8 ms·

They've already lost strategically. In very short time they've managed: German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in f

by omega3 5y ago

They've already lost strategically. In very short time they've managed: German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy.

aenis 5y ago
+made themselves wholly dependent on the brutally pragmatic China.
- omega3 5y ago
  In one week they've freed the US from the burden of defending Europe against non-atomic war with Russia: rearmament of Germany, forced Poland to reorganize and modernize their army (going up to 300k), Sweden, Finland, forcing Turkey to get of their fence. This allows US to concentrate on Pacific theater. I'm sure China is furious.
heikkilevanto 5y ago
Not so quick. Finland and Sweden have not (yet?) joined NATO. There has been quite some discussion, especially in Finland. The public opinion has tilted towards joining NATO, and maybe we will. Such things take time.
- sgjohnson 5y ago
  Doesn’t really matter. Finland and Sweden can join NATO in an instant. Their forces are compatible, and they meet all of the entry requirements.
  - aynyc 5y ago
    It does matter. Putin can invade Finland and Sweden now, and NATO can’t do anything other than supply weapons. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, article 5 is automatically triggered and NATO will have to respond militarily immediately.
    - modo_mario 5y ago
      You forget that these countries are in the EU which has it's own mutual defence clause.
      - sgjohnson 5y ago
        And that Putin probably won’t try invading anything for a while now.
        chinathrow 5y ago
        I am not so sure. The way Russia put in their lousy equipment and untrained staff (if all the reports are to be believed) then his better troops and weapons are not yet there / ready for other use.
        denis1 5y ago
        Or... there aren't better troops and weapons? Hear me out. Russia is corrupt to the core with leadership that's only focused on enriching themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if their conventional military proved to be way less capable then they're presenting it to be. Sure, they have enough smart people that are able to design advanced weaponry, but do they have the industrial capacity to actually build? And do they have the capability to maintain it? How about troop training?
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        They probably don’t. As with almost all modern dictatorships, the military is there to protect the elites from the general populace, and is not fit for much more purpose. Besides Russia doesn’t have to worry about external invaders, because they have their nuclear deterrent. So the state of their military makes perfect sense. Can’t risk a military coup.
        aynyc 5y ago
        No one knows for sure. Also, if Putin survives this whole Ukraine mess, who's to say he won't try again in 5 years? The point being, the narrative of business is usual is gone. All the countries that are next to or depend on Russia can no longer count on money or appeasement. Nordic and countries next to Russia have to rethink their strategy. Maybe they decide to wait and see the next strong man from Russia will be and negotiate with them. But PEACE based purely on the words of a mad man is precursor for war.
- nicce 5y ago
  And it is very dangerous question right now. What will Putin do if they consider joining, just before agreenment? Instead of eliminating one country, he might have lost three countries for Nato instead. Will he send some small warning Nukes into Finland as last hope?
  - ajuc 5y ago
    > Will he send some small warning Nukes into Finland as last hope? What would that accomplish? Fins would just join NATO even faster.
    - nicce 5y ago
      I doubt it. Russia might go all in. Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time ) if Sweden and Finland joins to NATO. Russia might go very far to prevent that. There is a little seed of truth in their security claims, that Ukraine should stay neutral. Missiles around country in close positions means, that West has better likelihood to win nuclear war with first strike, eliminating the most nukes from Russia. Especially, since they think that US is the enemy. And they want to hit US which is very far. Russia loses their nuclear threat advantage, if other countries can position their missiles better, to reach far better damage with first strike. This is the core of Cuban crisis, and why there are so many bombs, in submarines as well. Russia needs to believe that there is a balance. Stakes are high.
      - ajuc 5y ago
        > Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know. It's all just a game of chicken. And for Russia to win they would have to go all in 100 times in a row. Whereas NATO wins if nothing changes. So they won't go all in. It's just a matter of NATO deciding where the final line on sand is. I think we're witnessing it being drawn and Putin mistakenly thought he can do a few more steps.
nicce 5y ago
Indeed, they have lost. Question is, how much they are willing to take world with them?
- The_rationalist 5y ago
bhaak 5y ago
Yes, it's crazy how much this past days set in motion. History books will talk more about Putin than before. But likely in a different role than he wanted to be remembered with.
stemc43 5y ago
gonzo41 5y ago
