia fears NATO, because NATO has the capability to project power. They fear that NATO could be the next invader. The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of.
If there is going to be a change, it must come from inside. Russia must stop being afraid and become a member of the international community connected by trade. There was a chance of that in the 80s and 90s, but the chance was lost. Another chance may come after Putin, or the next leader and the next regime could be more of the same.
Why would a country that has so many nukes be afraid of invasion? Genuine question, maybe I am missing something but I see this kind of explanation (Russia afraid of massive land invasion) often and it does not make any sense to me. It feels like applying pre-WW2 logic to world that has fundamentally changed after WW2. Also, if I am mistaken, before Russia attacked Georgia, NATO had like 4 battalions close to Russia and military spending in Europe was going down to ridiculous levels.
Nuclear powers are afraid of invasion because there is a lot of territory between conventional war and the use of nuclear weapons. And because they know that the only real threat of invasion comes from other nuclear powers, meaning once the nukes are fired, the other side fires back and all of a sudden there isn't anything left to defend anymore.
NATO had the local armies of the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia and so on the Russian border (by definition). NATO had the US forces in Germany reasonably close to the Russian border. NATO had the forces supporting the war in Afghanistan on Russians southern border None of that was, as far as anyone not informed about secret NATO planning, can tell geared against Russia. If your neighbor patrols his fence with a huge axe while your children are playing in the backyard, so, you would be worried I assume. Even if it was just to cut wood. Especially if you have bad history with that neighbor.
During the cold war, both NATO and the Warsaw pact conducted war games about invasions of the other side. War Games, because they needed something build their defensive strategies on. As it turned out, both sides, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, never had any real invasions plans for Europe, instead both side focused purely on defense against such an invasion. Turns out that this fear of the other side never died.
Since all that lies in the past, the question where we (as in the West) draws the line. NATO, and the US, kept a ton of unresolved territorial disputes in check since the end of the cold war. Most of those conflicts have the potential to turn really, really bad. If Russia gets away with their attack on Ukraine, others will, potentially rightly so, think they can do the same. And then the World-as-we-know-it might pretty much just end. Well, it might as well if NATO goes to war with Russia over Ukraine as well. Only bad choices it seems.
This is the difference between strategy and grand strategy. Russia is planning not only for 2025 or 2030 but also for 2050 and beyond. Who knows what the world will be then and whether nuclear weapons continue being an effective deterrent. They are falling back to the rules of thumb empires have used for ages. Having a potential enemy at your doorstep can be a bad thing, while having some space between you and potential enemies is probably a good thing.
I am no strategist but I would estimate that right now Russia is generating incredible amounts of hate and fear and turning even those who were kind of indifferent into future enemies. If I naively estimate the probability of this being some rational grand strategy vs probability of this being a move of an old dictator possessed by his ego and some imagined grievances behaving in an irrational way that will damage Russia... I am leaning towards the later one. Of course this is just one example and there are certainly other scenarios/explanations.
I wouldn't make this too much about Putin as a person. Russia has had plenty of leaders with similar ambitions, both in Soviet times and in the empire before it. If leaders like Putin persistently arise in Russia, there must be deeper institutional issues behind them.
That is not how I read Putin. Instead what I'm seeing, is a person who is inherently nationalistic having experienced that his pride was hurt.
I see this tendency within many, if not most countries that have seen a decline in national power over some period, and were nationalists wanted to "Make <their country> Great Again".
Examples:
- Germany under Hitler
- Italy under Mussolini
- France after WW2, when they were quite nationalistic for decades, and certainly did NOT like that English had become the "Lingua Franca"
- Britain under Margaret Thatcher
- Russian under Putin
- MAGA
- And most important of all: China under Xi Jinping
Some of these movements were relatively harmless, some were (and are) very dangerous
This post is strictly personal. I feel like when Dmitry Medvedev was leader of Russia (during the "Putin swap period") that tensions were much lower. Privately: I am such a big fan of him. He is such a geek! I sincerely wonder when Medvedev and (Sergey) Lavrov think about the Crimea and Ukraine situation.
When I look long term, I cannot wonder how Russia will ever leave Crimea. Does that mean that Russia is the next Iran with "forever" sanctions? I cannot see another story, unless Putin leaves and the next leader is more centrist, like Medvedev.
> The fact that NATO has no intention of doing so is irrelevant to them, because politics change. It's the military capabilities they are afraid of.
The change is not in politics - for decades post-Soviet Russia wasn't worrying about NATO. Actually, no - even the point that Russia is afraid isn't correct - it's Putin who's afraid. NATO problem doesn't really exists.
Some people protested. Quite soon they got arrested. The punishment for illegal protests is up to 30 days in prison. There are posts I am seeing on Telegram about some probable protest organizers being arrested in advance. Harsh punishment and lack of organizers means no critical mass.
The problem is, I don’t know anything about Ukraine. I have money, and I can book an Airbnb in a neighboring country for them. But I suspect (apropos nothing) they’ll discover that there’s no way to leave the country through traditional means.
Does anyone know if the buses are still running? Can they get out of the country? If not, my fallback idea is to help them plan a way to escape on foot. But which part of the border should they try to cross?
What I really need is for someone local to Ukraine to DM me so that I can ask some basic questions. If you know anyone, please forward them:
I'll tweet updates there (and I'll post them here as edits for the next hour or so.)
--
Updates:
- Someone DM'ed me on Telegram and mentioned that they're trying to do the same thing. They were thinking about evacuating them to Germany by "sending them an official invite, but the German embassy seems to be closed."
> If you know people who want to leave Kyiv, don't drive to Zhytomyr on the M06. Russian air assault will be taking cross roads. Go south to Bila Terskva to Berdichev to Vinnitsya to Kemenytsky. Fastest evac: go to Chernivsti crossing to Romania.
The Crimea region was the only part of Ukraine that had a noticeable opposition (42% voted against independence). Even in the Eastern parts of Ukraine there was no region with more than 13% of votes against independence.
Donbas/Luhansk also ran referendums in 2014, along with Crimea, with ~90% support for independence. These polls were denounced as unconstitutional and illegal by Kiev.
And, while it was denounced as not a free and fair vote, realistically Kiev would not ever have allowed these votes to happen in any shape or form.
The second option was to be part of Ukraine. It was supported by 2-3% of voters with 80% turnout. I dont see a meaningful distinction between this and the previous status quo.
Even Kiev doesnt believe a vote without the troops would have had a markedly different result, which is why it rejects the idea of holding a vote at all on constitutional grounds.
Many in the USSR rejected the idea of Ukrainian independence based upon a similar principle of the inviolability of Soviet borders.
I think if the second option was status quo and Russian military weren't occupying the area, and the "stay with Ukraine" side had been allowed to campaign, I think the vote share for stay would have been much higher. Even ignoring the potential of voter fraud due to Russia not allowing real third party observers.
I don't know exactly what it would be or if it would be over 50%, but we should reject the obvious sham that Russia carried out.
I want to be clear that this doesn’t justify Russia’s actions, but the separatist regions of Ukraine have a legitimate grievance. They voted for the prior Ukrainian government (in an election international observers considered free and fair), so they’re justified in seeing the 2014 revolution as anti-democratic.
That's the point. Their guy won the free and fair vote, but people in Kyiv decided he was unacceptable and overthrew him. (There were a lot of extenuating circumstances I'm glossing over, and I tend to agree that he was a bad dude - but if it were a president you voted for, would you be convinced by someone arguing that extenuating circumstances mean it's best to undemocratically toss him out?)
I find his contribution to the discussion adequate and interesting. The U.S absolutely had a hand in what's happening here, it's been evident since 2014. I wish this community would take a moment to reflect and try to adopt a more nuanced view of the factors that led to this and of their country's foreign policy.
For all the talk of wanting peace and democracy, the U.S topples regimes like it's the national sport and calls for blood at the slightest opposition. You really don't have the necessary track record to claim moral superiority here, so a more nuanced take than "Putin is evil" would do everyone well. This time Ukraine and Europe will pay the price of your belligerent behaviour, maybe that will teach us to build a stronger leadership (... especially Germany) that doesn't follow whatever Washington says all the way across the Atlantic.
> Is that what I said? I'm just saying that everyone's hands are not clean here. Putin's are the filthiest and bloodiest, no doubt. But, maleficence is everywhere.
I’m trying to help my programmer friend escape Ukraine. Since smuggling is a hack, I’d like to ask HN for suggestions on how to pull this off.
His elderly father is being drafted. I got a DM from a mutual asking me whether there’s anything I could do for them. I have money but no knowledge of the country; they live there but have no money.
During WW2, various affluent people helped smuggle Jews out of Germany. I’d like to help my friend’s family in a similar way. But the reality of doing this is very different than the stories from history.
Currently my only plan is to yeet some cash at them and say good luck. But I was hoping to come up with something better.
I could book an airbnb for their family in a neighboring country, for example.
Does anyone know if the busses are still running? Is it possible to leave Ukraine right now via traditional means, or would they have to hoof it on foot? If they need to walk, does anyone have a suggestion on which part of the border might be friendly for an elderly family to cross?
I know this sounds unlikely, but given the choice between unlikely and “do nothing,” I’ll bet on unlikely.
I don't know the current situation, hopefully someone else can tell you that. But the good thing is Ukrainians can travel ( with a biometric Passport) to EU for 90 days and then see further.
One good travel Option (was, but I think should be still, AFAIK only planes stopped because they could be shot down) to travel by train to Lviv, take a taxi to Przemysl in Poland for maybe 50€ worth, and then take a train from there to for example Berlin.
I recommend Transferwise [1](now just Wise) for getting money to someone in Ukraine. They've got low fees and the ability to send money to Privatbank cards. Used them many times, while in Ukraine and while in the US.
I look forward to hearing how this works out, to the extent that you're comfortable sharing details. I feel like probably escaping from a war zone might cost more than US$200 and currency exchange might be problematic at the moment.
Indeed, in the local news I could hear the Polish gov is preparing hotels and other accommodation places for people who will flee away from the conflict. I don't know the details but watch out, because there might many hotel owners, whose will want more money than they would usually take for a stay.
Edit: If they would decide leaving their country my very early tip is to download Google Translate with the all locales they know + country where they are. While you can find many people who speak Ukrainian/Russian in central EU countries, it is a priceless help for any foreigner. I had occasion to be a participant of a talk between people, who were writing the phrases on the screen to communicate. Since that moment, I have downloaded Ukrainian locale pack for offline use in Google Translate.
I guess this is another answer to "What is Bitcoin good for?" It's good when (quoting the article) your country's central bank suspends electronic cash transfers, suspends the foreign exchange market, limits cash withdrawals, and prohibits the issuance of foreign currency from retail bank accounts, because you're being invaded by Russia and your government has imposed martial law. Also apparently fighting-age Ukrainian men are prohibited from leaving Ukraine right now.
Also https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/4point1-million-in-cryptocur... says, "$4.1 million in cryptocurrency funneled to Ukrainian military since Russia invaded," by which it means "nongovernmental organizations and volunteer groups," aka militias or paramilitary troops, because the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense does not "use other payment systems ('Webmoney,' 'Bitcoin,' 'PayPal,' etc.)." (Though apparently some of the money is being used to buy materiel to give to the regular army.) So I guess Bitcoin is also good for sending funding to paramilitary militias in countries that are being invaded by much stronger armies.
Escape Ukraine and utilize the crypto when you get to Poland or similar. That's the only realistic option if Russia is pulling a full invasion / occupation.
It looks like maybe the hryvnia has lost 5% of its value over the last year (and 12% over the last three months)? The bigger issue is that it's likely that Russia will overthrow its government before April (50% probability) and after that it's anybody's guess what the new regime will do with the hryvnia.
According to https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/24/ukranian-bank-suspends-e-cas... foreign exchange in Ukraine is mostly suspended though, and already was when I made my comment above, so the price in markets that are still open won't reflect what you see on the ground in Ukraine; the Tether price cited (32 hryvnia) suggests an additional 9% loss since yesterday, which does qualify as "free fall" if it continues.
Paracetamol, antibiotics, vitamin C, patches, tooth brush, a lighter or two, a knife and/or scissors, strong and warm clothes, pen and paper, eat soups. I have a pouch to have my papers on my body, not in the pockets. Id start with that. Many other things Id do like take photo of my ID. Get ambassies adressses. Maybe call them, tell them youre coming and hung up.
> "To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me."
Take a big dose of Realpolitik and leave the "ought to"s behind. There's no nanny to tattle to. Nuclear war is a losing move for us all. Don't encourage it's happening out of some sense of moral justice that will kill billions.
The only way to stop a monster from destroying you is make him afraid you'll crush him back. If you let him know you are willing to let him do anything to save your skin, he will do it. Including destroying you, in the end.
Your moral certainty is laudable and impossible to dispute without sullying one’s own ethics with hypocrisy, and inviting charges of moral and literal cowardice.
But. Nuclear weapons are far beyond the ken and capability of humans’ intuitive game theory, the hueristics we apply in escalatory conflicts of all scales. Applying such intuition risks thoughtless apocalypse; MAD is a novel idea because such weapons required either an entirely new paradigm in power politics, or humanity’s rapid suicide.
Nuclear weapons are a deus, or devil, sprung from the machine of human civilization.
The possibility of their use, even by a bully who wields them especially to intimidate us, must inspire some cowardice in any soul who cherishes humanity’s potential.
The west must find its moral courage within the contraints of antiquarian post-Congress of Vienna style Realpolitik, as others have stated. Partition of Ukraine and many decades applying a new strategy of containment is the most realistic ‘victory’ that can be sought.
We might hope that Russia’s once promising liberal civil society will revolt and save this decade for peace - in vain, I expect.
where do you have that from? you can obviously predict human behaviour very accurately, so you must base that on something. this is a serious situation after all. are you a psychologist?
Putin is turning 70 soon. He knows he's not immortal and his latest moves look to me that he really wants his position in the history books.
He's shown time and time again that from within Russia, he's untouchable and everyone who tries will either be killed or deported to gulag. No sources needed, just look it up quickly on your own.
I do not see an easy solution for dealing with him - left alone the assassination route.
We gave them assurances; their translation said guarantees. They aren't the first to be let down by an agreement with the west, only the latest.
It is up to Biden now to live up to his tough talk of Putin fearing him (from during the election, if you have forgotten) and other western leaders to find an end that doesn't involve bending over.
Things will have to get really bad for that to happen. I mean it didn't happen / isn't happening in the US despite the people getting royally fucked left and right.
Oh wait there was an attempt, people didn't accept a democratic vote and decided to go and find politicians to lynch. I'm still pretty shocked that there hasn't been a more severe reaction to that one.
Everyone saying "but we should let Putin do whatever he wants with lives of innocents because otherwise nuclear war" is Putin supporter, whether they know it or not.
This is very unfortunate, but true. The reality is this: the window to deal with Putin in a non-confrontational manner has already closed, there are no 'good' options that do not carry a very hefty price tag in front of us right now, but people are - understandably - still having trouble adjusting to that reality.
But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy. That's a big source of attrition. Russia is self-sufficient to a point and may still have (financial etc) ties with China, but it will hurt them badly.
But that's as far as it will go at this point. Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
If sanctions worked the first few times, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Why think it will work this time?
EDIT: of course, my opinions are shaped by being in non-nuke-equipped country in Europe, so depending on West's response this time, we're next. I'm sure it looks differently for someone sitting in New Jersey or Australia.
> But Putin - and Russia - are being dealt with, via international sanctions and being cut off from the world's economy.
Putin can be faulted for many things but not looking ahead isn't one of them and you can bet that he has priced this in already. If anything he is probably amazed at the lack of response.
> Russia invading Ukraine (again) has been universally declared a Dick Move, but since Ukraine is not an EU or NATO member and as far as I know there's no defense pacts either, there's nothing that they can do that would not be considered an unnecessary escalation.
Yes, there will be all kinds of justification for letting Ukraine burn, this one will be near top of the list for sure.
What's your proposal? Let Putin eat Ukraine? Baltic states next? Sit tight, run for the west and hope Putin stops at sooner than we run out of places to run to?
Baltic states might be next, yes. I can't see NATO going in on a full blown war to defend the baltic states, as it would very much lead to the destruction of the world we know.
But that doesn't really matter. Article 5 was drawn up when nuclear weapons already existed, and presumably everybody that is a signatory to the NATO treaty knew full well what they were getting themselves in to.
There's NATO troops in the baltic states. 0 chance Russia sends in combat troops and if they did 0 chance NATO backs down.
What's happened in the last ~10 years was that Ukraine was Russia's proxy, then the West's, and now it will be Russia's again. That's a very different story than one that starts with "was a member of NATO".
Yes, when you are in defense pact with nuclear powers, you have way better detterence on your side. Why is that so hard to understand?
People are also forgetting that you can't just instantly admit Ukraine into NATO and instantly teleport all the alliance armies onto the battlefield. Trying to make it quicker would very likely just hasten the Russian invasion (because the head douche apparently wanted Ukraine all along), so it really boils down to "do you want to start throwing nukes for state that you never made nuke-backed promises to?"
It's appalling how many people here are not seeing bigger picture and would love to just try to end humanity just because some nation got dealt _really_ bad cards. Economically Russia is cratering, so the impatience to end it all here (or in 2014) is just irrational. They were already losing technology (e.g. see how their space program is faltering), this will just accelerate Russia's slide into irrelevance. Even their weapons tech is not keeping up, see the latest kerfuffle in Caucasus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war
Also the wording is fuzzy when it comes to conventional war, but maybe the wiki has wrong wording. Either way, that is nowhere close to full defense pact which NATO is (with forward allied military bases and such).
The agreement literally says "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" on page 3. What is fuzzy about the wording?
How can the treaty be read to not apply to conventional war? Are you saying that one can invade Ukraine and still "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"?
If you want to find a way to not defend an ally, you'll always find one :)
NATO treaty itself does not talk about rapid response forces, joint bases and so on. All of that comes beyond the treaty. What stops key states from retreating back to basic treaty and then finding an excuse when Article 5 comes? E.g. if Russia comes as non-marked „rebels“?
But there was no defense alliance between NATO and Ukraine, right?
Maybe NATO has also weak wording in the treaty itself. So ask yourself - why did Ukraine want so badly to be accepted into it? Why is Russia opposing NATO expansion so much?
Budapest treaty is pretty damn close to defence alliance in it's wording.
Why did Baltic states or Poland wanted into NATO so much? It's one more treaty you can show to media when shit hits the fan. One more treaty your supporters can use debating governments for help.
In reality, if Russia attacks a NATO member, it won't be automatic full-on NATO response. It will still be debates. But certain people will be much more uncomfortable saying „no we won't defend NATO allies“. Yet some will still say it.
Russia wants it's own NATO, with black jack and hookers. And countries joining the real NATO obviously won't join theirs.
NATO has no obligation to Ukraine and it'd be a huge defensive liability. And, as we see, Putin would go to war before seeing Ukraine a part of NATO. The chumps here are the Ukrainian leadership and people. NATO made it clear they wouldn't be admitted. Russia made it clear that he'd invade if they tried. Ukraine did it anyway and this is the unfortunate result.
Baltic states are undefendable, even compared to Ukraine. If Ukraine is down, Poland is as indefendable as Ukraine. Then we are back to Cold War state where Germany is barely defendable.
If we don't initiate nuclear war, a nuclear war would be on Putin. He can do that with or without us defending Ukraine, I don't see how you could blame nuclear war on anyone but the aggressor. Put this pathetic dog down.
It's completely irrelevant on who would be the nuclear war. A nuclear war will wipe out an absolutely humongous part of humanity. Even if you survive, you will be doing much much worse as essentially all supply chains will get broken.
You are missing the point which is: your greatest fear will be turned and used against you by your enemy. So the only actual solution is to stand up and confront what you fear. Then you have a fighting chance to avoid that fate.
But, fine, let's play this game. The US is sends troops into the Ukraine. You do understand this is right at Russia's border. What does Putin do? He'll engage. Great, now we're in a shooting war with our nuclear rival. Now do you want to roll the dice this doesn't escalate further. Does Putin go after neighboring NATO countries? Now the US has to escalate further to defend an ally. And if the US/NATO pushes into Russia, does Russia go nuclear?
This is why the Cold War stayed COLD. We didn't directly engage Russia on anything close to their borders. Yes, we fought two proxy wars in Asia and just look how that turned out.
Do you really want to roll the dice and hope your neighborhood isn't a parking lot in the next five years?
We are dealing with "insane" people. If he is willing to use nukes over Ukraine, I can guarantee he does not plan just taking Ukraine. When should we react? Ukraine, Romania, Poland, Austria, Germany?
He says no. Probably enjoying one last sunset outside before closing the hatch! I can't help but wonder about our h n founders, safe in their bunkers in NZ, reading dog eared copies of The Soveiregn Individual. And then I wonder about all the Ukraine war news stories leading up to this being and flagged and burried here. I hope it's just coincidence. As I have said before, they think they can survive nuclear winter, no problem. But those assumptions are built on test of single small bombs. 10,000 going off at once is an order of magnitude worse, and might easily produce surprising effects. Science is always finding surprises in old experiments when they crank the power way up.
And I am no HN founder, but I live in Eastern Europe. NATO planes and helicopters kept flying overhead all day and my house doesn’t even have a basement.
So I bet we are closer to the danger than you are. And I also bet that the ones doing the flagging and burying are other brave "class warriors" and "eaters of the rich" who can’t accept that their beloved ideology has created monsters like Putin while the capitalism they despise has given the world prosperity, (relative) peace and Elon Musk (the last one's a mixed blessing, I admit).
PG if you are reading this, I love you really, man. And if there's any room left down there for a resourceful fella, I will work for bunk and board. (In fact, I've been stockpiling tins since Feb 20, so I only need the bunk ;)
If Putin directly attacks the West you'll get your dream. Until then you might actually stop advocating nuclear Armageddon. If you are really willing to do this you are no better.
If you're really clever, get all Sun Tzu on him and feed his fears until he chokes on them.
Most bullies are cowards. Threats and ultimatums like that come from a place of weakness. Did you hear America saying anything like that when they invaded Iraq? No, because they weren't scared.
Putin is a symptom of a much deeper problem, and I'm fairly sure that even if you did manage to do that he would be replaced by something similar, possibly even worse.
Having a rogue state with nukes is a serious problem.
How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war.
This is bait and bad bait at that. The longer Russia continues to provide us with video evidence of their bullying only makes it easier for us to convince undecided countries to sanction Russia to submission.
> How long do you think Russia can hold out if the entire world sanctions them? Do you think they'd trade Ukraine for trade with every world partner? Bottom line: Russia can only win a physical war - they cannot win an economic war.
Forever? Look at North Korea: Kim Jong-un is doing fine.
> China on Wednesday criticized the expansion of economic sanctions against Russia, saying that they were unlikely to solve the Ukraine crisis and that they had the potential to harm average people as well as the interests of Beijing.
> Their intentions are different from ours too. Putin’s goal is not a flourishing, peaceful, prosperous Russia, but a Russia where he remains in charge. Lavrov’s goal is to maintain his position in the murky world of the Russian elite and, of course, to keep his money. What we mean by “interests” and what they mean by “interests” are not the same. When they listen to our diplomats, they don’t hear anything that really threatens their position, their power, their personal fortunes.
60% of the North Korean population lives in poverty[0]. Kim Jong-un wouldn't still be leader if his people knew how much better they could have it without his policies.
> 60% of the North Korean population lives in poverty[0]. Kim Jong-un wouldn't still be leader if his people knew how much better they could have it without his policies.
