3 ms·

Invading Russia would be pushing the bear into a tight corner. This is setting up camp in another ecosystem where the bear isn’t supposed to be at all, has no

Invading Russia would be pushing the bear into a tight corner. This is setting up camp in another ecosystem where the bear isn’t supposed to be at all, has no claim.

s1artibartfast 5y ago
How close would you let your enemy put a knife to your throat before stopping them? The best way to avoid a knife fight is for two people to stay far apart. If you keep getting closer to someone with a knife, you shouldn't be surprised when you get stabbed.
- credit_guy 5y ago
  But Russia has thousands of nukes, and that's not a secret. Russia knows that nobody would dare attack them, ever. And the rest of the world knows that too. The whole thing about Russia feeling "threatened" is just total BS. Putin just knows that in this day and age you need to play the victim, and lots of people instinctively would take your side. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection. Non nuclear military projection matters because not everything is a nuclear war. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone. It still matters where bases are. If it comes to nuclear war, it also matters where bases are.
    - credit_guy 5y ago
      > strangulation via power projection. Cool metaphor there, but exactly what do you have in mind? Let's say every single neighbor of Russia becomes a NATO member, how does that strangulation via power projection work? Or in our concrete case, let's say Ukraine becomes a NATO member, who is going to threaten Russia, and how? Preferably in more concrete terms, rather than metaphors.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        In concrete examples if a future conflict of interests arises: They could shut down more airspace to russian reinforcement of allies. They could more easily cut off access access ports in the black sea. They could invade Belarus on a new front. They could move conventional and nuclear bombers closer to moscow. They could arm Russian revolutionaries using the land boarder. Being encircled makes it harder for Russia to respond to many many threats. In the last 20 years, the US attacked and toppled Russian friendly governments in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and lybia. Close bases were very helpful in each case.
        credit_guy 5y ago
        All these could be valid grievances. Great powers keep poking and prodding each other all the time. Russia does all sorts of chicanery back. They are mounting right not psy ops in Eastern Europe (e.g. the current "word" over there is that they are in danger of being nuked because of the US bases, and it's all US's fault, they'd be just fine if US got out of there... and some people swallow that stuff hook, line and sinker). Russia and the US spy each other. The US sanctioned Russia because of the Manitsky assassination. One can easily claim that this is economic warfare, and the if it weren't for that assassination, some other pretext could have been found. On the other hand Russia does kill people (and in the process they increase the popular awareness to such technical tems as Polonium and Novichok). This is again, just to say Russia and the US keep taking shots of each other. That does not mean Russia needs to start a real war, where tens of thousands of people die. And if Russia does, that's in no way the US's fault.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Ukraine was a game of chicken where Russia had something to lose from backing down and they do had nothing to lose from backing down
pintxo 5y ago
Problem is that Putins mindset seems to be exactly opposite to your statement. He sees the west setting up camp in an ecosystem he should not be. Hint: I do not endorse that thinking but I can understand that someone with this mindset might react strongly to us (the west) starting to play in “his” front yard.

Invading Russia would be pushing the bear into a tight corner. This is setting up camp in another ecosystem where the bear isn’t supposed to be at all, has no claim.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

How close would you let your enemy put a knife to your throat before stopping them? The best way to avoid a knife fight is for two people to stay far apart. If you keep getting closer to someone with a knife, you shouldn't be surprised when you get stabbed.

credit_guy 5y ago
But Russia has thousands of nukes, and that's not a secret. Russia knows that nobody would dare attack them, ever. And the rest of the world knows that too. The whole thing about Russia feeling "threatened" is just total BS. Putin just knows that in this day and age you need to play the victim, and lots of people instinctively would take your side. It doesn't matter how absurd the claim is.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  MAD is a defense against complete invasion, but not a defense against strangulation via power projection. Non nuclear military projection matters because not everything is a nuclear war. They are encircled by the US which has invaded and toppled more regimes than any other country in the world, and destroyed or destabilized several Russian allied countries in the last 2 decades alone. It still matters where bases are. If it comes to nuclear war, it also matters where bases are.
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    > strangulation via power projection. Cool metaphor there, but exactly what do you have in mind? Let's say every single neighbor of Russia becomes a NATO member, how does that strangulation via power projection work? Or in our concrete case, let's say Ukraine becomes a NATO member, who is going to threaten Russia, and how? Preferably in more concrete terms, rather than metaphors.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      In concrete examples if a future conflict of interests arises: They could shut down more airspace to russian reinforcement of allies. They could more easily cut off access access ports in the black sea. They could invade Belarus on a new front. They could move conventional and nuclear bombers closer to moscow. They could arm Russian revolutionaries using the land boarder. Being encircled makes it harder for Russia to respond to many many threats. In the last 20 years, the US attacked and toppled Russian friendly governments in Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and lybia. Close bases were very helpful in each case.
      - credit_guy 5y ago
        All these could be valid grievances. Great powers keep poking and prodding each other all the time. Russia does all sorts of chicanery back. They are mounting right not psy ops in Eastern Europe (e.g. the current "word" over there is that they are in danger of being nuked because of the US bases, and it's all US's fault, they'd be just fine if US got out of there... and some people swallow that stuff hook, line and sinker). Russia and the US spy each other. The US sanctioned Russia because of the Manitsky assassination. One can easily claim that this is economic warfare, and the if it weren't for that assassination, some other pretext could have been found. On the other hand Russia does kill people (and in the process they increase the popular awareness to such technical tems as Polonium and Novichok). This is again, just to say Russia and the US keep taking shots of each other. That does not mean Russia needs to start a real war, where tens of thousands of people die. And if Russia does, that's in no way the US's fault.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Ukraine was a game of chicken where Russia had something to lose from backing down and they do had nothing to lose from backing down

pintxo 5y ago

Problem is that Putins mindset seems to be exactly opposite to your statement. He sees the west setting up camp in an ecosystem he should not be. Hint: I do not endorse that thinking but I can understand that someone with this mindset might react strongly to us (the west) starting to play in “his” front yard.