Lets hope its 4D chess. Putin wants to destroy Russia so it can be reborn as a pacifist winter tech wonderland, because everyone finally did the math and having a giant military and a stack of nuclear weapons is more expensive than peace. Sadly I don't think it'll play out that way, From General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO deputy military commander until 2014, when Putin last invaded Ukraine. https://youtu.be/b8uQJkyeY2M https://youtu.be/b8uQJkyeY2M The only upside I see is that there'll be a slew of really great spy thrillers set in Europe to read when I next get to travel internationally.
edelans 5y ago
Indeed ! Happy paradox that Putin arguably did more for Europe, NATO, and European energy transition than anyone else in the past 20y !
ukraineally 5y ago
Lets not forgot pushing themselves into the arms of China who ideologically hates them. They hold Manchuria... if the '1 china policy' is such a big deal... shouldn't they want manchuria back asap? How the hell is Russia and China allied at all? China is basically the one protecting Russia and allowing them to invade Ukraine.
- elorant 5y ago
  The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Besides Russia has vast natural resources that China needs, until they can go all nuclear.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    China is going all renewable, like the rest of the world. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annual-power-capacity-additions-in-china-in-the-announced-pledges-scenario-aps-2020-2060 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua...
- erdos4d 5y ago
  > How the hell is Russia and China allied at all? China is basically the one protecting Russia and allowing them to invade Ukraine. Getting a European war going that draws US forces out of the Pacific is an obvious benefit if you want to invade Taiwan.
  - Azsy 5y ago
    The US is more than capable of winning both and the Chinese know it. In contrast to the Russians, the Chinese are completely dependent on international trade to keep people fed and the lights on.
  - tuyiown 5y ago
    Chinese government is way more pragmatic, Taiwan is not a fish big enough to cover losses due to international trade disturbance.
  - 5y ago
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Disagree. May happen, even soon, but hasn't happened yet. Dependency on Russian gas, oil, wheat and raw materials in inexorable. China may have to intervene in some manner to prevent regime change in Moscow that degrades the relationship with Beijing. With India and China remaining pro-Moscow at present, its hard to make the case for true isolation of Russia yet. That said, Putin and his crew are gambling with their lives on this one, and I almost think they were led into this by forces that would like to see them gone (count me among those forces).
zozbot234 5y ago
This is so plainly obvious these days that I can't help but ask, what the Russian elites' goal even is from a "grand strategy" POV. Do they really hate the West so much that they're willing to destroy their country's long term strategic positioning for the sake of being so visibly anti-West? It's like they literally took all that early-2000s rhetoric about "rouge states which hate us for our freedom" at face value and thought delivering on it would be a great idea. It's hard to come to terms with such seemingly irrational behavior.
- Azsy 5y ago
  What Russian elites? Nobody in Russia holds enough power over Putin to change his mind. Since the start of COVID he has closed himself off and basically only talks to a club of ideologues who read and write alternative history.
voisin 5y ago
I wonder what they looked toward as a possible successful outcome? It seems like most of the things you’ve written should have been seen in advance as either likely or at the very least possible risks, so what was the gain they sought?
- omega3 5y ago
  They were planning on quickly taking Kiev and forcing a regime change. Relatively bloodless operation would have allowed the west to yet again impose some irrelevant sanctions (e.g. Crimea) and wait for everything to go back to normal.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy. OTOH, for a dictatorship, of a just plain bad economy with no external actor to pin the blame on and a miserable economy with a clear external actor to blame and a grievance narrative, the latter can at times be more politically useful, though its obviously worse for the people: Russia may have lost strategically, but Russia-as-actor is a anthropomorphistic fiction. The harder question is has Putin lost strategically. And while there may be hope for that, I don’t think it is anywhere near as clear.
tpoacher 5y ago
All those things were going to happen anyway. I'm assuming Russia's incentives weren't to prevent them from happening altogether, but rather to position themselves in a way that would allow them to manoeuvre when they did happen. The fact their actions have caused these to happen sooner is certainly relevant, but whether they "lost" or not to me is simply a matter of whether their actions have placed them in the above position of better manoeuverability or not. Whether this is the case or not, no idea. Also, "win" and "lose" are highly relative terms here.
sebazzz 5y ago
The sanctions will be lifted. Gotta have that methane gas, companies gotta sell their stuff there. And this will happen in a few years again, but then with Macedonia or one of the other "unimportant" Baltic states (even if NATO). I hate it.

