6 ms·

I had assumed Putin was just testing to see how little effort was necessary to take Ukraine. If this actually turns into a failure, even if he's successful but

I had assumed Putin was just testing to see how little effort was necessary to take Ukraine. If this actually turns into a failure, even if he's successful but it takes too long or costs too much, an era of world history will have clicked over, and the narrative of Russia as a boogey man, or as a peer adversary, will be over.

dragonwriter 5y ago
For a while, sure, much as with the fall of the USSR. But that lasted maybe about a decade before Russia was back in a similar role, after really reasserting itself beginning in the aftermath of the NATO-Yugoslavia war.
empressplay 5y ago
If nukes are seen as strictly a doomsday weapon (which in practicality they are since everyone will be on top of you if you use them) then we're back to conventional warfare, which is a lot more drawn out and complicated then most people today seem to think it is. Historically, campaigns like these can last months. It's probably a little early honestly to speculate on success or failure here.
- emerged 5y ago
  That’s the big open question to me right now. If nobody wants to use nukes then they might as well not even exist. If we’re fighting WW3 without nukes to me it’s almost more terrifying.
  - the_snooze 5y ago
    The existence of nuclear weapons does really matter. If it weren't for the real threat of nuclear escalation, direct military intervention in Ukraine would likely be on the table. Nobody wants to use nuclear weapons, but nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with a nuclear state either.
  - bcrosby95 5y ago
    Nukes are what would keep NATO out of Russia, even if they got militarily involved. They basically guarantee that the country's leader must be deposed of internally.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    that's only a partial view. Once you have nukes and other countries have nukes. How wise is it to be the first to give up your nukes? Do you trust your enemies to stick to an agreement to get rid of all nukes when it's pretty easy to hide them? One you get them it's almost impossible to get rid of them.
- harry8 5y ago
  I have no idea at all about the thinking of the people involved in the actual decision making and I'm pretty sure anything I read about Joe Biden or Vlad Putin in this regard is propaganda that should not be trusted. So let's take an angle that leaves them out. There's a nuclear "exchange", maybe it's one way, that doesn't involve my country. Why would I want to get my country involved in that exchange? That seems to go from utterly terrible tragedy that is almost as bad as can be imagined to so, so much worse for so many more people. In fact it takes it to every bit as bad as possible. Given that reality, how much deterrent are they unless it's mutually assured destruction? "Is this something for which the only option is to end current human civilization?" Nasty things to think about.
- riku_iki 5y ago
  Putin has pointed out in his pre-invasion speech that he is ready to apply some extra forces if Western countries will interrupt him and it looked like he meant nukes with saying all decisions are already approved. Maybe it was about tactical nuclear missiles.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    He's not dumb enough to start dropping nukes unless he recently suffered brain damage, which is not off the table considering his current actions.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      I'd also note that his threats seem to be quite effective at keeping NATO countries strictly behind a "red line" of supporting Ukraine only with sanctions and resources, but not sending military forces to fire a single shot (which would be quite significant in e.g. air war), as everyone seems to understand that it would be a road to dropping nukes.
