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.
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?