by omega3 5y ago

aenis 5y ago

+made themselves wholly dependent on the brutally pragmatic China.

omega3 5y ago
In one week they've freed the US from the burden of defending Europe against non-atomic war with Russia: rearmament of Germany, forced Poland to reorganize and modernize their army (going up to 300k), Sweden, Finland, forcing Turkey to get of their fence. This allows US to concentrate on Pacific theater. I'm sure China is furious.

heikkilevanto 5y ago

Not so quick. Finland and Sweden have not (yet?) joined NATO. There has been quite some discussion, especially in Finland. The public opinion has tilted towards joining NATO, and maybe we will. Such things take time.

sgjohnson 5y ago
Doesn’t really matter. Finland and Sweden can join NATO in an instant. Their forces are compatible, and they meet all of the entry requirements.
- aynyc 5y ago
  It does matter. Putin can invade Finland and Sweden now, and NATO can’t do anything other than supply weapons. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, article 5 is automatically triggered and NATO will have to respond militarily immediately.
  - modo_mario 5y ago
    You forget that these countries are in the EU which has it's own mutual defence clause.
    - sgjohnson 5y ago
      And that Putin probably won’t try invading anything for a while now.
      - chinathrow 5y ago
        I am not so sure. The way Russia put in their lousy equipment and untrained staff (if all the reports are to be believed) then his better troops and weapons are not yet there / ready for other use.
        denis1 5y ago
        Or... there aren't better troops and weapons? Hear me out. Russia is corrupt to the core with leadership that's only focused on enriching themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if their conventional military proved to be way less capable then they're presenting it to be. Sure, they have enough smart people that are able to design advanced weaponry, but do they have the industrial capacity to actually build? And do they have the capability to maintain it? How about troop training?
        sgjohnson 5y ago
        They probably don’t. As with almost all modern dictatorships, the military is there to protect the elites from the general populace, and is not fit for much more purpose. Besides Russia doesn’t have to worry about external invaders, because they have their nuclear deterrent. So the state of their military makes perfect sense. Can’t risk a military coup.
      - aynyc 5y ago
        No one knows for sure. Also, if Putin survives this whole Ukraine mess, who's to say he won't try again in 5 years? The point being, the narrative of business is usual is gone. All the countries that are next to or depend on Russia can no longer count on money or appeasement. Nordic and countries next to Russia have to rethink their strategy. Maybe they decide to wait and see the next strong man from Russia will be and negotiate with them. But PEACE based purely on the words of a mad man is precursor for war.
nicce 5y ago
And it is very dangerous question right now. What will Putin do if they consider joining, just before agreenment? Instead of eliminating one country, he might have lost three countries for Nato instead. Will he send some small warning Nukes into Finland as last hope?
- ajuc 5y ago
  > Will he send some small warning Nukes into Finland as last hope? What would that accomplish? Fins would just join NATO even faster.
  - nicce 5y ago
    I doubt it. Russia might go all in. Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time ) if Sweden and Finland joins to NATO. Russia might go very far to prevent that. There is a little seed of truth in their security claims, that Ukraine should stay neutral. Missiles around country in close positions means, that West has better likelihood to win nuclear war with first strike, eliminating the most nukes from Russia. Especially, since they think that US is the enemy. And they want to hit US which is very far. Russia loses their nuclear threat advantage, if other countries can position their missiles better, to reach far better damage with first strike. This is the core of Cuban crisis, and why there are so many bombs, in submarines as well. Russia needs to believe that there is a balance. Stakes are high.
    - ajuc 5y ago
      > Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know. It's all just a game of chicken. And for Russia to win they would have to go all in 100 times in a row. Whereas NATO wins if nothing changes. So they won't go all in. It's just a matter of NATO deciding where the final line on sand is. I think we're witnessing it being drawn and Putin mistakenly thought he can do a few more steps.

nicce 5y ago

Indeed, they have lost. Question is, how much they are willing to take world with them?

