7 ms·

So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months: 1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine; 2. Failed to capture Kyiv; 3. Failed to make meaningful g

by jmyeet 4y ago

So let's recount what Putin has achieved in the last 3 months: 1. Failed to conquer all of Ukraine; 2. Failed to capture Kyiv; 3. Failed to make meaningful gains in the Donbass; 4. Failed to decapitate Ukraine's leadership; 5. Suffered huge casulaties; 6. Done massive damage to the perception of Russia's military (and thus the power it can project); 7. Done more for NATO solidarity than probably anything else in the last 20 years when previous to this, there wasn't a lot as much fervour for NATO; 8. Prompted Finland and Sweden to join NATO when previously they were happy being neutral; 9. Russia is now subject to broad sanctions where previously Europe was looking to increase gas dependence on Russia (eg Nord Stream 2). So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade. The question now is what is Putin's state of mind? Is he aware of the true position (as in, is he getting accurate assessments and intelligence or just "yes men")? Does he still think he can "win"? What does "winning" even look like now? A rational person would be looking for a face-saving exit (think "mission accomplished"). I thought that might be occupying the Donbass and negotiating for some autonomy for the region but even that is starting to look out of reach. My concern is that someone cornered like this after making such a huge gamble at terrible cost is capable of doing something even more awful.

