4 ms·

Yeah, this is pretty clear. They lost it within the first ten days into the war, if by 'lost' you mean much worse off than not having started the war in the fi

Yeah, this is pretty clear. They lost it within the first ten days into the war, if by 'lost' you mean much worse off than not having started the war in the first place. They still may or may not end up with Ukraine as a vassal state; that's just a question of how much Russia lost, not whether they lost.

d0mine 5y ago
NATO rockets in Ukraine is a certain death to Russia. There is no choice.
- gus_massa 5y ago
  Why is it worse than rockets in other countries that have a border with Russia and are part of NATO?
  - empressplay 5y ago
    Distance to Moscow, primarily. The abandonment of treaties related to short-range nuclear missiles means it's possible for NATO to put nuclear armed missiles on the border between Ukraine and Moscow. There would be no time to react to a first strike, meaning MAD would no longer be in play.
    - HstryrsrBttn 5y ago
    - gus_massa 5y ago
      Looking in the map, the Ukrainian border is 510km(320miles) away and the next NATO border is 620km(380miles) away. It does not look like a huge difference.
      - eitland 5y ago
        Also Nato doesn't want that. Even now, Nato desperately want the kind of sane Russia back instead of going all in to topple it :-| For me it is pretty obvious Putin knew. He also knew the west would let it go if he took it in three days or so. Luckily he got his calculations wrong, Ukrainian resistance has been amazing and the public support for Ukraine has led to some of the strictest sanctions ever applied + voluntary boycotts + roadblocks etc.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > The abandonment of treaties related to short-range nuclear missiles means it's possible for NATO to put nuclear armed missiles on the border between Ukraine and Moscow. It really doesn't. Moscow doesn't border Ukraine.
- rasz 5y ago
  You mean like NATO rockets in Poland? oh ...
empressplay 5y ago
Putin seems to believe that the 'eventual' admittance of Ukraine into NATO and potentially the EU and the placement of troops / missiles there was going to lead to the end of the Russian state as he knows it (not so much by NATO conquest but by a willingness on a future Russia's part to join the EU). So while yes by our metrics Russia is in worse shape, these are not necessarily Putin's metrics. Putin wants to neutralize Ukraine, and he's likely done that. He wanted to turn Russia inward and away from the West, and he's definitely done that. He wants to ensure the Russian state continues into the long term without free borders or economic entanglements and he has absolutely accomplished that. I know it makes us feel better to say 'Oh, that foolish Putin, such an idiot' but he simply may not feel that way. He may be meeting his objectives, as he sees them.
- signatoremo 5y ago
  Ukraine won’t be neutralized, or occupied for a long run, simply because Russia can’t ignore the enormous cost of doing so, regardless of what Putin wants. We’ve seen the willingness of Ukrainians to fight for their country and the amount of support they receive from the West. At some point the cost will be too much that would risk destabilizing Russia.
- eitland 5y ago
  > Putin seems to believe that the 'eventual' admittance of Ukraine into NATO and potentially the EU and the placement of troops / missiles there Putin knew very well about the "uncontested borders" rule for new Nato countries, and he knew about all the problems in east Ukraine. He has also been talking about "nazis" in Ukraine for months. It was all just a show.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Putin knew very well about the "uncontested borders" rule for new Nato countries It's not a rule, it's just an excuse certain members (NATO operates on consensus, not majoritarianism) have been citing for not moving Georgia and Ukraine from “we expect them to become members at some point” to “here’s a formal Membership Action Plan”, but which hasn't been historically applied to prospective NATO members (who have been admitted with border disputes, including border disputes with other NATO countries, e.g., Spain with the UK) and which could be dropped as an objection to those two at any time with no formal change to NATO rules.

d0mine 5y ago

NATO rockets in Ukraine is a certain death to Russia. There is no choice.

gus_massa 5y ago
Why is it worse than rockets in other countries that have a border with Russia and are part of NATO?
- empressplay 5y ago
  Distance to Moscow, primarily. The abandonment of treaties related to short-range nuclear missiles means it's possible for NATO to put nuclear armed missiles on the border between Ukraine and Moscow. There would be no time to react to a first strike, meaning MAD would no longer be in play.
  - HstryrsrBttn 5y ago
  - gus_massa 5y ago
    Looking in the map, the Ukrainian border is 510km(320miles) away and the next NATO border is 620km(380miles) away. It does not look like a huge difference.
    - eitland 5y ago
      Also Nato doesn't want that. Even now, Nato desperately want the kind of sane Russia back instead of going all in to topple it :-| For me it is pretty obvious Putin knew. He also knew the west would let it go if he took it in three days or so. Luckily he got his calculations wrong, Ukrainian resistance has been amazing and the public support for Ukraine has led to some of the strictest sanctions ever applied + voluntary boycotts + roadblocks etc.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The abandonment of treaties related to short-range nuclear missiles means it's possible for NATO to put nuclear armed missiles on the border between Ukraine and Moscow. It really doesn't. Moscow doesn't border Ukraine.
rasz 5y ago
You mean like NATO rockets in Poland? oh ...

empressplay 5y ago

Putin seems to believe that the 'eventual' admittance of Ukraine into NATO and potentially the EU and the placement of troops / missiles there was going to lead to the end of the Russian state as he knows it (not so much by NATO conquest but by a willingness on a future Russia's part to join the EU). So while yes by our metrics Russia is in worse shape, these are not necessarily Putin's metrics. Putin wants to neutralize Ukraine, and he's likely done that. He wanted to turn Russia inward and away from the West, and he's definitely done that. He wants to ensure the Russian state continues into the long term without free borders or economic entanglements and he has absolutely accomplished that. I know it makes us feel better to say 'Oh, that foolish Putin, such an idiot' but he simply may not feel that way. He may be meeting his objectives, as he sees them.

signatoremo 5y ago
Ukraine won’t be neutralized, or occupied for a long run, simply because Russia can’t ignore the enormous cost of doing so, regardless of what Putin wants. We’ve seen the willingness of Ukrainians to fight for their country and the amount of support they receive from the West. At some point the cost will be too much that would risk destabilizing Russia.
eitland 5y ago
> Putin seems to believe that the 'eventual' admittance of Ukraine into NATO and potentially the EU and the placement of troops / missiles there Putin knew very well about the "uncontested borders" rule for new Nato countries, and he knew about all the problems in east Ukraine. He has also been talking about "nazis" in Ukraine for months. It was all just a show.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Putin knew very well about the "uncontested borders" rule for new Nato countries It's not a rule, it's just an excuse certain members (NATO operates on consensus, not majoritarianism) have been citing for not moving Georgia and Ukraine from “we expect them to become members at some point” to “here’s a formal Membership Action Plan”, but which hasn't been historically applied to prospective NATO members (who have been admitted with border disputes, including border disputes with other NATO countries, e.g., Spain with the UK) and which could be dropped as an objection to those two at any time with no formal change to NATO rules.