4 ms·

This is insane. I honestly thought it wouldn't get to this point. Like what is the upside here (for Putin)? They can't expect to occupy Ukraine. Regime change?

• dannyw 5y ago
  Why do you think they can't? Biden is so unpopular right now, there's only political downside to US or NATO intervention.
  • grrger 5y ago
  • kasey_junk 5y ago
    Only because I didn’t know and was curious about context, Biden is more popular now (as judged by aggregate approval rating ala 538) than Trump was at this point in his presidency (43% vs 39%). He’s about the same as Trumps average approval rating for the rest of his term until the end when Trumps rating tanked. Biden is lower than any other candidate they’ve tracked at this point but Clinton had a lower period earlier and Truman had a lower period very soon after this point in his presidency.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • rvz 5y ago
    I mean the prediction he made about the Taliban impossibly invading Afghanistan well there's that and most certainly that went well (!). Now you have them pleading and begging to Putin on a weak foot after those events. Looks like war it is. All thanks to the Biden administration. Oh dear.
  • jmyeet 5y ago
    This [1] summarizes it well: > Yet despite these humbling failures, the present crisis reveals there is still a reflexive tendency to assume the United States has the right, responsibility, and (most important of all) capacity to dictate political arrangements all over the world, even in regions that are more important to others than they are to the West. The United States didn’t have that capacity at the height of the unipolar era, and it certainly doesn’t have that capacity today. Here is the key point: > When your opponent has local military superiority and cares more about the outcome than you do, resolving a dispute typically requires some adjustments on your part. This isn’t a question of right or wrong; it’s a question of leverage. That aside, Biden and the Democratic Party just don't have the appetite for protracted conventional war with a nuclear superpower as evidenced by the lack of such appetite in Iraq or Afghanistan. [1]: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-war-russia-ukraine-sleepwalking/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/23/united-states-europe-wa...
• cperciva 5y ago
  The upside is the inevitable rally-around-the-flag which happens at war time.
• cmrdporcupine 5y ago
  It's just the same thing they did with Crimea, but with explosions added on top. They won't take all of Ukraine. Just these pieces. For now.
  • jmyeet 5y ago
    Crimea is not the same. I really wish people would stop repeating that. Even if you ignore the referendum (which is fair), repeated polls by the West and NGOs have found the annexation by Russia is hugely popular in Crimea so you get into a question of the rights of self-determination [1]. [1]: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/1919/wilson-self-determination#:~:text=During%20World%20War%20I%2C%20U.S.,own%20independent%20government%20or%20state https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/1919/wilson-self-d....
    • BenoitP 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure people occupying Ukraine would vote for annexation once Ukrainian people have been removed or forced to flee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat...
    • cmrdporcupine 5y ago
      Yeah I was/am wrong in this statement and take it back. At the time I wrote it, troops were entering the Donbas and my assumption was Russia would limit themselves to occupying this region. But it's clear now they intend on military occupation of all of Ukraine, "regime change", and turning Ukraine into a puppet state like Belarus.
• wbl 5y ago
  Ukraine wasn't joining NATO. It was joining the EU. As for loss there is a place called Afghanistan.
  • exdsq 5y ago
    They wanted to and still want to join NATO
  • jmyeet 5y ago
    Leaving the door open to Ukraine joining NATO has been US policy since 2008 [1]: > Then, in 2008, at a NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, President George W. Bush crossed that Rubicon, committing NATO to bringing in Ukraine and Georgia—another former Soviet republic left out of the previous decade’s enlargement—at some point in the undefined future. My suspicion is neither Europe nor the US actually wants Ukraine in NATO but dangling that possibility keeps a pro-Western regime in Ukraine. [1]: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/putin-george-bush-blame-russia-ukraine.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/02/putin-george-bus...
• balls187 5y ago
  > Like what is the upside here (for Putin)? 60% of russias export is energy by way of natural gas, to Europe, across two pipelines, belerus, and ukraine. Ukraine currently leases the rights to Russia, but the threat of Ukraine joining the EU could largely change those economics. Putin could be banking on the fact that since Russia is the large supplier of natural gas to Europe, the west will have no choice but to continue to purchase from Russia. Currently the US is backstopping Western Europe with Liquid Natural Gas, but it's possible that Western Europe will feel additional energy crunch and have to break away from US Sanctions.
  • jmyeet 5y ago
    > Ukraine currently leases the rights to Russia, but the threat of Ukraine joining the EU could largely change those economics. I have tow big issues with this argument. Firstly, an inevitable consequence of invading Ukraine is sactions that will disrupt oil and gas exports. This is Russia's biggest export. Second, if Ukraine joins the EU (which is a big if), I haven't seen a compelling argument why this would hurt Russia's interests. Most notably, as an EU member,U Ukraine would lose a certain amount of autonomy to negotiate thing slike this. Do you think Ukraine as a future EU member could effectively cut off the gas supply to other EU members? I just don't see how that could happen. It's possible that the EU's reliance on Russian oil and gas exports will weaken their resolve. I guess we'll see.
• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I honestly thought it wouldn't get to this point. Like what is the upside here (for Putin)? Dismantling Ukraine by solidifying the breakaway regions and installing a pro-Russia regime in the rump Ukraine in the near term, annexing at least the breakaway regions on the intermediate term. But, the war is a loss. The actual goal of the escalation was to get much more operational freedom by capitalizing on years of efforts to exacerbate divisions within and between the Western Allies, the establishment of propaganda conduits within them, etc., to get NATO to fail to hold together, crack, and fold, either abandoning or simply failing to adequately reassure it's Eastern flank, and leaving many of the existing NATO countries in the shadow of arbitrary Russian threat and influence. Propaganda support for Brexit was part of that. Support for separatist efforts in Catalonia (and, though with less effect, California) was part of that. Support for various political factions in the US (notably the right and Republican Party, including the financing and influence channel developed through the NRA, but also propaganda support for—not, in most cases, collusion with—ideologically opposed groups, like the candidacy of Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, as well as a bunch of divisive non-candidate groups of various types) was part of it. That was the prep work.
• favorited 5y ago
  Genuinely glad to hear you've changed your mind. > They can't expect to occupy Ukraine Who's going to stop them? No one in the US – Biden won't go to war over it, and 3/4 of the Republicans will listen to Trump and believe that this is an admirable move by Putin.
  • tamaharbor 5y ago
    Your TDS is showing. Not appropriate here.
    • favorited 5y ago
      “But here’s a guy that says, you know, ‘I’m gonna declare a big portion of Ukraine independent’ – he used the word ‘independent’ – ‘and we’re gonna go out and we’re gonna go in and we’re gonna help keep peace.’ You gotta say that’s pretty savvy.” -DJT, yesterday