IIRC, Russia media is basically like having pro-Putin Tucker Carlson on all the channels all the time. And if, despite that, anyone in Russia has even a small chance of actually undermine Putin, they'll find poison in their underwear and get an all-expenses paid trip to a gulag.
The thing I don't understand about these sanctions is - aren't they meaningless when it comes to shaping policy? Russia is not a democracy - Putin doesn't need the support of the targets of sanctions to act however he wants; Russia controls the energy supplies in Europe and sits on a huge pile of currency - hitting them economically will hurt Europe much more than Russia.
Yes, but apparently some of those are soft-walked because the banks and other creditors of Russia are afraid they won't get their money back. As if that should even be a concern at this point.
The reason Putin is invading is because he knows the U.S. is weak, its leadership is politically weak, and there's very little it will do, and even if it does, it doesn't have popular support. It's the effect of clear incentives.
If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again. Then, wait until midterms when the president loses the house and senate and doesn't have the power to muster a draft when China takes Taiwan. This is one of those happening slowly and then all at once events in history I suspect.
> If the U.S. intervenes, a retaliatory cyber op from Russia against critical infrastructure would make america amish again.
Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help.
That said, one should not make stupid decision how to connect and control such infrastructure and you should prepare with working backups instead of another security product.
Have family that are vp cybersecurity in infrastructure; I wish you were correct, but the free market went for quick and cheap implementations, not secure.
Basically, no one wanted to bear all the costs of having secure infrastructure components, this is the tragedy of the commons that government is supposed to solve, but when all the leaders are over 70, it’s hard for them to grok the new reality.
Sure, it could happen. There were hospitals that got knocked out for weeks with as simple ransomware attack.
If you have a dedicated hacker with means to acquire exploits, security is probably almost impossible. This is why effective mitigation is very likely the safer approach. Manual overrides or air gapped systems would help too.
But it is wrong to panic about it. The best mitigation is boring, but yes, some investment in IT could really help.
Maybe you missed Stuxnet / Olympic Games? Not sure how much ICS/SCADA security work you do, but there's a whole field dedicated to it. Can't tell if this is just someones narrative shaping work or sincere ignorance.
Is it in the realm of science fiction because nobody has pulled the trigger yet? Or is it because the gun doesn’t exist?
Ukraine has been subjected to Russian cyberattacks for nearly a decade now. They’ve accomplished knocking the power off multiple times. It would seem the gun exists.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine they could have some success with cyberattacks against the US. How impactful that would be to disrupting day to day life though is a question that remains to be answered. When the power was out in Texas recently, there was quite an impact. Imagine millions losing power in the rust belt in the winter. There would no doubt be loss of life and significant physical damage.
>Cyber crimes with significant impact are still in the realm of fiction. Scare mongering about it does not help.
I wish. The gas pipeline shutdown last year was just a rehearsal I imagine. If the Russian government went full send on a cyber attack, we would probably be completely fucked for months at this point.
Post-Vietnam the US hasn’t engaged in large scale active combat against communism or Russian-backed forces. It has instead favored selling weapons to Eastern European states and building the NATO alliance.
Putin has been clear about the breakup of the USSR being a mistake in his eyes. He’s been annexing territories (or in his eyes, re-annexing) since 1999. He looks for countries with strong Russian cultural and linguistic backgrounds and props up allies that will take over. If that doesn’t work he ratchets up the pressure until he feels comfortable using military force. See: Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and now Ukraine.
The US is far stronger militarily than Russia, but with nuclear weapons in the equation, no one wins.
It’s easy to be an arm chair hawk and say we should go fight, but it’s another thing to look you kids in the eye and explain they’re going to die from radiation fallout.
Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
> Instead, the US will likely prop up the resistance once Ukraine falls and try to make occupation as costly as possible just like we did in Afghanistan.
a band-aid solution at best. The fact that putin has desires to resurrect the soviet superpower, is the problem, and i doubt there would be any possible diplomatic solution to that.
Nobody likes war (least of all nuclear war), but if the threat of such weapons is shown to be a bluff, the peace brought about from it's use in WW2 would all but be in vain.
Somebody must back down, and i would say putin and his ambitions must be the one to back down, or the US & allies must escalate. Otherwise, the next authoritarian country is going to want in.
The moral of this era seems to be: no one attacks a country with nuclear weapons.
France has nukes, so this isn’t going to be Hitler 2.0 with Putin posing by the Arc de Triumph.
There are several ex-Soviet countries that are NATO members, so that’ll be the real hot spot if it gets there as the US et. al. will be required to act militarily in their defense (in theory).
Doesn't even make sense for Putin strategically because the alliance will get consolidated by this. On the other hand there are just few diplomatic tools. They were all used up more or less.
the alliance is already pretty consolidated. I think putin sees a NATO ukraine as more dangerous imho - esp. if ukraine becomes more and more democratic.
The invasion would be successful if the west does not deploy troops and intervene. I say the west has already failed, and this sets a precedent to which china would follow.
And if the west waits for too long, the military edge that the west has would diminish. Unfortunately, the public is reluctant to commit to war, because in the minds of those who are used to peace, diplomatic solutions seems to be the only cost they're willing to pay.
The West has failed at what, though? All wars are tragedies, but nobody promised they were going to protect Ukraine in the first place, and it’s a long standing international precedent that two countries can go to war without everyone on the planet sending troops.
Ukraine got a raw deal, there's no doubt about that, but they didn't and don't think that it was ever a mutual defense pact. A lot of us have skewed perceptions, because a lot of us live in countries that have never in our lifetimes been invaded, but the general expectation on the international stage is that countries can fight wars without friendly third parties sending in their own troops.
It is out of respect to those that have to fight the wars that those that are not on the front lines should do everything to prevent it from breaking out in the first place.
I agree that there are difficulties in developing arms in peace times, war can be a driver of innovation. But it is not the only one and there are preferable alternatives, even if arms suppliers see that differently out of egoistic ambitions.
A civilian population rejecting involvement in arms manufacture is preferable to one that calls for a war.
I don't think Putin has a single reason, the reason you stated is one in particalur an US one. From a Western European view, my best guess is, he also wants to destabilize EU (with a lot of NATO memebers). Remember Syria an the refugee crisis? This gave TailWind to a lot of right wing parties, which are mostly ProRussia (AFD, FPÖ etc). Incidentally left wing parties, "Die Linke" comes to mind, are also Putin fans. So any polarization within EU will help Russia to sell its resources and don't get sanctioned to much. IMO Putin is playing the divisor.
You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"?
Sure, that would make hypocrites of those who were draft dodgers back then, and advocate the draft now. But how many of those are there? I'd guess the vast majority of baby boomers who now advocate the draft weren't draft dodgers.
And AFAIK, compared to those who went, draft dodgers were a small minority.
>You mean "fought their draft" in the sense of "avoiding being sent to Vietnam"?
No... fought their draft as in "We think the draft is bull, this war is bull, and we don't want to go."
Hey, I could be wrong - I wasn't there to observe first hand what happened in the 60s and 70s. I only assumed the Vietnam draft was unpopular based on pop culture. Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda!
If you're telling me only those who actively avoided the draft were against it, I believe you.
I should have just used my own eyes and ears to observe what Boomers have done since then. Baby Boomers in Congress and in the White House sent troops to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with overwhelming approval at the time. Yes, there was lots of backtracking and second guessing after we stuck of fingers in those pies, but I guess that's a development that's arisen after Vietnam. Maybe the problem with those wars was there were no Commies to shoot.
I just didn't realize how much blood-lust Boomers held deep inside.
I stand corrected. Thank you for setting me straight.
> Maybe boomers didn't sit around college campus blocking up traffic, chanting slogans, and smoking pot? Maybe there were never peace marches? The soundtrack of Boomer's youth? Largely works of fiction! 80s anti-war films? Anti-American propaganda!
Cut it out with the bullshit: You know very well I never said or meant any of that.
But how many people does it take to sit around and smoke, chant, and block traffic? It's not as if it was necessarily new people at every sit-in, is it -- they could very well have been the same pot-smoking, slogan-chanting, and traffic-blocking protesters at most of those protests, right? Sure, they became the cultural phenomenon remembered from the time. To a large degree because, as you point out, of those 80s Hollywood blockbusters... And how many tens or hundreds of thousands of Hollywood blockbuster producers and directors did it take to make thoseand leave this huge imprint on the collective consciousness of posterity?
OTOH, AIUI a majority of draftees... didn't dodge the draft. The USA sent what, half a million young men? (or more?) over there. I'm not saying they all went willingly -- far from it, AFAIK -- but at least, those who went cannot, by definition, have been "draft-dodgers". So by my reckoning, compared to active protesters quite possibly, and compared to actual draft dodgers almost certainly, there were more non-draft-dodgers.
And also by definition, pretty much exactly all of those young men who were sent to Vietnam to fight -- the non-draft-dodgers -- were baby boomers.
So "boomers are hypocrites because they all advocate the draft now but dodged it back then" just doesn't make mathematical or logical sense. For one thing, even if many of them advocate the draft now that's not all of them; maybe the ones advocating it now are the same ones who obeyed it then, and maybe they've been quite consistently and non-hypocritically in favour of it all their lives. And for another, of course the bit about "they all dodged it then" is BS: If they had, there wouldn't have been any of them there.
Your rantings and ravings about Boomer Bloodlust aside, all I was pointing out was the bullshitness of this collective-hypocrisy accusation.
Wow, not really. Putin lies all of the time and he is a bully, but he's not kidding when he says there will be retaliations.
Anything the West does directly they have to expect a response.
That said, I think the west should be using 'distance power'.
There are US Global Hawk drones over Ukraine right now doing surveillance, I think it would be reasonable for the US to launch cruise missiles at Russian targets in Ukraine.
The Russians could make things very difficult for ships in the Black Sea however as one opportunity for retaliation.
We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back, but it's impossible to tell, it's just as likely Russia may be able to just smash through Ukranian defences and leave them to some insurgency skirmishes.
> We just have to hope that Ukrainians can leverage the Javelins and Stingers to great effect and make it painful enough for Putin that he has no choice to step back,
Putin won't step back. This is his endgame and he has very little - if not actually nothing - to lose. Going back as a loser is not on the table as a viable option.
Putin is not all powerful, no leader ever is. He has to face realities of the situation, and also populism at home.
And he has a lot to lose, this is a risky manoeuvre. If Russia fails in it's publicly stated objective it will look really bad on him and Russia. Russia could feasibly fail entirely and lose some occupied territory. Unlikely, but it could happen. And then there's the 'overhead' cost of economic disruption.
If the Ukranians can hold off the main thrust of the attack, and especially if Russians start to come back in body bags - he will lose the momentum and have to make serious adjustments.
This is 'extremely expensive' for him in every way: political, populist, economic to conduct such operations and he can't do it for very long.
Or if they do actually 'win' and but then Urkanians can mount material insurgent attacks, it won't work.
Russian Oligarchs just had their wealth cut in half (they are pissed), a lot of Russians will be facing financial pressures, they were never really behind this war in the first place - this will take it's toll at home.
Russia lost 6 fixed wing and 3 or 4 rotary wing just this morning - that's not a good start and if those loses continue at that rate he won't be able to keep it up - he can't risk his Air Force for Ukraine.
Ukranians have 1K+ Javelin and hundreds of Stinger missiles. Those weapons do not require central coordination and can nullify air support and amour advantages, which makes it an ugly ground fight which will be bloody, and it's possible Russians don't have the veracity to fight. Russians soldiers are doing it 'because it's a job' - not because their homeland is under threat.
Russian paratroopers have taken Kyiv Airport this morning, but they are alone without armour or real support, Ukranians shot down 3 of their transport craft. It's entirely feasible that Ukranians take back that airport .
Although it would be risky, the West, particularly could cause serious damage to Russian forces in Ukraine.
I don't really think Ukraine will hold out, but they definitely could and Russia will have to eventually withdraw in some way.
My guess is that he would mostly withdraw to the Donbas region and then make some kind of 'declaration of objectives met' and then sue for a truce, making permanent claims to Donbas recognized by the West (which won't happen, but his claims will make him appear strong).
He is hinting that he can nuke everyone who will stand against. This is a typical tactic of bullies – to hint death threats, without directly stating them. Also they want to assure you that they can definitely do it, even though they know about the consequences.
Strongest practical resource you mean? What else would be a stronger offense than a barrage of nukes crippling a country for hundreds of years to come and effecting the entire global environment with radiation, fallout, complete civil destabilization, etc.
Hypothetically: your precision-guided munitions killing only family members of only military officers who haven't yet surrendered to you would be a stronger offense. Your enemy's anti-aircraft guns firing only at their own aircraft, and their tanks driving under your control to destroy their munitions depots, the crews helplessly imprisoned within. Your enemy's civilian populace becoming convinced that their own leadership is crucifying babies and mass-murdering anyone who speaks their language, your soldiers treat civilians well, and their family members are urging them to surrender to you.
Compared to those things, the power of nukes is trivial; all they can do is destroy. You can't surrender to a nuke, and the point of warfare is to convince the enemy to submit, not to damage the ecosystem. Damaging the ecosystem is just a side effect, so it's the wrong way to measure the strength of offensive resources.
Nuclear contamination doesn't tend to stay put and respect borders. Russia knows that, so I don't think Russia would drop a nuke anywhere in their own vicinity.
Correct, hence the entire reason I suggested the qualifier of practical. Nuclear attacks are clearly impractical by any sane individual, but in terms of strength and damage, aside from some sort of biological weapon, I'm not sure what could have similar impact.
Forget nuclear contamination. If Russia nukes a NATO country, nukes are coming back to land on Russia. And Putin, personally, will die, and so will Russia as a nation.
So, it was an impressive threat. I doubt he actually would follow through... but he might. That's his leverage - that we wonder if he might. Rationally, though, it's a crummy threat, because rationally his own downside is far too big.
Putin is a 69 year old dictator who is realizing his life is over. He's decided to go out with a bang. He obviously does not care about his country since this war will only hurt Russia, it's already had multiple consequences that are directly opposed to his stated goals. He wants to play with his army and tanks.
"Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
And build them a home, a little place of their own.
The Fletcher Memorial
Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings.
...
Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead."
Why would Putin think his life is over? He's 10 years younger than Biden. And, have you ever heard the expressions, "better dead than Red" and "give me liberty or give me death"? People often believe that deeply held principles are more important than mere survival. Similarly Putin might believe that establishing Russia's strength and border security is more important than any short term pain Russia endures. In other words, there's other ways to look at this than as just a pure boss move for his own ego and pleasure.
He might think his life is over because there are very obvious physiological effects that occur when you are 69 years old. As a person who does not have problems and gives problems to other people it may frighten him to realize he is going to die.
Sure there are other perspectives and possible motivations for his actions. But it's the idea that he may not care any more and might do anything that I find scary. If he's willing to risk full scale invasion across all of Ukraine after the international focus that preceded it, would he also be willing to launch supersonic nuclear weapons? In his televised statement he said Russia is ready for all outcomes.
For the USA what probably worries me most is cyberattacks. The USA is such a soft target. Our government can't even secure it's systems after a decade of laws, warnings, bad reports, and actual attacks.
I do hope I'm wrong and Putin is actually sane and has a strategic plan that makes sense for his country.
Putin (and his kgb clique) is loosing grip on the power, the war started to be the only way to rally local support and remain in the power. Small scale, local conflicts are growing in size to appease common people to give them taste of USSR former glory, taste of world power, not decay of corruption riddled aristocracy ruled former empire.
Putin is at the top of the pyramid but he is not the sole ruler of the Russia. Its not like if he dies Russia will magically become exemplary democracy.
There were and still are people lining up and aiming to take his seat, but as long as Putin appears to be strong and gives his underlings enough he will remain on the throne.
I find this take very reductive. I would rather see something more concrete like:
Putin's pre invasion speech has a striking amount of blood and soil rhetoric. And in addition just like Hitler he denies the right of existence of East European states between Germany and Russia.
Well he did all of that too. He brought up "grievances" going back almost to the 1800s. He denied that Ukraine and other Eastern European countries were real countries. He said that Lenin and Stalin were too soft.
He all but said that controlling these countries was Russia's "Manifest Destiny".
It’s sad but my father always told me that the good times we’ve had are unprecedented and they can end faster than we think.
I never believed him growing up, institutions and America seemed infallible. It’s sad to say but I think with global warming, covid, and the general decline of American soft power we’ll see more and more global turmoil
Recent times were largely the result of an unusually unipolar (read: US) world after the USSR collapsed.
In more normal bi- or multi- polar periods (50s - 90s), international order often submitted to great power politics. What was right or legal was less important than who wanted what.
I'd argue the good times were a result of the massive transfer of wealth from the wealthy to the middle classes that was caused by the two world wars. Since the neoliberal shift of politics in Western powers in the 70s, we have been on a slow return back to the crazy levels of inequality that rival any of those ever seen prior to 20th century. We are now reaping what was sown by the Thatcher/Reagan privatisation and financialisation of everything in the economy. Takes a while for the effects to really kick in but I think much of the geopolitical dynamics we are seeing can be traced back to this.
It’s used as a common far-right/neo-fascist dog whistle, and to justify their ideology and actions. It’s vaguely based on the idea of cyclical history (which is of course not true), as presented by Oswald Spengler and others during the 20th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
I seriously think declaring something "far-right dog whistle" is a leftist dog whistle, signaling good progressives should oppose that something. After saying this, usually no serious arguments are given. Because they are not needed after declaring an idea the enemy.
Cycles in history is of course not "of course not true". in any complex system, there are oscillations. Most famous is economical boom and boost cycle.
Meme is not without merit. The reason we are able to discuss things like gender/race equity in marine corps promotions is precisely because these are good times. And this lack of focus may lead to bad times eventually.
Cyclical history as theorized by Spengler and other is a fringe type of historical analysis rejected by historians. And it is actively used as a neo-fascist dog-whistle. That’s not a way to show my moral superiority, it’s what they do.
Cyclical history isn't false. Population boom/bust cycles exist in humans just like they do in every other animal. Humans reach the carrying capacity of their environment and then reach out via war for more resources.
Ascribing any fixed time scale to the cycle is going to be fallacious as it depends on environmental factors.
"Cyclical history" as theorized by Spengler and others during the 20th century is a whole set of bullshit. That's what my comments are explicitly about, I don't understand how people can miss this.
I agree that it's sort of a fashy dog whistle, but the concept of cyclic history did not originate with Spengler. This was probably the dominant view of the nature of time and history up until at least the last thousand years, maybe later.
I don't think you should be downvoted for saying what you said, but I feel that you missed the point my comment was trying to make.
My point is: the dog whistle/modern meme is basically a reference to Spengler and others, because their ideologies align relatively well with the patchwork of neo-fascist ideas. That's what they hint to and promote. That's why I explicitly mentioned Spengler and the 20th century. Lot of other people developed some form of a cyclical history but that's not really relevant here.
I actually read most of this, but i think it only debunks a strawman.
From my reading of history, the typical pattern is:
- Some set of tribes exist on the fringe of civilization (if one already existed). They have access to the bare minimum resources for survival. These are not strong men, yet, but relatively weak savages, probably not even worth conquering by the civilization closeby. What they do have, is an every-day reminder to stay efficient in what they do, so they don't starve to death.
- After a while, one or a few of these tribes grow in competency and competitively useful cultural values. (Often, but not necessarily military.) They start trading with the nearby civilization, and learn from them, but maintain their focus on what is essential for survivial. Also, during this phase, this population is still facing survival pressures, often military ones. Gradually, these people become "strong", meaning they have competencies and a culture that makes it increasingly effortless to survive and prosper. Much of this comes from becoming cultured in ways that increase productivity or martial prowess.
- Only at this stage, when survival is no longer a concern (and especially if all competetion has been eliminated), does the weakening stage start. Gradually cultural values seep in that reduce productivity/efficiency of the population. Meanwhile, essential survival skills fade to the background and are forgotten. Still, during most of this phase, this more civilized population has economic advantages and perhaps access to specialists that allow them to fend off nearby populations, often for centuries.
- Eventually, though, some event (or series of events) occur that bring a shock to the sturcture of this civilization. Maybe a few bad harvests, maybe some barbarian invation, maybe a plague. At this point, the civilization has become brittle, and shatters easily.
I'm pretty sure I see this pattern repeat itself for the Greek, Roman, Muslim Caliphate, Ottoman and many Chinese civilizations. Then there are some cases that doesn't really go through all the stages. For instance, Mongols, Huns, Goths and some others spread themselves too thin to really build their own civilization, so they inherited whatever civilizations (including their corruption) they conquerd. Similarly, Europe form about 1000AD to the end of WW2 was always in a state of countries competing against each other, so they were constantly facing survival pressures that kept most of them from becoming _too_ corrupt.
“Naturally, because this is me, the case study will be (trumpets blaring) Rome, which fought a lot of poorer, less settled peoples and is frequently used as the example of wealthy, ‘civilized’ and ‘decadent’ military failure. I’ve opted to pick these two sets of examples to start out because these periods – classical antiquity and pre-history – ought to be the periods where our Fremen perform the best, as the technological and industrial gap between them and their richer ‘civilized’ opponents is the smallest – in some cases, practically non-existent.”
Comparing Rome to its enemies in this way as if “the toughness of the people” is THE variable that determined success, compared to say, coordinated mobility-based warfare tactics, is a stretch at best.
And, the quote is onjectively bs. Hard times create hardened people who create hard time for others. And suffering.Good times are created by people who care and have right values.
The hard times in Ukraine now won't make anyone better. Men in west won't be inferior for not going through it.
We were in a comfy peaceful era and yet we saw rise of extremism, neo nazis in germany, in the US even. Good times allow for forgetting the extent of what reality can be and then people start to have weird ideas when small problems come, only to react in shallow reflexes like nationalism, and war.
I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Now sure, it can all be twisted, people can be brainwashed during and after war, there can be bad wounds for long too.
> I may be dumb but I assumed people who saw wars just didn't want any of that anymore and would actually know what 'right value' means, not just school books or worse .. network propaganda.
Yes. I too recall the many decades of peace after WWI. And the great leaders that arose in Europe after that conflict.
> And, the quote is onjectively bs. Hard times create hardened people who create hard time for others. And suffering.Good times are created by people who care and have right values.
And then you go on to express a not-so-objective viewpoint? OP is stating an idiom, a saying, a phrase. Let it be. There is nothing objective about it.
OP is stating ideology and an worldview. The one that is seems more and more wrong, the more you read about history. Generations that grew in hard times have more issues and those go away only slowly.
People regularly use this one as argument or to imply inferiority of those they look down at. Therefore, it is 100% alright to not that idiom stand.
It is originally a thesis from works of Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim scholar from Tunisia who is considered a father of sociology and athropology..
Ibn Khalodoun had described a cycle of four generations of rulers and his theory echoes in Fourth Turning theory nowadays.
Well we certainly have a surplus of weak men. We’ve been hard at work creating them here in the West. I don’t suppose anyone who requires a safe space or trigger warnings is going to volunteer to defend the moral high ground they love so much.
We (the west) are not what we once were. I’m so sorry Ukraine.
What an ignorant and unempathetic take. The West is evolving in the right direction and we should be doing everything we can to recognize more of the human condition (intersectionality, gender identity, institutional racism, etc).
Dismissing those efforts because of a vocal few or because it's people you don't like is a disservice to those actually struggling.
> the general decline of American soft power we’ll see more and more global turmoil
I have argued, tons, that America is making the world more peaceful. It was hard to sell especially to Arab/Muslim countries but without a unipolar power, it's lots of small powers fighting each other for territory.
