It would highly surprise me if it didn't. In fact I totally expect that other financial markets will melt down as well. This is going to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow but if that's the worst that comes from this then fine. It feels like it is 1928 or so, or maybe 1939.
Putin is trying to go all-in with his last few chips. If he succeeds, he'll be in the game for a few more rounds. If he fails, he'll be out.
Hitler had allies. He had what was when he took power the best mathematics universities in the world (with comparable success in other areas; he eviscerated German academia, though), and (IIRC) the second or third-largest economy. Putin has a doomsday device that he doesn't actually want to use.
> Putin has a doomsday device that he doesn't actually want to use.
I'm not so sure about that. I feel it depends on whether Putin still has at least some marbles left. If he does? Yes, he realises that leaving a legacy of "war criminal who nuked Ukraine" isn't actually what he wants so the threat of nukes is making a point to NATO to stay out of it. If he's lost all his marbles, though, or if he's so far out of touch with reality as makes no difference? I could see him nuking Ukraine out of spite if it's clear he won't get what he wants, in a sort of "If I can't have you, no one can!" move. Assuming that there isn't a coup before that, or that him giving that order doesn't trigger a coup, etc, etc.
This could be a play to force a mediated settlement. Playing on the fear of a nuclear escalation to force mediation by the NATO/China. A similar occurrence happened in the 1980s with South Africa's nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately as the second largest nuclear power acting as a belligerent, such a threat could plausibly draw NATO directly into the conflict. I don't see a world where a country uses nukes in Europe without triggering a full NATO response. I also don't see a world where NATO negotiates under nuclear threat, to do so would present a long-term risk that Russia believes NATO will cave to nuclear threats and pushes the issue again.
One of the scenarios I keep thinking about is what if either side uses just one nuke. They let the other side know that they're going to use just one and do it. Do you respond to that with your full arsenal? Do you go tit-for-tat? Do you just let them get away with it?
This was a common war game scenario in the Cold War. NATO semi-intentionally adopted the strategy that they would have enough troops in western Europe to fight an invasion, but that they would need tactical nukes to block the invasion. NATO war games were then focused on how the conflict escalates, with the general conclusion that both sides would engage in tit for tat strikes until some threshold was triggered and a full nuclear war broke out (Use it or lose it scenario).
A close example to your scenario was South Africa's nuclear arsenal as well as (potentially) Israel's. The game theory somewhat works out if the belligerent party only has a few nukes and would be unable to escalate to full nuclear war due to lack of weapons. It's considered a dangerous and unstable scenario as such parties could actually use nukes without fear of MAD.
Is this why the US has focused so much on the ability to shoot down ICBMs? Because if they can shoot down even just a few tit-for-tat doesn't really work against them anymore.
This is why you have a preprogrammed unstoppable retaliatory doomsday counter weapon. Just remember to inform the other side about it before first strike.
Have you followed the events at all? He is high on his own propaganda and surrounded by incompetent yes-men, their tactics and logistics are a joke, long-term strategy is 100% bad news for Russia. At this point it's even questionable that their nukes work.
They are "rational" only if operating inside of a certain set of axioms, e.g. "NATO is a threat to Russia". I don't think that's a given, NATO was a threat to the communist regime but they didn't care much about modern Russia, that is, until Putin decided to make "being an enemy of NATO" a raison d'être of his regime and, through massive propaganda campaigns, the Russian Federation as a whole.
Have you not seen how the US behaves with its UN veto power? They are the most egregious by far. Just look at how often they stand alone regarding Israel/Palestine issues.
I keep wondering this also. I’ve seen this line trotted out on social media _constantly_, and it’s utterly absent from more reputable publications.
Are there real sources here? Not hypothetical—I’d be interested if you have them-but in their absence, this smells like the sort of thing you want your adversary to believe: “He’s a madman! He could do anything!”
(As a related aside, it’s bizarre and uncomfortable knowing there’s certainly amped-up information wars going on right now, that we’re all likely exposed, and not necessarily being able to differentiate.)