eschulz 4y ago
I agree. The Putin regime has paid such an enormous price over the last three months that I'm now concerned they might take egregious and insane steps at any time. These steps would be to save face, and I think they can in part be avoided if the regime could somehow package together something that they can sell as a victory to the Russian people and their sympathizers abroad.
theshrike79 4y ago
The worst part is that I can't see a valid "out" for Russia as a country from this. Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership? The level of sanctions on Russia is AFAIK unprecedented on a global scale, it's only been months and regular people are already feeling the effects. And if the sanctions go on for a few years, they'll be at Soviet Russia levels of living.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership? The only way that could happen is with some Germany post-WW2 level consequences and reckoning. All high level military, intelligence, civilian administration get one way tickets to The Hague for trial, with mandatory permanent exile for those not guilty of crimes. Full demilitarisation. Heavy economic sanctions for the rebuilding of Ukraine, and then Russia itself with loans
- rmind 4y ago
  Why do you think there should be a "valid" (you mean face-saving?) exit from the war? I would argue that a full military defeat of Russia is a valid end of this war.
  - tacon 4y ago
    And if the Ukrainians get momentum, they will retake Crimea. Maybe the negotiating point would be to let Russia keep the Sevastopol base?
mcv 4y ago
After all Putin's talk of the threats that other countries pose to Russia, the real threat to Russia is quite clearly Putin. He's a liability, and there's a very real possibility that he might make things even worse. Russia would be wise to remove him, but I have no idea how hard that would be.
jimbob45 4y ago
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/russian-ruble-surpasses-brazilian-real-as-world-s-best-currency https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/russian-r... The Ruble is the world's top growing currency this year. The analysts seem to believe that it won't stay on top but that's certainly a positive note for Russia.
Gravityloss 4y ago
Putin has been writing and speaking about this for years. He really thinks Russia should control other Slavic people, and former territories of Russia and Soviet Union etc. And it's not only Putin. Most of the other high ranking officials must have been supporting the attack into Ukraine, otherwise it would not have happened. If it was him alone against everyone else, Putin would simply have been replaced. A large portion of the Russian population also supports the attack. It is no fluke. You can't pin it on one "madman". It's as if the majority Russian people in Russia genuinely think they should control the land and people that is Ukraine. It's not all people. There are anti-war protests, millions of people have left Russia, and there are dissidents. To somehow recover from this, it would require some deep reflection on what Russia really is, and what is its role in humanity. I'm afraid it will take some drastic events before people are able to question themselves to that level. It would begin with the philosophers and poets.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  I don't put a lot of stock in the Russian Imperialism ambitions as being a serious factor in this invasion. I just don't think it adds up. I mean even if Putin was saying this, that doesn't mean a lot. The US, for example, says they're spreading democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, fro example. I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO). Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat. China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there). For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
  - macintux 4y ago
avl999 4y ago
> So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. If he achieved "nothing" that would infact be preferable for Russia to the state they are in now. What he did is an equivalent of the manager of your team pulling a couple of all nighters over the weekend to do a "hero-refactor" on your codebase for "improvements" and then deploying it into production only for everyone to discover that the "improved" code has massive performance regressions, worse user experience and is harder to maintain... worse it can't be rolled back easily and the process of rolling it back will be slow and annoying, that is if the manager who made those changes even admits that it should be rolled back in the first place.
- moufestaphio 4y ago
  Sounds oddly specific :D
rmind 4y ago
You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year). Russian military industry also lost access to the Western high tech (unfortunately, a lot of it has been used in their modern equipment, such as missiles, aircraft, etc). It will take at least a decade for them rebuild the armed forces after the war with Ukraine. There is indeed a risk of Kremlin using the tactical nuclear weapons. The United States needs to have a very robust strategy for such possibility. However, such use cannot be left without a response. Most likely it would be a military response. No response would set a catastrophic precedent, as it would invite the use of nuclear weapons in pretty much any conflict which involves a nuclear power. Just think about South China Sea, Kashmir conflict, etc. It would also lead to an era of nuclear proliferation, as weaker states would see no other option than to obtain nukes. I think even the nutcases in Kremlin (or at least the Russian Armed Forces) understand that there would be an unprecedented response.
- pydry 4y ago
  >You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year The conservative estimate was that the ruble would plunge about 30% as a result of the war. It's now bizarrely higher than its been in 5 years. I dont remember anybody foreseeing that. Zero. Not one analyst. Ive only heard retrospective justifications for why it happened which any idiot can come up with. I definitely cant believe Russia is coming out of this unscathed but economic predictions are a crapshoot at the best of times and these are very much uncharted territories.
  - rmind 4y ago
    Ruble is a weak indicator as the central bank has tools to control the exchange rate. Soviet ruble also had a strong and, for a long time, quite stable exchange rate with the US dollar. However, in Soviet Union you could not legally own foreign currency (nor you could buy Western goods and services). The exchange rate by no means indicated the economic situation in the USSR.
    - 4y ago
osynavets 4y ago
In my opinion it's destroying Ukraine as a country. Even if it takes years he's ready to keep this thing going until our economy collapses. I mean, you're right, Russia hasn't succeeded in its goals. But if we take a look at Ukraine which will start to struggle economically in near future [1] you can change your opinion. [1] - https://www.economist.com/europe/it-will-be-hard-for-ukraines-economy-to-sustain-a-long-war/21809222 https://www.economist.com/europe/it-will-be-hard-for-ukraine...
- jmyeet 4y ago
  You bring up a good point. I've given this some thought. On its face I think it's a reasonable position: if Putin can't have Ukraine, nobody can (not even Ukraine). This is more believable when you consider that oil and gas reserves have been found in Ukraine but it lacks the capital to develop them. Shell was in Crimea prior to the annexation. But this theory has a few problems. 1. The cost of wrecking Ukraine has been really high. 2. Ukraine was earning a significant amount of money (ie billions) from carrying Russian natural gas to Western Europe through pipelines. Russia has since built other pipelines to avoid this problem but I believe they were still 1-2 years away from completely bypassing Ukraine; 3. Arguably Russiaa can do more damage outside or Ukraine than in it. Russia has been stirring up trouble and supplying separatists in the Donbass since at least 2014. In some ways annexing the Donbass would solve a problem for Ukraine as they'd no longer have this divisive element within their borders. It's arguably more of a problem for Ukraine for the Donbass to be part of Ukraine and this required no further intervention from Russia and certainly no invasion.
  - rmind 4y ago
    It is absolutely a loss-loss situation for Russia and Ukraine. However, as long as the West maintains sanctions on Russia and provides a substantial support (both economic and military) to Ukraine, then Russia will not be able to sustain its war effort and pressure on Ukraine. Europe is finally, for real (albeit slowly and painfully), moving away from the Rusian fossil fuels this time. It will take some time, but it's a tectonic shift.
darksaints 4y ago
More people should be listening to Fiona Hill on this issue...she knows Putin better than any other outsider. And she has been saying the same thing for years: that if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll start using nukes. He wants to be seen as someone who restored the glory of the Russian empire, and he will use any tool at his disposal to get it. His lack of use of nukes up until this point doesn't really mean that he is bluffing, it is about timing and situational prudence; now is just not the right time. Also, she keeps saying that World War 3 has already started, we just haven't acknowledged it yet. Those are positive, not normative analyses. The real question is what do we do about it. And I can't help but think that if it is more or less inevitable that he will use nukes before losing the war, and the only reason he hasn't used them yet is because of situational timing, then the approach that stands out to me is that we're in a better position to attack him now than we would be when he thinks the timing is right to blow up the world.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade. It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? If they folded, Russia could have taken all of Ukraine, and the only price would be the sanctions. Putin could easily have thought that it would be worth the price. The question was, what were the odds of Ukraine folding? Putin may have thought they were 90%, which would make it a worthwhile gamble. I'm not sure anyone in the West regarded the current situation as the most likely outcome, either. So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that "a lot of this was forseeable". The sanctions were (though perhaps not to this level). NATO solidarity and Finland and Sweden joining were somewhat forseeable. I'm not sure that the rest were.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  > It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? It doesn't matter if Ukraine folded. Why? Because what happens next? If Russia installs a puppet regime and leaves, how long does that puppet regime last? If Russia stays and maintains a military occupation, it faces the prospect of a decades-long counter-insurgency from a geographically large country with 44 million potential insurgents who are really unified by their hatred of Russians. Post-WW2 insurgencies have had an incredibly high chance of success against even far more numerous and technologically superior occupying forces. It's a bad bet.
spoils19 4y ago
I've been keeping an eye on non-MSM sources, and I've of two minds: * Is there any evidence that what you say is true? I find it hard to believe most news sources these days, and most nation states often boost their own bravado through press conferences. * If it is true, then I'm glad that US representatives haven't wasted taxpayer money by sending military aid when it's obviously not needed. I lean libertarian like many others on this forum, so I resonate a lot with similar commentary here.