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        I don't see him crossing the red line of going into Poland though, so it's still a stand-off, but I think NATO is going to come out of this much stronger as some had started to wonder about its purpose since it had been so long since there was an aggressor like Putin is being currently.
        PeterisP 5y ago
        Putin has done a lot to improve the capabilities of NATO in the last few days. The NATO countries have become more unified, Germany is doubling their military spending overnight, Kosovo has applied for NATO membership, Sweden has stopped its traditional neutrality and delivered arms to Ukraine so perhaps both Sweden and Finland are on the way to NATO, etc.
lalaland1125 5y ago
The thing to keep in mind is that Putin had just seen Afghanistan collapse very quickly almost 6 months ago. And the last time Putin went to war with Ukraine saw similar issues with many troops deserting. Putin might have generalized too much from prior wars.
neither_color 5y ago
The last two bullets from the article suggest that Putin still has some higher tier forces and weapons not in play for whatever reason. Russian forces continue to refrain from using their likely full spectrum of air and missile capabilities. The Ukrainian air force also remains active. Russian operations will likely steadily wear down Ukrainian air capabilities as well eventually taking the Ukrainian air force out of the fight. Russia has sufficient conventional military power to reinforce each of its current axes of advance and overpower conventional Ukrainian forces defending them. It's too soon to call it, Ukraine obviously has most of the western world behind it, and Russia is still holding back its higher tier forces. An occupation and insurgency/counter-insurgency would be a disaster for both countries. Hopefully Putin realizes the juice is not worth the squeeze quickly and pulls back.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  For Putin this is an existential moment. He cannot afford to lose this fight politically. Russians are already protesting this war. If it turns out to be a loser AND destroys domestic economy, his strongman image is gone.
scaramanga 5y ago
I don't think that is how narcissistic personalities, or nation states function. I think they are much more likely to view their failures as humiliations and betrayals and make new commitments to redeeming themselves through acts of aggression which enable them to redefine themselves in a positive light. I mean, when Clinton sailed the USS Independence carrier group through the strait of Taiwan causing china to stand down her military in 1996, what was the Chinese response?
- rossdavidh 5y ago
  Well, it wasn't to invade Taiwan, as I recall?
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    The point is that the spectre of such an invasion isn't withdrawn from the table, it's merely kicked down the road. But the US elections are over now, so what does Bill Clinton care? :)
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      What did you want Clinton to do? Pushing it off for 25 years is pretty good. You want him to permanently remove it from the table? How is he supposed to do that?
      - scaramanga 5y ago
        Commit to a rules-based international order where disputes are resolved without the use or threat of force while simultaneously pursuing global nuclear disarmament. But if he did that, they'd call him a "pussy" and he wouldn't be re-elected. Not to mention, it's much more difficult and complex than just "getting your missile out for the ladies." It's hard to ignore that this type of short-termism is the typical "borrowing from the future" philosophy that got us to where we are with climate change, nuclear proliferation, financial collapse, and the breakdown of the global order. Edit: in a way discussing this is probably academic, since we will either change the way we approach these problems, or there won't be any "we" left to do anything at all. Here's Tom with the weather :)

