28 ms·

What is the endgame here? Russia is outclassed by NATO both economically and militarily. If NATO intervenes economically, Russia will lose much. If NATO inte

• kraig911 5y ago
  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.
• BurningFrog 5y ago
  Russia has thousands of nuclear missiles. This makes them immune to NATO invasion.
  • enahs-sf 5y ago
    I feel like people always forget this is an option.
  • VoodooJuJu 5y ago
    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. So I fire some nukes. But then they fire nukes back at me. ???? Did I profit?
    • tomatotomato37 5y ago
      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
      • gaetgu 5y ago
        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.
      • Cthulhu_ 5y ago
        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).
        • daedalus_f 5y ago
          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]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpose_System https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos...
    • leto_ii 5y ago
      > 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.
  • JPLeRouzic 5y ago
    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: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/21/get-out-of-romania-and-bulgaria-russia-tells-nato-amid-ukraine-tensions-a76116 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/21/get-out-of-romania...
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      > 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.
      • GlobalFrog 5y ago
        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.
        • tonis2 5y ago
          Finland hasn't joined nato exactly cause, they want to keep the heat low and can defend themselves.
          • 5y ago
  • baybal2 5y ago
    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.
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      > NATO can easily deny Russia using first strike nuclear attack. This is very dangerous nonsense.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    • nradov 5y ago
      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.
    • adamsmith143 5y ago
      >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...
      • kenjackson 5y ago
        Do all 6000 nukes have capability to be delivered to the US mainland?
        • 5y ago
  • Cthulhu_ 5y ago
    It doesn't, it just gives them a "if we don't win, nobody does" option.
  • kergonath 5y ago
    NATO is entirely unable to invade anything. This is by design.
    • kjkjadksj 5y ago
      Tell that to the serbians who were blown up by NATO bombs.
      • kergonath 5y ago
        Bombing someone is not invading a country, so I am not sure what your point is.
• leto_ii 5y ago
  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.
  • specialist 5y ago
    > 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. There really are no good options.
    • adventured 5y ago
      > There really are no good options. 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).
• Phileosopher 5y ago
  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.
  • xdennis 5y ago
    I'm sick of people crying for the "defenselessness" of nuke-filled Russia while they're the ones threatening and invading everyone.
    • lm28469 5y ago
      • dtech 5y ago
        This promise is disputed. We only have the word of a few (mostly Russian) officials about it, unfortunately explicit on the issue was set on paper.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • saba2008 5y ago
          Promise is not disputed. There are no signed papers - there is no promise. Whenever it was discussed at all is 1% a purely academic dispute and 99% demagogy.
        • AlexCoventry 5y ago
          Yes, it's based on a misinterpretation. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukrain...
• tunnuz 5y ago
  China?
• phlipski 5y ago
  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.
  • hajile 5y ago
    I think this is the case. We're talking about a guy who thought that Lenin and Stalin were too soft. His speech a couple days ago was unhinged and offering justification to invade almost all of Eastern Europe. https://www.c-span.org/video/?518097-2/russian-president-putin-recognizes-independence-donetsk-luhansk-ukraines-donbas-region https://www.c-span.org/video/?518097-2/russian-president-put...
    • ironcurtain 5y ago
      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.
      • mint2 5y ago
        Who gets to rebuild their empire next? Austrian-Hungarian empire? Ottoman Empire? British empire? Etc etc
      • Mirioron 5y ago
        You mean "historical Russian territory" that the Russian Empire took with conquest? Maybe France should retake historical French territory from the Napoleonic era too?
  • notreallyserio 5y ago
    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).
• sillysaurusx 5y ago
  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.
  • kzrdude 5y ago
    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.
• Azsy 5y ago
  The risk of NATO intervening by art 5 are zero. Putin is delusional about history and his place in it. But he's not about to literally destroy everything he owns and then some by triggering art 5.