> institutions and America seemed infallible
Couple that with recklessness. Fatca, CRS, Trade deals, etc... lots of countries got screwed bad and treatment from the masters was as bad and discriminatory as it can get. If people sympathies with Putin, you are doing something wrong.
I wonder how you can believe that knowing all the coups organized by CIA, wars waged by US military everywhere in the world, countries US split in two or more ...etc. it was only safe for USA and its allies. Only difference is war is getting close to western Europe so it's felt more
Sure. There was chaos perpetrated by the Americans. On the other hand, most countries remained peaceful as a result of the American hegemony. The country I live in and its neighbors will go to war immediately if there was no UN/USA. Now think about the rest of the world. Every country will want a piece of its neighbor and there you have it: Total world chaos.
When you compare it to the world before an engaged America (so early 20th century), it was worse. Quite a bit worse. Instead of the US causing regime change, you had European countries conquering and annexing most of the world.
Peace for who? that's the question. No one denies it brought peace to the west.
The reason developing nations want a multipolar world is to have room to manoeuvre and develop themselves, to be able to bargain with multiple powers, there is not much bargain in a unipolar world, when the USA does not want you to get too big, or your interest conflicts with theirs you're fucked.
USA (and the west) has learned that colonialism with a foreign army does not work efficiently, so they colonize countries by choosing who gets elected or performing coups and putting people that serve that interests even on the detriment of their nation.
African nations make a good example for countries that are officially independent but have no sovereignty whatsoever.
It's a monopoly of power, what's worse is it thinks it's interests are what defines good and bad.
There's only been one president in recent times to complain openly about NATO and America's participation in it. Why start a conflict when that one president might give you exactly what you want without a single shot fired.
I'm not a Trump fan at all, but one of his major complaints was that Europe isn't allocating enough money to defence. Which is quite a reasonable thing to demand.
Primary responsibility to defend Europe should lie with Europe. The ability to defend oneself is just as important as climate. One has wide public support, the other is taken for granted (thanks to Nato).
I believe that was a goal for a future date that has not yet arrived. Trump complained about it, but it wasn't due yet and was going to happen anyway. So it can look like he made it happen. He's full of cons.
The 2% commitment was originally agreed to in 2006. After member nations continued to fail to spend enough, in 2014 it was a set as a goal to increase towards that goal year over year until 2024:
The reason why the EU can afford social programs is because the USA and NATO provide them with military defense so it doesn't come out of their military budgets. After Ukraine gets invaded they might want to build up their military again.
Welcome to World War 3. watch the FOSSIL fuel prices, ouch!
Trump forced the hand of unwilling NATO countries to spend their 2% for their defense budget. How is this against the alliance? I would say it's the opposite.
The war is over Ukrainian NATO membership. If NATO membership was off the table, or if Biden was strong and had the conviction to defend Ukraine there would be no war.
Instead he entertained Ukrainian NATO membership and tried to fend Putin off with finger wagging.
I don't think its at all reasonable to suppose that the US simply saying they would oppose Ukraine joining NATO would have in any universe enough to avert war when merely preventing the expansion of NATO can seemingly be obtained far easier with their influence on NATO members who must be unanimous to induct a new member.
That is to say they have every reason to believe that they could without invasion keep Ukraine out of NATO for the foreseeable future so the invasion isn't about that issue.
> I don't think its at all reasonable to suppose that the US simply saying they would oppose Ukraine joining NATO would have in any universe enough to avert war
No, of course not. What NATO should have done was to accept Ukraine as a member. Anybody think Putin would invade a country that can refer to §5?
Right, just "separatists" who happened to start fighting to expand Putin's empire and give him the region that supplies Russia's military with raw materials. From 2014,
> Nevertheless, following its actions in Crimea, there is justified concern that Russia could now aim to annex eastern Ukraine. Unlike on the Crimean peninsula, there is not a large majority here who feel like they belong to Russia - and only about a quarter of the population of the east overall are ethnic Russians.
Trump just sang Putin's praises for all the world to hear, and trashed Biden in the same breath. The Republican party has shown time and time again that loyalty to Trump outweighs yesterday's strongly held convictions. Loyalty to Trump has replaced loyalty to the nation in many Republican hearts -- pols and voters alike. Whatever poll you got that 5% number from, it's outdated in light of Trump's latest opinions.
He didn't sing Putin's praises, he pointed out that Putin's methods are, to quote, "savvy". War is confusing and Trump may turn out to be wrong but so far Russia seems to have come up with a plan then executed the plan. While facing no organised opposition. It does look like a well organised operation.
In short, it is entirely possible that Trump is correct. The political discourse can't keep shutting down in emergencies, there are too many emergencies these days for that to be an option. People have to talk calmly about what they think is happening.
Have you not been paying attention to how Trump talks about tyrants? His love letters with Kim Jong Un? Endorsements of Viktor Orban and Bolsonaro? He's a "big fan" of Erdogan? For years now, he's been positively gushing about how much he admires Putin. He tried his damnedest to pull a coup last year, because he wants to join the league of tyrannical dictators. And sure, he badmouthed Biden and insisted that things would be different if he was at the helm, but has he ever shown real opposition to any actions of Putin? Or did he deliberately soften eastern Europe's defensive stance against Russia when he pulled American troops out of Germany?
He pulled troops from Germany (which is not the front anymore) and put troops in Poland and other eastern countries. How is this a move to help Putin? He moved troops on the front and started more bases.
Exercises and bases in all Eastern Europe intensified under Trump.
He likes to talk nicely about people that he's going to strike. Like he always says he likes Xi, but then start a trade war anyway.
He blocked NS2, Biden opened it in his first week in office.
If Trump was so weak toward Putin, Putin would have invaded with Trump in the White House...but Putin invaded with Biden there(and previously woth Obama). Makes you think, doesn't it?
I'm sure some people are mistaken and think Trump himself is anti-vaccine, but most people (that I am aware of) that put some measure of responsibility on him do so not because of his specific stance on it, but for his part in the flywheel that created the current political climate.
He has been closely in bed with the sections of media that have pushed the narrative, generally celebrated paranoia towards experts, and consistently pushed the idea that you can't trust the government. If you lose control of the bolder you helped push onto the slope, it doesn't mean that you don't have responsibility in pushing it to begin with.
He has given credence to the vaccine-autism link early in the 2016 debates and in tweets.
He was also instrumental in pushing early treatments that didn't pan out as hoped. These often became the subject of conspiracy theories about a whole slew of medical professionals avoiding real treatment, and the pandemic being some authoritarian plot. Trump was there sowing doubt in medical professionals. He may have encouraged vaccination itself, but his actions on the whole produced distrust so that there is a pronounced deficit of vaccination in his electorate.
I'm more of an optimist. I think Putin just proved the need for Nato and how dangerous he is. Trumps support of him might be the thing that brings down Trumpism.
putin is not entirely to be blamed for the decline, but the signs of covert manipulations is all there. The very election of trump, and his poor foreign policies, are all smoking guns.
American institutions have only themselves to blame for the decline. People like Putin are taking advantage of the weakness but American politicians could behave more reasonably anytime but instead they are consciously choosing to make it worse. It’s all home made by the “greatest country in the world”. No need to blame anybody else.
When I came to the US in 2000 I already saw how insane US politics was. Political ads had no connection to any kind of reality and were basically purely attack and distortion. And since then it got only worse.
Is this any different than any other military intervention America watched idly over the past century? Not really. In the "infallible" 1970s-1990s you might be remembering, we were casually ignoring plenty of similar actions around the world that make this present intervention seem pretty benign and slow moving. American soft power was over when the failure of the Korean war made it clear that all that could be done against a major nuclear power is a stalemate.
Does anyone have any projections for how this war will go? Is the Ukrainian military powerful? Will this turn into a guerilla war, or will it go the way of total war? Or will it result in total capitulation?
And another key question. What will Western governments actually do? What if the war gets really bad? Does the West actually have the balls to put real, biting sanctions on the regime? And will this crash the economy?
Good questions, hard to answer. A few quick thoughts. I will try to dispassionately focus on the facts of the military situation as I understand them. That's going to be hard to do, but I'll try. I'm sure there are experts who know much more than I do.
> Does anyone have any projections for how this war will go? Is the Ukrainian military powerful?
There are many projections, though wars are notoriously hard to predict.
Ukraine has a military, but Russia is extremely powerful and has one of the largest militaries in the world. Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/military-... Russia has tons of equipment & everything else it needs to overwhelm Ukraine.
Geography is a key issue in wars, and Ukraine's geography is awful for Ukraine in a Russia/Ukraine conflict. Again, here's my understanding. Ukraine is just a flat plain on the path from Russia, so geography provides relatively little protection to Ukraine. The Dnieper River (which runs basically North/South in the middle of Ukraine) does provide some geographic protection, but by that point Ukraine has lost a huge amount of its territory. Kyiv (the capital of Ukraine) is on the Dnieper river, but it's way to the north near Belarus, and thus Kyiv is relatively easy for Russia to reach via Belarus. The Carpathian mountains in the west and the Crimean mountains in the south make it harder for other countries to help Ukraine. The eastern part of Ukraine has a lot more Russians than the western part, so the eastern parts will be easier for Russia to hold since they'll get more help from the population.
(Binkov uses a sock puppet to lighten an otherwise somber subject.)
> Will this turn into a guerilla war, or will it go the way of total war? Or will it result in total capitulation?
Russia can take whatever it wants from Ukraine, at least initially. Russia's military is just too powerful, and there aren't any serious geographic barriers to prevent Russia from taking whatever it wants in the short term if Russia really wants to do so.
Whether or not it'll become a guerilla war is up to the Ukrainians. However, if the Ukrainians are willing to make it a guerilla war, and that seems likely at least on the western side, they can make Ukraine very hard to hold (at a horrific cost in Ukrainian lives). In the long run, if the Ukrainians are willing to seriously apply guerilla warfare, I think there's a good chance they'll make at least the western side too painful to hold if Russia goes that far.
I would not be surprised if Russia only took part of Ukraine, e.g., the easternmost parts of Ukraine, perhaps up to the Dnieper River, and perhaps also take Kyev. Russia gets lots more land, and it creates fear (which they may interpret as respect) in everyone around them.
> And another key question. What will Western governments actually do? What if the war gets really bad? Does the West actually have the balls to put real, biting sanctions on the regime? And will this crash the economy?
Western governments have already sent in a lot of military gear to help Ukraine. Western governments won't put troops in. They aren't obligated to do so (Ukraine is not a member of NATO), and the geography of Ukraine would make it hard to do anyway. Western governments have made that quite clear.
They'll put in sanctions. They will probably hurt Russia significantly. I think for Putin this is more about honor, and thus any sanctions will probably not be enough by themselves to force Russia out.
One huge problem is that the EU absolutely needs oil. Solar & wind get press, but they aren't enough today (or for years to come). The EU can't heat their homes or move their people without oil. Russia has oil.
Russia is more likely to grab eastern parts or the eastern side of Ukraine (east of the Dnieper). Russia could take the whole country, but is unlikely to keep it permanently due to guerilla resistance, so it either won't try or it will eventually give up western Ukraine. Sanctions by themselves won't be enough, but sanctions + guerilla warfare would plausibly recover at least the western side of Ukraine.
I do think that there will be serious negative consequences long-term for Russia, beyond sanction-related ones. It suddenly gives a powerful reason for other countries to join NATO (such as Finland and Sweden and a rump of Ukraine) and for them all to increase their military spending. It also gives them a very good reason to not trust Russia in the future.
"They'll put in sanctions. They will probably hurt Russia significantly. I think for Putin this is more about honor, and thus any sanctions will probably not be enough by themselves to force Russia out."
Sanctions will have no effect on Russia. Think about it - what physical items does Russia need to obtain that it cannot produce itself or obtain from China.
What physical items does the West need from Russia - gas and oil because the 'net zero' belief in the West has stymied their ability to obtain energy domestically.
If you don't pay the gas bill then you get your gas cut off. If the EU stops transacting with Russia, then it can't pay its gas bill either. And the result will be the same.
The belief in the power of money in the West will be its downfall. Putin doesn't need the West's money. He has as many roubles as he wishes to deploy and the ability to impose whatever level of tax in roubles is required to ensure people sell their labour and output to him within Russia.
War is funded by manpower, energy resources and industrial production, not by US dollars.
The EU could have used some nuclear power alternative. But not depending on war-mingering dictatorships is not as important for them as the possible consequences of a nuclear plant going wrong.
- Russia will want to make this war as short as possible. They have their objectives (occupy Donezk and Luhansk + some more, destroy the offensive power of the Ukranian army and destroy the infrastructure needed for reinforcements ) and then declare the thing a success.
- The US wants it to go on as long as possible, so they will indirectly intervene by financing and supporting any insurgents.
I hope not, because Ukraine borders several NATO countries, and we don't want that to spill over. So I hope the US won't fund insurgents, they can't win anyway.
Sanctions can have no meaningful effect on Russia.
Not selling somebody your tomatoes primarily affects your tomato growers who will go bust, not those buying the tomatoes - particularly if they have plenty of tomatoes internally, can easily produce them or can get them from those lovely tomato growers in China in return for oil and gas.
There's rather too much faith in the power of the mighty US dollar. Quite a few people are going to find out the hard way that electronic impulses on a computer don't mean as much in reality as gas and oil supplies.
You know that arab spring went viral due to lack of wheat imports from Ukraine and Russia due to draught?
Economy is important because it’s felt by ordinary people.
In Moscow there were already pretty big protests. I think Putin made a mistake, he could just install fake democratic government and retire in peace.
Will Ukraine do any sort of fighting back? I ask because it seems to me that the Western politicans are constrained by public opinion. They will not issue major sanctions if they don't have to, they'd rather keep the markets afloat. In my view only real visceral footage of the horror of war could compel the Western publics to actually get mad to the point where the politicians impose serious sanctions on Russian gas exports and banking.
Define "fighting back". If you mean they will attempt to defend their land and cities, then yes. If you mean strike back at Russia then no chance. Ukraine simply doesn't have the tools necessary to mount any sort of counter-attack and even if they did the Russians effectively have them surrounded right now. So it would have to be ICBMs or similar long range weapons which they no longer possess.
Unfortunately this is what happens when countries are pressured to de-nuclearize, promises of Western protection and then fall to bullies.
Say Ukraine has ~100.000 trained~ soldiers, 10.000s with experience, and ~100.000 further conscripts, and more veterans/civilians.
It would need to end when russian military has enough presence in cities to make resistance meaningless. In order for russians to move by land into the cities, their tanks and road transports would (at the very least) need to survive handheld anti-tank missiles, of which Ukraine holds thousands, maybe 10s of thousands? Probably, weapons and ammunition will not run out for Ukraine as long as they are willing to put up resistance.
The losses for russia before this might amount to 10.000s?
At some point, losses will force a change of russian leadership, or willingness to fight among Ukrainians runs out.
Nobody is helping ukraine with any military, period. There is zero appetite for yet another military conflict in any western country, especially not with a country armed with nukes and with a madman's hand on the trigger. The response will just be yet more sanctions. If Russia provokes a NATO member then it's time to invest in those doomsday bunkers.
You are correct! However (from my POV) this was done with the intent of disabling any possibility of a counterattack or serious resistance.
Russia's ability seize it's desired positions is significantly greater if Ukraine has no functioning airforce or military infrastructure.
While this _does_ make it easier for Russia to invade the rest of Ukraine (again, because of a lack of military infrastructure) I still think it is a stretch that they will go for a full-country occupation.
While this is not exactly a parallel, think back to Operation Desert Storm. The US-supported coalition had no intent of occupying Iraq, but it's push into Kuwait was made _significantly_ easier after they completely annihilated a significant portion of Iraq's military structure (inside and outside of Kuwait).
It is a mistake to see Putin as mad, paranoid, or motivated by an inflated ego. His posture is that of an old-school Soviet intelligence officer.
AIUI, Ukraine cannot join NATO at the moment; it doesn't control its own borders (Crimea, Donbas).
If Russia annexes Donbas, then they're back to the previous problem: NATO on the border. Note that Russia has not annexed the part of Georgia they invaded; it is now supposedly an independent republic. My guess is that they would settle for independent republics in Donetsk and Luhansk. They don't want Global Nuclear War any more than we do. It's a shame Ukraine didn't agree to give them autonomy earlier; now it looks like Russia is determined to destroy the Ukrainian military infrastructure, and autonomy isn't any longer up for discussion.
The separatist republics have constitutions that proclaim their borders as matching the corresponding regional borders they had in Ukraine, even though their de facto area of control is less than 1/3 of that. Putin claimed that his recognition of them includes that definition of their border. So Russia can push all the way to the regional border while still claiming that it's "protecting DPR and LPR".
Ukraine has been preparing for this was since 2014. But so has Russia since 2008 (South Ossetia); that's largely what the Syrian excursion was for, to train troops and test new equipment in real combat.
Russia is certainly much more powerful militarily in pretty much every respect: it has significantly more manpower, more and better equipment, and economics to supply it logistically. I don't think there's any chance for Ukraine to win on its own.
That said, Ukraine isn't Syria. It has an air force, and, perhaps more importantly, capable anti-air. It has fairly modern tanks, attack helicopters, and cruise missiles. Russia will certainly take considerable losses taking over.
The other aspect is motivation. On the Russian side, there are certainly people whose dream is coming true right now, but most soldiers - especially not conscripts! - are not really willing to take a bullet in the process of "de-Nazifying Ukraine". I don't expect any massive anti-war resistance, but they won't fight to the end.
On the Ukrainian side, there is a mixed bag. On one hand, most of them - even those whose native language is Russian, who might self-identify as ethnically Russian, and who might even support greater regional and language autonomy etc - don't really want Russia to violently take over. People tend to be motivated to fight desperately regardless of ideology when their cities are burning. But there's also a minority that would really like to repeat what happened back in 2014 in Donetsk and Lugansk (and what was kinda sorta attempted but didn't work out in Kharkov and Odessa), and who genuinely see the Russian forces as liberators. Needless to say, those people will make fine overseers once the fighting is over, and might even help during it.
> I don't think there's any chance for Ukraine to win on its own.
It depends on what you mean by 'win'. Like, of course there's no chance of Ukraine pushing back into Russia, but it's not impossible they do what Finland did and inflict enough pain that Russia pulls back with small gains at best.
I don't think it's likely. Finland was simply not that big of a prize once Soviets pushed the border far enough from Leningrad, so the amount of inconvenience required to change their plans was achievable for the Finns. Ukraine is a different matter, though, for both economic and cultural reasons. I could see Russia deciding that Western Ukraine isn't worth it, but that would still mean the loss of most of the country for the Ukrainians.
The other thing is that the invasion has already triggered those massive sanctions, and they aren't just going away even if Russia pulls out. If Russia does pull out, it'll have paid that price for no gains. So I think that they will keep pushing even if the military costs are higher than anticipated. Putin especially, since this entire escapade appears to be his pet project - the elites who are hit by the sanctions would have a great excuse to remove him.
So I do think that it will be occupation and guerrilla warfare for a while.
It won't crash the economy but combined with really high inflation and having already over-expended QE measures it could lead to a nasty enduring stagflation which is probably worse than a crash.
Ukraine will most likely get steam rolled. They don't have the numbers on their side. However, the west is not going to get directly involved. No one wants this to escalate and risk destabilizing Europe over Ukraine. They'll provide Ukraine with material and diplomatic support. That's about it. Western Europe (or the U.S) isn't going to get into a shooting war with Russia over Ukraine.
>Does anyone have any projections for how this war will go? Is the Ukrainian military powerful? Will this turn into a guerilla war, or will it go the way of total war? Or will it result in total capitulation?
The war was over before it began. The Ukrainian government telling people to take up arms is completely suicidal. War in the 21st century begins and ends with air superiority. Nothing else matters at all. Once air superiority is established, the war is over. And Russia is flying with absolute impunity over all of Ukraine now. The smartest decision is total capitulation at this point. Because Putin will stop at nothing and will not respect any form of ROE. The alternative is Kyiv being reduced to rubble and tens of thousands dead.
>The US/NATO/UN should establish a no-fly zone over the country (well, the UN is out because Russia has permanent veto power).
If this were Bosnia or Libya, we would. But the reality is that we are now playing chicken with a lunatic that has his finger on the worlds largest arsenal of nuclear ICBMs.
>Do you think Stinger missiles will make a difference?
Not enough to deny the airspace. And they are useless against high altitude bombers/attackers. But the real threat is not so much getting bombed from the air, but the fact the Russia will be able to move and deploy their artillery/MLRS completely at will due to air superiority. No doubt we will see cities flattened if prolonged urban fighting drags out.
Ukrainian military is not exactly weak but Russia severely out-mans and outguns them. It will likely turn into a guerilla war like the US faced in Afghanistan.
> What will Western governments actually do?
Nothing really.
> Does the West actually have the balls to put real, biting sanctions on the regime?
No. Boris Johnson in the UK is already being insulted for his nothing sanctions. I highly doubt the West will go after the assets of Putin and the rest of his oligarchs.
Russia also has separatists supporting them and they can move relatively freely withing the country.
The US did sanction Russia, but is actually more of a sanction against Germany. China might even like an invasion for different reasons, although they probably will call them out on it officially.
You are probably correct that western countries won't do much.
My projections so far have been wrong. I did not expect an actual invasion. I suspect, I'm not the only one.
But given that it did happen, I don't think the Russians will back down now. My guess is that they'll occupy Luhansk and Donetsk with minimal losses while severely reducing the Ukraine's ability to do anything about that. Judging from the events last night, the Ukranian air defenses were basically not very effective and they likely suffered a lot of damage to what little offensive capability they might have had.
The question is what the end game is. It's important to consider all the other countries that border Russia. Georgia for example. Or Belarus, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. All former Soviet territory with pro-Russian regimes and some domestic anti Russian sentiments. I'd say that this is a not so subtle hint to those countries to fall in line and do as their told. It would be a mistake to assume that this is just about the Ukraine.
As for the West's response; I think we're seeing it and it seems Putin is neither impressed nor surprised by it so far. I don't think there's much else the West can or will do. I think when the dust settles, the EU will end up re-establishing some level of trade with Russia eventually but the relation will be an uncomfortable one for some time to come. But the gas will keep on flowing, for now.
I do think that proposals for e.g. new natural gas power plants are effectively shelved as of now in the EU. Given what just happened, increasing the EUs dependence on Russia for gas even more than it already is seems not advisable. Once that realization sinks in, I think Russian gas imports will start decreasing pretty rapidly over the next decade as countries move ahead with plans to basically stop burning gas on a much more accelerated timeline than what countries were talking about at COP26 just a few months ago.
Economically, we were overdue for a stock market correction and I think we're in the middle of one now; at least judging from my investment portfolio this morning which is looking like most of last years gains have been wiped out as of this morning. A lot of people are going to have a rough year economically. Especially in Russia.
An ucraine split in half, with Kiev belonging to Russia. What else?
Putin needs just enough territory so that the NATO can't get too much near Russian and a pillow territory to handle future conflicts without touching Russian territory
Ukraine is totally overpowered. No one will intervene in their favor with troops on the ground (the only thing that would truly make a difference). Kiev will fall in 2 months top, Putin will install a puppet government and maybe annex all of the south and luhanks and donetsk and form the new russia oblast.
Hmmm, I was wondering what RT (German version) [0] meant by Putin wanting to denazify the Ukraine ("Putin launches special military operation to protect Donbass and denazify Ukraine"). Since they (Azov) are headquartered in Donetsk Oblast, is it them who Putin wants to permanently remove right now, and is this his purpose for starting this war?