dragonwriter 5y ago

For a while, sure, much as with the fall of the USSR. But that lasted maybe about a decade before Russia was back in a similar role, after really reasserting itself beginning in the aftermath of the NATO-Yugoslavia war.

empressplay 5y ago

If nukes are seen as strictly a doomsday weapon (which in practicality they are since everyone will be on top of you if you use them) then we're back to conventional warfare, which is a lot more drawn out and complicated then most people today seem to think it is. Historically, campaigns like these can last months. It's probably a little early honestly to speculate on success or failure here.

emerged 5y ago
That’s the big open question to me right now. If nobody wants to use nukes then they might as well not even exist. If we’re fighting WW3 without nukes to me it’s almost more terrifying.
- the_snooze 5y ago
  The existence of nuclear weapons does really matter. If it weren't for the real threat of nuclear escalation, direct military intervention in Ukraine would likely be on the table. Nobody wants to use nuclear weapons, but nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with a nuclear state either.
- bcrosby95 5y ago
  Nukes are what would keep NATO out of Russia, even if they got militarily involved. They basically guarantee that the country's leader must be deposed of internally.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  that's only a partial view. Once you have nukes and other countries have nukes. How wise is it to be the first to give up your nukes? Do you trust your enemies to stick to an agreement to get rid of all nukes when it's pretty easy to hide them? One you get them it's almost impossible to get rid of them.
harry8 5y ago
I have no idea at all about the thinking of the people involved in the actual decision making and I'm pretty sure anything I read about Joe Biden or Vlad Putin in this regard is propaganda that should not be trusted. So let's take an angle that leaves them out. There's a nuclear "exchange", maybe it's one way, that doesn't involve my country. Why would I want to get my country involved in that exchange? That seems to go from utterly terrible tragedy that is almost as bad as can be imagined to so, so much worse for so many more people. In fact it takes it to every bit as bad as possible. Given that reality, how much deterrent are they unless it's mutually assured destruction? "Is this something for which the only option is to end current human civilization?" Nasty things to think about.
riku_iki 5y ago
Putin has pointed out in his pre-invasion speech that he is ready to apply some extra forces if Western countries will interrupt him and it looked like he meant nukes with saying all decisions are already approved. Maybe it was about tactical nuclear missiles.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  He's not dumb enough to start dropping nukes unless he recently suffered brain damage, which is not off the table considering his current actions.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    I'd also note that his threats seem to be quite effective at keeping NATO countries strictly behind a "red line" of supporting Ukraine only with sanctions and resources, but not sending military forces to fire a single shot (which would be quite significant in e.g. air war), as everyone seems to understand that it would be a road to dropping nukes.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      I don't see him crossing the red line of going into Poland though, so it's still a stand-off, but I think NATO is going to come out of this much stronger as some had started to wonder about its purpose since it had been so long since there was an aggressor like Putin is being currently.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        Putin has done a lot to improve the capabilities of NATO in the last few days. The NATO countries have become more unified, Germany is doubling their military spending overnight, Kosovo has applied for NATO membership, Sweden has stopped its traditional neutrality and delivered arms to Ukraine so perhaps both Sweden and Finland are on the way to NATO, etc.

lalaland1125 5y ago

The thing to keep in mind is that Putin had just seen Afghanistan collapse very quickly almost 6 months ago. And the last time Putin went to war with Ukraine saw similar issues with many troops deserting. Putin might have generalized too much from prior wars.

neither_color 5y ago

The last two bullets from the article suggest that Putin still has some higher tier forces and weapons not in play for whatever reason. Russian forces continue to refrain from using their likely full spectrum of air and missile capabilities. The Ukrainian air force also remains active. Russian operations will likely steadily wear down Ukrainian air capabilities as well eventually taking the Ukrainian air force out of the fight. Russia has sufficient conventional military power to reinforce each of its current axes of advance and overpower conventional Ukrainian forces defending them. It's too soon to call it, Ukraine obviously has most of the western world behind it, and Russia is still holding back its higher tier forces. An occupation and insurgency/counter-insurgency would be a disaster for both countries. Hopefully Putin realizes the juice is not worth the squeeze quickly and pulls back.

IgorPartola 5y ago
For Putin this is an existential moment. He cannot afford to lose this fight politically. Russians are already protesting this war. If it turns out to be a loser AND destroys domestic economy, his strongman image is gone.

scaramanga 5y ago

I don't think that is how narcissistic personalities, or nation states function. I think they are much more likely to view their failures as humiliations and betrayals and make new commitments to redeeming themselves through acts of aggression which enable them to redefine themselves in a positive light. I mean, when Clinton sailed the USS Independence carrier group through the strait of Taiwan causing china to stand down her military in 1996, what was the Chinese response?

rossdavidh 5y ago
Well, it wasn't to invade Taiwan, as I recall?
- scaramanga 5y ago
  The point is that the spectre of such an invasion isn't withdrawn from the table, it's merely kicked down the road. But the US elections are over now, so what does Bill Clinton care? :)
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    What did you want Clinton to do? Pushing it off for 25 years is pretty good. You want him to permanently remove it from the table? How is he supposed to do that?
    - scaramanga 5y ago
      Commit to a rules-based international order where disputes are resolved without the use or threat of force while simultaneously pursuing global nuclear disarmament. But if he did that, they'd call him a "pussy" and he wouldn't be re-elected. Not to mention, it's much more difficult and complex than just "getting your missile out for the ladies." It's hard to ignore that this type of short-termism is the typical "borrowing from the future" philosophy that got us to where we are with climate change, nuclear proliferation, financial collapse, and the breakdown of the global order. Edit: in a way discussing this is probably academic, since we will either change the way we approach these problems, or there won't be any "we" left to do anything at all. Here's Tom with the weather :)