7 ms·

To me the likeliest scenario is still: - Z and P after further destruction of Ukraine agree to ceding Crimea and some Eastern Ukraine and promise not to host n

To me the likeliest scenario is still: - Z and P after further destruction of Ukraine agree to ceding Crimea and some Eastern Ukraine and promise not to host nukes just to stop further carnage. Russia throws in some funds to rebuild

paulryanrogers 5y ago
Didn't Ukraine already give up nukes for security assurances in 1994? And here they are being invaded by one of the signatories?! Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.
- hbrav 5y ago
  It's often framed as that, but Ukraine didn't really have nuclear weapons at the dissolution of USSR. There were nuclear weapons located on its territory, but they were all controlled by military units that regarded themselves as answerable to Moscow, not Kyiv. What Ukraine really agreed to was to agree that they didn't own them, and allow them to be physically removed, in exchange for the security guarantee. This podcast is well worth a listen: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...
  - the_snooze 5y ago
    In other words, Ukraine "had" nuclear weapons in the same sense that North Dakota does: the bombs were just parked there under someone else's control and authority. The locals were never in the position to use them.
- dundarious 5y ago
  But approaching NATO membership is a huge factor in causing the invasion to happen (not to excuse Putin's aggression and other war crimes, but it is true, this was a foreseeable consequence, and many foresaw it). You can read Russia's public statements and Wikileaks' US diplomatic cables from 2007/2008 giving credit to this position, and the trail of evidence carries all the way to the present and to policy thinkers like Mearsheimer (who I don't agree with at all philosophically, but he's one of the "realists" who is excellent at analyzing where the pressure points lie and what are the degrees of freedom). Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be taken as further evidence that leaning too heavily towards NATO membership is what spurs invasion in the first place. As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.
  - SinParadise 5y ago
    Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?
    - psyc 5y ago
      Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.
      - SinParadise 5y ago
        But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse. By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve. In this case, Russia deserves none.
        dundarious 5y ago
        Not trying to hijack this thread, but I think that logic doesn't hold, because the US Monroe doctrine is backed up by a lot of "inappropriate" actions. There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.
        SinParadise 5y ago
        > There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time. > And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.
- pastacacioepepe 5y ago
  > Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor. Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best. Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border. Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it. Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials. So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership. Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war. Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    The biggest country in the world trying to subjugate its smaller neighbors is not imperialist?
  - rosndo 5y ago
    > Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? How often has NATO done that? Care to name some examples?
  - thoradam 5y ago
    > Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. Where do you put the annexation of Crimea in this timeline?
  - blaser-waffle 5y ago
    How many times were the Chechens offered to join NATO? This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks. These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.
bloaf 5y ago
I also wonder about the "Putin loses power in Russia" scenario that the author brushes aside. It seems to me that we could fight Putin on the "internal politics" front in a way that A) forces a choice between escalation of the war and stabilization of his regime and B) Has enough plausible deniability that failure doesn't immediately trigger a nuclear response.
- sverhagen 5y ago
  I find that also an appealing scenario. But Putin does not, hence the propaganda and the censoring. So it may for that reason alone be a complete pipe dream of the West.
xdennis 5y ago
It would be insane to agree to any Russians promises given that they don't respect their current agreements. The only solution is for Russians to retreat from the occupied territories or have endless guerrilla war.
- redisman 5y ago
  Their choice might be Ukraine leveled and tens/hundreds of thousands more dead or take the deal
- it_does_follow 5y ago
  Putin/The Russians aren't insane, they're looking after oil/NG interests. That's the entire reason they captured Crimea in the first place. The Ukrainian government then stopped the flow of water to Crimea to make it basically unusable. NATO backed oil/NG companies also are annoyed because, despite investing a lot in gas fields in the East and the West, they haven't been able to produce much of anything because the region is under constant military conflict, funded by both the US and Russia. I agree with the parent comment. If Russia can finally and absolutely control gas fields in the East and have assured access to not only Crimea but water to run the region they'll be getting much more out of this situation than they had prior. They will be interested in stability as much as NATO backed energy companies. Given the conflict in the region, and the recent (2014) overthrow of a government friendly to them (coincidentally right after Shell and Chevron signed contracts to develop gas fields), Russia is, rightfully, as wary of promises from the West as we are of them. For purely, selfish, greedy reasons Russia would want peace in the region as much as NATO backed oil/gas companies have been hoping for it. There are still gas fields in the West that are waiting to be exploited and already have their resources under contract. Once these resources can be split up in a way everyone can deal with, there won't be conflict until the gas dries up because both parties make tremendously more money with stability after that.
  - kavalg 5y ago
    I wouldn't underestimate the value of the Ukrainian NPPs and fertile land too, as well as access to the Black Sea. Maybe even the human capital shall not be underestimated.
dehrmann 5y ago
Russia could have likely gotten Donbas with minimal hassle if the incursion had stopped there.
- redisman 5y ago
  I don’t think that was their only goal but they can certainly fall back on it now.
phire 5y ago
The problem with that scenario is I have a hard time seeing Putin agreeing to anything that doesn't also include a major change of government in Ukraine. And while I think there is small chance Zelenskyy would cede Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, he wouldn't accept any interference with their government. There is a huge risk that the new pro-Russia government would just make more concessions to Russia later, making the whole deal worthless.

