3 ms·

> Put differently, Putin does not roll a dice every morning and launches a nuclear missile if a six shows up. Even he himself cannot meaningfully answer the que

by geoka9 5y ago

> Put differently, Putin does not roll a dice every morning and launches a nuclear missile if a six shows up. Even he himself cannot meaningfully answer the question “What’s the probability that Russia will launch nuclear missiles 6 months from now” unless his answer is 100%. It depends on many factors, like how NATO reacts and how strong the Ukraine military is, none of which can be captured by probabilities. There's a guy[0] who spent a career analyzing and writing about these things. His most recent take is that by refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine, NATO creates an understanding in Putin's mind that it wouldn't get involved in, say, Latvia either. According to Piontkovsky, (to Putin,) there's no essential difference, and the (lack of) NATO membership reason provided by NATO is a lame excuse indicative of a lack of resolve to commit, NATO member or not. So Putin is willing to keep upping the ante until NATO folds and becomes irrelevant. [0]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313258664_Putin's_Russia_as_a_Revisionist_Power https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313258664_Putin's_R...

virgilp 5y ago
I don't buy this. The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. In fact, I'd say that current response in Ukraine enforces this (though it's not a NATO member it got plenty of offensive equipment, intelligence, money, support, etc. - basically everything possible short of direct declaration of war / direct military involvement from all NATO members). Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. And he probably knows it. This is the weakest position he can be in - if the west attacked him, he could at least mobilize the Russians to "defend against western aggression" and could even justify the nuclear bombs to his generals; As things stand, his rhetoric and position are very shaky (he's not being defeated by mighty USA, but by the "weak" Ukrainians who "aren't even a nation")
- geoka9 5y ago
  > The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. How did Putin take that message? I think that's the only thing that matters at this point. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. _If_ that mythos was blown to pieces, in the eyes of the Russian public. That remains to be seen.
  - asah 5y ago
    And _if_ the general public of Russia still matters... ...and _if_ a viable alternative leader exists...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nl 5y ago
  > The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. Unfortunately that's not true. The previous US president (who still has significant backing with US Congress and Senate) said this when asked about Article 5: > I want to keep NATO but I want them to pay. I don’t want to be taken advantage of… We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three… Give me a break[1] And he later refused speeches that included a commitment to article 5: > The crucial nuance is that Trump did not say that NATO’s original mission of countering Russian power in Europe is no longer obsolete. Indeed, he has never acknowledged this. The closest he has come is a general statement of strong support with caveats attached for burden sharing and counterterrorism. Trump’s failure to endorse Article 5 is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.[1] Now eventually, Trump did endorse Article 5[2], but that kind of reluctance would have been very well noted in Moscow. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. After 9 days of war you think there is no way he can survive? Are you not familiar with the origins of Putin's Chechen War? Claiming that Putin is done because a war he is winning is unpopular in the West is naive. It's certainly possible he is in trouble, but there is a long, long way to go before he falls. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/trumps-nato-article-5-problem/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in...
kitrose 5y ago
I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member. If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond?
- geoka9 5y ago
  > I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member. The idea is that the lack of NATO membership is just a formality. In any other aspect, Ukraine is a much more important geopolitical asset than said Latvia (with all due respect to the Latvians - I'm just imagining the way it plays out in Putin's head. Or at least the way I understand Piontkovsy here). > If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond? Yep. Piontkovsky even describes a potential limited nuclear strike scenario as part of the raising of stakes by Putin. AKA "are you willing to die for Narva[0]?" [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    I mean I find these analysis absurd, they seem based on the ideas not just that Putin is irrational but also that he knows nothing about the very things we would assume he knows about, stuff like how treaties and military alliances work. I could totally understand some guy on the street thinking hey Latvia is nothing, if they won't defend the Ukraine then they won't defend Latvia but why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars they would otherwise rather keep out of think such a thing. In fact I would assume his kneejerk opinion would be to believe that the only way to get all these weak nations to actually go to war would be if an attack happened on a NATO nation.
    - geoka9 5y ago