What I mean is, Putin wasn't even making a propaganda claim about Ukraine being anti-Semites. The Russians he was talking to barely know that was the Nazi ideology, and that's assuming they'd disagree with it. He was just claiming they were going to attack Russians.
He also said he'd "show Ukraine real decommunization" the day before. Not sure if that was propaganda or a threat…
Azov are ideological extremists but I wouldn't read much into it being a motivator for Putin. It's a combination of imperialism, a significant population of ethnic Russian separatists being in Ukraine, and NATO concerns.
"Tucker Carlson and the rest of the Republican party's support for Russia boils down to "we need Russian support against China"."
No, it's definitely not that.
It's just use Russian talking points to 'Blame Democrats' and get ratings. That's it. It's just a wedge issue.
For Trump it's different. He sees everything in terms of personal relationships, and this sounds odd but I actually believe he thinks being on 'good personal terms' with Putin would be good for the countries. Like two Dynastic builders in NYC, getting on each other's 'good side'. Putin however is not like that at all, he's thinking about the legacy of his nation of himself, and of course, both men are representing states, and Trump's 'personal relationships' have nothing to do with real diplomacy or strategic issues.
Secondarily, Trump sucks up to powerful people, Trump was trying to build a tower in Moscow before becoming president, he offered Putin the Penthouse for free as a brand building exercise but also to smooth the permits and attract buyers. Much of Trumps properties take investments from rich people from around the world, aka 'ill gotten money' much of it Russian.
Warming up to Putin in such a personal way and defending him in the press was a novel thing for America and a lot of the populist movement with with him on it. Fox, some GOP and a lot of pundits used the opportunity to flip the narrative as well.
So unfortunately, no, Carlson and the Russian-appeasers in the GOP are not thinking geostrategically. It's just cynical politics.
Don’t minimize the effect of Russia being a conservative christian white (for Republican standards) nation. The European conservative christian right wing has allied with the likes of Russia and their puppets just to combat liberalism and secularism.
Did you have an actual response? If you don’t grasp the issue it’s obvious I need to explain it further.
With EU human rights protections the undercurrent of liberalization for minorities in Ukraine is safe to flourish unlike in Russia. Even an extremely religious country like Poland has massive public support for abortion protections now and anti-lgbt laws were responded to with sanctions by the EU.
Eastern orthodox christianity is the only strong christian conservative power left in Europe. European right wing populists’ parties and christian conservative parties openly point to Russia as an example of a country that still has christianity at its core. The American christian right is ideologically aligned with them and they regularly share ideas and events.
If you actually followed European politics nothing I said is suprising and my first comment would have been obvious.
Your so-called flamebait has some very interesting content.
> British foreign secretary Liz Truss...sat down for talks with Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. When Lavrov, in response to Truss’s demands that Russia withdraw troops from its territory bordering Ukraine, asked if she recognized Russia’s sovereignty over the Rostov and Voronezh regions, Truss replied that the UK would "never recognize Russian sovereignty over these regions" — prompting a more informed diplomat to jump in and explain to her those were Russian regions.
If your highest-ranked diplomats are conducting negotiations at Geographically Challenged Schoolchild level, maybe suggesting that you're part of the problem shouldn't be called flamebait and propaganda. This was yet another reveal to Lavrov that the British public is wildly uniformed about Russia, all the way to the top.
Ukraine may be an innocent victim of this stupidity. That doesn't excuse it in any way.
To some extent this situation feels analogous to a street mugging happening in very slow motion
The thug accosts the victim, threatens and then proceeds to assault the victim in full view of a large number of bystanders who are numerous enough to defend the victim and alter the outcome but not convicted enough to take on the inconvenience of doing so.
Nevertheless all the bystanders voice words of encouragement and sympathy and even offer to sue the aggressor in court after the fact if the victim is harmed or killed.
Often I wonder which of our leaders has ever played poker. It seems like Putin has figured out that we won't push all-in, ever, so he steals another pot.
If the west really cared about this, the only way now is to retaliate way out of proportion to what's happened.
Before this happened, the west also didn't act like it wanted to contain the Russians, so the Russians got brave. If there had been some sort of response the Russians would have backed off. It's somewhat stable for both sides to bluster about this or that minor victory. Can't do that now.
But it's also the case that the west is straddling strategies here. Either do as Kennan says and just leave NATO the way it was and don't poke the wounded bear, or actually encircle Russia completely, stick nukes in their back yard and show them who is boss.
Don't pretend to do both and neither, that is the worst of all worlds.
> If there had been some sort of response the Russians would have backed off.
Are you sure about that? Are you really willing to risk your chips betting on a retreat? This sort of geopolitical chicken would be incredibly dangerous.
Please explain why you think the West (Americans) ought to go die for Ukraine. If you want the west to go all in for this, I hope you've signed up to serve already.
That was something great about Trump; he could not be easily predicted, not even by his own circle. Although in this case I’m not sure he wouldn’t have sided with Putin.
I'll give him that, you don't know what DJT would have decided. Maybe he'd fold, maybe he'd go direct to nuke. That baseline unpredictability is actually useful strategically (there's even an essay about how being rational isn't necessarily a good game theoretic strategy, can't recall the name now).
There's at least one other world leader who clings to power because of this trait.
Recent mutterings suggest Trump thinks highly of Putin though, so it's hard to tell.
You are, unfortunately, mistaken. The President has sole authority over launch decisions. There is a requirement that those orders be verified as authentic by the Secretary of Defense, but assuming POTUS gave the orders, it's not within SecDef's authority to countermand them. What would actually happen if an insane POTUS were to give a launch order that made no sense is probably up to chance and the quality of those willing to break the law and refuse the order.
"However, the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief is not unlimited and US law dictates that the attack must be lawful and that military officers are required to refuse to execute unlawful orders, such as those that violate the Laws of Armed Conflict."
Those laws are very very vague and like you said, it's possible someone in the chain of command could argue it's against the law since a nuke would likely cause collateral damage one way or another. I think it's technically incorrect to definitively say that the US president has complete and total control over nuking a target.
Hey, wasn't this the EXACT argument Democrats made about removing Trump from office before the election? Floating the idea he'd risk WW3 instead of losing an election?
Turns out Trump's general hard line on everything was useful for something.
the President can order nukes to launch. there's no law curtailing that power, and military orders are the purview of the Executive under the Constitution, so it's doubtful Congress could even prevent that.
the nuclear football is basically a fancy sat phone though, so it's less clear if the generals who get the war order would actually obey.
Thinking highly of opponents of the US and spouting off about how smart and savvy they are never seemed to stop Trump from treating them like opponents and using his power against them back when he was president, so I'm not convinced it would if he was still in charge - and it certainly wouldn't be safe for them to rely on that.
> Recent mutterings suggest Trump thinks highly of Putin though, so it's hard to tell.
Care to provide a source for this?
If you're referring to the podcast where Trump mentioned that Putin's move (annexation of Lugansk & Donetsk) is "genious", that's not some sort of fanboyism or admiration, but simply admitting that the move, tactically, was really good - a lot of people (myself included) did fall for it!
>“He’s taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions. I’d say that’s pretty smart,” Trump said at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, according to New York Times reporter Shane Goldmacher and video footage obtained by the pro-Democratic group American Bridge. “He’s taking over a country, really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, just walking right in.”
To anyone with basic reading comprehension, it's obvious that Trump isn't praising Putin, he's praising Putin's tactics, which, judging by the (lack of) response from the West, is pretty smart!
I'd say in this case everyone has nuclear weapons i.e. thug and bystanders with abundant second strike capabilities and also a healthy desire to live. With that level of mutually assured destruction, conflict if any would almost certainly stay conventional.
In fact if NATO had moved in about 50 to 100K troops at the invitation of Ukraine sometime over the past 3 months, its really unlikely that Putin would have upped the ante.
If anything the multiyear patience and planning on his part suggests he absolutely wants to win and wont take a chance if he thinks he might lose or draw
> In fact if NATO had moved in about 50 to 100K troops at the invitation of Ukraine sometime over the past 3 months,
Meanwhile Russia being right on the border quickly invades Ukraine before the NATO troops can arrive and now we have NATO troops entering a war zone or pulling back and looking even weaker. Also, this sounds eerily like the start of WWI although then it was Russia mobilizing and Germany then decided to move quickly into Belgium and North into Russia.
I don’t know. Mr P would have made that the excuse to invade. In war perception and public sentiment is very important too. Biden would easily lose popular support in this hypothetical scenario. As is there doesn’t seem to be much support from the right at the moment.
The US has a major security advantage in terms of mutually assured destruction in that its home to many people from around the world. There are like tens of thousands of Americans living in all of Russia or China. Meanwhile, there are millions of both Russian and Chinese Americans in the U.S.. This provides safety. Good luck finding morale in your military after you've just told them to nuke millions of their own people.
mutually assured destruction will not leave you any functioning military to have morale after nuking US. And in this case we will test the nuclear winter theory. Hopefully we can avoid that.
There is no way he doesn't stop at Ukraine. He doesn't have enough troops to hold it against a population which will be against him. He has already bitten off more than he can chew. The idea of Russian tanks marching on Germany is delusional fantasy and hyperbole, even apart from Article 5.
which part of your own country are you willing to risk to be hit by nukes first? It's easy to be militarily bold at someone else's expense, more so if you don't serve in a regular army.
Which friend or family member are you willing to sacrifice first so that you’ll be spared?
It’s easy to try to appease aggressors thinking that somehow they will have enough eventually, but this is short term thinking. In the end they will only stop when you stand up and fight.
I'd try really hard not to get into a situation that requires taking this kind of choice in the first place. It means taking measures of reasonable appeasal. Diplomacy used to be a virtue, nowadays it's being replaced by acts of daring: Russia does it, the US does it, the Ukraine does it.
> they will have enough eventually, but this is short term thinking. In the end they will only stop when you stand up and fight.
There's such a thing as a lifespan. People come and go, and everyone should be proactively seeking long-term beyond-personality diplomacy and statesmanship.
> In the end they will only stop when you stand up and fight.
this is no longer a WW2 era, you can't just stand up and fight, nukes don't care if you stand up or lie down.
Nukes are an ultimate weapon, equally destructive for both sides no matter who's using them.
Threatening with nukes on the other hand is an almost as good weapon but only effective of you convince the other party you mean it and only countered by the others also being willing to use them. It's the MAD policy and it worked quite well during the cold war.
I disagree that it worked well during the Cold War, numerous declassified archives suggest a different picture of continuous escalation and bringing the world on the brink of total annihilation. The main reason it did not happen was a presence of people who were willing to de-escalate the peril by all means at key moments, including sacrificing their military ranks, political stances, and sometimes integrity of borders of their own countries. Borders have been moving and they will be moving in the future, a long-term strategy should be to never let politicians stake the humankind for the sake of the current polygons configuration on a world map.
I am guessing you are not in one of those "polygons" close to Putin on the map, so that is why you are so willing to sacrifice others for your well being.
Did not work out that great for the appeasers in WW2 in the end.
> so that is why you are so willing to sacrifice others for your well being.
are you really suggesting that threatening Putin with NATO nukes servers your wellbeing better than giving him a part of East Ukraine for a time being? Are you suggesting that your government won't be capable of negotiating a peaceful gradual transition of the region back to Ukraine in the post-Putin era? Such cases were possible in the past, if you read history. But it required skilled statesmanship and diplomacy instead of quick emotional reactions to intimidate and retaliate.
We know Putin by now. What you are proposing did not work since he's in power. He kept escalating. MAD worked on dictators just like him before. Actual power is the only language his ilk understands.
Or in 10 year you'll see the entire Europe in his hands while the rest of the world is being carved between him and Xi.
It is by no means clear that Russian military/state will “win” long-term in Ukraine. When there is significant local opposition to military occupation, it is indeed hard to maintain control.
But in the mean time, they’ll be able to kill a whole lot of people and destroy a whole lot of lives, and wreck Ukrainian democracy and economic prosperity for years if not decades.
Are you suggesting that neighboring countries should go to war to defend Ukraine? If I see a street mugging then I'll call the police but I'm not going to risk getting shot in order to intervene in a random street crime.
This is obviously a terrible situation for the Ukrainian people but at the same time they could have done a lot more to prevent it. They essentially let their military deterrent collapse years ago through a mix of corruption and apathy. If they had had a real combat effective military back in 2014 then Russia probably wouldn't have invaded in the first place.
> at the same time they could have done a lot more to prevent it.
I'm skeptical. Russia has been harrying and undermining Ukraine for many years. Remember Viktor Yanukovych and all the turmoil of that era? It's not like Ukraine has been through a period of decadence where they slacked off — they've never caught a break.
And now the full force of Russian imperialism is crashing down on them.
They trusted the American guaranty of their safety in exchange for them becoming a nuclear non-proliferation country and giving up their inherited nukes. American's failure to stay ahead of the situation and deliver on the guaranty we promised them caused this, and I think is going to lead to nuclear proliferation going up now.
Does it need to be "go to war"? How many NATO aircraft would it take to give the Ukrainians on the ground the upper hand? For all his bluster, do you think Putin really wants to escalate beyond Ukraine? He's playing a game of chicken with the west and winning.
Hitler did the same thing right up until 1939. From what I've read he was actually surprised that the allies finally called his bluff after Poland, considering they just rolled over after the Rhineland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia.
> do you think Putin really wants to escalate beyond Ukraine? He's playing a game of chicken with the west and winning.
Have you read his recent announcement? He warned every foreign nation not to meddle or else:
> To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside - if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history,’ he said on a television broadcast around 6am Moscow time.
> The lesson learned should be that if you don't stop the thug with force, then he will eventually become strong enough to stop you.
this is a lesson of a past war, the world has moved, this is no longer a WW2 era, if you try to apply a similar foreign intervention now the chances are you'll get a nuke on your lawn.
No one, and I mean, no one... Wants to ne the first firer of nukes in anger. I could see a State nuking themselves before nuking anyone else to keep that fuse from getting lit.
You don't get to put that one back in the bottle, and you're going to have to have more faith than the Pope to think that no one will respond.
Nuclear War isn't like Civilization. It's a momentary bang followed by a lot of whimper.
I think you can call the bluff. Putin wants to build an empire not have Russia leveled. Of course you are playing a high stakes game in actually doing this though.
I'm pretty confident that Putin doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who started the nuclear war that ended Russia (and much of the rest of the world). We can call that bluff.
Your region is already at stake? What's the chance that Putin is interested in "just this one piece of land" and is also willing to escalate to WW3 to get it? If he's truly that dedicated, this is just the beginning. Estonia shares a nice long border with Russia.
How popular do you think Putin will be at home when he announces he's going to full war with NATO? How would he even do that? You think he's going to launch ICBMs?
> How popular do you think Putin will be at home when he announces he's going to full war with NATO?
Putin is not elected by a popular vote, the voice of the people does not matter there.
Estonia is a NATO member already, the current conflict has been escalated because of the previously announced red line demands (Ukraine never getting into NATO) that the US diplomats discarded. It is their job to negotiate peace in the region too. Negotiations is a nasty business and the outcomes are nasty too. Those who seek easy and pretty solutions that satisfy all parties in one step are destined to escalate the situation further up.
The voice of the people always matters to some degree. Especially if said dictator wants you to risk your life or the life of your loved ones for his conquests.
They could have kept the lid down on the situation and prevented the East European nations from inflaming the situation further. They could have offered to veto Ukraine. The new government did not defend German interests and let it become a pawn in great power politics.
What can they realistically do? Send German troops there? It won't happen ever, we both know it. Shutdown Nordstream 2 earlier? It's unlikely to have any effect. Direct supply of weapons into Ukraine? Earlier and preemptive sanctions? None of that will deter Putin, in fact it will probably just encourage him to act faster.
You also have to take into consideration the last 2 times Germany entered a conflict it didn't work out too well for them, so they have all the more reasons to be reserved.
This is too simple. Ukraine and Russia, Orthodox and Catholics, Polish, Ukrainians and Russians have had a varied history in the proximate territories.
Despite the bluster of "I'm the only one who's gone toe to toe with Putin" there is only so much anyone can do in this situation. If KSA decided to invade one of its neighbors, there is only so much anyone could do because doing anything would severely disrupt energy. But in the Caucasus and Dnieper areas there, I mean you have nukes involved. Like India and Pakistan.
Then there is the promise we made not to station missiles in territories bordering Russia and the whole Orange Revolution Obama thing. That's a big deal to them just as it would be a big deal if Russia stationed missiles in Mexico or Cuba. We'd throw a fit too. Just as China would throw a fit if we stationed missiles in Taiwan.
The US could do the same thing. People like to complain about how much a bully the US has been (Chile, Guatemala, Vietnam, etc)... Now they are seeing how real bullies act in Russia and a lesser degree China (but they are on the sidelines biding their time) They can do what they want because they have little constraint --with big players it's self-imposed.
I have a strong feeling that the US has missiles stationed in both Japan and Korea, which is about the same as putting them in Taiwan for this comparison
Any missiles there have historically grown up with the CCP. Japan had an SDF --so the US's presence was added deterrent. In Korea we have the excuse of N Korea being a menace. As part of the negotiations during the collapse of the USSR, US officials acknowledged the Russian request that there be no NATO missiles in proximity of the RU border. GW Bush laughed it off and so did Obama.
Even Canada does not share nuclear weapons with the US. That genuinely surprised me. US and Canada have unbelievably interconnected militaries -- see NORAD and various Artic zone military bases.
And yet you have to wonder, on an alternative timeline, what if Ukraine says it won't join NATO and stays under Russia's sphere of influence? It would suck for national pride but maybe under that alternative timeline they won't get invaded now and possibly wouldn't even lose Crimea earlier?
Practically speaking, perhaps you should avoid poking the aggressive neighbor next door, especially when you can't have definitive assurance from the police station three blocks over?
There was little support for joining NATO before Crimea was annexed. Ukraine wanted to join NATO precisely because it realized that it will be devoured piece by piece by its imperialist neighbor unless it does.
It's not just Putin; Russian leaders through most of the 20thC have feared encroachment on their western borders, and have launched invasions and installed puppet regimes to create a buffer. The fact that Ukraine has clearly expressed its desire to join NATO, and NATO's refusal to reject that possibility, means that Russia perceives a threat that their greatest enemy will suddenly appear right on their border.
Georgia also wanted to join NATO; so they got invaded.
The West has played this hand very badly. Instead of declaring that under no circumstances would they send troops to Ukraine, they should have kept silent, or possibly sent a division of ground troops, to be dispersed around the country. They should also have leaned hard on Ukraine to make Donetsk and Luhansk officially autonomous regions. The Donbas would then become Russia's buffer zone, making them feel a bit less paranoid about NATO encroachment.
FWIW, I think NATO should have dismantled itself following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The modern NATO is a global organisation, not restricted to the North Atlantic. It's no longer a mutual defence pact for countries at risk of Russian attack; its main purpose now is simply to intimidate Russia.
There's some real vitriol here and comments bordering on being open discriminatory attacks ("Russia is a wasteland of civilization and we should just nuke them", "stop drinking Vodka, Sergei"). I hope that folks remember that the state isn't the Russian citizenry, and even if there is a minority support for this in the country it doesn't represent the people... _especially_ when the leader is a murderous autocrat.
This is a disaster and heartbreaking for everybody on the ground, Ukrainian and otherwise. We shouldn't forget that when the USSR fell, folks had moved all over the place. Friends and families are very blended in the former Soviet Union, and there are many, many Ukranian-Russians as well. My wife was born Russian-Estonian, with a lot of Russian-Ukranian family, and it's unhelpful to have one half of your heritage bombed and the other half being called the wasteland of civilization.
Don't make the situation for everyone even worse, no one needs that.
Putin's approval rating is at 70% [0]. From [1] (referring to the invasion of Crimea):
> President Putin's approval rating among the Russian public increased by nearly 10% since the crisis began, up to 71.6%, the highest in three years, according to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research, released on 19 March.[346] Additionally, the same poll showed that more than 90% of Russians supported unification with the Crimean Republic
So it looks to me that most Russians supported the Crimea invasion. Why would it be different now? Why do you think a minority supports this?
I really hope the world comes down hard on Russia with sanctions and support for Ukraine, but I’m afraid that so much of Europe depends on Russian gas that they won’t risk getting cut off. Which begs the question: how did Europe allow itself to come to depend so heavily on Russian energy? And how quickly can Russia pivot to buy energy from elsewhere (for a reasonable price)?
And how did the entire world allowed itself to depend on China for... pretty much everything? Middle-eastern oil too.
It is globalization, which, in principle, is a good thing. Maybe nor for climate change since we are talking fossil fuels, but if a country has an abundance of resources, it would be a shame not to trade. If Russia needs the world and the world needs Russia, there is more chance for the conflict to end with diplomacy than by killing millions.
To be clear, my grievance isn’t trade in general, but complete dependence on resources from a country helmed by a hostile dictator (to that end, I completely support weaning ourselves off of China).
I think GP might be referring to anti-nuclear movement
Germany shutting down nuclear plants in favor of natural gas plants and soon-to-be-increasing coal plants for base load is bad for energy independence, climate, and now world stability
Since you cannot change infrastructure over night, gas was the much cleaner alternative to lignite. If Russia stops supplying Europe, they will look for other gas suppliers.
Another Russian here. I don't agree and don't support this action.
We anticipate long years if not decades of isolation, even more stagnating economy, even more authoritarian government. By all means it's a terrible thing.
For both Russians and Ucrainians alike.
But... The drama around it as portrayed in Western media is ridiculous. There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense. It would be no more war than it was in Crimea in 2014.
I don't justify. It's a political disaster but not a humanitarian one.
> But... The drama around it as portrayed in Western media is ridiculous. There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense. It would be no more war than it was in Crimea in 2014. I don't justify. It's a political disaster but not a humanitarian one.
Two weeks ago: The Western media is creating fake drama. Russia is never going to invade Ukraine. We're just trying to protect our security.
This week: The Western media is overreacting. Yes, it's an invasion, but it's not really a war, there's not going to be that many casualties.
Two weeks from now: The Western media is exaggerating. Yes, lots of people are dying, but this is a war, it can't be avoided. But it's really exaggerated to talk about "war crimes" and "mass civilian casualties". And we must not forget that this all began because of Western provocations!
Exactly. A few months ago, Russian higher-ups were claiming that it was moving troops around for military exercises. They're blatant liars and you can't trust anything they say, nor should you believe that they have any particular set of morals.
When people were drafted for ww1 they thought it would last a few weeks/months... wait and see.
At first most experts said there wouldn't be an invasion, then they said they'd only invade the eastern part, now we're talking about the whole country. Only time will tell
That's a bit naive. There are already hundreds of civilian casualties. The Russian shelling is not precise. They don't have the technology for that. They were using MLRS rockets which kill indiscriminately. There's a video circulating online of a little girl who got hit by a shell and killed. This is not like Crimea.
They're not being naive. This is a deliberate effort to downplay the events. Always keep in mind that a war is often fought with different types of weapons, including information.
> It's a political disaster but not a humanitarian one.
Yet; it's a strategic move for now, but what are Russia's plans after this? Just sit there and pretend nothing happened? This is part of a bigger plan.
> There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense.
That's a bit premature.
As for the rest: Russians could rise en-masse to put a stop to this. Call a general strike all over Russia tomorrow and you might be able to avoid those decades of isolation and stagnating economy.
In order to do that in effective numbers that wouldn't get squashed immediately, there would have to be people leading and coordinating the opposition.
Appearing to be such a person is a quick way to accidentally eat plutonium for breakfast.
