5 ms·

We can set aside this discussion about rationality, because I'm not suggesting that Putin doesn't have rational reasoning for doing what he's doing, what I'm su

We can set aside this discussion about rationality, because I'm not suggesting that Putin doesn't have rational reasoning for doing what he's doing, what I'm suggesting is that Ukraine would not suffice for any rationale I've so far been exposed to. I'm also suggesting that he is objectively wrong about his beliefs, even if he follows them. It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint - it does have a lot of resources though. NATO is much closer to Moscow from the Baltic states. He's also going to have to occupy a country, on his border, with 44 million people. If even 1% of them are violent anti-Russians because of collateral Russian damage caused by the invasion then how does he expect to protect Russia from terrorist attacks? How does he protect a potential puppet government from such attacks? Not to mention now he's galvanized NATO, Finland and Sweden are going to join (in my view) by the end of the year, and people aren't going to associate with his country anymore. If Putin wants to I guess further expand his buffer, then we'll have a nuclear war because there is no doubt that the United States will absolutely go to war with full force against Russia over any NATO country. There is no reconciliation to be had here. If Russia believes NATO is out to get it, despite a world of evidence to the contrary, then they can stop at Ukraine or keep going, but if they keep going, which is likely (because Ukraine isn't worth the devastation being caused to Russia) then we will just have nuclear war. If Russia believes this then we might as well just go ahead and have it out. I mean there isn't anything else to that. I'm not sure why you're suggesting that I'm "out of sync with the current reality in Europe". The reality is that the United States will go to war and fight Russia to defend NATO. That's why I'm concerned (OP) - it can easily spiral out of control.

pdonis 5y ago
> It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come. > He's also going to have to occupy a country He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO. > he's galvanized NATO I think "galvanized" is a little strong. No NATO country is going to actually try to help Ukraine resist the invasion. The worst consequence is economic sanctions, and the historical track record of economic sanctions is not good. I expect Putin believes that his country can manage no matter what economic sanctions NATO nations throw at it. > Finland and Sweden are going to join (in my view) by the end of the year I think that's highly likely, yes. And it doesn't change Russia's threat environment in the least because no invasion of Russia is going to come via Sweden and Finland. If Russia intended to invade Finland and Sweden, them joining NATO would be a negative consequence, but I doubt Putin intends that. > and people aren't going to associate with his country anymore. I don't think Putin cares about that either. > the devastation being caused to Russia What devastation? If you mean economic sanctions, I think you are drastically overestimating their effects on Russia. > The reality is that the United States will go to war and fight Russia to defend NATO. So all Putin has to do to avoid that is to not attack a NATO member country. Which Ukraine is not. In fact, your argument here is an argument for the view I've been taking, that Putin does not intend to keep on invading country after country--because he knows invading a NATO country would bring consequences he doesn't want.
- ericmay 5y ago
  > Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come. Well it's in Europe. But yea you can just keep on invading that same route. Not that an invasion is going to happen anyway. > He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO. ???? What? Yes he does? If Russians leave than Ukraine goes back to what it was. Unless he tries and installs a puppet government, and then he might be facing some insurgency. Not fun. > pdonis 1 hour ago | parent | context | flag | on: Russian forces invade Ukraine after Putin orders a... > It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come. > He's also going to have to occupy a country He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO. > I think "galvanized" is a little strong. No NATO country is going to actually try to help Ukraine resist the invasion. The worst consequence is economic sanctions, and the historical track record of economic sanctions is not good. I expect Putin believes that his country can manage no matter what economic sanctions NATO nations throw at it. I mean now all of a sudden we're about to add Finland and Sweden to NATO. NATO allies just got woken up to the fact that war can still break out in Europe, which means militaries that have been languishing are going to get beefed up. Etc. The sanctions may not "work" but it also doesn't matter. No reason to deal with Russia if they're going to be a bad actor. > I think that's highly likely, yes. And it doesn't change Russia's threat environment in the least because no invasion of Russia is going to come via Sweden and Finland. If Russia intended to invade Finland and Sweden, them joining NATO would be a negative consequence, but I doubt Putin intends that. Gotland > I don't think Putin cares about that either. I agree - this was in my OP. > What devastation? If you mean economic sanctions, I think you are drastically overestimating their effects on Russia. Why? > So all Putin has to do to avoid that is to not attack a NATO member country. Which Ukraine is not. In fact, your argument here is an argument for the view I've been taking, that Putin does not intend to keep on invading country after country--because he knows invading a NATO country would bring consequences he doesn't want. But then his invasion of Ukraine doesn't make sense. All he did was cost himself a bunch of money to invade a country that definitely doesn't want him there and is now pissed off, he lost the Russian people a lot of money, and he's no more "safe" than he was before because the Baltics are still on his doorstep. What was gained?? If he believes that he gained security by attacking Ukraine than I do believe he's not a rational actor.