by jmyeet 4y ago

eschulz 4y ago

I agree. The Putin regime has paid such an enormous price over the last three months that I'm now concerned they might take egregious and insane steps at any time. These steps would be to save face, and I think they can in part be avoided if the regime could somehow package together something that they can sell as a victory to the Russian people and their sympathizers abroad.

theshrike79 4y ago

The worst part is that I can't see a valid "out" for Russia as a country from this. Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership? The level of sanctions on Russia is AFAIK unprecedented on a global scale, it's only been months and regular people are already feeling the effects. And if the sanctions go on for a few years, they'll be at Soviet Russia levels of living.

sofixa 4y ago
> Even if Russians, by some miracle, manage to pry Putin out of power, what then? Will anyone trust any of their leadership? The only way that could happen is with some Germany post-WW2 level consequences and reckoning. All high level military, intelligence, civilian administration get one way tickets to The Hague for trial, with mandatory permanent exile for those not guilty of crimes. Full demilitarisation. Heavy economic sanctions for the rebuilding of Ukraine, and then Russia itself with loans
rmind 4y ago
Why do you think there should be a "valid" (you mean face-saving?) exit from the war? I would argue that a full military defeat of Russia is a valid end of this war.
- tacon 4y ago
  And if the Ukrainians get momentum, they will retake Crimea. Maybe the negotiating point would be to let Russia keep the Sevastopol base?

mcv 4y ago

After all Putin's talk of the threats that other countries pose to Russia, the real threat to Russia is quite clearly Putin. He's a liability, and there's a very real possibility that he might make things even worse. Russia would be wise to remove him, but I have no idea how hard that would be.

jimbob45 4y ago

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/russian-ruble-surpasses-brazilian-real-as-world-s-best-currency https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-11/russian-r... The Ruble is the world's top growing currency this year. The analysts seem to believe that it won't stay on top but that's certainly a positive note for Russia.