I don't think so when looking at what has happened historically. Also, until Putin attacks NATO territory (which he most likely won't) there's not going to be an all out war. We in the West are being a bit hyperbolic. This is a serious issue, but not a "omg nukes are going to be flying next week" level of seriousness. I'd instead watch what China will do with Taiwan while we are distracted...
Russia isn't some democracy that is cool with protesting. There are plenty of Russian's living there that are still USSR brainwashed and support this.
> I don't think so when looking at what has happened historically.
Interesting, I think that taking history into account that's actually far more likely than the opposite.
> Also, until Putin attacks NATO territory (which he most likely won't) there's not going to be an all out war.
That's two assumptions, both of which may be wrong, independently.
> We in the West are being a bit hyperbolic.
Hm. I don't think our current reaction to 'war at 30 km away from our Eastern border' is something that should be labelled hyperbolic. If anything it is rather tame.
> This is a serious issue, but not a "omg nukes are going to be flying next week" level of seriousness.
I'm not so much concerned with the next week bit as I am with the fact that you are worried about the timetable, but not about whether or not they will be flying at all.
> I'd instead watch what China will do with Taiwan while we are distracted...
Well, China now already knows something that they didn't know last week: that the Western world will stand by while they do what they want to do, as long as they don't attack a NATO member.
> Russia isn't some democracy that is cool with protesting.
Neither was Poland in the 80's. That didn't stop the protests.
> There are plenty of Russian's living there that are still USSR brainwashed and support this.
This is not a case of a dictatorship pursing war against the interests of 90% the population. A lot of Russians support the separatists and are glad to see the military step in.
If you’re completely confused at why Putin is doing this and the best reason you can come up with is that he’s evil and stupid and just wants destruction, it’s only because you don’t understand the situation.
> A lot of Russians support the separatists and are glad to see the military step in.
That doesn't really matter though, what matters is that they are there illegally. A lot of Germans supported the invasion of Poland as well to gain some 'lebensraum'. That did not make them right.
> If you’re completely confused at why Putin is doing this and the best reason you can come up with is that he’s evil and stupid and just wants destruction, it’s only because you don’t understand the situation.
I'm not confused at all. But it appears that you are given your alternative history regarding Donbas.
Putin has a country that is imploding, and if he doesn't find a way to make it seem as though he is a powerful leader then he may be out of leadership position soon. Him starting this war is an act of desperation: nothing to lose and everything to gain because whatever he stands to lose he would have lost anyway.
> [Domestic support] doesn't really matter though, what matters is that they are there illegally. A lot of Germans supported the invasion of Poland as well to gain some 'lebensraum'. That did not make them right.
You’re moving the goal posts. You suggested that the Russian people could or should stage mass protests. I responded that you’re naive for thinking that Russians are going to stage mass protests against this because there’s large public support for the military actions here. Now you’re saying it doesn’t matter if there’s support for the war because it’s still wrong and illegal. Well, no shit?
So which is it? Is it Putin acting as a dictator against the will of his people in a desperate attempt to retain power, or is it just that the Russians support those in the Donbas region?
You are apparently utterly unaware of the reality on the ground in Russia, which I can't fault you for but it makes the discussion a bit tedious. FWIW: your 'average Russian' may well grumble at Putin, the hardships the country is operating under and the effect that sanctions will have on their already fragile economy. But they're likely not going to act, this has to do with living like that for the last 75 years or so. That does not mean that they support the invasion of Ukraine, but it does mean that when asked about this they are aware that whoever is asking it may have an agenda so of course they will say that they support it.
But it's not as simple as support vs a lack of support, the third option is apathy, something that Russia has plenty of.
I tried to show you - apparently that didn't work - that verbal support for Putin's safari does not necessarily equate to actual support, the alternatives are probably not even on the radar if you haven't lived under a repressive regime: you are very careful to toe the party line in public, no matter what you may think in private, and bitching against the state is a cottage industry in Russia. Given all this, what is surprising is that plenty of Russians are actually quite vocal against this invasion, which I consider to be a very positive sign.
It’s making me crazy to see so many in this thread attempt to have a conversation about the motivations of the Russians without talking about the central point of this conflict: the independence of the Donbas, their natural right to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian confederation, and their recent pleas to the Russians for recognition of their state and military defense.
The Russians did not just simply decide to up and bomb Ukraine. The world is not that simple. A majority of Russians support Russian support for the Donbas region. They are culturally and ethnically Russian in the region.
I’m not defending Russia here but if you don’t talk about the core of the conflict you’re not coming any closer to a real understanding.
Oh please. You can't seriously make this argument, the whole Donbas independence movement was a Russian ploy from day #1 to create the pretext required to do exactly what they are doing today.
What makes me crazy is that there would be people that fall for such an obvious ploy.
A majority of Russians is not the same as a majority.
I can’t have a reasonable conversation about this with someone who believes that the Russians are puppet masters pulling strings and setting narratives and that I’m just stupid for believing them.
The fact that Russia says it’s true is not a good reason why it cannot be true.
This has been going on for 8 years and we had peace and stable lines for the last 4. What changed?
> I can’t have a reasonable conversation about this with someone who believes that the Russians are puppet masters pulling strings and setting narratives and that I’m just stupid for believing them.
I don't know where the puppet masters and the narratives came in, you were the one bringing this bullshit in here, I didn't see any Russians. Where you got your ideas only you know.
> The fact that Russia says it’s true is not a good reason why it cannot be true.
I read it in Pravda. What's written there must be true, right? Just like they wrote last week: Russia will not invade Ukraine, so therefore I am right now hallucinating.
> This has been going on for 8 years and we had peace and stable lines for the last 4. What changed?
Russia went to war. And there was maybe peace in your book but for the people in Ukraine there wasn't peace and now there won't be for a much longer time.
> I don't know where the puppet masters and the narratives came in, you were the one bringing this bullshit in here, I didn't see any Russians. Where you got your ideas only you know.
You suggested very literally that the separatist movement in east Ukraine was a Russian ploy from the start to justify war. Somehow to you that’s more reasonable that just assuming it came about organically.
> Russia went to war. And there was maybe peace in your book but for the people in Ukraine there wasn't peace and now there won't be for a much longer time.
Objectively, the lines hadn’t moved and people stopped dying. We had peace and the conditions for a peaceful resolution and new borders.
Then all of a sudden, things escalated. A big important gas pipeline blew up. Then Russia came in and got involved.
You can believe one of two things:
1. Russia wanted so badly to curb stomp their economy that they blew up their own important pipeline to justify war.
2. Either the CIA or the neonazi militias, or both working together, are responsible for these attacks.
Neither makes a ton of sense, but one has to be true.
> You suggested very literally that the separatist movement in east Ukraine was a Russian ploy from the start to justify war.
It is. This was a response to Russia's puppet being ousted. I'll forgive you if you haven't been following Ukraine since 2010 or so. But then stop making out like you have some special knowledge about what has been happening there for the last 12 years because it is a bit silly.
> Somehow to you that’s more reasonable that just assuming it came about organically.
No, I know that it did not came about organically, as do most people that are informed about Ukraine. This is not subject to discussion, nor is it subject to your fantasy story suddenly becoming true, in fact this is exactly the propaganda line coming out of the Kremlin.
> Objectively, the lines hadn’t moved and people stopped dying. We had peace and the conditions for a peaceful resolution and new borders.
There was at best an unresolved situation, and this is what is happening today: the furthering of the same goal that was in view when this whole thing escalated the first time. Consolidate, move forward. Consolidate, move forward. Putin is not making the same stupid mistake that Hitler made, he is taking his time to consolidate, which makes him far more dangerous.
> Then all of a sudden, things escalated. A big important gas pipeline blew up. Then Russia came in and got involved.
What a coincidence.
I'm going to stop responding to you, if you want to take that as a victory of sorts be my guest but I don't have the energy to continue to debate this, it makes no sense, but if you want to persist in it be my guest.
For the record, we’re ultimately on the same side here. I’m just trying to push back on what I see as an overly simple narrative around the Russian motivations for this. But I’m ultimately rooting for an independent Ukraine and anyone fighting for that.
A lot of people in Eastern Ukraine identify themselves as Russian (source: a friend of mine near Poltava). They speak Russian first, Ukrainian second. Trying to argue which came first is rather moot, the tug-of-war between eradication and strengthening of the Ukrainian identity has been going on for more than a century (see [1] and [2]). There's nothing obvious about that cultural conflict, except perhaps to Putin, who is clearly more interested in Rusifikatsiya than in Korenizatsiya.
Sure. Ditto Latvia. But that doesn't mean that those provinces had a majority in favor of secession before all this started sliding, that's just the pretext used to invade after the Russian puppet was voted out.
>>>You can't seriously make this argument, the whole Donbas independence movement was a Russian ploy from day #1 to create the pretext required to do exactly what they are doing today.
Isn't that pretty much the argument Russia made, when the US supported Kosovo independence from Serbia?
>The drama around it as portrayed in Western media is ridiculous. There won't be major loss of life nor any "war" in conventional sense. It would be no more war than it was in Crimea in 2014. I don't justify. It's a political disaster but not a humanitarian one.
Lay off the Vodka Sergei, there have already been airstrikes in a Dozen Ukrainian cities. The scale already far outpaces anything that happened in Crimea.
can you tell me what pro-Putin Russians think about this? The ones that are not brainwashed? Like, how does Russia gain anything from this action? It only stands to lose economic ties in an ever increasing interconnected world. When Oil and Gas won't be king in 20 years, Russia is doomed without more cooperation with advanced countries. What are people thinking? What is the reason behind all this?
I have never seen a comment on politics which demonstrated non-brainwashed thinking on HN. Surprisingly, I saw more humane, fact-based, and independent thinking on tiktok.
I'm sure they think "we dont want the usa puppet masters anywhere around here". Which is exactly what Putin is writing in his speeches about. Have you read the speeches on the Kremlin's website? There is an english version that explains pretty much every reason that a pro-Putin Russian would gobble up as gospel.
How horrible for those that will die now, and over time for anyone in Ukraine who wants the right to express dissent with government policies without being bullied, harrassed, harmed or killed for it. This is a right worth fighting for, for ourselves and others, and always will be.
> who wants the right to express dissent with government policies without being bullied, harrassed, harmed or killed for it.
This is the whole reason we have separate countries and government. Setting your own policy as a country is not supposed to result in war.
Ukraine is standing firm on its sovereignty. A belligerent adversary has started a war because it feels the sovereign country isn't sovereign and can't be friends with certain countries. That upends the whole concept of countries, which further erodes Putin's credibility, if he had any left. He first upended self-determination in his own country, then internationally, and now seeks takeover of an entire foreign country.
I've worked at tech companies that despise helping the US military. Please understand that the world is complex and although all superpowers have done terrible things, helping the US is the only way our children will live in a peaceful world. This isn't about democrats or republicans, the future of humanity will be decided in the next decade.
Any abject suffering that occurs over the next hours, days, and weeks doesn't excuse the historical record of abject suffering imposed by the US military.
It's perfectly consistent to be opposed to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and also reject the myth that the US's military is the only thing that maintains world peace.
It's not a 'myth' that the US maintains world peace, it's a most obvious reality and it's disturbing that anyone wouldn't be able to see it plainly.
The world is not a 'peaceful place' with a bunch of wars now and again.
It's held together by force.
Peace is a balance of, and righteous management of power.
The US+NATO+Allies form the basis of that power. Unfortunately, without the US, that 'Team' would basically be dysfunctional and wouldn't really work.
The Panama Canal, Suez Canal, the Gulf, S. China Sea - all of it would be controlled by various regimes if it were not for US power basically keeping it all open for everyone.
Israel and Egypt the 'lynchpin' of peace in the ME is kept that way because of US power. All of he Middle East would be like Syria were it not for US/West.
Obviously Taiwan would be in China and Korea would be vanquished by N. Korea.
It's hard to know exactly how the cards would fall, but they would definitely fall one way or another.
Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO.
> Unfortunately, we don't have a solution for Ukraine, but thankfully, this will be mostly contained in Ukraine thanks to NATO.
The same sentences were written two weeks ago with respect to Ukraine. You can't make any assumptions about what Russia will or will not do. Taking over the Suwalki gap could easily happen. The frog is best boiled slowly, and with ample time to get used to the new temperature.
Also because what Russia is doing right now is the same thing that US tried to do in the Bay of Pigs, settling a puppet government in a portion of a country then make it ask for help? That's CIA 101
And that's what's great about the western world, you can't have a maniac at the top moving 200k soldiers without congressional approval and discussion? That's why if I have to pick between a country like US that is intermittently maniac and a country like Putinstan where a maniac has to decide that million of people have to suffer in and out the borders, then I would always pick the US
> And that's what's great about the western world, you can't have a maniac at the top moving 200k soldiers without congressional approval and discussion?
I guess we're ignoring the 200k+ troops sent to Iraq w/o a declaration of war by Congress? I will agree with you on one point though...the President wasn't a maniac.
Excerpt:
"At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on 20 March 2003 (9:34 pm, 19 March EST) the surprise[130] military invasion of Iraq began.[131] There was no declaration of war.[132] The 2003 invasion of Iraq was led by US Army General Tommy Franks, under the code-name Operation Iraqi Freedom,[133] the UK code-name Operation Telic, and the Australian code-name Operation Falconer. Coalition forces also cooperated with Kurdish Peshmerga forces in the north. Approximately forty other governments, the "Coalition of the Willing," participated by providing troops, equipment, services, security, and special forces, with 248,000 soldiers from the United States, 45,000 British soldiers, 2,000 Australian soldiers and 194 Polish soldiers from Special Forces unit GROM sent to Kuwait for the invasion.[134] The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000.[135]"
I think your idea of lack of a declaration of war ignores that a year before it was voted by congress, on the basis of:
The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
And I would put some emphasis on the state of the relation on:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
It's not a declared invasion. I've read headlines that said Russia had "declared war"; in the body of the article, it turns out that Russia has sent a "peacekeeping force" into Donbas. There's been no declaration of war. Russia has responded to requests for help from the rebel leaders in Donetsk and Luhansk.
I mean, there is a war; Russia has been bombing and rocketing Ukrainian military installations all over the country. But it's not a declared war.
Yes, you're right, but it could be interesting to understand that for the living in order to prevent to be made dead by regular armed forces or intelligence in the future, in fact right now it's mostly the living that are trying to understand what happened/is happening
Yeah but my point was that the declared invasion is happening due to the rebels that took over Donetsk and Lugansk asking for help from Putin to defend themselves from the ukrainian govt
That is a very naive take. It's abundantly clear that Kremlin orchestrated the rebel areas to "ask for help" so they have a pretext for the invasion. I mean that was so transparent that I honestly thought it was only meant for Russian local audiences and absolutely nobody would buy that in the West.
The Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 was similar to Bay of Pigs (with the difference that the former succeeded, while the latter failed miserably). The current situation is a full blown war and nothing less than that.
> "abject suffering" And what about some of the most peaceful decades in human history? That means nothing, eh?
The US, in a brief moment of national clarify, participated in exactly two just wars in the last century. The outcome of one of those wars was the establishment of liberal democracies across Western Europe, which is indeed a tremendous stabilizing force. But it's not clear to me that the US gets to claim outsized credit for the subsequent years of peacemaking under those nations.
Us participated in Vietnam War too which would made it third War. In Korea War too, four. Plus, supported various guerrilas (taliban) and dictators materiály.
And that is me being lazy to lookup whether there were other conflicts.
US the only way for a peaceful world? You should read a bit on the USA history and its military conflicts and you may change your mind. Wikipedia is a good starting point.
The period of US hegemony from WW2 until today has by far been the most peaceful time in the history of civilization. Unlike previous super powers, the US did not take over any other countries or colonize by force. We have done many horrible things, like support dictators, invade Iraq based on lies (to depose a dictator), etc., but we have also supported people all over after natural disasters, helped with foreign aid to relieve famines, policed global trade to enable fair markets, and many other good deeds. It's definitely not the only way, and we could do much, much better, but show me another major country that you would prefer hold the reigns of global power?
Peaceful for who?? Certainly not for Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Middle East. The US has absolutely imposed "peace" by force and by pushing its own agenda everywhere.
I beg your pardon? Eastern Europe is eternally grateful to the US that they won the cold war allowing them to break free from the Big Bear. Nations comprising 100+ million people from Estonia to Bulgaria are living their golden ages right now, because of US.
I resent the implication that the US military is the only reason the world is at peace, and I bet plenty of NGOs feel the same - if anything, the US military is the one that has been pushing for new conflicts. And while it's true that all superpowers have done terrible things, the difference with the US is that plenty of them have stopped doing terrible things since.
I was not born yet when Germany started WWII, but I was alive to see the US declare torture as a valid means of interrogation and bomb civilians with no repercusions. And my living relatives who suffered under a US-backed military coup may not be as quick to forgive either. Maybe your children will live in a peaceful world, but for many of us that's cold comfort.
Give it 72 hours. The news cycle is leading the announcements tomorrow and the announcements that will inevitably come next week. If the news is already talking WW3 (and yes, they are) then it won't be long before the UN deploys it's own "peacekeeping forces" and the world goes hot.
I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there.
As sad as it may be for Ukraine, they're going to have to do what they can to defend themselves with aid and supplies.
The one thought I have around this is Canada. Spitballing: There's a huge Ukrainian population there and the deputy PM has personal ties to the region. It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way. They'd also have to try to convince the other parties helping them maintain government. Even if that happens though, I suspect that won't make a difference to the outcome and the rest of NATO would look at it as a Canadian solo operation. I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less. Any politician who got boots on the ground (barring some unforeseen change in circumstance) would probably be skewered public opinion-wise and be essentially kissing re-election goodbye.
> I think right now in the west in general the appetite for getting hands-on in Ukraine is just not there.
I hate to say it, but I agree. Germany sent Ukraine a few thousand hats to help them resist Russian aggression, for Christ's sake.
Western powers will drop a strongly worded letter in the mail and implement economic sanctions that'll do diddly squat to the Russian authorities, besides maybe push them into a closer alliance with China.
Honestly, the least they could have done is massed NATO troops in Poland, the Baltics, etc. and kept strategic ambiguity about whether they planned to actually use them (instead of explicitly announcing, like dumbasses, they weren't going to get involved in any way that would bother Putin).
> It's entirely possible, especially given recent events, that Trudeau decides it's politically expedient to get involved directly in some meaningful way....I'd give this about a 0.001% chance of happening, maybe less.
Definitely less. IMHO, if they were going to have to get involved, they would have needed to have been moving troops and equipment for quite some time. I don't think they've done that.
Tangentially: Russian Federation and PRC never should have gotten the P5 seats. The USSR's P5 veto should require unanimous consent of former Soviet republics, and ROC's P5 veto should still be with ROC.
Wasn't that the intel estimate on how long it'd take Russia to take over? I saw Biden's statement that he was sending thoughts & prayers while he watched this and would talk it over with world leaders tomorrow. Since the last few rounds of sanctions did nothing after Crimea, I don't see this changing things.
The territory is relatively easy to overrun with speed - the defensible choke point is on the wrong side of Ukraine (for the Ukrainians). It is only occupation that can prove to be difficult, or even intractable.
It's been 1 day, they're already in Kyiv and discussing surrender. I don't know the future, but it looks like the rest of the world had their pants down on this one so far, which seems surprising given the repeated warnings something was going down.
By the time there is a real response, it's looking like this may be over. Given that their urgency was "I'll talk to world leaders about what to do tomorrow" rather than "let's enact the plan we already prepared during the weeks of warnings" I think we know which way things are headed.
Russia is a openly currupt oligarchy dictator state and China runs slave camps and genocides. It seems to pretty much just be helping the US or the EU at this point. Honestly I would say EU over us in a ideal world, probably.
Nuclear proliferation, like it or not, has done more for global peace than US military/trade hegemony. Ukraine gave up all its nukes in the 90s which is why this is happening now.
Of course. You would have to be insane to agree to denuclearize at this point; it's clear that this is the only strategy to avoid being steamrolled by US/Russia/China.
What I do see is a promise made by both the US and Russia to "[r]efrain from the threat or the use of force against [...] Ukraine." So Russia definitely broke the promise, and I don't see where the US broke it.
The US would not retaliate militarily if Russia used nuclear weapons against Ukraine. That is not part of US nuclear doctrine. Ukraine is not a treaty ally.
There are 6 things on the list. This one is the closest to promising to defend Ukraine:
>Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
I don't know exactly what "Seek immediate Security Council action" means. What if the US seeks it and doesn't find it? Is that in compliance with the memorandum?
While that is technically correct based on the UN Charter, it's meaningless in practice. None of the permanent Security Council members are willing to take direct action on this issue.
# 1 Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
#2 Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.
Both violated in the Krimean annexion 2014. Since Russia could easily violate this treaty, they could easily invade Ukraine now. And they got no weapons from signatories, only a few from the Baltics.
Treaties with these signatories are not worth the paper, otherwise Ukraine would have kept the nukes, and would have somehow got the codes also eventually.
The premise is not just that nukes are a deterrent against nuclear warfare, but also that nukes are a deterrent against conventional warfare. I'm not sure any country except israel is super explicit about this (cf Samson Option) but presumably the implicit or quietly explicit threat is there.
It's funny, or maybe sad, how so many people did not see this coming. All the propaganda and social engineering to get Biden associated with Ukraine so that when he tried to throw his hat in the ring, his own country will be alarmed.
Going to end up looking like a fucking 9000 IQ play by Russia here, but hopefully the world proves me wrong.
I live in Montenegro. The country was part of Yugoslavia.
I spoke with a guy who fought that war. I asked him "do you think the war would have ended without American intervention?" and he responded "no, I don't think it would".
I wouldn't describe the country as a blooming economy, but it's peace here, for more than 20 years and counting.
> in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Afghanistan again, Iraq, Syria, and others, one or more parties in the conflicts had nukes.
I don't care about the other parties in the conflict. Nukes stop you from getting invaded, not from invading. Afaik, none of these countries were nuclear when they got steamrolled.
The original argument was that nuclear proliferation has brought peace. Even if you argue that it has brought peace to countries that own nukes, you'd be wrong. Israel does not have peace. USA does not have peace. Russia does not have peace. Argentina tangled with the UK despite the UK's nukes. The Taliban has no fear of USA nukes.
It does a lot for global peace right up until our extinction. We don't need thousands of nukes to maintain deterrence. We should reduce our nuclear stockpile to the smallest number that still maintains deterrence.
Seems like an exageration. Do you think any country armed with nukes is dominating people as much as British empire, Romans, Mongols did? The fact that Russia (or China with Taiwan and Hong Kong) actually has to fight so hard for one country kind of shows they can't dominate whoever they want.
This reminds me very much of the slow motion train wreck leading into WWII. Germany had to fight hard in the same kind of political way back then, too. That was obviously pre-nuke. It takes a long time to build the many (logistical, psychological, political) facets required to lead your country down this path. With or without nukes.
To answer your question, yes. A country with nukes is dominating people as much as the British empire, Romans, and Mongols did? How is that even a serious question? With military forces spread through Korea, Japan, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Poland, Lithuania, Arizona, Alaska, Dominican Republic, Cuba, you name it. From sea to shining sea, then another sea and another sea.
This is happening because the sanctions put in place on Russia during the Trump admin were undone haphazardly by Biden. Russia is moving strictly because it knows it has the EU by the short hairs on energy and after the afghanistan exit the US is in a very strategically weak position.
We should be grateful Ukraine does not have nukes. 12 hours ago the world might've gotten 4000C hotter if they did.
It's certainly different from Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was preceded by an attack by Al Qaeda on New York City. The attack by Russia on Ukraine is completely unprovoked.
