4 ms·

Technically Russia has already lost the war. Their military capacities are greatly diminished. Their economy suffered and will keep suffering as long as the sa

Technically Russia has already lost the war. Their military capacities are greatly diminished. Their economy suffered and will keep suffering as long as the sanctions are in place. Some of their formerly main commercial partners are looking into using different suppliers. Their standing in the international order was diminished. Even China who has an interest in weakening NATO seems a bit annoyed at them and is not providing much support. Russia is definitely not going to take Ukraine as long as the west supports its military effort. The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nuclear option.

pstuart 4y ago
Russia has been publicly humiliated by the dismal state of their military. Sure, they have nukes and more cannon fodder but I'm guessing that their neighbors feel slightly less threatened.
- kbelder 4y ago
  Well, it's a mix. Russia is far weaker than previously thought, but also perhaps more dangerous and unpredictable. That's why NATO membership will expand.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    Clearly still a threat, but only in going full on MAD. The rumors of Putin's health failing are disquieting -- if he has nothing left to lose he may try to take the rest of us down with him.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
remarkEon 4y ago
>The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nuclear option. The most convincing argument I've heard in favor of continued US involvement in the war is that the objective is primarily about degrading Russian combat power such that, should a hot war kick off in the Pacific (over the Spratlys, over Taiwan, etc), Russia does not enter as a co-belligerent with CCP against the US + Japan. This implies that there is indeed some limit where we decide that there isn't much left in the tank for Russia to leverage in that theater. However, determining what exactly that limit is is a separate question, and this is some rather cold-hearted calculus because it admits that NATO's involvement doesn't have much to do with Ukrainian "democracy", which to me seems to be true. Edit: bad grammar
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  It has always seemed pretty clear to me from the USA involvement in various conflicts since WW2 that they don’t really give a rat ass about democracy. I do find your argument convincing but I now wonder what the main NATO allies are getting out of it. After all it costs them dearly and they don’t really care about the Pacific.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    The main NATO allies get what they've always gotten out of this arrangement: the outsourcing of their continental security to the United States.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      True for Eastern Europe and the Baltic states but France has always been somewhat of a reluctant member and Germany is not generally a proponent of extreme measure when it comes to Russia yet they are collaborative right now.
      - remarkEon 4y ago
        I think part of what you’re seeing is that a) Trump sort of trolled the other major NATO partners into at least thinking about investing in their own defense, but it’s too little and way too late, so they’re still completely dependent[1]; b) the intricacies of the dependence on Russian fossil fuels, which needs no elaboration here since it’s a weekly feature on the HN front page at this point. Germany’s collaboration, such as it is, might be more tied to her own acknowledgment of bad energy policy and represents fleeting efforts to apologize. Major industry is at risk of shutdown or idling over this, so they definitely feel the pain. [1] during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan it become clear that non-US NATO partners were actually unable to run their own air operations without American military support and management. That’s more or less a tacit admission that you can’t do anything in a real 21st century war, which is also a lesson Russia has been painfully learning the hard way.
everybodyknows 4y ago
> USA end game ... It's Putin's hoped-for end game that seems to me primary: How does Ukraine get to a stable situation that leaves him in power? That's his minimum requirement. If the West tries to deny him that, who can be say what level of violence and terror he would not descend to? Consider the recent attacks on the electrical grid. Taking the tactic to the extreme, imagine EMP-bombs over all major facilities. A non-electrified Ukraine, economy pushed back to 19th century methods.
- pixl97 4y ago
  I'm not sure getting Russia put on the list of "Terrorist Nations" will solve the problem Putin wants.
patrulek 4y ago
Its not USA war and no, Russia isn't losing it yet. Sanctions arent as strong as you wouldve think, because Russians were already poor. Main goal for now is to develop energy crisis in Europe and destabilize UE. If Russia achieve this goal its already win for them.

pstuart 4y ago

Russia has been publicly humiliated by the dismal state of their military. Sure, they have nukes and more cannon fodder but I'm guessing that their neighbors feel slightly less threatened.

kbelder 4y ago
Well, it's a mix. Russia is far weaker than previously thought, but also perhaps more dangerous and unpredictable. That's why NATO membership will expand.
- pstuart 4y ago
  Clearly still a threat, but only in going full on MAD. The rumors of Putin's health failing are disquieting -- if he has nothing left to lose he may try to take the rest of us down with him.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

remarkEon 4y ago

>The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nuclear option. The most convincing argument I've heard in favor of continued US involvement in the war is that the objective is primarily about degrading Russian combat power such that, should a hot war kick off in the Pacific (over the Spratlys, over Taiwan, etc), Russia does not enter as a co-belligerent with CCP against the US + Japan. This implies that there is indeed some limit where we decide that there isn't much left in the tank for Russia to leverage in that theater. However, determining what exactly that limit is is a separate question, and this is some rather cold-hearted calculus because it admits that NATO's involvement doesn't have much to do with Ukrainian "democracy", which to me seems to be true. Edit: bad grammar

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
It has always seemed pretty clear to me from the USA involvement in various conflicts since WW2 that they don’t really give a rat ass about democracy. I do find your argument convincing but I now wonder what the main NATO allies are getting out of it. After all it costs them dearly and they don’t really care about the Pacific.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  The main NATO allies get what they've always gotten out of this arrangement: the outsourcing of their continental security to the United States.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    True for Eastern Europe and the Baltic states but France has always been somewhat of a reluctant member and Germany is not generally a proponent of extreme measure when it comes to Russia yet they are collaborative right now.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I think part of what you’re seeing is that a) Trump sort of trolled the other major NATO partners into at least thinking about investing in their own defense, but it’s too little and way too late, so they’re still completely dependent[1]; b) the intricacies of the dependence on Russian fossil fuels, which needs no elaboration here since it’s a weekly feature on the HN front page at this point. Germany’s collaboration, such as it is, might be more tied to her own acknowledgment of bad energy policy and represents fleeting efforts to apologize. Major industry is at risk of shutdown or idling over this, so they definitely feel the pain. [1] during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan it become clear that non-US NATO partners were actually unable to run their own air operations without American military support and management. That’s more or less a tacit admission that you can’t do anything in a real 21st century war, which is also a lesson Russia has been painfully learning the hard way.

everybodyknows 4y ago

> USA end game ... It's Putin's hoped-for end game that seems to me primary: How does Ukraine get to a stable situation that leaves him in power? That's his minimum requirement. If the West tries to deny him that, who can be say what level of violence and terror he would not descend to? Consider the recent attacks on the electrical grid. Taking the tactic to the extreme, imagine EMP-bombs over all major facilities. A non-electrified Ukraine, economy pushed back to 19th century methods.

pixl97 4y ago
I'm not sure getting Russia put on the list of "Terrorist Nations" will solve the problem Putin wants.

patrulek 4y ago

Its not USA war and no, Russia isn't losing it yet. Sanctions arent as strong as you wouldve think, because Russians were already poor. Main goal for now is to develop energy crisis in Europe and destabilize UE. If Russia achieve this goal its already win for them.