Gravityloss 4y ago

Putin has been writing and speaking about this for years. He really thinks Russia should control other Slavic people, and former territories of Russia and Soviet Union etc. And it's not only Putin. Most of the other high ranking officials must have been supporting the attack into Ukraine, otherwise it would not have happened. If it was him alone against everyone else, Putin would simply have been replaced. A large portion of the Russian population also supports the attack. It is no fluke. You can't pin it on one "madman". It's as if the majority Russian people in Russia genuinely think they should control the land and people that is Ukraine. It's not all people. There are anti-war protests, millions of people have left Russia, and there are dissidents. To somehow recover from this, it would require some deep reflection on what Russia really is, and what is its role in humanity. I'm afraid it will take some drastic events before people are able to question themselves to that level. It would begin with the philosophers and poets.

jmyeet 4y ago
I don't put a lot of stock in the Russian Imperialism ambitions as being a serious factor in this invasion. I just don't think it adds up. I mean even if Putin was saying this, that doesn't mean a lot. The US, for example, says they're spreading democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, fro example. I believe it's far more likely that Russia actually wanted (wants?) a buffer between it and NATO. They've been warning of this since 2008 (when Bush opened the door to Ukraine joining NATO). Why do I find this more believable? Because it's exactly what imperial powers do. It's exactly what the United States has done. The US almost started World War Three over a Soviet presence in Cuba. The US for 200 years (ie the Monroe Doctrine) has considered the Americas the sole province of the US and any foreign military to be a threat. China does this too. Mongolia is a buffer to Russia. North Korea is a buffer to South Korea (and the significant US military presence there). For Imperialist ambitions to make sense, Russia would have to either occupy Ukraine on a long term basis or install a puppet regime (eg like Belarus). Both are doomed from the start. The Ukraine is too large to occupy and would be too expensive. The USSR couldn't even maintain a puppet government in Afghanistan (and nor could the US obviously).
- macintux 4y ago

avl999 4y ago

> So Putin has quite literally achieved nothing. If he achieved "nothing" that would infact be preferable for Russia to the state they are in now. What he did is an equivalent of the manager of your team pulling a couple of all nighters over the weekend to do a "hero-refactor" on your codebase for "improvements" and then deploying it into production only for everyone to discover that the "improved" code has massive performance regressions, worse user experience and is harder to maintain... worse it can't be rolled back easily and the process of rolling it back will be slow and annoying, that is if the manager who made those changes even admits that it should be rolled back in the first place.

moufestaphio 4y ago
Sounds oddly specific :D

rmind 4y ago

You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year). Russian military industry also lost access to the Western high tech (unfortunately, a lot of it has been used in their modern equipment, such as missiles, aircraft, etc). It will take at least a decade for them rebuild the armed forces after the war with Ukraine. There is indeed a risk of Kremlin using the tactical nuclear weapons. The United States needs to have a very robust strategy for such possibility. However, such use cannot be left without a response. Most likely it would be a military response. No response would set a catastrophic precedent, as it would invite the use of nuclear weapons in pretty much any conflict which involves a nuclear power. Just think about South China Sea, Kashmir conflict, etc. It would also lead to an era of nuclear proliferation, as weaker states would see no other option than to obtain nukes. I think even the nutcases in Kremlin (or at least the Russian Armed Forces) understand that there would be an unprecedented response.

pydry 4y ago
>You forgot couple important aspects: he also ruined the Russian economy (the conservative estimate is -12% GDP drop this year The conservative estimate was that the ruble would plunge about 30% as a result of the war. It's now bizarrely higher than its been in 5 years. I dont remember anybody foreseeing that. Zero. Not one analyst. Ive only heard retrospective justifications for why it happened which any idiot can come up with. I definitely cant believe Russia is coming out of this unscathed but economic predictions are a crapshoot at the best of times and these are very much uncharted territories.
- rmind 4y ago
  Ruble is a weak indicator as the central bank has tools to control the exchange rate. Soviet ruble also had a strong and, for a long time, quite stable exchange rate with the US dollar. However, in Soviet Union you could not legally own foreign currency (nor you could buy Western goods and services). The exchange rate by no means indicated the economic situation in the USSR.
  - 4y ago

osynavets 4y ago

In my opinion it's destroying Ukraine as a country. Even if it takes years he's ready to keep this thing going until our economy collapses. I mean, you're right, Russia hasn't succeeded in its goals. But if we take a look at Ukraine which will start to struggle economically in near future [1] you can change your opinion. [1] - https://www.economist.com/europe/it-will-be-hard-for-ukraines-economy-to-sustain-a-long-war/21809222 https://www.economist.com/europe/it-will-be-hard-for-ukraine...