I'm not aware of Ukraine kicking out weapons inspectors from known previous WMD sites, or bluffing about having CBRN weapons. The invasion of Iraq was bumbling and based on piss-poor intelligence, but the belief in a threat wasn't groundless. https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/World/Global-Ne...
The current Russian claims about Ukraine, however, do appear groundless, based on the consensus of international media.
The belief in a threat was manufactured by cherry-picking any weak scraps of intelligence that could be assembled into a believable marketing pitch for an invasion. Your average mouthbreathing intel analyst wouldn’t recommend invading a taco stand based on the shady sources and thin reporting used to justify this war.
Although I am certainly not well informed, as I could not predict this scale of military operation, I'd like to say that "consensus of international media" is not worth much at times of war. Because I feel like there is never a lot of disagreement in media during such crises. Maybe after, when the situation calmed.
It's a closer match than Afganistan at least, although I don't think that Ukraine under Zelenskyy is remotely similar to Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Let's hope that Ukraine backfires on Russia at least as severely as Iraq did on the US.
I also feel like I'm being obvious here: Al Qaeda was sheltered by Afghanistan during and after the attack on NYC. (I agree that there were essentially no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.)
Actually reminds me a lot of the run up to Iraq ca 2003, which was a disaster for all involved. Who in the world looks at the US invasion of Iraq and thinks it was a good idea that should be emulated?
What you're witnessing right now are the deathroes of the dictatorships like Russia and China with its aging leaderships. These dictatorships know that their time is limited; the democratic countries are getting stronger and more united. China, the one dictatorship that is supporting all the other dictatorships like Russia or Iran, is going into the final stages of debt/demographic/economic collapse. This is a pivotal time for the citizens of the free world to fight against these dictatorships.
And you can help by asking your government to sanction China. And stop buying goods from China
I think you're just repeating what the parent comment said. Some big tech companies refuse to work with the American military.
I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I'm conflicted by my own hatred of the American government. At the same time, the obvious consequences of big tech refusing to work with the American military is a relative loss of power compared to countries like Russia.
The US moto is the same as that of the fictional character Peacemaker: "I cherish peace with all my heart. I don't care how many men, women, and children I need to kill to get it."
I would argue the US needs to batten down the hatches and become more isolationist. Let Europe deal with European problems. It's clear from the last 70 years, since WW2, that the US meddling in others' affairs only leads to death, destruction and more negative sentiment against the US.
If LBJ stuck to his promise, we could have avoid a ton of mess in Vietnam: "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
We don't have a dog in this fight.
Edit: Apparently arguing for the US to not get involved in yet another foreign war warrants my comment being flagged.
Many have argued that it was US intervention in WWI that created the economic and political situations that allowed such a bad outcome to take place in WWII.
I'm talking about WWI here and the unintended consequences of US intervention there.
The US getting involved in WWI arguably extended that conflict, the action that made WWII possible, and had many drastic unintended consequences for humanity.
The very short version is this.
* During WWI, there were lots of peace overtures being pushed in Europe because a lot of people were sick of fighting. Because a lot of powerful people were hoping to drag the United States into that relative stalemate, these peace offerings were not taken as seriously as they otherwise would have been.
* Because the US's entrance tilted the scales at the end of WWI so dramatically, Allies were able to enact a little revenge in the Treaty of Versailles and impose punitive and humiliating economic and political measures. Rather than a normal, face-saving peace-treaty, Germany was punished harshly and this tilting of the scales is what led to conditions for the Nazis to take power.
* If Russia's economic and political attention wasn't directed externally at the time, it's likely the Russian Revolution would have failed and the world would have been spared a great deal of grief from Communism.
Obviously this is all alternative history speculation, but there's a strong case to be made that absolute US neutrality in WWI would have ended WWI sooner, not created the economic/social conditions that led to Nazis taking power in Germany, and Communists would have never taken root.
Russia is intentionally hyping up the risk of nuclear war and WW3.
Western leaders should impose total sanctions on Russia but also calm their own populations that there will not be any military confrontation with Russia.
I suspect that it is in fact acceleration of China's plans to resolve the Taiwan Situation that triggered this whole Ukraine crisis.
It's like the run-up to WWI. Everybody can see which way the wind is blowing. Once you are sure that war is inevitable, the best strategy is, unfortunately, to grab what you can.
The west can't do anything to stop China from incorporating Taiwan. The only thing stopping China is that they are not fully prepared yet, they will be in a few years however.
> The west can't do anything to stop China from incorporating Taiwan.
Who knows, I certainly don't. Except, I believe that Taiwan is much more important to the rest of the World than Ukraine, (no disrespect intended towards Ukraine). Also, Taiwan has been preparing for this longer and not sure but it seems they have better equipped and prepared military. Then there's the matter of about 100 miles of Taiwan Strait between them..
Probably because if they're not ready, the United States may take military action or economic retailion. Probably they're playing it extra safe and would rather not put their bigger long term goals at any unnecessary risk.
China is very happy with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But they will not subordinate their long-term strategy on Taiwan to Russian goals; Xi will stick to "slowly slowly catchee monkey". He is not a military opportunist, as Putin has shown himself to be.
Updates from Russia today:
- City centers are blocked by policy to prevent protests/marches
- Arrests of people at protests
- Volgograd airport has been closed
- Russians lining up at banks to withdraw cash, bank limits put in place midway through the day
"More than 150 senior Russian officials have signed an open letter condemning Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine as 'an unprecedented atrocity' and warning of 'catastrophic consequences'."
russian military never been in direct full scale fight with Ukrainian forces before till this morning, they have no idea where they got themselves into and what is coming to them - we will bury them all! every single one of them
Our time to fight back has come - Glory to Ukraine! Слава Україні!!!
update: dont get me wrong, true Russians are against this war, I have alot of friends in Russia and they ALL sending me messages of support - мы поможем вам стать свободными, братья!
I'm not happy that (my) Western governments are not fighting with the Ukrainians after seeing them invade the Middle East - Iraq (false flag WMDs) and Afghanistan (ok they were harboring terrorists, but pointless operation).
This would seem like the right thing to do, but apparently it isn't. I have a feeling that sometime in the future, we will look back at this as an oppertunitly where we could have stopped Russia.
The US was an occupier of Afganistan. The US agreed to a withdrawal in exchange for a truce with the Taliban under the previous administration, which was honored by the next administration.
This is an invasion of a peaceful country by its neighbor. They are complete opposites.
I’m sure if you ask public servants in Afghanistan and Russia, they’ll both agree that they have the overwhelming support of the citizenry and any statements to the contrary are obviously lies.
Russia argues that it's defending the self determination of ethnic Russians in the Ukraine.
Maintaining the current borders does not advocate for self determination. War might not either, but the Ukraine isn't going to give up that land peacefully
First, it's not exactly clear that those ethnic Russian regions wish to be ruled by the Russian state. Second, Russia is in the midst of a full-blown invasion of all of Ukraine, and Putin has claimed that all Ukrainians are in fact Russians:
And were the Taliban, a democratically elected regime? Granted, they were (are?) less corrupt that the government that the US had installed, but they don't represent the interests of the people of Afghanistan, either.
Al-Queda attacked New York city unprovoked. Not an invasion and not defending US, just that it was not American expansionism that led to invasion of Afghanistan. US has no interest in imperialism.
> just that it was not American expansionism that led to invasion of Afghanistan
US presence, aka expansionism in the MENA region, was very much the declared motivator for AQ and OBL. Thus the demands were also to pull US troops out of these countries, those demands already existed before 9/11.
The US rather prefers to vassalize countries instead of straight up annexing as it used to, like with Hawaii or Texas.
Already got enough states trying to take care of and some territories existing in weird places, so I doubt there is much incentive to add even more of that, except maybe Cuba.
From Hungary with deep shame because of our traitor government. There are many of us that are deeply disturbed with what is happening, and our government is not representative of all of us.
Many of us are trying, trust me. Things got out of hand here, big time. If the next election is lost, I will go through half of my life (20 years!) under the rulership of one single person.
Putin has no need to invade Hungary. Orban already rules the country with an iron fist and is very eager to play Putin's fiddle, I suspect. Romania has more to fear than Hungary.
The time our election comes, the Ukraine conflict will likely be mostly over, at least there would be nothing to stop serious Russian movement. We will have an election with russian toys lying around just over the border, while our foreign minister prodly wears his pledge of "Friendship", given by Lavrov himself. I really hope we will not be "liberated" once again.
Ukrainians who are looking to emigrate (temp or perm) will be handled with speed if they're applying for a UK endorsement for moving here https://technation.io/visa/
> Ukraine should be annexed by Russia because "Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness, its certain territorial ambitions represents an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and, without resolving the Ukrainian problem, it is in general senseless to speak about continental politics". Ukraine should not be allowed to remain independent, unless it is cordon sanitaire, which would be inadmissible.
Finland gets the next worst treatment, simply saying it should be “absorbed”.
Interesting that it says military action is to be avoided and that Russia should use it’s natural resource dominance to extract concessions from other countries.
I feel so pessimistic and angry right now. What i can do is only making best wishes to Ukraine people, wish the Ukraine soldiers are tough enough to expel Russian army.
Putin's Russia is committing a civilizational suicide.
Soon we will turn into a North Korea, completely isolated from the world, with no high-tech industry, and the only major "ally" being China. Lots of human potential will be wasted forever.
This will last for 10-15 years, then Putin dies (he's not immortal). I don't see Russia being chained to China forever, so I think we are bound to repeat the process of re-opening to the world -- the same process we went through in the 1990s.
I have pretty good chances of spending my entire remaining life in this predicament.
The interesting thing is that this wouldn’t have happened if the US hadn’t gotten rid of Ukraine’s nukes and promised to protect them after they got rid of them.
US, and UK and Russia never agreed to "protect" Ukraine in exchange of their nukes, but that they won't attack them. US and UK didn't broke it, Russia did. But it's arguable that this deal was ever good for Ukraine, only for Putin so far.
I know many people who have escaped Ukraine over the last century. I say escaped, because for most of the last hundred years the Ukrainian people have been in a vice. Their culture, society and history have been gradually erased. The expats I know who left a few generations ago don't consider recent generations of Ukrainian peoples to even be Ukrainian. Russia has been bitterly grooming their neighbor ever since they were divorced in the fall of the USSR, but even before that, too.
It's all so sad. Beyond the deaths, turmoil, economic destruction, if Putin sees this through then an entire nation will have been erased. Erased!
I don't want a world war, but we must ask ourselves when is it worth risking sacrifice of that which is personal. When the next nation is consumed? When it's too late?
I recently worked with some really lovely peers from that region, from Ukraine. I wish I could teleport them somewhere else.
As a US Army 19k (m1a1 crewman) stationed in Germany in the 80’s and 90’s, this is the fight we trained for incessantly. A horde of then soviet armor; we had A10s, Apaches, javelins, all that built just for this. No sane person courts war, but as old tanker I’m kinda sad it went to the Ukrainians, and not us.
It's like he was just waiting for Merkel to leave the office. Really weak response from NATO. Not even advanced arms supply apart from some token donation. Afghanistan withdrawal seem to have emboldened a lot of global players.
Are there any good verified resources of primary targets for bombings in different countries? E.g. I live in Berlin and would like to know in the worst case which places are most likely to be bombed. Similar for other places I'm curious about.
There's bases and critical equipment outside of major cities, and some major cities are more critical than others. Further, even in a city like London or Berlin it's unlikely to get the whole city - the aim would be for important targets and places further from any of those are likely much safer.
Why can't the western nations seaze all assets of the oligarchs. For example take their super yachts and drive them out to sea and blow them up as a symbolic gesture?
Take control of all their appartments etc. Drive all russians out of their countries (yes it will hurt "normal" russians but so what, this is war, maybe they would start to think about their leaders a little bit more).
Does anyone wish for or expect that? We saw people go up against tanks during the fall of the soviet union, but it's rare. If Russian people have such a mindset it should be entirely their own decision. Let's not speculate.
"Protecting Donetsk and Luhansk" literally means sending troops into Ukrainian territory to fight against the Ukrainian military. That's called an invasion.
EDIT: though the wording might still be significant. If the question is worded "Should Russia support the sovereign, Russia-aligned republics of Donetsk and Luhansk", that might poll significantly differently from a question that's worded "Should Russia invade Ukraine" even though both mean the same thing. Just like how >50% of Americans answer "no" to the question of "Should schools in America teach Arabic Numerals" because they're misled by the question, not because they're opposed to teaching people about numbers.
Donetsk and Luhansk have declared independence, and Russia has recognised them. Secession is not a new phenomenon; Texas seceded from Mexico. Several regions seceded from the former Yugoslavia, and were rapidly recognised (and reinforced militarily) by western countries.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to argue that Russia is not invading Ukraine, but rather supporting the Donbas republics. I mean, I don't agree; and I think there's a fair chance that Russia will invade Ukraine, and install a puppet. But they haven't done it yet. I suspect that for the next few weeks, they'll restrict themselves to air and missile attacks on Ukrainian military installations, with troops-on-the-ground restricted to Donbas.
Beyond a few weeks, who's to say? No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
Not sure if this has been shared, but Yuval Harari, eloquently explains why everyone should care about this, the first invasion of a democratic peaceful country in my memory
Our collective cowardice and inability to avoid repeating mistakes of the past (Poland) will come back to bite us in the ass. "But, but he has nukes!" - sure, and he'll still have nukes if/when they invade Poland, Romania, and the rest of Europe too - so let's just give him a pass.
Next we'll give China a pass when they "take back" Taiwan.
This is a tragedy. This is what we get for enabling weak willed leaders and appeasers. People like to joke when basketball players go and visit dictatorships and companies do business with mass murderers. Well here is the result. Another war and more death. We need to have zero tolerance for these psychopathic dictators and their families. Full embargoes. Isolate them to their tiny hell holes and never let them leave.
Fuck the "economy". Freedom is the most important thing, how many more millions need to die before we understand this?
In the recent video where Putin gathered some officials to discuss intel, you could see them stuttering and fumbling their speech. It seems Putin is pulling all the strings and that even higher ranks are puppets. Potentially a lever.
> While the meeting was presented as a “live” event, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, one of the advisors, was wearing a watch showing that the event was recorded five hours before, thus placing it before the “governments” of the regions asked for recognition.
also what no one noticed, i don't think, is how putin takes off his wrist watch at the beggining of the speach from his right wrist -- as there seem to be camereras to his right, and faces it towards him and away from any camera view. the watch stays there for the whole sessions, turned away from the camera on the right.
A quarter of the EU's grain imports come from Ukraine, and they're a big supplier to Turkey and the rest of the Middle East and Africa. Germany also depends on Russian gas.
None of that matters though, Putin is at war with us. We should wake up and go to war with him back, something we've avoided. Wars are costly, but this one doesn't have to cost lives. NATO isn't going to send troops into Ukraine, but we should economically shut down Russia. Kick them off Swift, close the gas and oil pipelines. Eat the cost.
Germany's gas infrastructure is much better integrated to the rest of Europe now than it was a few years ago, and the EU has extensive emergency reserves. We're also coming out of winter soon. We'll just have to buy more cereal from the US. Prices will go up, jobs will be impacted, but solders won't be dying. Not yet. If we don't bite the bullet and accept the pain now, this is only going to get worse. What's next, Georgia? Kazakhstan? Finland isn't in NATO. If China sees we're soft on Russia, what does that mean for Taiwan?
We need to wage all out economic war. The cost of doing nothing has gone up, and up, and up. How high are we prepared to see it go?
Unfortunately is not your choice, same as was no choice for Korean, Vietnamese or Afghanistan people. These 2 big superpowers like to piss on each other using somebody's else land.
> Biden praying for victims of 'unprovoked' attack
I think there should be a line added to the press codices of this world to never ever let this kind of meaningless "thoughts and prayers" line be transported. A politician should not even put it in their press releases, knowing that nobody will print it.
As a citizen, thoughts and prayers might be all you can do.
As a politician, it's your damn job to do things. Thoughts and prayers won't cut it.
China already stated they support Russia 100% because they need Russia to defend against the west. There was a document posted by Chinese media yesterday stating how to censor Russia content. Anything pro Russia to be promoted and anything against to be scrubbed.
Edit: This was screen grabbed from Weibo which was posted by Horizon News. (sorry got the wrong news agency)
China's ambassador to UN Security Council today, 45 minutes after the invasion, basically said "we call on all parties to stop escalations and proceed diplomatically." (no shit) Honestly, I'm baffled that this type of trite platitude makes it into the highest important discourse in the world, but here we are, for insane political shirking reasons.
EDIT: China now calling West to blame for situation and there isn't an invasion.
If anyone had any doubts as to the morality of Chinese leadership these days...
China has said Russia should respect Ukrainian territory publicly.
Personally I guess they will support Russia via trade and not partake in sanctions.
Form this I feel the west has to put tariffs or reduce trade on nations that trade with Russia for maximum effect. It could also be a useful way to rebalance the trade with China which is the aim of some western governments.
China is also in a bind as if they recognise the break away regions this gives political credit to Taiwan's independence. From this I suspect they will continue to publicly offer Ukrainian support, and appear as the peace makers, but do little in actual effect.
The problem is, he really is mad and has thousands of nukes.
The self induced detachment from reality like Angela Merkel suspected in 2014.
In reality a corrupt second class paranoid ward boss of a corrupt second class paranoid former major power.
With thousands of nukes.
And he probably thinks his time is running out to establish a Russian empire in his lifetime.
Despite thousands of nukes.
Do you recognize the repeating pattern above?
Thousands of nukes.
So yes, he will use nukes if there is no other option left.
There will be a Russian Empire or there will be nothing.
Your choice.
Pray some fraction from the Russian power apparatus eliminates him in time.
But I doubt, there is anyone left, not infected by the same illusion.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was looking for a little while like the West might make peace with Russia. In the post collapse of the Soviet Union, Billionaire Oligarchs emerged that controlled most of the business and finance while the Russian population was extremely poor.
When the Russian judicial system went after a few of them, and specifically Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the US immediately started to sanction Russia.
Since then I've lived through years of the West accusing Russia of interfering in democracy, and just endless nonsense propaganda, like blaming Putin for Trump winning the election. Zero self reflection on them interfering in Russia.
While I support Ukrainian independence, I understand why Putin would freak out about having a hostile neighbour backed by the West and capable of installing weapon systems within close Range of Moscow.
I'm neither Russian or American but you're seeing through tinted glasses.
Russia's direct interference through social media over the past decade has paled in comparison to... what, indirect interference of supporting a neighbor who wants independence?
If everyone around you would rather associate with the other side of the planet, maybe you have to take a look at yourself. Russia is not equipped for such introspection and self-driven reform. Joining NATO is not remotely equivalent to annexation.
This is how their propaganda explains it. But in reality why on Earth would West want to attack Moscow?! What would West gain from that?! And just because of "his personal fears" he decided to invade an independent country. That's an is indefensible act of terrorism.
I was hoping that the whole thing was one big case of Russia trolling West for whatever reasons. Now I see that Putin just went insane and acts like a mad dog.
It appears that Putin is a psychopath. He said that Ukraine is run by narcomans and fashists (obviously a total nonsense) and that he fears NATO presence in nearby countries and he doesn't "feel" safe. He said that disintegration of the Soviet Union was biggest mistake in history and he would like it back. He violated earlier agreements and attacked Ukraine while giving fictional propaganda reasons. It started on the east, where higher concentration of pro-russion rebels lived. But despite not having real reasons he attacked Ukraine as a whole. After he lied that it was just an exercise and they won't start the attack. He is a mad terrorist and his brain processes can't easily be explained. Maybe he feared that Ukraine would join NATO and EU and that Russian people would see that ukrainians can live a better life and prosper more and didn't want this to happen. Or maybe he was mad about economic stagnation of Russia and their incompetence so he wanted to show the world that he still has power. Maybe this idiot wants to provoke world war III... Only he knows.
Does Putin care about possible NATO expansion? Probably yes because he can't push NATO countries around so easily. And he really likes to push countries and people around to do what he wants them to do.
Think about it, he likes power so much that he has made himself the de facto dictator of Russia. People opposing him get murdered or jailed, or murdered in jail. He really likes power. He is said to be world's richest man. He loves money and power very much we can tell from his actions. If he can get more power he will take it.
I am curious, what do Russians think of this. Does anyone support him? Is it completely just one maniac with his friends running this.
Is his propaganda that effective that Russians agree with any of it. I think if anyone can stop him, it has to be ordinary Russians. I don’t see sanctions or warnings from Biden or EU doing anything. And they will never directly step in and protect the Ukranian people.
It's complicated, because the government position on it is a few 'valid' concerns backed up with a lot of irrelevant bullshit about long-dead history. Practically, nobody is going to be stopping this. By deciding on sanctions, everyone in the west made it clear that it doesn't want to fight a war, and the regime is currently too secure to be threatened by internal dissent.
The best realistic outcome at the moment is something similar to what happened to Georgia - occupation of the two territories, a referendum, annexation, and an end to the proxy war.
Whether we are going to get that outcome, or something worse, is, of course, unclear.
A Russian here under a throwaway account. I've seen very few open supporters of the military invasion on social media. But most Russians, reached by TV or social media propaganda, carry on 3-5 factoids regarding Ukraine that somehow invalidates Ukrainian position completely.
For example, just from today's talk (face-to-face):
* that Ukrainian forces supposedly committed crimes in Donbass region -- when I ask who in particular and how, these people fail to answer. When I say that they had full right to suppress armed riot of Girkin & co, they switch the topic.
* that the government were illegally overthrown in 2014. I challenged that with the fact that Yanukovich's own party voted to introduce an president interim and start new elections.
Both times I pushed the interlocutor and asked if I lied, and they have nothing to say, nor have more facts, but jump between topics all the time, switching from facts to questions -- like "did they start living better?" or "what about those who died in Odessa protest?" I guess this demagogy is enough for those who want to justify their stance, and to claim own moral superiority.
I asked if they support the invasion, and they say they don't. I'm sure they'll have to make up their mind, but I'm afraid people can choose whatever more convenient to feel ok.
A recent sociological surveys made in January showed about half of population being on Putin's side, even 40% of those in political opposition to him. Sociologists confronted people with evidence of Russian military buildup, and respondents usually answered that this was "Western propaganda" and tried to avoid further discussion.
I can't read minds of the elites and secret service generals who constitute the Security Council, but it seems this is partially what they think -- secret services are very suspicious of everyone and treat everything as a threat. This leads to believing in conspiracies, and justifies agression.
As for me and many others who value the open world borders and don't want back to USSR, I'm most worried that we're going to be under severe sectoral sanctions, with many industries in serious crisis, like in the 1990s.
Now, I forgot to mention that all this "they're bad" sentiment is part of so-called post-imperial syndrome. Many are really dissentful.
Also, I'm old enough to remember the popular dissent with the USSR in the late '80s. We as kids would repeat the adults' discussions about how bad the country was, and our parents weren't political dissidents at all, just common dwellers, absolutely non-ideologized. Many wanted friendship with the West. Only very ideologized communtists wanted to keep the status quo when the USSR collapsed, and obviously even secret services where Putin served wanted to open the country and the economy and did not resist the collapse, nor support the GKChP coup.
The economic crisis of the '90s and the war in Yugoslavia where what changed people's minds. I remember seeing a woman carry a white plastic bag with large US flag on it, probably in 1991 or 1992, but that became unthinkable in 1999-2000. Even a liberal pro-Western TV presenter Parfyonov showed some sort of dissent in his historic program when he described the events of 1991.