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    > But he's not about to literally destroy everything he owns and then some by triggering art 5. Assuming Putin is rational is a dangerous thing.
• smoe 5y ago
  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." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_192343.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_192343.htm
  • mcguire 5y ago
    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.)
  • VoodooJuJu 5y ago
    >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?
    • nradov 5y ago
      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.
    • mlindner 5y ago
      Most certainly. This will end Russia's ability to continue to grow in any way.
• Dolores12 5y ago
  > Is Russia just suicidal? 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. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
  • scottLobster 5y ago
    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.
    • Dolores12 5y ago
      > 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.
      • scottLobster 5y ago
        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.
        • 5y ago
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  > What is the endgame here? I think that it's a mistake to assume there must be an endgame.
  • gls2ro 5y ago
    There is always an endgame. I think the mistake is to use the democratic logic (lets say) to guess the end game in this situation.
    • EthanHeilman 5y ago
      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?
      • gls2ro 5y ago
        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.
        • EthanHeilman 5y ago
          > 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?
• light_hue_1 5y ago
  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.
  • BitwiseFool 5y ago
    > "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.
    • Cthulhu_ 5y ago
      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). A selection of quotes: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-quotes/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-vla...
• ericmay 5y ago
  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. MAD is dead.
• ericmay 5y ago
  Somehow a dupe got posted. Sorry.
  • rvba 5y ago
    > Poland (they'll join NATO by the end of the year if not sooner), Poland is in NATO since 1999.
    • ericmay 5y ago
      Yes thank you. I wrote something and then added Poland and didn't move that comment but I meant it for Finland. Sorry for the dupe post.
• harryf 5y ago
  > 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...
  • jacquesm 5y ago
    This is pretty close to how I view all this. Putin knows the game is lost and so this is an all-in gambit in the hope of forestalling the inevitable.
    • heyoni 5y ago
      From the little I know about history, it seems like Russia has no problem throwing human lives away for the sake of winning any conflict.
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        Unfortunately very true. And that has already begun, there are already Russian casualties.
    • beamatronic 5y ago
      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.
      • jacquesm 5y ago
        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.
• blablabla123 5y ago
  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)
• moss2 5y ago
  Who knows. Maybe Putin is losing support in Russia and sees all-out war with Europe as a way to stay in power.
  • usr1106 5y ago
    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.
• Mikeb85 5y ago
  > What is the endgame here? 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?
  • flavius29663 5y ago
    Ukraine didn't want to join NATO until 2014.
    • Mikeb85 5y ago
      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...
• cambaceres 5y ago
  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?
  • kzrdude 5y ago
    Why would he not respond with military force towards economical sanctions? I'm a bit worried about this.
    • cambaceres 5y ago
      I'm worried too, and I don't have a good answer to that. Let's just hope that there are some trace of proportion inside that mad mans brain.
• throwrqX 5y ago
  It's not that easy... take a read of this for example https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/02/23/dmitri-alperovitch-on-the-risks-of-escalation https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/02/23/dmitri-al... bypass paywall https://archive.is/xDqsY https://archive.is/xDqsY
• it_does_follow 5y ago
  I don't think Russia is going to lose this one. 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.
  • kyberias 5y ago
    You seem to be delusional.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • 5y ago
• mjoneill 5y ago
  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.
  • flavius29663 5y ago
    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.
• shswkna 5y ago
  I think you underestimate how weak the west really is. We need to wake up to the reality behind all the consumable media.
  • caente 5y ago
    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
• helsinkiandrew 5y ago
  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.
  • zx85wes 5y ago
    You think he'd just roll over and surrender if they cut them off from Swift? I doubt it...
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      That's already off the table: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-launch-new-sanctions-against-russia-over-barbaric-attack-ukraine-2022-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-launch-new-sanctions...
