4 ms·

Is there any scenario from this point onwards, any at all that results in Russia coming out stronger once the smoke clears? Because I can't see any. Seems to

by skc 4y ago

Is there any scenario from this point onwards, any at all that results in Russia coming out stronger once the smoke clears? Because I can't see any. Seems to me like the Russian govt are now in a situation where they have no choice but to see this thing through just to try and save face.

Mesopropithecus 4y ago
Mobilization could be a sign that it's no longer about face but about ass.
- kjeetgill 4y ago
  What does this mean?
  - stnikolauswagne 4y ago
    I presume its about what to „save“ as in „saving face“, i.e. keeping your reputation intact vs. „Saving ass“, i.e. staying alive/in power. Keeping up the facade of this being a „special military operation“ left alive the excuse of „we are not really trying all that hard to win this“ whereas (partial) mobilization more signlas towards „this is going south lets do whatever works to end this“
    - timbit42 4y ago
      Are they going to try to blame this failure on the soldiers?
ajvs 4y ago
Well they're still not having the energy crisis and inflation of the West, so at this rate it seems likely they'll maintain this win.
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Inflation in Russia is significantly worse
lolc 4y ago
If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger. That is very unlikely though, with the Ukrainian army getting effective support. If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost. And in a nuclear war, nobody wins. So stronger could only be used in relative terms.
- farseer 4y ago
  Would the West intervene in a nuclear war limited to Ukrainian territory?
  - tough 4y ago
    You know radioactivity residues travel fast, and to any direction right?
  - vincnetas 4y ago
    In such case i would open NATO armoury for Ukrainians and gift them all the shiny toys they are willing to take.
  - lolc 4y ago
    I wonder what that scenario would bring the Russian army. Tactical nukes against military targets are not that much more effective than a bunch of conventional missiles. Nuking the population would be hard to justify in their narrative. On the other side, I don't know who would intervene. The risk of further escalation might lead to the acceptance of nuclear genocide limited to Ukraine. And Ukrainian capitulation would be swift if Russia demonstrated they were willing to attack the population with nuclear bombs. The whole scenario is difficult to imagine. The last time civilians got nuked is 77 years ago. And the Japanese people had nobody who could have retaliated for them.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    I would assume so. Probably not with a nuclear answer, but some restricted air strikes against Russian troops inside Ukrainian territory.
anon23623 4y ago
I am not a historian, so this post is just describing my own impression. I may be wrong, but this is at least how I perceived the historical events. The past 10-20 years have been a tragedy for the relationship between Russia and Europe, and a failure from Putin to take advantage of the goodwill that existed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many European countries actually wanted a close relationship with Russia, as they (naively) thought that it was moving in a democratic direction. Lots of companies started offices in Russia and countries like Germany trusted Russia enough to supply them with gas. They will probably not do that again unless they have alternative suppliers. There were of course some negative rhetorics from old school politicians, and Europe were still close allies with US. But the general hope was that Russia was moving closer to Europe and that in time they could perhaps even join the EU to create a new political and economical power. Unfortunately Putin decided to go in the opposite direction and trying to rebuild the old empire. Oligarks made it difficult to do business and the political rhetorics made "the west" into an enemy. The only way I see Russia coming out of this stronger, is if the pressure from the people is high enough to let a real democratic election vote in a new leadership that can reduce corruption. This could start repairing foreign relations which would improve the economic situation. Maybe we could get back to the optimism we had 15-20 years ago. This is probably not likely to happen in the short term. The only "upside" of this war is that due to the dependency on gas from Russia, Europe will accelerate the process of switching to greener energy. Windmills, solar power and maybe even nuclear power plants. This may be remembered in history as the turning point in the reduction of global warning, that came with a high human cost.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by skc 4y ago

Mesopropithecus 4y ago

Mobilization could be a sign that it's no longer about face but about ass.

kjeetgill 4y ago
What does this mean?
- stnikolauswagne 4y ago
  I presume its about what to „save“ as in „saving face“, i.e. keeping your reputation intact vs. „Saving ass“, i.e. staying alive/in power. Keeping up the facade of this being a „special military operation“ left alive the excuse of „we are not really trying all that hard to win this“ whereas (partial) mobilization more signlas towards „this is going south lets do whatever works to end this“
  - timbit42 4y ago
    Are they going to try to blame this failure on the soldiers?

ajvs 4y ago

Well they're still not having the energy crisis and inflation of the West, so at this rate it seems likely they'll maintain this win.

oneoff786 4y ago
Inflation in Russia is significantly worse

lolc 4y ago

If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger. That is very unlikely though, with the Ukrainian army getting effective support. If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost. And in a nuclear war, nobody wins. So stronger could only be used in relative terms.

farseer 4y ago
Would the West intervene in a nuclear war limited to Ukrainian territory?
- tough 4y ago
  You know radioactivity residues travel fast, and to any direction right?
- vincnetas 4y ago
  In such case i would open NATO armoury for Ukrainians and gift them all the shiny toys they are willing to take.
- lolc 4y ago
  I wonder what that scenario would bring the Russian army. Tactical nukes against military targets are not that much more effective than a bunch of conventional missiles. Nuking the population would be hard to justify in their narrative. On the other side, I don't know who would intervene. The risk of further escalation might lead to the acceptance of nuclear genocide limited to Ukraine. And Ukrainian capitulation would be swift if Russia demonstrated they were willing to attack the population with nuclear bombs. The whole scenario is difficult to imagine. The last time civilians got nuked is 77 years ago. And the Japanese people had nobody who could have retaliated for them.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  I would assume so. Probably not with a nuclear answer, but some restricted air strikes against Russian troops inside Ukrainian territory.

anon23623 4y ago

I am not a historian, so this post is just describing my own impression. I may be wrong, but this is at least how I perceived the historical events. The past 10-20 years have been a tragedy for the relationship between Russia and Europe, and a failure from Putin to take advantage of the goodwill that existed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many European countries actually wanted a close relationship with Russia, as they (naively) thought that it was moving in a democratic direction. Lots of companies started offices in Russia and countries like Germany trusted Russia enough to supply them with gas. They will probably not do that again unless they have alternative suppliers. There were of course some negative rhetorics from old school politicians, and Europe were still close allies with US. But the general hope was that Russia was moving closer to Europe and that in time they could perhaps even join the EU to create a new political and economical power. Unfortunately Putin decided to go in the opposite direction and trying to rebuild the old empire. Oligarks made it difficult to do business and the political rhetorics made "the west" into an enemy. The only way I see Russia coming out of this stronger, is if the pressure from the people is high enough to let a real democratic election vote in a new leadership that can reduce corruption. This could start repairing foreign relations which would improve the economic situation. Maybe we could get back to the optimism we had 15-20 years ago. This is probably not likely to happen in the short term. The only "upside" of this war is that due to the dependency on gas from Russia, Europe will accelerate the process of switching to greener energy. Windmills, solar power and maybe even nuclear power plants. This may be remembered in history as the turning point in the reduction of global warning, that came with a high human cost.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]