paulryanrogers 5y ago

Didn't Ukraine already give up nukes for security assurances in 1994? And here they are being invaded by one of the signatories?! Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor.

hbrav 5y ago
It's often framed as that, but Ukraine didn't really have nuclear weapons at the dissolution of USSR. There were nuclear weapons located on its territory, but they were all controlled by military units that regarded themselves as answerable to Moscow, not Kyiv. What Ukraine really agreed to was to agree that they didn't own them, and allow them to be physically removed, in exchange for the security guarantee. This podcast is well worth a listen: https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-in-ukraine/ https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1215097/deterrence-i...
- the_snooze 5y ago
  In other words, Ukraine "had" nuclear weapons in the same sense that North Dakota does: the bombs were just parked there under someone else's control and authority. The locals were never in the position to use them.
dundarious 5y ago
But approaching NATO membership is a huge factor in causing the invasion to happen (not to excuse Putin's aggression and other war crimes, but it is true, this was a foreseeable consequence, and many foresaw it). You can read Russia's public statements and Wikileaks' US diplomatic cables from 2007/2008 giving credit to this position, and the trail of evidence carries all the way to the present and to policy thinkers like Mearsheimer (who I don't agree with at all philosophically, but he's one of the "realists" who is excellent at analyzing where the pressure points lie and what are the degrees of freedom). Abkhazia and South Ossetia should also be taken as further evidence that leaning too heavily towards NATO membership is what spurs invasion in the first place. As for foreseeing things, I have to admit that I got several things horribly wrong in the lead up to the invasion. I was far too focused on criticizing NATO powers for ignoring the diplomatic track (where was the pressure to implement Minsk 2?) and for only shouting about invasion. The reason this deserved criticism is that such errant focus meant that eventually there might be an invasion. But my rhetoric and even train of thought focused almost exclusively on criticizing NATO on the basis of warnings that turned out to be quite accurate.
- SinParadise 5y ago
  Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?
  - psyc 5y ago
    Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.
    - SinParadise 5y ago
      But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse. By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve. In this case, Russia deserves none.
      - dundarious 5y ago
        Not trying to hijack this thread, but I think that logic doesn't hold, because the US Monroe doctrine is backed up by a lot of "inappropriate" actions. There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.
        SinParadise 5y ago
        > There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time. > And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.
pastacacioepepe 5y ago
> Seems like nukes, NATO, or EU membership are the only way to be sure Russia won't invade, if you're a neighbor. Sorry, this is not true. Misinformed at best. Russia has been warning for years that they won't tolerate having another NATO country adjacent to their border. Every single analysist knew that offering NATO membership to Ukraine would have caused a conflict. And yet we went ahead and offered it. Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. This is well documented and confirmed by top notch geopolitical analyst and even NATO officials. So you want to keep Russia out of a country? Don't offer them the NATO membership. Why would we expand NATO anyway? It is only an aggressive move and I don't understand why we keep doing it, unless we have an interest in causing conflicts like this one and then polarizing the world into a new cold war. Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? It's not Russia, it's us! We are the imperialist here, not them.
- nec4b 5y ago
  The biggest country in the world trying to subjugate its smaller neighbors is not imperialist?
- rosndo 5y ago
  > Check recent history. Who's waging unwarranted wars thousands of miles away from their borders all over the world? How often has NATO done that? Care to name some examples?
- thoradam 5y ago
  > Without this expansionist step from our side the situation would have never escalated. Where do you put the annexation of Crimea in this timeline?
- blaser-waffle 5y ago
  How many times were the Chechens offered to join NATO? This is more agitprop -- "it's NATO expanding, we had to do this, it's their fault". Bollocks. These are independent, sovereign countries who have a history of being abused by Russia and the Soviet Union. You know what happens if you're not in NATO? You get abused by Russia.