      > why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars There's no military history of nuclear wars. This could be the difference in Putin's head.
krisoft 5y ago
> His most recent take is that by refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine, NATO creates an understanding in Putin's mind that it wouldn't get involved in, say, Latvia either. That’s a weird take. Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO can choose to fight for them or can choose to not fight for them. Latvia is a NATO member. If Latvia is attacked and the NATO doesn’t fight for them NATO stops being a thing immediately. The 5th article is a cornerstone of the whole aliance. It is not an optional “and one more thing” but the reason to join the aliance at all, if it becomes shaky that undermines the whole thing. I wouldn’t dare to guess what goes on in Putin’s mind, but I also don’t see any reason why he would think that.
- lordnacho 5y ago
  I think this take is exactly what needs to be considered. We draw a line, it's NATO. Russia steps right up to the line by attacking Ukraine, and NATO does nothing. Is he going to believe that the line is still there? Why not test it? In my mind it's perfectly plausible that NATO squirms out if Latvia is attacked. Then the line is "core NATO" or something like that. At the very least if he doesn't test article 5, he can take every country that isn't in NATO, and each time the question grows about whether NATO is actually a thing.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    > Why not test it? Because it's not a thing where you say "let's test this out today." It takes months or years to get to this point. I'm hoping NATO would respond to a build-up on the Latvian border with a build-up of their own. Making it clear that there is no easy win. There's no reason to just sit there and wait for the tanks to roll across the line.
  - krisoft 5y ago
    > Why not test it? Be our guest. Test it. It doesn’t start with “and then Russia attacked Latvia”. They are not the Fire Nation. They need time to line up their logistics which will give time for NATO to detect their moves and amass troops in Latvia. Heck they were only lining up to attack a non-NATO country (Ukraine) and NATO sent extra troops to Latvia. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-nato-military-moves-send-message-russia-ukraine/story?id=82462943 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-nato-military-moves-send-...
nl 5y ago
> His most recent take is that by refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine, NATO creates an understanding in Putin's mind that it wouldn't get involved in, say, Latvia either. The link posted was from 2015. I'm unable to find any recent writing in English that indicates that he thinks that is a belief in Moscow. Instead, on Twitter he shared this Feb 27 story (not by him) that indicated Putin has a great fear of NATO forces: But this underestimates Russian respect for NATO’s conventional military power, which is far greater than its own. The only language Putin understands is force, and Moscow did not retaliate after Turkey shot down a Russian military plane in 2015 or when the United States struck and killed Russian mercenaries in 2018 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-26/making-putin-pay https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-26/m...
- geoka9 5y ago
  > I'm unable to find any recent writing in English that indicates that he thinks that is a belief in Moscow. For now, I can only find sources in Russian, e.g. this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-WB8AXLKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-WB8AXLKs https://echo.msk.ru/blog/piontkovsky_a/2988037-echo/ https://echo.msk.ru/blog/piontkovsky_a/2988037-echo/
  - nl 5y ago
    Translated version: https://echo-msk-ru.translate.goog/blog/piontkovsky_a/2988037-echo/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://echo-msk-ru.translate.goog/blog/piontkovsky_a/298803... He makes an interesting argument: For years now, Russia has been training the United States like Pavlov's dog, delicately preparing the Americans for their most important capitulation - the refusal to fulfill their allied obligations under Article 5 of the NATO Charter. I agree there is a risk Putin thinks he has achieved this. Traditionally, during the Cold War, the US would station US troops in pretty-much indefensible forward locations (eg West Berlin). The theory was that these troops would be killed by any attack, and US allies could be confident that the loss of US lives would be enough to make sure the US responded. Interestingly, NATO has prominently been pointing out the existence of "four multinational battalion-size battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland... led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States respectively" https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm And repeating their commitment to article 5: "Putin’s war affects us all and NATO Allies will always stand together to defend and protect each other," he said. The Secretary General also noted that NATO is deploying elements of the NATO Response Force for the first time in its history. "Today, French troops are arriving in Romania as the lead element of this force. Our commitment to Article 5, our collective defence clause, is iron-clad," https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192548.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192548.htm The reluctance of Trump to back article 5[1] will cost lots of lives. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/trumps-nato-article-5-problem/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t...