Kind of reminds me about the enemies during the GWOT and how they were portrayed. They were always being portrayed as bloodthirsty maniacs who were beyond the cusp of reason and ABSOLUTELY had to be attacked.
There is nothing "neutral" about Ukraine. The CIA deposed the legitimately elected government in 2014, and the actions of today have been inevitable since then.
You'd have to be an idiot to accept a CIA puppet regime sharing hundreds of miles of border with you, particularly one that commits systematic terrorism against its Russian-speaking population.
It's pretty shocking how well FVEY IC have run their propaganda campaigns for everyone to believe Ukraine is in any way "neutral". Very impressed.
There have been various incidents of terrorizing Russian speakers, perhaps the most famous being the burning at Odessa, and in this war the Nazi sympathizers shooting any Ukrainian soldier wanting to surrender, in some contested areas such as Mariopol they may shoot citizens who attend to flee too - aside from Putin's propaganda, I recently saw a first hand account of that by a Greek speaking resident there. As much as it is not widely mentioned in Western media for obvious reasons, Nazis having a real presence in Ukraine is not in Putin's fantasy, and with a few searches you will find both many expressions of that in Ukraine and endorsement/tolerance by Ukrainian authorities. I am not standing by Putin's invasion, and in general stating and inquiring for the truth should never be seen as an expression of opinion. Peace.
Clearly they are more "neutral", than say Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - all former Soviet client states that are now NATO members.
I do honestly suspect this is about delusions of historical grandeur. Ukraine is after all the historical home of Kievan' Rus (with whom most peoples in the region claim historical antecedence). In its "golden age" Vladimir the Great (Volodymir I, Prince of Novgorod) united the Rus peoples under his reign.
When thinking about neutrality, it's worth comparing the Ukraine-Russia relationship to that of Vietnam-China, another case of dealing with an aggressive big neighbor. Despite having many disputes with China on the sea, as well as the shadow of the 1979 invasion still looming, Vietnam has a clear "four-nos" policy, which means no military alliance, no affiliation with one country to counteract the other, no foreign military base in the Vietnamese territory to act against other countries, and no force or threatening to use force in international relations.
Not "medically insane", I'm talking like "Hitler insane" (who IIRC, was never actually proven to be crazy or with an actual medical disability). Attacking peaceful nations for no reason is warmongering and clearly evil... but doubly so when they're effectively brother countries.
It’s not insane, it’s completely rational. That’s why the US invaded Cuba during the Spanish American War. They felt that Spain had lost control on the ground entirely and that was the reason McKinley authorized invasion.
The weapons invented in WW1 proved to the world that wars like this weren't worth it anymore for anyone.
Weapons were too good in the early 1900s, and the wear-and-tear on soldiers would scar them for the rest of their lives. The Axis powers didn't get the message in the 1930s/1940s, so one more ass-kicking was needed, but its overall not a good idea to initiate wars of conquest in today's society.
It is worth it to invade a country that has no nuclear deterrent. The reason Russia will not invade a NATO country is that it would cause mutually assured destruction, or more specifically the Nash equilibrium in the case where both countries are nuclear powers.
It’s why China doesn’t invade Pakistan or India, aside from small skirmishes that are in borderlands that are effectively proxy wars.
Supporting the idea, while suggesting he can't provide proof, Marco Rubio (Vice President of Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) has this to say:
"I wish I could share more,but for now I can say it’s pretty obvious to many that something is off with #Putin
He has always been a killer,but his problem now is different & significant
Obviously, he's not going so far as to say that Putin has "lost his marbles" and Rubio definitely has his own agenda. My impression is that either Putin's cognitive state has changed over the last five years or Russia's doctrine of "escalate to de-escalate" has changed the playbook.
Last I heard, the governments of China and India were conspicuously refusing to condemn the invasion.
It doesn't seem unthinkable to me that a large part of the globe wants and feels they deserve, a "new world order" where the US takes a less hegemonic role and institutional influence is adjusted to reflect the modern world a bit more.
Allies join you, they don't quietly remain neutral. India isn't joining Russia in a world war. Certainly not with China. China, meanwhile, is the superpower in the room and unless they've developed an invisibility cloak they haven't exactly been preparing for a superpower-level struggle. (Yes, they're building up their military, but so is everyone else, and it's been at a consistent pace for two decades.)