pdonis 5y ago

> It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come. > He's also going to have to occupy a country He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO. > he's galvanized NATO I think "galvanized" is a little strong. No NATO country is going to actually try to help Ukraine resist the invasion. The worst consequence is economic sanctions, and the historical track record of economic sanctions is not good. I expect Putin believes that his country can manage no matter what economic sanctions NATO nations throw at it. > Finland and Sweden are going to join (in my view) by the end of the year I think that's highly likely, yes. And it doesn't change Russia's threat environment in the least because no invasion of Russia is going to come via Sweden and Finland. If Russia intended to invade Finland and Sweden, them joining NATO would be a negative consequence, but I doubt Putin intends that. > and people aren't going to associate with his country anymore. I don't think Putin cares about that either. > the devastation being caused to Russia What devastation? If you mean economic sanctions, I think you are drastically overestimating their effects on Russia. > The reality is that the United States will go to war and fight Russia to defend NATO. So all Putin has to do to avoid that is to not attack a NATO member country. Which Ukraine is not. In fact, your argument here is an argument for the view I've been taking, that Putin does not intend to keep on invading country after country--because he knows invading a NATO country would bring consequences he doesn't want.

ericmay 5y ago
> Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come. Well it's in Europe. But yea you can just keep on invading that same route. Not that an invasion is going to happen anyway. > He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO. ???? What? Yes he does? If Russians leave than Ukraine goes back to what it was. Unless he tries and installs a puppet government, and then he might be facing some insurgency. Not fun. > pdonis 1 hour ago | parent | context | flag | on: Russian forces invade Ukraine after Putin orders a... > It doesn't actually provide any buffer that makes sense from a geographic standpoint Huh? It's right in between Russia and Europe. Right on the route by which previous invasions of Russia from Europe have come. > He's also going to have to occupy a country He doesn't have to permanently occupy it. He just has to prevent it from joining NATO. > I think "galvanized" is a little strong. No NATO country is going to actually try to help Ukraine resist the invasion. The worst consequence is economic sanctions, and the historical track record of economic sanctions is not good. I expect Putin believes that his country can manage no matter what economic sanctions NATO nations throw at it. I mean now all of a sudden we're about to add Finland and Sweden to NATO. NATO allies just got woken up to the fact that war can still break out in Europe, which means militaries that have been languishing are going to get beefed up. Etc. The sanctions may not "work" but it also doesn't matter. No reason to deal with Russia if they're going to be a bad actor. > I think that's highly likely, yes. And it doesn't change Russia's threat environment in the least because no invasion of Russia is going to come via Sweden and Finland. If Russia intended to invade Finland and Sweden, them joining NATO would be a negative consequence, but I doubt Putin intends that. Gotland > I don't think Putin cares about that either. I agree - this was in my OP. > What devastation? If you mean economic sanctions, I think you are drastically overestimating their effects on Russia. Why? > So all Putin has to do to avoid that is to not attack a NATO member country. Which Ukraine is not. In fact, your argument here is an argument for the view I've been taking, that Putin does not intend to keep on invading country after country--because he knows invading a NATO country would bring consequences he doesn't want. But then his invasion of Ukraine doesn't make sense. All he did was cost himself a bunch of money to invade a country that definitely doesn't want him there and is now pissed off, he lost the Russian people a lot of money, and he's no more "safe" than he was before because the Baltics are still on his doorstep. What was gained?? If he believes that he gained security by attacking Ukraine than I do believe he's not a rational actor.