by geoka9 5y ago

virgilp 5y ago

I don't buy this. The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. In fact, I'd say that current response in Ukraine enforces this (though it's not a NATO member it got plenty of offensive equipment, intelligence, money, support, etc. - basically everything possible short of direct declaration of war / direct military involvement from all NATO members). Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. And he probably knows it. This is the weakest position he can be in - if the west attacked him, he could at least mobilize the Russians to "defend against western aggression" and could even justify the nuclear bombs to his generals; As things stand, his rhetoric and position are very shaky (he's not being defeated by mighty USA, but by the "weak" Ukrainians who "aren't even a nation")

geoka9 5y ago
> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. How did Putin take that message? I think that's the only thing that matters at this point. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. _If_ that mythos was blown to pieces, in the eyes of the Russian public. That remains to be seen.
- asah 5y ago
  And _if_ the general public of Russia still matters... ...and _if_ a viable alternative leader exists...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nl 5y ago
> The NATO message was clear & consistent that they will intervene in case of an attack on a member - there's 0 reason to believe otherwise. Unfortunately that's not true. The previous US president (who still has significant backing with US Congress and Senate) said this when asked about Article 5: > I want to keep NATO but I want them to pay. I don’t want to be taken advantage of… We’re protecting countries that most of the people in this room have never even heard of and we end up in world war three… Give me a break[1] And he later refused speeches that included a commitment to article 5: > The crucial nuance is that Trump did not say that NATO’s original mission of countering Russian power in Europe is no longer obsolete. Indeed, he has never acknowledged this. The closest he has come is a general statement of strong support with caveats attached for burden sharing and counterterrorism. Trump’s failure to endorse Article 5 is not an oversight. Members of his cabinet have unsuccessfully tried to insert this language into his remarks, including at his meeting with Stoltenberg.[1] Now eventually, Trump did endorse Article 5[2], but that kind of reluctance would have been very well noted in Moscow. > Keep in mind that Putin's mythos was blown to pieces, there's no way he can (politically, if not physically) survive this. After 9 days of war you think there is no way he can survive? Are you not familiar with the origins of Putin's Chechen War? Claiming that Putin is done because a war he is winning is unpopular in the West is naive. It's certainly possible he is in trouble, but there is a long, long way to go before he falls. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/trumps-nato-article-5-problem/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t... [2] https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to-natos-article-5/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/09/politics/trump-commits-to... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War#Bombings_in...

kitrose 5y ago

I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member. If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond?

geoka9 5y ago
> I don’t get the direct connection between response from a non-NATO country being attacked and a NATO member. The idea is that the lack of NATO membership is just a formality. In any other aspect, Ukraine is a much more important geopolitical asset than said Latvia (with all due respect to the Latvians - I'm just imagining the way it plays out in Putin's head. Or at least the way I understand Piontkovsy here). > If Putin tries to invade Latvia, the default assumption in this analysis is that NATO will just crumble rather than respond? Yep. Piontkovsky even describes a potential limited nuclear strike scenario as part of the raising of stakes by Putin. AKA "are you willing to die for Narva[0]?" [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  I mean I find these analysis absurd, they seem based on the ideas not just that Putin is irrational but also that he knows nothing about the very things we would assume he knows about, stuff like how treaties and military alliances work. I could totally understand some guy on the street thinking hey Latvia is nothing, if they won't defend the Ukraine then they won't defend Latvia but why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars they would otherwise rather keep out of think such a thing. In fact I would assume his kneejerk opinion would be to believe that the only way to get all these weak nations to actually go to war would be if an attack happened on a NATO nation.
  - geoka9 5y ago
    > why would a guy with supposed knowledge of military history and how alliances can often cause nations who are allied to come in to wars There's no military history of nuclear wars. This could be the difference in Putin's head.