>It doesn't seem unthinkable to me that a large part of the globe wants and feels they deserve, a "new world order" where the US takes a less hegemonic role
It doesn't "seem unthinkable" because they've been literally saying that for half a century. That doesn't mean they want to work with the second coming of Christian nationalism. Anyone who's worked in diplomacy in the global South knows it's hard enough for them to work with each other.
>It doesn't "seem unthinkable" because they've been literally saying that for half a century.
I was trying for understatement.
>That doesn't mean they want to work with the second coming of Christian nationalism
No...I suppose not. But if they don't, why be neutral? What if they take the "Christian nationalism" as superficial? What if "want" is immaterial to a reality of working with the existing situation?
>Anyone who's worked in diplomacy in the global South knows it's hard enough for them to work with each other.
You sound knowledgeable. I didn't know that China was part of the global South.
Are you scoffing at the idea that China would work with Russia, or just reacting to the mention of India?
Specifically, is it completely absurd to you to suspect that the fruits of the OPM breach were sent by China to Moscow?
>I didn't know that China was part of the global South.
China was ruled out separately; the remaining countries are either opposed to Russia, very small, or reasonably described as "global South". Your other points are similarly vacuous, and your attitude gives me no reason to continue this conversation.
China has been allergic to the word "invasion", perhaps because they don't want it thrown at them if they attack Taiwan. But China is not happy with Russia over this.
Current events in Ukraine seem like the perfect experiment to see if taking Taiwan is possible.
If it's really, really useful, I don't see how happy/unhappy would enter into it.
What does "actual ally" mean, according to experts? Was the USSR an actual ally of anyone in WWII? The US sent a zillion dollars worth of Jeeps and spam on the basis of shared interests, not true friendship.
"Actual ally" as in "they let Russia launch part of the invasion from their territory". Even more: Belarus is at least talking about sending their own troops as well.
Honestly, my hope is that none of the Oligarchs or the Russians at the trigger want to see the world in a fiery end.
One thing that might be tricky is if he deploys tactical nukes, though. They're small enough so that the other nuclear powers won't go for all-out annihilation (probably), but still a step towards further escalation.
If Putin is against you, no money on the planet helps. He will have you killed in England.
It would require many oligarchs to form a conspiracy and remove him and several others from power. I have no insight, but my feeling is not enough people trust each other to do it. One leak or the slightest mistake and they are all dead.
This only works if they aren't going to die in nuclear fires. Once this gets to the point enough think that crazy Ivan is going to really kick off a global thermonuclear war his own protection fails.
I have no deeper understanding about Putin's inner cycle. According a detailed news article yesterday there are only 2 oligarchs left there. He prefers people with way less money these days because they are easier to control.
Most oligarchs are completely silent on politics, some are even in prison for corruption. Which of course is not difficult to accuse anybody rich or powerful in Russia. They probably don't have to dream up the evidence like in other cases of political (in)justice.
He wanted to destroy the military of the Ukraine within hours. He claimed until yesterday that no Russians will be killed because it's a limited operation, not a war.
He certainly expected some symbolic sanctions, but not the massive consequences Russia is facing now. He expected vast support from the Russian public (90% when occupying Crimea 6 years ago).
None of those have happened. At the moment he looks like a loser. However, I am not convinced he will just give up like this. He will continue the war. And once he has nothing to lose, danger is that he uses the nuclear
option. He has been sitting in a bunker (as Navalny expressed it) for 2 years in fear of the virus, meeting only very few people. It has made him lose contact with reality at least, if not even more severe mental consequences.
> He has been sitting in a bunker (as Navalny expressed it) for 2 years in fear of the virus, meeting only very few people.
Lmao, Navalny wouldn't miss a chance to say something ridiculous like that.
Practically all world leaders had engaged in similar anti-COVID measures. And obviously there was no real bunker.
I wonder what you base your assertions regarding Putin's expectations on?