The_rationalist 5y ago

bhaak 5y ago

Yes, it's crazy how much this past days set in motion. History books will talk more about Putin than before. But likely in a different role than he wanted to be remembered with.

stemc43 5y ago

gonzo41 5y ago

Lets hope its 4D chess. Putin wants to destroy Russia so it can be reborn as a pacifist winter tech wonderland, because everyone finally did the math and having a giant military and a stack of nuclear weapons is more expensive than peace. Sadly I don't think it'll play out that way, From General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO deputy military commander until 2014, when Putin last invaded Ukraine. https://youtu.be/b8uQJkyeY2M https://youtu.be/b8uQJkyeY2M The only upside I see is that there'll be a slew of really great spy thrillers set in Europe to read when I next get to travel internationally.

edelans 5y ago

Indeed ! Happy paradox that Putin arguably did more for Europe, NATO, and European energy transition than anyone else in the past 20y !

ukraineally 5y ago

Lets not forgot pushing themselves into the arms of China who ideologically hates them. They hold Manchuria... if the '1 china policy' is such a big deal... shouldn't they want manchuria back asap? How the hell is Russia and China allied at all? China is basically the one protecting Russia and allowing them to invade Ukraine.

elorant 5y ago
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Besides Russia has vast natural resources that China needs, until they can go all nuclear.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  China is going all renewable, like the rest of the world. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annual-power-capacity-additions-in-china-in-the-announced-pledges-scenario-aps-2020-2060 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua...
erdos4d 5y ago
> How the hell is Russia and China allied at all? China is basically the one protecting Russia and allowing them to invade Ukraine. Getting a European war going that draws US forces out of the Pacific is an obvious benefit if you want to invade Taiwan.
- Azsy 5y ago
  The US is more than capable of winning both and the Chinese know it. In contrast to the Russians, the Chinese are completely dependent on international trade to keep people fed and the lights on.
- tuyiown 5y ago
  Chinese government is way more pragmatic, Taiwan is not a fish big enough to cover losses due to international trade disturbance.
- 5y ago

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Disagree. May happen, even soon, but hasn't happened yet. Dependency on Russian gas, oil, wheat and raw materials in inexorable. China may have to intervene in some manner to prevent regime change in Moscow that degrades the relationship with Beijing. With India and China remaining pro-Moscow at present, its hard to make the case for true isolation of Russia yet. That said, Putin and his crew are gambling with their lives on this one, and I almost think they were led into this by forces that would like to see them gone (count me among those forces).

zozbot234 5y ago

This is so plainly obvious these days that I can't help but ask, what the Russian elites' goal even is from a "grand strategy" POV. Do they really hate the West so much that they're willing to destroy their country's long term strategic positioning for the sake of being so visibly anti-West? It's like they literally took all that early-2000s rhetoric about "rouge states which hate us for our freedom" at face value and thought delivering on it would be a great idea. It's hard to come to terms with such seemingly irrational behavior.

Azsy 5y ago
What Russian elites? Nobody in Russia holds enough power over Putin to change his mind. Since the start of COVID he has closed himself off and basically only talks to a club of ideologues who read and write alternative history.

voisin 5y ago

I wonder what they looked toward as a possible successful outcome? It seems like most of the things you’ve written should have been seen in advance as either likely or at the very least possible risks, so what was the gain they sought?

omega3 5y ago
They were planning on quickly taking Kiev and forcing a regime change. Relatively bloodless operation would have allowed the west to yet again impose some irrelevant sanctions (e.g. Crimea) and wait for everything to go back to normal.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy. OTOH, for a dictatorship, of a just plain bad economy with no external actor to pin the blame on and a miserable economy with a clear external actor to blame and a grievance narrative, the latter can at times be more politically useful, though its obviously worse for the people: Russia may have lost strategically, but Russia-as-actor is a anthropomorphistic fiction. The harder question is has Putin lost strategically. And while there may be hope for that, I don’t think it is anywhere near as clear.

tpoacher 5y ago

All those things were going to happen anyway. I'm assuming Russia's incentives weren't to prevent them from happening altogether, but rather to position themselves in a way that would allow them to manoeuvre when they did happen. The fact their actions have caused these to happen sooner is certainly relevant, but whether they "lost" or not to me is simply a matter of whether their actions have placed them in the above position of better manoeuverability or not. Whether this is the case or not, no idea. Also, "win" and "lose" are highly relative terms here.

sebazzz 5y ago

The sanctions will be lifted. Gotta have that methane gas, companies gotta sell their stuff there. And this will happen in a few years again, but then with Macedonia or one of the other "unimportant" Baltic states (even if NATO). I hate it.