jmyeet 4y ago
You bring up a good point. I've given this some thought. On its face I think it's a reasonable position: if Putin can't have Ukraine, nobody can (not even Ukraine). This is more believable when you consider that oil and gas reserves have been found in Ukraine but it lacks the capital to develop them. Shell was in Crimea prior to the annexation. But this theory has a few problems. 1. The cost of wrecking Ukraine has been really high. 2. Ukraine was earning a significant amount of money (ie billions) from carrying Russian natural gas to Western Europe through pipelines. Russia has since built other pipelines to avoid this problem but I believe they were still 1-2 years away from completely bypassing Ukraine; 3. Arguably Russiaa can do more damage outside or Ukraine than in it. Russia has been stirring up trouble and supplying separatists in the Donbass since at least 2014. In some ways annexing the Donbass would solve a problem for Ukraine as they'd no longer have this divisive element within their borders. It's arguably more of a problem for Ukraine for the Donbass to be part of Ukraine and this required no further intervention from Russia and certainly no invasion.
- rmind 4y ago
  It is absolutely a loss-loss situation for Russia and Ukraine. However, as long as the West maintains sanctions on Russia and provides a substantial support (both economic and military) to Ukraine, then Russia will not be able to sustain its war effort and pressure on Ukraine. Europe is finally, for real (albeit slowly and painfully), moving away from the Rusian fossil fuels this time. It will take some time, but it's a tectonic shift.

darksaints 4y ago

More people should be listening to Fiona Hill on this issue...she knows Putin better than any other outsider. And she has been saying the same thing for years: that if he doesn't get what he wants, he'll start using nukes. He wants to be seen as someone who restored the glory of the Russian empire, and he will use any tool at his disposal to get it. His lack of use of nukes up until this point doesn't really mean that he is bluffing, it is about timing and situational prudence; now is just not the right time. Also, she keeps saying that World War 3 has already started, we just haven't acknowledged it yet. Those are positive, not normative analyses. The real question is what do we do about it. And I can't help but think that if it is more or less inevitable that he will use nukes before losing the war, and the only reason he hasn't used them yet is because of situational timing, then the approach that stands out to me is that we're in a better position to attack him now than we would be when he thinks the timing is right to blow up the world.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> A lot of this was foreseeable too, which is why many (including myself) thought Putin wouldn't invade. It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? If they folded, Russia could have taken all of Ukraine, and the only price would be the sanctions. Putin could easily have thought that it would be worth the price. The question was, what were the odds of Ukraine folding? Putin may have thought they were 90%, which would make it a worthwhile gamble. I'm not sure anyone in the West regarded the current situation as the most likely outcome, either. So I'm not sure that it's fair to say that "a lot of this was forseeable". The sanctions were (though perhaps not to this level). NATO solidarity and Finland and Sweden joining were somewhat forseeable. I'm not sure that the rest were.

jmyeet 4y ago
> It was a gamble. Would Ukraine fold, or not? It doesn't matter if Ukraine folded. Why? Because what happens next? If Russia installs a puppet regime and leaves, how long does that puppet regime last? If Russia stays and maintains a military occupation, it faces the prospect of a decades-long counter-insurgency from a geographically large country with 44 million potential insurgents who are really unified by their hatred of Russians. Post-WW2 insurgencies have had an incredibly high chance of success against even far more numerous and technologically superior occupying forces. It's a bad bet.

spoils19 4y ago

I've been keeping an eye on non-MSM sources, and I've of two minds: * Is there any evidence that what you say is true? I find it hard to believe most news sources these days, and most nation states often boost their own bravado through press conferences. * If it is true, then I'm glad that US representatives haven't wasted taxpayer money by sending military aid when it's obviously not needed. I lean libertarian like many others on this forum, so I resonate a lot with similar commentary here.