To me it looks like he only expected more support from people in Ukraine, but it's not that clear, as Russian government seems to have decided to skip the informational warfare part altogether.
> Practically all world leaders had engaged in similar anti-COVID measures
Most of them have been showing up in parliament many times a week, many wearing a mask. (Of course that depends a bit on the government model.) Some of them like Trump, Bolzonaro or Boris Johnson had Covid. Especially Trump grossly ignored scientific advice and had huge campaign events. Trump and Johnson had infamous garden parties. Not that I would call that smart, but that practically all leaders had similar measures is not true.
It's said that especially oligarchs lost direct contact to Putin because he stopped meeting people. Whether that is true I can obviously not prove.
The problem is that Putin might be completely irrational, and therefore operating in unpredictable ways.
If we believe some of the news, the invasion effort looks poorly coordinated and very risky. There are some units stranded without fuel, some light mechanized units engaged big cities and got repelled, whereas others got destroyed on the roads without proper air cover.
Frankly, Russia has some very impressive military tech but the whole thing does not look well planned at all. It seems more like the product of a delusional leader and some incompetent high ranking officials. Getting into urban warfare, which is where this seems to be heading to will turn to big losses on his side. Reminds me of Croatia '91, but without the secession component. Jugoslav National Army threw shitloads of poorly motivated armor units and they got nowhere.
He might be more rational than you think. He would rather suffer severe economic damage, have some mild military losses, and see Ukraine destroyed than have the last remaining buffer country between him and NATO end up as part of the NATO/EU/US order. He may also have correctly calculated that despite the media theater and economic sanctions, the US doesn't truly care about Ukraine.
It is unfortunately the Ukrainians who will suffer the worst of Putin's aggressiveness and the West's foolishness.
Even autocrats have to rule largely with the consent (or at least the acquiescence) of the governed. Unless he goes full Kim Jong Un, the long-term economic damage will do to him what it did to the Soviet Union. He's miscalculated. I'm struggling to see an end-game in which he can save face and not come out diminished in the long term. To me this all smells of something born out of his will, and not something that's had the kind of in-system planning and support that these things tend to require. I suspect (hope) the long knives are being quietly sharpened in the darker corridors of the Kremlin.
>* the last remaining buffer country between him and NATO end up as part of the NATO/EU/US order.*
I have read this claim hundreds of times, but nobody ever mentions that the Baltic states joined in 2004[0]. Russia has had NATO on its border for over seventeen years, so why would this suddenly be a problem worth going to war over?
This is a good discussion (from 2015) that does mention the Baltic states and offers an explanation of why 2004 is unlike now and why Ukraine is also different https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
I think even if Ukraine had done nothing they still would've been targeted by Russia. Look at Estonia[0] and Georgia[1]. You could think of them as preludes to what happened in Crimea. It's the same excuse - "we are here to protect Russians". Estonia didn't work out, but Georgia worked out well for Russia. They got away with Crimea too.
Georgia is an even more evident example of destabilisation by foreign military–industrial complex than the Ukraine. At least Ukraine had some reasons for her action after Crimea.
Georgia (or rather, Saakashvili) decided that if the US is selling them weapons and declaring public support, it would mean that they have an option of solving a century old ethnic conflict[0] by force. And that the West would support Georgia in inevitable confrontation against Russia, who obviously still remembers the Sochi Agreement it helped to broker under her guarantees.
Regarding Estonia, I am not sure why you are trying to treat a country like an individual with a single point of view and not a collective of vastly different people. WWII memorials is obviously a sensitive topic, I am not sure why you think Russian government has something to do with it.
He could be both rational and incorrect, though. The US and the world in general warmed up overnight to the Ukrainian cause. Even the Trumpiest US senators are doing their best to run away from Trump’s Putin sycophancy on this, which is astonishing.
Putin is just the executive leader, not the (or only) general. If you think blame for logistic failures can just be cleanly assigned to the presence of his marbles or lack thereof, you’re sorely mistaken.
My first reaction was "which part is being questioned, the doomsday device's existence or the willingness to use it?" such an absurd situation we are all in now. Anyways, maybe the poster is referring to deadhand?