bloaf 5y ago

I also wonder about the "Putin loses power in Russia" scenario that the author brushes aside. It seems to me that we could fight Putin on the "internal politics" front in a way that A) forces a choice between escalation of the war and stabilization of his regime and B) Has enough plausible deniability that failure doesn't immediately trigger a nuclear response.

sverhagen 5y ago
I find that also an appealing scenario. But Putin does not, hence the propaganda and the censoring. So it may for that reason alone be a complete pipe dream of the West.

xdennis 5y ago

It would be insane to agree to any Russians promises given that they don't respect their current agreements. The only solution is for Russians to retreat from the occupied territories or have endless guerrilla war.

redisman 5y ago
Their choice might be Ukraine leveled and tens/hundreds of thousands more dead or take the deal
it_does_follow 5y ago
Putin/The Russians aren't insane, they're looking after oil/NG interests. That's the entire reason they captured Crimea in the first place. The Ukrainian government then stopped the flow of water to Crimea to make it basically unusable. NATO backed oil/NG companies also are annoyed because, despite investing a lot in gas fields in the East and the West, they haven't been able to produce much of anything because the region is under constant military conflict, funded by both the US and Russia. I agree with the parent comment. If Russia can finally and absolutely control gas fields in the East and have assured access to not only Crimea but water to run the region they'll be getting much more out of this situation than they had prior. They will be interested in stability as much as NATO backed energy companies. Given the conflict in the region, and the recent (2014) overthrow of a government friendly to them (coincidentally right after Shell and Chevron signed contracts to develop gas fields), Russia is, rightfully, as wary of promises from the West as we are of them. For purely, selfish, greedy reasons Russia would want peace in the region as much as NATO backed oil/gas companies have been hoping for it. There are still gas fields in the West that are waiting to be exploited and already have their resources under contract. Once these resources can be split up in a way everyone can deal with, there won't be conflict until the gas dries up because both parties make tremendously more money with stability after that.
- kavalg 5y ago
  I wouldn't underestimate the value of the Ukrainian NPPs and fertile land too, as well as access to the Black Sea. Maybe even the human capital shall not be underestimated.

dehrmann 5y ago

Russia could have likely gotten Donbas with minimal hassle if the incursion had stopped there.

redisman 5y ago
I don’t think that was their only goal but they can certainly fall back on it now.

phire 5y ago

The problem with that scenario is I have a hard time seeing Putin agreeing to anything that doesn't also include a major change of government in Ukraine. And while I think there is small chance Zelenskyy would cede Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, he wouldn't accept any interference with their government. There is a huge risk that the new pro-Russia government would just make more concessions to Russia later, making the whole deal worthless.