11 ms·

Russia's Only “Winning Move”

18 points by graderjs 4y ago

scrubs 4y ago
Good article. I agree.
thom_ 4y ago
hbrn 4y ago
While I agree with the suggested rules, the thought process in this article has a major flaw: It assumes all players are rational. In Russia's case, this might not be the case. They don't necessarily want the best outcome for them. They want to show the rest of the world who's boss, or die trying.
- 0x445442 4y ago
  If you replace Russia with USA, your statement is spot on.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >They don't necessarily want the best outcome for them. It is self-serving and dangerous to ascribe irrationality to behavior that is out of the norm from our perspective. The problem is that in many cases, what we deem as irrational behavior is simply behavior predicated from different beliefs or different values. How Putin evaluates different outcomes for Russia is likely to be very different than that from a western context. Our strategy to avoid a nuclear war must be in light of our assessment of his beliefs and values, and an analysis of how he will maximize Russia's outcome from that perspective. If our policy is one of complete Russian retreat, and we reason from our context that escalating to nuclear weapons to secure victory is irrational, we're all but assuring an eventual nuclear confrontation with Russia. The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine using only conventional weapons. We want to severely raise the cost of this victory, but at the same time we should accept the outcome if Russia is willing to pay it. If our policy is such that the choice is left to Russia to either go nuclear or completely withdraw, it will just represent the complete recklessness that our policy towards Russia continues to be.
  - wrp 4y ago
    > How Putin evaluates different outcomes for Russia is likely to be very different than that from a western context. Few people aside from area experts are aware that Saddam Hussein thought that he won Gulf War 1. In his world, when a ruler loses a war, he is deposed and probably killed. He faced a war with the world's most powerful forces and emerged alive and in power. Therefore, he won. The portrayal of Putin and the Kremlin in general by Western government and media is based on caricature. Since the war began, Kremlinologists trying to give a more nuanced view are shouted down.
  - JustLurking2022 4y ago
    Nah, no need to leave them even the slightest morsel of victory. Just look at Afghanistan - both of the world's two largest nuclear militaries have invaded, both left in defeat, and both realized that escalating to nuclear weapons would cause them more harm than good. If Russia dropped a tactical nuke, the U.S. would have to retaliate with one as well to make it clear that we are willing to. Letting them doubt our deterrence capability would be even more risky, and they know that.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      What happened in Afghanistan has no bearing on what would happen in a war next door. We risked a hot war with the USSR over missiles in Cuba. Russia may be willing to risk everything to secure some substantial victory in Ukraine. >If Russia dropped a tactical nuke, the U.S. would have to retaliate with one as well to make it clear that we are willing to. There is no reason that we must retaliate against Russia for a tactical nuke used in Ukraine. This in no way appears to undermine our willingness to defend NATO territories against such a strike. What this idea does, that Russia cannot use a tactical nuke in Ukraine because of the principle of a necessary retaliation by the U.S., is negate the strategic advantage of having nukes in the first place thus rendering Russia at the mercy of U.S. interests around the world. You may like this principle, but Russia may not. They may be motivated to assert their interests in Ukraine using the only remaining tools they have. They may see anything less as signaling permanent subjugation to U.S. interests. I personally have no interest in risking WW3 just to force Russia to signal subjugation to U.S. interests.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  I stopped reading it after I saw the usual trope of "rules based." The problem with NATO is that they can't comprehend the other sides have their own rules.
yuan43 4y ago
> If the United States adheres to these five rules, it can demonstrate to Russia that the costs and likelihood of losing are so high, the only winning move is not to play. Depressing to see that this is the kind of crap former US military are putting out. The situation is so far beyond these trite five rules as to be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. This was the case even in Feb 2022. Everything the author claims the US should be doing is something Russia is doing. There are no new insights here, just a strong undercurrent of US exceptionalism. Exactly the kind of garbage Russia is feeding to its people. Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  The article promotes the opposite of exceptionalism. > if it expects fair arbitration, the United States must ascribe to the rules it proclaims: For example, it cannot cry foul over Russian threats to freedom of navigation while remaining a nonsignatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Instead of flaunting exceptionalism and decrying these institutions’ irreconcilable problems, it must advance their credibility and authority. When necessary to withdraw from a commitment, the United States must state its intentions early and provide justification to avoid the perception that it too shirks the rules. Rule-breaking must bear a cost.
- libertine 4y ago
  >Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to? The article does say that there are costs to this game, and breaking rules should be in itself a cost. If the goal of the game is to stop playing the game - peace - then the consequences must be lesser than the cost of continuing playing the game.