Those years many changed their minds about the past, and went all way from complete discontent with the communist regime to believing that it was good and that it was destroyed intentionally.
Putin has been busy cracking down hard on any descent for the past two years of his bunker dwelling. This round included not only the usual opposition organizations but independent news orgs and even the elites. I believe whatever his plans are it’s been at least a few years in the making
Russians (some of them, to clarify) associate the current Ukrainian regime with Nazism/fascism. After all, far right groups were a major part of the 2014 revolution/putsch.
Why are you saying that? Not all Russians are brainwashed by state propaganda. I think very few Russians who read Hackernews actually support what is going on right now, if any.
To be honest, me and all of the people around me thought that this is too crazy to happen, but here we are.
This reminds me of "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup":
> What I mean is – well, take creationists. According to Gallup polls, about 46% of Americans are creationists. Not just in the sense of believing God helped guide evolution. I mean they think evolution is a vile atheist lie and God created humans exactly as they exist right now. That’s half the country.
> And I don’t have a single one of those people in my social circle. It’s not because I’m deliberately avoiding them; I’m pretty live-and-let-live politically, I wouldn’t ostracize someone just for some weird beliefs. And yet, even though I probably know about a hundred fifty people, I am pretty confident that not one of them is creationist. Odds of this happening by chance? 1/2^150 = 1/10^45 = approximately the chance of picking a particular atom if you are randomly selecting among all the atoms on Earth.
You could live in a circle that unanimously opposes the war, and still be in a country that's 60% for it.
Thing is, given the propaganda machine in Russia and the lack of free (even non-guvernamental) organizations we can't really tell if that percentage is 6% or 60%.
Russians who read HN are probably in the minority though, right?
And yeah not everyone listens to propaganda, and there is going to be a lot of diversity of opinion, but propaganda does work and a large percent of the population are going to get duped.
Corollary (because I’m not sure I was explicit enough): propaganda most certainly has worked on me without my even realizing, a great many times I am sure, and it most certainly has worked on you as well, dear HackerNews reader. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you’re immune, or too clever.
I say this with much affection and no presumption: I think Russian nationals on HackerNews are probably not a representative sample of Russian nationals generally speaking.
Yes, that’s what I said and meant. I was only more specific because the context was more specific. There was no intended suggestion that this would not also be the case for other nationalities.
"Yes/No" support is a bit of an over-simplifaction of the situation.
There's two major axes, here.
The government is pushing the 'Ukranian neo-nazis' propaganda, because it's a convenient bullshit excuse (as is all the spilled ink in Putin's essay about long-dead history). Some soft-headed people obviously believe that wholesale. What isn't an excuse, though, is that Ukraine did take steps to restrict its Russian minority. Many Russians who don't swallow the neo-nazi nonsense are sympathetic to that view on the situation (for, uh, obvious nationalistic reasons).
Now, whether or not sympathy for that is sufficient grounds to do nothing and respect Ukrainian sovereignty, to prosecute a proxy war, a limited war, or a full war all depends on how much of a warhawk you personally are.
My highly unscientific feeling is that public support rests somewhere north of 'most Russians believe that Ukraine has been repressing Russians, and would support a proxy war', and somewhere short of 'drive the fascist swine out - prosecute a full war and occupation of Kiev'.
Take steps like completely restricting Russian language in schools, public spaces, TV, etc? Considering that 100 years ago Ukrainian language was a dialect for peasants, that’s quite a leap. Communists started “rooting” - korenization - program in 1920s when Russians were wholesale written as Ukrainians in their ID papers, another 20 years of these steps and there will be no Russians left in Ukraine, same thing happened to Turks in Bulgaria. People remember and the current regime in Kiew is controlled by ultra-nationalists from Volyn and Galicia, with their worship of Bandera, OUN/UPA and the rest of the scum. When they came to power during Maidan, people hear the chant all the time - “Moskalyaku na gilyaku”. Do you know what it means?
Yes, thank you for making the point about how Russians may be sympathetic to that direction.
But exactly how many people are you ready to kill over your sympathies? Could you give a ballpark order of magnitude estimate? 10? 100? 10,000? [1] 100,000?
On a scale of cultural repression, I can't say that this situation elicits even a small fraction of sympathy from me as what's going on with say, the Uyghurs in China.
Current regime — is a Russian speaking comedian Vova Zelenskiy (who is a Jew) and his party, which won elections. There is no nationalist party in Ukrainian parliament.
There is Russian language in public spaces and TV. There are more then 600 schools with Russian language of instruction.
"Dialect for peasants" has its roots in Ruthenian language, that was a main language in Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
And no, Russians were not written wholesale as Ukrainians, anyone who can check Soviet records can attest that.
>> people hear the chant all the time - “Moskalyaku na gilyaku
Well, if they would listen to Russian TV, they would hear that.
Thanks, down voters! The world remembers how US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan in recent past. Am I forgetting some country here not invaded by US in recent past?
What would happen if the western tech giants decide to shutdown every service in russia? No AWS, no GCP, no peering, etc. I am pretty sure, that most companies in russia rely on western infrastructur in some way. Also it would be pretty hard for russia to keep spreading fake news.
I guess that Putin would loose his remaining following if the smartphones of the population became useless.
I don't think it benefits him either, but maybe he doesn't see that yet. If he starts feeling the losses he could still get out of it by cancelling the military campaign and pursuing diplomacy.
The wheels for this have been in motion for decades. If the US tries to intervene, the right will skewer Biden. Can you imagine the headlines if Biden went to war over Ukraine???
There's never been a better time for Russia to annex it's neighbor, at least since the fall of the Soviet Union.
It's historically accurate, but also entirely irrelevant. All that history is just an excuse.
The reason the Russian government is prosecuting this war is because it is afraid of encirclement. Ukraine's politics shifted westward, which is what prompted it to act.
The changes in language laws, the history, and all the other baggage is just an incredibly convenient excuse that justifies the action. None of it, as an end itself, is enough for most right-thinking people to start a war over.
Ukraine joining Nato is akin to the Cuban missile crisis. Nato is WW3 in the making. It's an idiotic pact that agrees if Russia does anything deemed hostile, they all have to declare war. It's the same stupid type of pact that caused ww1 & ww2. The people pushing it want war with Russia. It will only benefit fat cat oligarchs. You will pay the taxes and you will be doing the dying.
Yandex is way more popular and has all services Google provide. Similarly there are multiple marketplace and Amazon-like companies, one aptly named Ozon.
Russia is also planning on an alternative to SWIFT.
Stupid question, why doesn't NATO extends membership to Russia if it were to match accepted/existing criteria on corruption control, free press, free elections, etc.
Putin never will accept, but Russians surely aren't all Putin's buddies...
From a tech perspective, we should be considering the part we have played in these events.
I’ve come to the conclusion that democracy cannot coexist alongside unfettered propaganda divorced from truth. That is what social media represents - Twitter and especially Facebook - machinery for manipulating people without regard to truth.
Trump and Brexit have greatly harmed the West and their ability to respond to Russian aggression. Both were made possible by the social media companies.
We obviously need governments to step in to heavily regulate or shut down these companies, but their employees should also be asking if they are truly making the world a better place.
What we are seeing on our screens right now is the physical consequences of an asymmetric information war, aided by thousands of software developers earning large salaries.
Witness the internet's finest self decorated armchair field marshals sitting in front of their computer screens strategising with captain obvious on planning in hindsight on HN.
Your master war strategy can never be wrong after the event happened!
What's to stop Putin from doing this again after Ukraine? Serious question, if sanctions don't work and he discovers he can annex whatever he wants using traditional military power - then where does it end?
How do you comment your NATO countries invading half of Middle East and killing 1.5mil people in just 20 years so that your economy could prosper? Did you consider sanctions then?
CCP's statements today makes me believe CCP will watch this and see what response West can muster. If sanctions is the best we can have, then God bless Taiwan because it is harder to sanction CCP effectively.
Thing is, if you don't want to go for Global Nuclear War from the start, then you have to apply graduated sanctions. If you pile in with maximum sanctions as soon as the first bullet is fired, then you no longer have any purchase.
Suppose you apply maximum sanctions over Ukraine? What do you do when Russia decides to attack Poland?
> Might need to consider sanctions with China as well...
No chance in hell our elites will allow that.
We've ignored the Uighurs, we ignored China antagonizing Taiwan, we've ignored China antagonizing the rest of the Asian-Pacific region, we've ignored China lying about COVID, we've ignored China stealing our technology, we've ignored China spying on US politicans.
We've got corporations and universities bending over backwards to partner with China. We have our celebrities apologizing to China and asking everyone to play nice so the elites' meal ticket isn't ruined.
No sanctions of any substance are going to happen.
Who is this "we", that has a responsibility, nay duty, to protect the Uighurs from their own government? It sounds as if "we" must be the Global Police Force, an idea that I find rather frightening.
Bad stuff is happening all over the world; it's been going on forever. It's bad, and we don't like it; but that doesn't mean we all have some kind of moral duty to go to war to try and make things less bad. That would be a recipe for permanent global war.
That was sort of my point, though. The idea that our elites are now going to take a harder line on China for their involvement with Russia is laughable, given what they've turned a blind eye to in the past.
There's too much money on the table for them to risk angering China.
If they reacted too forcefully, that could mean retaliation by Putin and escalation of the conflict into WW3. Do we really want that? As a Belgian citizen, I'd rather not wake up to artillery fire in Brussels...
Sometimes, trying to be nice at first turns into deadly encounters. Sometimes, employing force early means not having to employ even more force later on. Difficult balance I guess.
Did we learn nothing from World War 2? Appeasement doesn't work on someone like this. Only force. The only thing keeping dictators like this in check was the threat of nukes and mutually assured destruction. Apparently that has stopped working. So now what? It's not going to stop with Ukraine.
History has shown that trying to let people like Putin take chunks of land as they please doesn't end well. They don't one day decide, "Yep, that's enough! Sorry for the trouble, lads!"
They see how easy it is and do it again and again until one day they're bombing your home because you're in their territory.
That's just what Russia wants - they are waiting to use all the goodies they found from the SolarWinds attacks. China and Russia are taking America down, IMHO.
Maybe he fears that Ukraine would join EU, NATO and people there would live happier life than people in Russia. And maybe their russian state propaganda is not working as well as they would like in today's interconnected global world. Maybe he is sad that he is getting old. Only he really knows. But IMO he will lose more than gain from this invasion.
I just woke up to this news and I'm wondering if it's possible for Apple and Google to brick all Russian phones? This would probably be more effective on their population at large than any form of sanctions.
Even if it's possible, for Apple, it would be an utterly disastrous thing to do. Imagine the damage to its reputation. If they were to do it in this situation, the argument would go, what about other situations? What about all the phones they sell in China, for example. Are there circumstances where they should brick all US Democrat or Republican phones? It would be the end of Apple, and that's why it would (hopefully, thankfully) never happen.
Parent wasn’t making a slippery slope argument FWIW. They were making a PR argument based on the propensity of the general public to fall for slippery slope arguments.
> Russian tanks and artillery don't use the Google Play Store.
But the wives and children of those who move them do. People in the West don't seem to notice a crucial aspect of modern Russia: extended families of those in charge live in the West. They study in Stanford and Harvard, mingle in Aspen, have holiday homes in the Hamptons. Russia is merely a piggy bank to finance that lifestyle. They are at the mercy of Western governments, because they've turned Russia into a stagnating shithole that even at its best is far below the upper-middle class standard in the West. Without access to Western resources, from mansions in Knightsbridge to accounts on Instagram, all that looted money becomes worthless.
All you need to do is let them sleep in the bed they've made. Freeze bank accounts, confiscate property, deny visas. Make them live that global jet-set lifestyle in Rostov oblast.
As history shows again and again, attacks against the civilian population only serve to strenghten the support for the local tyrant. This would be just as counter-effective as the sanctions.
Both Apple and Google offer remote wiping of devices as features, and they both have root access on all of their devices. They can do whatever they want to on anyone's phone.
OTOH, why does china even allow Apple or Google devices today? Because Chinese people want to purchase these products and at this point there would be pushback if they were suddenly banned.
China doesn't allow Google devices today, Android the open source operating system is allowed but the Google services that make up Google devices are not. China allows Apple devices because Apple collaborates with the CCP, as do all businesses who operate in China.
Again why does china even bother to play ball with Apple? They could just have Xiaomi phones, not worry about apple holding up their own end of their bargain, and ensure they have total control entirely. The answer is because the Chinese consumer today might want to purchase an apple iphone over a xiaomi phone, and it would be unpopular for the regime to crack down on a freedom seen as established in the Chinese nation today.
Just like it would have been unpopular for the regime to ban the most popular search and services company in the world?
I don't know why you think China needs to worry about Apple, Apple has been a faithful and lucrative partner to them. They don't just faithfully collaborate on censorship and cede control of encrypted Chinese iCloud data directly to a state-owned cloud provider, we now know that Apple has signed a $275B omnibus deal with China that includes Chinese startup investments, Chinese worker training, and R&D collaboration with Chinese tech firms. There is no government that Apple invests more into or collaborates more closely with than China's.
Why not just have Xiaomi phones where you have total control? Well, because you can have that and total control over a global tech giant that pours foreign money and technology into your regime. Why not have both?
Targeting the population at large only even has the potential to have an effect in a democracy (and even then it seems plausible it would only create a stronger national sense of an external enemy). I don't understand what you want to accomplish by hurting innocent russians. The strategy so far seems to be to target the economy and ogliarchs, which actually has an effect on decision makers.
Kapersky? If it's running Kapersky it's not running anything that critical. The cyberwarfare capabilities of the US, EU and allies are not to be underestimated, even if they have used more precisely and conservatively than Russia's sphere.
Two US-owned companies remotely accessing peoples' mobile Internet devicces/cameras/personal document storage and disabling them throughout a country that just went to war?
How does that possibly sound in any way like a good idea?
Basically all companies should seize any economic activity in Russia and with Russia. And all of the properties of Russian companies should be nationalized by respective countries and all Russian citizens involved in ownership of those should have their visas revoked and be deported.
Any reclamation or reversals should be only made possible after last Russian soldier leave Ukraine.
They can, but they will not. If they have any direct dealings with the Russian government then they should probably stop (which they probably already have to due to sanctions), but otherwise it's best for large corporations to stay out of geopolitics.
Congratulations! You bring an idea to brick all Russian phones including phones of opposition, people who against the war, political prisoners, and other people who just live in the country.
I don't fault OP for brainstorming ideas, especially since I assume its done with the intent of finding ways to protect civilians, but you point out what is critical here: the west cannot give up on the Russian people. By-and-large they do not support this act of war and the best way to further our interests is to continue to foster a desire for change in them.
If the war is seen as something distant that has no impact at all on the average Russian's life will they actually care about it or will they just ignore it?
To be clear I don't wish anything bad for the general Russian population, among which I have many friends, let alone Putin's opposition. And this may not be the best strategic idea, but it's a possible one that fits the theme of this community - so I think the snarkiness is uncalled for.
Yeah, idk if it would end the conflict exactly. But making more of the citizens there mad about it could help. Let's cut their cable feeds and internet services. I know they have some of their own, but imagine not being able to Google stuff.
What you are suggesting will backfire. IDK why people have such cynical thoughts to make people's life more difficult. Many Russian don't support Putin, so why even try to punish them?
if only the tank's control system ran on ios/android ..jokes aside, doing such a thing would actually galvanize the russian civilian population to support the government.
We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.
This war is about more than just Putin.
Research: George Friedman, Peter Zeihan, John Mearsheimer, Peter Hitchens, Noam Chomsky (more of an ideologue), etc. on this issue. You can start on YouTube OR read their books, I guess.
These are all PhDs or experts in some fashion that I just cited. You could just read their books too.
"F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.
Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy".
Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.
Will the people downvoting this comment mind telling me what is wrong with it? I'm not a Russian apologist, just a fan of history, and am trying to understand why so many people reject this narrative.
edit: Now I am downvoted too just for asking..? This just makes me think that there is not a solid answer?
That's a really literal way of looking at the world. For major decisions, usually there is discussion and understanding (and possibly carrots thrown in) before an application is submitted. It's not like sending resumes into an HR black hole.
This makes some sense, thank you. I still do not know why the original commenter was flagged, it does not sound like his theory is completely ridiculous.
According to that article, Putin wanted Russia to join NATO, but NATO told him "join the queue with all the other countries". Russia argued it should get special treatment (for obvious reasons) but NATO didn't agree with that.
I wonder, how would the world have turned out if NATO had made a different decision here?
(Just to be perfectly clear, I'm not arguing that NATO decisions justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine.)
> --New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.
NATO's founding members in 1949 included Portugal, at the time ruled by a right-wing dictatorship (1926–1974). Turkey and Greece both joined in 1952, and both have gone through periods of brutal military rule even while remaining NATO members. For the majority of NATO's existence, most of these "requirements" you cite have been mere lip service at best.
Many political scientists classify Erdogan's Turkey as an anocracy – a hybrid form of government which is part-way between dictatorship and democracy, mixing elements of both systems. Yet, Turkey remains a full member in good standing of NATO. Putin's Russia is also often classified as an anocracy. Why demand genuine democracy as a condition to join NATO when its current membership includes a state which isn't one? Indeed, according to the Polity data series [0], Putin's Russia is actually more free than Erdogan's Turkey.
Don't get me wrong, democracy is a truly wonderful thing – but if welcoming non-democratic Russia into NATO might have prevented this war, wouldn't that have been a wonderful thing too?
While there was talk of Russia joining NATO prior to the rise of Putin, Putin's specific comments on this matter were just empty political rhetoric done as a throw away sound bite to score a few points, not an actual genuine request to join NATO.
If NATO and its leading members (such as the US) had made a serious overture to invite Russia into NATO – laying out the welcome mat, without imposing any significant conditions, maybe even offering some inducements – would Putin have said No?
My understanding is that no one (serious) is defending Russia, but claiming that Ukraine is a new battleground for the West vs. Russia and that the NATO membership proposal/the 2014 coup was antagonistic like the annexation of Crimea. What is wrong with that claim?
Of course what is happening is tragic. We can all agree it should have been avoided, and I am curious if it could have been avoided.
1) Some parts of the Ukraine (the Crimea and Southern regions of the Ukraine) have a significant pro Russian population, e.g. they wouldn't protest a lot against Russian influence.
2) On the other hand the Western parts of the Ukraine are more EU/Western aligned, hence they don't want to do anything with the Putin's regime.
From Putin's perspective an independent Ukraine is no-no.
And the West isn't willing to start WW3 over the Ukraine.
All of that seems sensible, but I am not sure it clears up my confusion: if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application? If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?
I think that this is the primary argument of people claiming that the USA MIC is partly to blame here. I do not have a good response to it.
Ukraine has made no NATO application (they last had a membership action plan in 2009). They've been told that they would not succeed or meet the criteria currently.
Yah. One can't really let Russia make NATO promise to never let a certain country in. But NATO wasn't really eager to admit Ukraine.
Of course, Ukraine really wanted to be in NATO, for obvious reasons...
Here's the deal, from my standpoint. Russia is declining in relevance.
* Demographically, they're shrinking and aging.
* Economically, post-Crimea sanctions have blunted any growth.
* Trade / exchange--- petroleum becomes less relevant with time.
* Diplomatically, they're already pariahs from many past misdeeds.
* Culturally/socially, they've stagnated as well.
Clawing for land around them-- through proxy conflicts in Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, etc-- offers them a small chance of continued relevance. It's probably not a winning strategy, but it's at least one which could be winning. When you're in a bad situation, if you want to keep playing the game, you need to make the moves that at least could lead to a win.
>if Putin never would have allowed an independent Ukraine, why would NATO reject his demands to reject Ukraine's NATO application?
Euromaidan happened 2013. Putin already lost the Ukraine back then. By annexing the Crimea and sending Russian troops now he is taking the Ukraine back.
I may be mistaken but I think whether the Ukraine was actually joining NATO or not wasn't really relevant in this conflict IMHO.
>If Russia was going to invade anyway, why not at least try to de-escalate and negotiate for a sovereign Ukraine?
For the couples months there were negotiations. Was there a possibility to avoid the current conflict?
I think unless you're the U.S./Russian diplomat it's impossible to answer this question.
We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.
"F* the EU" said Diplomat Victoria Nuland -- knowing full well that the Germans and French would be against a coup in then-neutral Ukraine.
Meanwhile, once again, soon after the Iraq debacle: here we are getting dragged into another "war for democracy".
Russia and America turned Ukraine into a "if we can't have, burn it to the ground" situation. Further American intervention in Ukraine will just turn it into another Syria.
Nobody likes seeing Realpolitik in action. When you have been drip fed ideology about the LIO your whole life, it is very difficult to accept anything else. Unfortunately, today Thucydides wakes. It is unfortunate that international relations is not a part of the engineering curriculum of your typical HN user. Through the lens of realism, Ukraine is but another Cuban missile event. Pretending that joining NATO is a strictly defensive alliance and therefore more morally "right" will not change geopolitical realities. This is a failure of leadership on every side. Media soundbites and cool reprimands were chosen over recognising the harsh truth of Great Power politics. When it becomes more important to be an ardent defender of ideology on tiktok and television than to negotiate and compromise, this is what happens.
Buffer, yes. But the Maidan protests started because Russia made the first power grab. The very openly pro-Russian government of the time had just passed legislation that put Ukraine on a direct path towards becoming what is now Belarus. TBH, if that hadn't happen, we'd just have Ukraine more or less locked by Putin now. So no, we're not talking about a buffer zone, sorry. Not even in the strict military sense - the invasion today came from Belarus as well, and some reports even claim Belarusian troops, not that it matters much. So without that regime change, we'd most likely see Ukraine as part of the Russian Federation in a military capacity as well.
We _had_ a buffer zone until yesterday. NATO was supporting Ukraine without much real intention of having it join, while Russia had Crimea and half of Donbass. This could have gone for decades - see Transnistria, which does exactly the same for Moldova for 30 years.
From his wikipedia page, copy/paste the section "Exile in Russia". Nothing added or deleted:
According to Russian politician Oleg Mitvol, Yanukovych bought a house in Barvikha for $52 million on 26 February 2014.[215]
On 27 February, a report stated that Yanukovych had asked the authorities of the Russian Federation to guarantee his personal security in the territory of Russia, a request that they accepted.[216] Yanukovych claimed that the decisions of the Rada adopted "in the atmosphere of extremist threats" are unlawful and he remains the "legal president of Ukraine". He accused the opposition of violation of the 21 February agreements and asked the armed forces of Ukraine not to intervene in the crisis. The exact whereabouts of Yanukovych when he made this statement remains unclear.[217][218] He later thanked Vladimir Putin for "saving his life".
On 3 October 2014, several news agencies reported that according to a Facebook post made by the aide to the Ukrainian Interior Minister, Anton Gerashchenko, Viktor Yanukovych had been granted Russian citizenship by a "secret decree" of Vladimir Putin.[219] On the same day, Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that he didn't know anything about this.[220]
In 2017, Russian media suggested that Yanukovych is apparently living in Bakovka near Moscow, in a residence owned by Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs.[221][222]
On 26 November 2015, Yanukovych received a temporary asylum certificate in Russia for one year; later extended until November 2017.[223] In October 2017, this was extended to another year.[224] According to his lawyer Yanukovych did not consider acquiring Russian citizenship or a permanent residence permits but "Only a temporary shelter for returning to the territory of Ukraine".[224]
I can only vouch so much, I agree with you. The post may be insightful or irrelevant, but I see no reason it should be flagged. I suppose some view message boards as an information battleground and find it's their duty to maintain a single narrative.