krisoft 5y ago

> His most recent take is that by refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine, NATO creates an understanding in Putin's mind that it wouldn't get involved in, say, Latvia either. That’s a weird take. Ukraine is not a NATO member, NATO can choose to fight for them or can choose to not fight for them. Latvia is a NATO member. If Latvia is attacked and the NATO doesn’t fight for them NATO stops being a thing immediately. The 5th article is a cornerstone of the whole aliance. It is not an optional “and one more thing” but the reason to join the aliance at all, if it becomes shaky that undermines the whole thing. I wouldn’t dare to guess what goes on in Putin’s mind, but I also don’t see any reason why he would think that.

lordnacho 5y ago
I think this take is exactly what needs to be considered. We draw a line, it's NATO. Russia steps right up to the line by attacking Ukraine, and NATO does nothing. Is he going to believe that the line is still there? Why not test it? In my mind it's perfectly plausible that NATO squirms out if Latvia is attacked. Then the line is "core NATO" or something like that. At the very least if he doesn't test article 5, he can take every country that isn't in NATO, and each time the question grows about whether NATO is actually a thing.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > Why not test it? Because it's not a thing where you say "let's test this out today." It takes months or years to get to this point. I'm hoping NATO would respond to a build-up on the Latvian border with a build-up of their own. Making it clear that there is no easy win. There's no reason to just sit there and wait for the tanks to roll across the line.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > Why not test it? Be our guest. Test it. It doesn’t start with “and then Russia attacked Latvia”. They are not the Fire Nation. They need time to line up their logistics which will give time for NATO to detect their moves and amass troops in Latvia. Heck they were only lining up to attack a non-NATO country (Ukraine) and NATO sent extra troops to Latvia. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-nato-military-moves-send-message-russia-ukraine/story?id=82462943 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-nato-military-moves-send-...

nl 5y ago

> His most recent take is that by refusing to get directly involved in Ukraine, NATO creates an understanding in Putin's mind that it wouldn't get involved in, say, Latvia either. The link posted was from 2015. I'm unable to find any recent writing in English that indicates that he thinks that is a belief in Moscow. Instead, on Twitter he shared this Feb 27 story (not by him) that indicated Putin has a great fear of NATO forces: But this underestimates Russian respect for NATO’s conventional military power, which is far greater than its own. The only language Putin understands is force, and Moscow did not retaliate after Turkey shot down a Russian military plane in 2015 or when the United States struck and killed Russian mercenaries in 2018 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-26/making-putin-pay https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-02-26/m...

geoka9 5y ago
> I'm unable to find any recent writing in English that indicates that he thinks that is a belief in Moscow. For now, I can only find sources in Russian, e.g. this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-WB8AXLKs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv-WB8AXLKs https://echo.msk.ru/blog/piontkovsky_a/2988037-echo/ https://echo.msk.ru/blog/piontkovsky_a/2988037-echo/
- nl 5y ago
  Translated version: https://echo-msk-ru.translate.goog/blog/piontkovsky_a/2988037-echo/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://echo-msk-ru.translate.goog/blog/piontkovsky_a/298803... He makes an interesting argument: For years now, Russia has been training the United States like Pavlov's dog, delicately preparing the Americans for their most important capitulation - the refusal to fulfill their allied obligations under Article 5 of the NATO Charter. I agree there is a risk Putin thinks he has achieved this. Traditionally, during the Cold War, the US would station US troops in pretty-much indefensible forward locations (eg West Berlin). The theory was that these troops would be killed by any attack, and US allies could be confident that the loss of US lives would be enough to make sure the US responded. Interestingly, NATO has prominently been pointing out the existence of "four multinational battalion-size battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland... led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States respectively" https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_136388.htm And repeating their commitment to article 5: "Putin’s war affects us all and NATO Allies will always stand together to defend and protect each other," he said. The Secretary General also noted that NATO is deploying elements of the NATO Response Force for the first time in its history. "Today, French troops are arriving in Romania as the lead element of this force. Our commitment to Article 5, our collective defence clause, is iron-clad," https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192548.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_192548.htm The reluctance of Trump to back article 5[1] will cost lots of lives. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/trumps-nato-article-5-problem/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2017/05/17/t...