yrgulation 4y ago
At this stage it’s nearly guaranteed that at least small tactical nukes will be used in ukraine. There is a small chance they will not but just in case if you live in the region have iodine pills at hand. I hope I am wrong but there is good chance at least an accident will happen.
- arein3 4y ago
  Do small tactical nukes exist? The possibility is very low, why do you think is nearly guaranteed?
  - robotresearcher 4y ago
    They’ve been demonstrated several times. Why do you believe they don’t exist? This article estimates about 500 low yield US gravity bombs and 2,000 unspecified Russian weapons exist. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/tactical-nuclear-weapons https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/tactical-nuclear-weapons
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hyperman1 4y ago
    The way I see it: Right now, Russia is losing terrain and initiative too hard, too fast. IF Russia keeps losing, Putin is dead, and he knows it. If he's desperate enough, he can't lose much more by nuking something big enough to make it clear he dares, but small enough not to start a complete nuclear escalation. That's a very thin line to walk.
    - nyokodo 4y ago
      > That's a very thin line to walk. The other powers would have to respond in a devastating way albeit hopefully non-nuclear otherwise they’re giving Carte Blanche to North Korea, China, Pakistan etc to use tactical nukes or even allies.
      - deleted 4y ago
chinabot 4y ago
While I am actually reassured by this that some US Military leaders are not just jarheads, the solution, unfortunately, is not with the US being the world policeman or rest of the world but with the Russian People to recognise the lies being told, shake off the nationalistic crap being spouted and Remove Putin.
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  It could also be solved by Ukranian people doing a similar thing. The eastern parts of Ukraine are hardly even Ukraine anyway. Borders are malleable. Just do a bit of surrender to end the war.
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    What does that even mean. There are tons of ethically Russian people -- at least four that I know of in my extended social circle, one of whom has already died -- proudly claim Ukrainian nationality (if not ethnicity) and were among the first to take up arms and volunteer to fight against Russia. If borders are malleable so too are ethnicity and nationality malleable.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    Borders are malleable is an incredibly naive, if not malicious thing to say. Kenyan ambassador explained it really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofijY6M-OA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofijY6M-OA8
  - rasz 4y ago
    There is a lot of surrender already happening in those part already. Mostly by homeless drunk bums in russian military uniforms living in woodland encampments. https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574754437335318529 https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574754437335318529
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- rasz 4y ago
twoquestions 4y ago
This is from February of 2022, and we've had significant changes on the ground since then. For a more detailed look at what's been going on, ISW has some fairly fact-based reporting on the situation. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-30 https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-... I find it more than a little funny that they're failing to conceal their obvious contempt for Russian incompetence in the last couple months, at the beginning of the war they were as neutral as one can get.
- yucky 4y ago
  Keep in mind the ISW is literally a neocon think tank with Bill Kristol on the Board and leading the charge as Director. For anybody who doesn't know, Bill Kristol is perhaps the biggest warmonger alive, next to Kissinger. He is the neocon kingmaker. Understandingwar.org should be viewed only through the lens that these are the same people who were cheerleading the 20 year debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  - twoquestions 4y ago
    Ah, good to know, thanks for the heads up.
riddleoo 4y ago
graderjs 4y ago
Fascinating discussion, thank you everyone! :) I didn't expect to see this level of sophisticated critical engagement.
rtwrtwer54 4y ago
I think the article is naive in the sense that NATO has done everything in its hands to steer and asure everyone in the world that this is absolutely a regional conflict, nothing to be worry about, nobody is going to globally deploy any force to handle anything, because you don't need to mobilize a dozen of armies resources for a fairly local conflict, even if the conflict involves a potencially hostile - to NATO - nuclear power. Hence, MAD is not present in most of the scenarios probably evaluated in some tables around the globe. Even here, I think nobody is even mentioning great chances of a massive nuclear confrontation. So, Russia has the upper hand in the game, and there's no MAD as a variable. So perspectives look awry from going towards a clean exit from the conflict. Nuclear options, are just of the several bad outcomes for EU. I think by now NATO has lost the war and Ukraine is by itself, most probably any further military, intelligence assistant directly regarding about regaining control of the south of their country is being re-assesed right now. They probably know they will have the lines of cooperation open just a couple more of hours till they fall to silence, and they will try to exact the most advances possible in this grim situation, for those lines would probably be stable for years, as it happened with Crimea.