Now do you understand the neo-McCarthyism raging through our country?
If you even say something other than "Putin is Satan" or "Russia bad", you get downvoted to oblivion. Enjoy. Don't bother mentioning the complexities of this situation or once again, you'll be downvoted.
It is pretty wild. When engaging with the same people downvoting you, they do not even seem to disagree with this take violently, but think you are pro-Russia just because you bring up problems with how NATO/the West reacted to this.
We still continued in order to destabilize all of Europe and prevent them from merging Central European industrial capital with Eastern European natural resources. It's the same old policy -- everything else is just bread and circuses.
Well, we still have Russia by the throat, now I just think we shouldn't squeeze so hard that they collapse -- which would lead to a complete and utter destabilization of a huge chunk of the world, and it would be detrimental to our short and long-term interests. Miscreants would take over and have a field day.
The narrative of NATO expansion is a PR meme. It was created by Russians for the 2007 Munich security conference, where Putin made a speech.
NATO is a defensive pact and existing members have always been very hesitant about accepting new members, because it is intended as a cooperation platform between equals and not a substitute for building up own defense force. The initiative to join NATO has always been driven by Eastern European countries seeking to maintain independence and reduce the risk of Russian invasion. Together with EU membership, it's the holy grail of foreign policy.
The referenced Mearsheimer et al are irrelevant. They depict everything as a grand Russia vs USA standoff as if it were a board game, and ignore the delicate histories and current relationships between countries in Europe.
If you are a fan of history, I recommend rejecting grand narratives and reading a general history of every country in Europe. How has Sweden fared in the past 500 years? Why Russians have an inferiority complex with Finns? Why isn't Austria in NATO? The more you read, the more you'll see the complex network of relationships and understand what every country seeks to achieve. To treat all of them as pawns of the US or Russia is unbelivably ignorant. Even countries as small as Iceland have their own foreign policy, and sometimes have a great impact on international relations.
Now the original comment is flagged and gone. I will still leave this reply here because it expands on the original comments claim with more sources than just Wikipedia;
> We then openly backed the 2014 putsch in Kiev, an open act of aggression just as irresponsible as a military incursion. CIA John Brennan, Senator John McCain, and Diplomat Victoria Nuland were there in Ukraine when Yanukovych was being overthrown. There is also evidence to show that we were involved through NGOs in overthrowing and promoting an atmosphere desiring the overthrow of Yanukovych.
This is an aspect to this that way too many people just ignore as "Russian misinformation".
The Orange revolution was a prior US attempt [0] at facilitating a regime-change in Ukraine from pro-Russian politics to pro-Western politics, which failed.
In 2014 there was the next attempt McCain not only riling up protesters [1], but meeting with the future PM Arseniy Yatsenyuk and leader of right-wing militias Oleh Tyahnybok [2] that were the muscle behind the 2014 revolution [3].
Arseniy Yatsenyuk was already declared the US's "man" during the leaked "Fuck the EU Nuland" calls [4], same Victoria Nuland that was literally handing out cookies to Ukrainian protesters [5].
Yatsenyuk wasn't even too shy about these connections; His OpenUkraine foundation's list of partners reads like the who is who of US regime change actors, down to the CIA's a National Endowment for Democracy and literal NATO itself [6].
Tho it was a bit too blatant, so they ended up putting his wife in charge of the foundation and removing the partners list.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine?
And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers, that's why he became a PM, not because Americans have put him there.
> Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not in power since 2016, what that has to do with invasion of Ukraine?
It has to do with the fact that the country has been in a civil war [0] since he came into power after the "revolution of dignity", not only him, but literally Americans who were fast tracked Ukrainian citizenship [1] so they could act as minister.
But a whole lot of people in those East Ukrainian territories liked the old government, they voted for it, and they saw their votes burned in a revolution to be replaced with Americans and people sponsored by them.
Which prompted them to do the same in their parts of Ukraine, leading to the separatists territories and a low to high intensity civil war that has by now been lasting 8 years.
> And only power he got was that in autumn of 2014 his party got a fairly good numbers
In elections where the old party was not even allowed to be voted for anymore, consequently, those elections were boycotted in territories that voted for the old government.
Are you seriously giving me links on this? I was there, I participated in those elections.
Yanukovych was nearing the end of his term, he ordered snipers to shoot at protesters, it was only right for him to step down. The next step was re-elections.
And believe me, people never really liked Yanukovych so much to take arms. The leaders of “separatists” were literal nobodies, nobody knew who they are.
Members of Yanukovych party themselves did not en masse supported separatists.
Second, politicians from Party of Regions participated in both 2014 and 2019 parliamentary elections. Same politicians, top Yanukovych lieutenants, with the same oligarchic sponsors.
Third, those elections were not “boycotted” people still participated, on territory controlled by Ukrainian government.
You were there and then missed the following 8 years of civil war, complete with separatist territories, to now ask "What has any of that to do with the invasion?"?
> Yanukovych was nearing the end of his term, he ordered snipers to shoot at protesters, it was only right for him to step down.
Afaik there was no order for government snipers to shoot protesters, those sniper shots hit protesters and police alike, using hunting cartridges, and the government probe into those shootings was extremely flawed [0]
Just like to this day nobody was ever charged for shooting police officers.
> The next step was re-elections.
As somebody who was apparently there, do you remember who provided "security" for those elections at the Rada?
> The leaders of “separatists” were literal nobodies, nobody knew who they are.
Quite an accomplishment for "nobodies that nobody knows" to be representatives of state parliaments, like that of Crimea.
Putin doesn't care about money - he has all the money he needs. He doesn't also care about welfare of average Russian citizens as long as he can stay within power.
He cares mostly about staying in power and by extension about others perceiving him as a good leader. It is incredibly obvious to me that dictators don't end well when they lose their power. I assume losing power is as bad outcome for Putin, game-theoretically as getting Russia nuked to the ground.
Over the last 30 years Russia was progressively losing ground within its' sphere of influence. Poland, Ukraine even Belarus are slowly fading further and further away. All the context for today we need is the Orange Revolution, Euromaidan and recent protests in Belarus which show high level of anti-russian and pro-western sentiment among society of these countries.
When those countries turn fully pro-western, with relatively wealthier and happier citizenry, it's a matter of days rather than years when the same sentiments will reach Russia, leading to a quick change in Russia's top-level government.
If Putin wants to stay in power, he must convince people in Ukraine and Belarus that it's in their best interest to stay on his side. And lethal force is really the only tool he has at his disposal for it.
So his options really are:
- Hope that he can cling to some remaining bits of power until a reasonably peaceful end of life and be aware that probably soon afterwards Russia will start turning pro-democratic.
- Do whatever is within his control to keep Ukraine and Belarus subdued.
Weighing pros and cons in this particularly hard situation, he must have chosen that option number two has a higher EV to keep him in power for longer. What can happen now:
- (best scenario for the democratic world) Ukrainian forces manage to defend themselves from the offensive. That basically means Russia's collapse as it is today. It's probably in the best interest of many western democracies to maximize the probability of this outcome, but I'm not sure how probable it is really.
- (worst scenario for the democratic world) Ukraine is taken over completely very quickly with minimal Russian cost and loss. World doesn't really have a chance to react. Russia weathers sanctions ok and gets into closer ties with China.
- Russia cripples Ukraine military, the war drags on guerilla-style. Russia manages to successfully occupy part of the country and the rest becomes warzone wasteland. Russia saves face, Ukraine and Belarus and under complete control.
- War drags on and Russian can't continue with the cost of it. Ukraine gets severely weakened but manages some resemblance of independence while Russia occupies only very minor territories. May be enough for Russia to save face, but I would bet not really and it would lead to another scenario where Russian government collapses.
- Western allies get involved in the conflict, but none of the sides decide to use nukes. Russian military will get destroyed and Russian government collapses.
- (worst scenario for the whole world) Western allies get involved in the conflict, and one of the sides decide to use nukes. Humanity's development gets moved back hundreds of years.
- China and Russia are in active cooperation. Russia will keep escalating the war in Europe until one or all western nations engages. On that day China begins offensive on Taiwan and attacks US. WW3 starts.
I believe in most of the countries in the world military command is playing out all of those and many more potential scenarios. I would like to live in more boring times.
Russian forces invade Ukraine with strikes on major cities
By Andrew Osborn
and Natalia Zinets
MOSCOW/KYIV, Feb 24 (Reuters) - Russian forces fired missiles at several cities in Ukraine and landed troops on its coast on Thursday, officials and media said, after President Vladimir Putin authorised what he called a special military operation in the east.
Shortly after Putin spoke in a televised address on Russian state TV, explosions could be heard in the pre-dawn quiet of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.
Gunfire rattled near the capital's main airport, the Interfax news agency said, and sirens were heard over the city.
"Putin has just launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Peaceful Ukrainian cities are under strikes," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on Twitter.
"This is a war of aggression. Ukraine will defend itself and will win. The world can and must stop Putin. The time to act is now."
U.S. President Joe Biden, reacting to an invasion the United States had been predicting for weeks, said his prayers were with the people of Ukraine "as they suffer an unprovoked and unjustified attack", while promising tough sanctions in response. read more
"I will be meeting with the leaders of the G7, and the United States and our allies and partners will be imposing severe sanctions on Russia," Biden said in a statement.
Russia has demanded an end to NATO's eastward expansion and Putin repeated his position that Ukrainian membership of the U.S.-led Atlantic military alliance was unacceptable.
He said he had authorised military action after Russia had been left with no choice but to defend itself against what he said were threats emanating from modern Ukraine, a democratic state of 44 million people.
"Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist with a constant threat emanating from the territory of modern Ukraine," Putin said. "All responsibility for bloodshed will be on the conscience of the ruling regime in Ukraine." read more
The full scope of the Russian military operation was not immediately clear but Putin said: "Our plans do not include the occupation of Ukrainian territories. We are not going to impose anything by force."
Speaking as the U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting in New York, Putin said he had ordered Russian forces to protect the people and appealed to the Ukrainian military to lay down their arms.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said Russia had carried out missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure and border guards, and that explosions had been heard in many cities. An official also reported non-stop cyber attacks.
Zelenskiy said that martial law had been declared and that he had spoken by telephone to Biden. Reservists were called up on Wednesday.
Three hours after Putin gave his order, Russia's defence ministry said it had taken out military infrastructure at Ukrainian air bases and degraded its air defences, Russian media reported.
Earlier, Ukrainian media reported that military command centres in Kyiv and the city of Kharkiv in the northeast had been struck by missiles while Russian troops had landed in the southern port cities of Odessa and Mariupol.
A Reuters witness later heard three loud blasts in Mariupol.
Russian-backed separatists said they had launched an offensive on the Ukrainian-controlled town of Shchastia in the east, Russia's Interfax news agency said, and explosions also rocked the breakaway eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk.
Hours earlier, the separatists issued a plea to Moscow for help to stop alleged Ukrainian aggression - claims the United States dismissed as Russian propaganda.
Global stocks and U.S. bond yields dived, while the dollar and gold rocketed higher after Putin's address. Brent oil surged past $100/barrel for the first time since 2014.
'DECISIVE WAY'
Biden, who has ruled out putting U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine, said Putin had chosen a premeditated war that would bring a catastrophic loss of life and human suffering.
"Russia alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring, and the United States and its Allies and partners will respond in a united and decisive way," he said.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg condemned Russia's "reckless and unprovoked attack" and said NATO allies would meet to tackle the consequences.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, speaking after the Security Council meeting, made a last-minute plea to Putin to stop the war "in the name of humanity'.
Ukraine closed its airspace to civilian flights citing a high risk to safety, while Europe's aviation regulator warned against the hazards to flying in bordering areas of Russia and Belarus.
Russia suspended domestic flights at airports near its border with Ukraine until March 2, its aviation agency said.
Shelling had intensified since Monday when Putin recognised two separatist regions as independent and ordered the deployment of what he called peacekeepers, a move the West called the start of an invasion.
In response to Putin's Monday announcement, Western countries and Japan imposed sanctions on Russian banks and individuals but held off their toughest measures until an invasion began.
The United States stepped up the pressure on Wednesday by imposing penalties on the Russian firm building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and its corporate officers.
Germany on Tuesday froze approvals for the pipeline, which has been built but was not in operation, amid concern it could allow Moscow to weaponise energy supplies to Europe.
Please don't take HN threads further into hellish flamewar. This is the last thing we need here, and with comments like this one, what chance is there to avoid it?
The propaganda is a rescue operation not no invasion at all: I've already seen "Russian operation to protect people from Kiev regime" headline on an Indian news site.
That's been the narrative since the beginning, except for the big long stretch of Putin’s recent speech where he blamed the problem on the USSR, and Lenin and Stalin specifically, for existence of Ukraine as a modern polity occupying land that, in Putin’s view, is rightfully Russian.
You don’t understand, they are “nazi” because they are nationalists and support their country. So Russian nazis are going to attack Ukrainian nazis do “denazificate” them.
Azov battalion is full-on white nationalist neo nazi and they’re a large and legitimate player in this war. And they’ve been wiped off the map tonight. I guess it depends on your definition of a made up word but I’d certainly call it denazification.
NATO (the US) is funding Nazi nationalists that wear swastika tattoos and think Bandera was good. They are doing this because Ukrainians don't want a civil war, so it's hard to find people to fight and die. Therefore, we pick the moderate rebels as we are so fond of doing.
I just learned about the Azov battalion about 15 minutes ago, but I can't find any sources online that indicate them having more than a few hundred volunteers.
The US has a knack of dumping weapons on countries and having those weapons eventually end up in the hands of reactionaries, but I think at present those reactionaries make up a vanishingly small fraction of the weapons recipients.
Azov was folded into the military proper as a precondition of securing western military aid, as the Ukrainian government needed to be able to show proper chain of command to get help and Azov wanted the shells, so they came to an agreement to integrate.
But these hardcore Azov guys are anarchists by nature and a lot of them hate the Ukrainian government as much as they hate the separatists, so they still act independently without having to answer to the government. Some did eventually just merge into the military.
Putting a number on the size today of Azov is difficult because of how the two melded together. Some people joined Azov because they just wanted to help fight and didn’t care about the neo nazi stuff. Some are true believers. But one thing for certain is that it’s not some fringe group that exists on Wikipedia only.
> Putting a number on the size today of Azov is difficult because of how the two melded together. Some people joined Azov because they just wanted to help fight and didn’t care about the neo nazi stuff. Some are true believers. But one thing for certain is that it’s not some fringe group that exists on Wikipedia only.
This might be true, but it's not evidenced by the video. The video documents two independent groups, one of whom (the first) look like they might belong to Azov. I counted 7 people at the most.
OTOH, it's clear (from the end of the video) that there are protests in Kiev itself with reactionary (or at least hypernationalist) themes. It's not clear to me where the line is on those, probably because I'm not Ukrainian. But those protestors are in the capital.
In sum, it's not clear to me that we should discount NATO's current arms distribution because one of two groups in a video from 2019 has far-right members, members who cut a deal with the overarching military chain of command to secure arms for the broader military.
I can't claim to be intimately familiar with Ukraine, but based on the US's history of funding the most violent psychopaths imaginable, I really doubt it's an accident.
I will also note that in the past, several elements of NATO's high command were former Nazi generals, so I really doubt there's a ton of angst about it internally.
Absent any evidence that NATO arms were specifically directed towards neo-Nazi groups (and not just groups affiliated with Ukraine's national police, which Azov unfortunately seems to be), I think there's nothing to support anything except it being an accident.
And again, this is from someone who exercises extraordinary skepticism in the context of US international action.
Do not forget the "useful idiots' who will whitewash anything the enemies of the west do just because they align with their ideology better than the free world does.
My response to that is the same as it has historically been. We don't need a wall to keep our people in. If you wish to go to North Korea, you are free to do so.
Fair warning though, it doesn't work the same way in reverse.
That's good and I'm sorry they are in that situation. But most of us have no ties to Ukraine and buying some shares is going to have exactly zero impact on you or anyone else
Not trying to make anyone feel guilty or make it seem like I'm doing anything either. Just pointing out that there is very little any of us can actually do and getting so emotional about somebody buying shares is a little silly because what are the alternatives?
> Just pointing out that there is very little any of us can actually do and getting so emotional about somebody buying shares is a little silly because what are the alternatives?
The alternative is to pause and think of the human on the other side of the screen. You might consider that perhaps while they are frantically trying to evacuate their parents from an active warzone, it might seem crass to swap trading tips to seemingly profit off their misery.
Furthermore, it might seem crass to confront them with a "What are you doing to help?" in an effort to win an internet debate. While this may seem like a distant conflict to you, it has hit close to home for many on Hacker News (and many of my colleagues at work as well).
Give me a break, they are on HN. If they don't like what somebody is talking about then they can ignore it instead of engaging them especially since they are so busy "frantically" trying to evacuate people.
If they felt guilty by my reply they should evaluate why since that wouldn't make most people feel guilty
No innocents are being maimed or killed at the moment. They are striking military targets.
Also, just because an all out war breaks out doesn’t mean life stops. Even during WW2 when Nazis were killing off Jews, people still had to wake up everyday and go to work and make a living just like always. They didn’t just sit around and wait for the war to pass. Hell they even went to parties and danced and fell in love, even as Jews rotted in concentration camps. Life doesn’t stop.
Soldiers still fought and even died on bright sunny days perfect for going to the beach.
I wouldn't expect many people here to know who John Mearsheimer is and honestly the conversation appears to be that you must unequivocally support what the U.S. and West in general have done or else you're some kind of Russian propagandist/puppet.
Mearsheimer is extremely pro-Kremlin pundit though, he's even welcomed [1] at Valdai Discussion Club ("The Valdai conference is closely linked with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has met with the participants of the Valdai Club’s annual meetings every year since its founding." [2])
He is neither pro-Kremlin nor anti-Kremlin. Mearsheimer is a political scientist with 50+ years of experience. He relies on pure facts and explains why things are the way they are. Nothing more, nothing less.
He tells you the facts that you want to hear, that is all.
His view is Kremlin-apologist.
You are not in Ukraine, you rely on second-hand account. So for any 'facts' you have to rely on someone. Ukraine is a complex topic, and 'things the way they are' is extremely hard to get, there is an ideological lens to everything.
His lecture was shared recently on some Ukrainian forums and widely derided as just repeating Russian state propaganda talking points.
It is not a binary world. You absolutely do not have to support the Western interference in Ukrainian politics. You do not have to support Putin either.
This is not good vs bad.
It is great powers exploiting weaker countries.
Russia too did interfere a lot in Ukrainian politics, with methods similar to Western.
It's like people live in a paradigm "West good/Russia bad" or "West bad/Russia good", yet miss the real picture - "West bad/Russia bad".
Yes the "rest" of the world knows the "truth". It's just a matter of defining what "the rest" and "truth" mean. In the context of the modern Axis of Evil also known as Five Eyes the "truth" is whatever the propaganda machine releases to its mass audience of intellectually handicapped people.
The "truth" were the "weapons of mass destruction" where the Allies killed over 550k children only in Iraq, not counting Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. Quiet an achievement in just twenty years. Let's not talk about killing children in Serbia in 1999, keeping Cuba isolated for over fifty years, having English aristocracy go on man-hunts in Africa in the 1980s... "truth" is a very funny word nowadays.
The only reason why there isn't a NATO base in Ukraine is because Russia has taken measures to make sure that doesn't happen. NATO pushed you into a war by installing a puppet regime, publicly speculating about Ukraine joining NATO for decades and supporting Ukrainian neo-nazi groups. It's an old divide and conquer recipe that worked well so far, you fell for it too.
> If you follow the news agenda in Russian news agencies you will notice that Putin has placed a lot of blame on the latest negotiations. Apparently no one was willing to negotiate and he went for broke.
Most of Russia's demands were unreasonable nonstarters. IIRC, he demanded NATO pull troops out of some EU countries. Saying "no one was willing to negotiate" is very misleading. It's victim blaming, like saying a mugger was justified in shooting his victim because he wasn't willing to negotiate over the mugger's demand he hand over his cash.
I'm Ukrainian, but I just want to throw a provocative thought in here. Everyone's talking about how bad and evil Putin is and all that. However, nobody's talking about the _why_ Putin is doing what he's doing. For the past 14 years, Russia is trying to find a solution as for the NATO's expansion to the east. The US does NOT want to stop the expansion despite anything. If I place a tent next to your house and start watching your windows daily, what's going to be your reaction? That is EXACTLY what's happening today. Nobody cares about Ukraine. Neither the US nor Putin. Ukraine is poor country. The _core_ of the problem is the US and its desire to place military bases across the world, including Ukraine, hence next to Russia's borders. Who'd like that? The US didn't like it in 60th during the Cuban Missile Crisis, so is Russia today.
Everything started in April of 2008, during the Bucharest Summit Declaration saying that "NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO". Russia immediately said that this is not going to happen because it affects their security - and it DOES make sense, doesn't it? That led to a war in Georgia. Today it's a war in Ukraine, my home country.
Once again, Putin is just a side effect. The core, the _root_ cause is the US's maniacal NATO expansion aspiration.
You are right, Ukraine doesn't need the approval of Russia, however, becoming a member of NATO is only possible if membership does not affect security of any other country. That's written on paper and one of the conditions. But since the US politics is against Russia (for some _stupid_ reasons - do a research and educate yourself), Ukraine becoming a member of NATO is a direct threat to Russia.
Edit: I also want to add to this that the US is completely aware of the situation. They know exactly that their decision not to stop the expansion leads to a war. First, the US is not stupid. Second, there is a great example - Georgia, where war for the exact same reason took place. So, who's to blame here? Is it really Putin? My common sense tells the opposite.
SHIT, Ukraine is not in NATO, it is not on track on joining NATO,
It was clear for everyone in Ukraine that with Crimea and LNR/DNR nobody would accept Ukraine into NATO.
There wasn't much support for NATO in Ukraine internally before seizure of Crimea.
Who's in the wrong here? Hmm, I don't know.
The globalists have been telling me for years that we are post-national, that borders are obsolete, etc. We have seen mass migration from the Middle East to Europe, and from central and South America to the US, and we’ve been told that this is good.
Now I’m supposed to actually care about a Westphalian nation state? I don’t get it.
The real world is not some intellectual tongue in cheek discussion between liberals and conservatives.
It is no surprise for me that westerners couldn’t care less about suffering of “other people”. You don’t need to invent complicated reasons why you do not care biggest war in Europe since 1940’s, or the lives of Eastern Europeans.
I never said I didn’t care about the suffering of other people. I said I don’t care about Ukraine.
I’ve read the CIA world fact book entry on it; I’ve listened to a lot of the rhetoric, and I just fail to see any interest there compelling enough to make me support war with Russia.
If “suffering” is the bar for involvement, why didn’t we do anything about Rwanda?
Why is it unethical for me not to support involvement in yet another war, when I’ve been lectured for the last two decades about how bad it is for my country to go to war. Seems like cherry picking.
The American public is tired of wars and the USA is not in financial shape to begin a multi trillion dollar war, especially if there is no compelling national interest. If Europe cares, let them fight the war.
If Putin attacks a NATO country then we should fulfill our treaty obligations.
Other than that, we can’t fix all the problems in the world.
Besides, we are extremely likely to end up in a war with China when they invade Taiwan; we do have a national interest there (semiconductor fabrication) and we can’t afford to be bogged down in Ukraine with that looming.
I believe order and chaos are the two most predominate forces in nature. Russia is a very chaotic nation (granted they made the RD-180 rocket engines, but they murdered Korolev) Life favors the ordered.
Some choice quotes:
“Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
“However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”