• disambiguation 5y ago
  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. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20140228013838/http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/2014/02/22/ukrainian-protesters-claim-control-over-capital/N4XhHbcoctzjiYaOM2EfhI/story.html https://web.archive.org/web/20140228013838/http://www.boston... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
  • ledauphin 5y ago
    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.
• thereddaikon 5y ago
  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.
• mccorrinall 5y ago
  Russia sold gas to the EU way below spot prices. Nordstream 2 was in focus because of this. Now that the project is suspended, the EU is importing very expensive Gas from the US. So basically: the USA gets money for gas, and Russia gets the eastern Ukraine. They both get what they want. Enjoy the show.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • JPKab 5y ago
    "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 %)." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2c.html https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2... Doesn't look like US is a significant supplier of natural gas to Europe. Not sure how much capacity the US has at its LNG export terminals either.
• baby 5y ago
  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.
  • palerdot 5y ago
    > What is sad really, is that China doesn’t give a fuck It is better this way, instead of China openly supporting Putin and following suit with its own territorial expansions.
  • kergonath 5y ago
    > 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.
  • adventured 5y ago
    > 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.
    • jacquesm 5y ago
      One can hope.
• adamsmith143 5y ago
  >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.
• Seanambers 5y ago
  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.
• 4ec1979 5y ago
  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.
  • bogomipz 5y ago
    >" 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.
    • CRConrad 5y ago
      > 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.)
• mmaunder 5y ago
  Having Nuclear weapons let’s you hold a gun to the planet’s head. That’s the factor you haven’t taken into account.
• bumby 5y ago
  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.
• killerstorm 5y ago
  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. There's no profit in it.
  • holoduke 5y ago
    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.
    • killerstorm 5y ago
      Facts: 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.
    • pvaldes 5y ago
      All hypothesis are acceptable.
• dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? 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.”
• mgh2 5y ago
  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.
  • mgh2 5y ago
    Another economic win for Russia, besides oil, is computer chips [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30457490 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30457490 [2] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030315/how-does-price-oil-affect-russias-economy.asp#:~:text=Oil%20and%20gas%20are%20responsible,gross%20domestic%20product%20(GDP) https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030315/how-does-pri.... [3] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/remember-when-what-have-we-learned-from-80s-interest-rates/article24398735/#:~:text=In%20the%20years%20leading%20up,less%20upward%20pressure%20on%20prices https://www.theglobeandmail.com/real-estate/the-market/remem....
• atlantas 5y ago
  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." https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6902486582067044353/ https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6902486...
  • tablespoon 5y ago
    > 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. Yeah, the German military is in an abysmal state: https://www.stripes.com/news/as-germany-prepares-for-nato-crisis-response-role-its-military-readiness-is-abysmal-1.527253 https://www.stripes.com/news/as-germany-prepares-for-nato-cr...: > 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.
• dangerface 5y ago
  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.
• awb 5y ago
  This book lays out one endgame: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics The “Finlandization of Europe”. 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.
  • AnonymousPlanet 5y ago
    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.
  • CRConrad 5y ago
    > The “Finlandization of Europe”. 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.
• tjpnz 5y ago
  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.
• AlexCoventry 5y ago
  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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...
  • jessaustin 5y ago
    DPRK claimed to have learned this particular lesson from events in Libya.
• wbsss4412 5y ago
  > The risk of NATO intervention is high, right? 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.
• lambdasquirrel 5y ago
  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.
• Rd6n6 5y ago
  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
• ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  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.
• peace4all 5y ago
  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. [1] https://www.thebigq.org/2022/02/23/what-are-the-reasons-behind-putins-invasion-of-the-ukraine/ https://www.thebigq.org/2022/02/23/what-are-the-reasons-behi... [2] https://www.ridl.io/ru/nas-vtjagivajut-v-vojnu/ https://www.ridl.io/ru/nas-vtjagivajut-v-vojnu/
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• abc789654567 5y ago
  >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.
• LoveMortuus 5y ago
  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.
• rkangel 5y ago
  > 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).