18 points by graderjs 4y ago

scrubs 4y ago

Good article. I agree.

thom_ 4y ago

hbrn 4y ago

While I agree with the suggested rules, the thought process in this article has a major flaw: It assumes all players are rational. In Russia's case, this might not be the case. They don't necessarily want the best outcome for them. They want to show the rest of the world who's boss, or die trying.

0x445442 4y ago
If you replace Russia with USA, your statement is spot on.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
>They don't necessarily want the best outcome for them. It is self-serving and dangerous to ascribe irrationality to behavior that is out of the norm from our perspective. The problem is that in many cases, what we deem as irrational behavior is simply behavior predicated from different beliefs or different values. How Putin evaluates different outcomes for Russia is likely to be very different than that from a western context. Our strategy to avoid a nuclear war must be in light of our assessment of his beliefs and values, and an analysis of how he will maximize Russia's outcome from that perspective. If our policy is one of complete Russian retreat, and we reason from our context that escalating to nuclear weapons to secure victory is irrational, we're all but assuring an eventual nuclear confrontation with Russia. The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine using only conventional weapons. We want to severely raise the cost of this victory, but at the same time we should accept the outcome if Russia is willing to pay it. If our policy is such that the choice is left to Russia to either go nuclear or completely withdraw, it will just represent the complete recklessness that our policy towards Russia continues to be.
- wrp 4y ago
  > How Putin evaluates different outcomes for Russia is likely to be very different than that from a western context. Few people aside from area experts are aware that Saddam Hussein thought that he won Gulf War 1. In his world, when a ruler loses a war, he is deposed and probably killed. He faced a war with the world's most powerful forces and emerged alive and in power. Therefore, he won. The portrayal of Putin and the Kremlin in general by Western government and media is based on caricature. Since the war began, Kremlinologists trying to give a more nuanced view are shouted down.
- JustLurking2022 4y ago
  Nah, no need to leave them even the slightest morsel of victory. Just look at Afghanistan - both of the world's two largest nuclear militaries have invaded, both left in defeat, and both realized that escalating to nuclear weapons would cause them more harm than good. If Russia dropped a tactical nuke, the U.S. would have to retaliate with one as well to make it clear that we are willing to. Letting them doubt our deterrence capability would be even more risky, and they know that.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    What happened in Afghanistan has no bearing on what would happen in a war next door. We risked a hot war with the USSR over missiles in Cuba. Russia may be willing to risk everything to secure some substantial victory in Ukraine. >If Russia dropped a tactical nuke, the U.S. would have to retaliate with one as well to make it clear that we are willing to. There is no reason that we must retaliate against Russia for a tactical nuke used in Ukraine. This in no way appears to undermine our willingness to defend NATO territories against such a strike. What this idea does, that Russia cannot use a tactical nuke in Ukraine because of the principle of a necessary retaliation by the U.S., is negate the strategic advantage of having nukes in the first place thus rendering Russia at the mercy of U.S. interests around the world. You may like this principle, but Russia may not. They may be motivated to assert their interests in Ukraine using the only remaining tools they have. They may see anything less as signaling permanent subjugation to U.S. interests. I personally have no interest in risking WW3 just to force Russia to signal subjugation to U.S. interests.
SanjayMehta 4y ago
I stopped reading it after I saw the usual trope of "rules based." The problem with NATO is that they can't comprehend the other sides have their own rules.

yuan43 4y ago

> If the United States adheres to these five rules, it can demonstrate to Russia that the costs and likelihood of losing are so high, the only winning move is not to play. Depressing to see that this is the kind of crap former US military are putting out. The situation is so far beyond these trite five rules as to be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. This was the case even in Feb 2022. Everything the author claims the US should be doing is something Russia is doing. There are no new insights here, just a strong undercurrent of US exceptionalism. Exactly the kind of garbage Russia is feeding to its people. Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to?

robotresearcher 4y ago
The article promotes the opposite of exceptionalism. > if it expects fair arbitration, the United States must ascribe to the rules it proclaims: For example, it cannot cry foul over Russian threats to freedom of navigation while remaining a nonsignatory to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Instead of flaunting exceptionalism and decrying these institutions’ irreconcilable problems, it must advance their credibility and authority. When necessary to withdraw from a commitment, the United States must state its intentions early and provide justification to avoid the perception that it too shirks the rules. Rule-breaking must bear a cost.
libertine 4y ago
>Nowhere does the author explain the consequences for Russia of leaving Ukraine. How can withdrawal be a winning move if the author doesn't even know what that move leads to? The article does say that there are costs to this game, and breaking rules should be in itself a cost. If the goal of the game is to stop playing the game - peace - then the consequences must be lesser than the cost of continuing playing the game.

yrgulation 4y ago

At this stage it’s nearly guaranteed that at least small tactical nukes will be used in ukraine. There is a small chance they will not but just in case if you live in the region have iodine pills at hand. I hope I am wrong but there is good chance at least an accident will happen.

arein3 4y ago
Do small tactical nukes exist? The possibility is very low, why do you think is nearly guaranteed?
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  They’ve been demonstrated several times. Why do you believe they don’t exist? This article estimates about 500 low yield US gravity bombs and 2,000 unspecified Russian weapons exist. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/tactical-nuclear-weapons https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/tactical-nuclear-weapons
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperman1 4y ago
  The way I see it: Right now, Russia is losing terrain and initiative too hard, too fast. IF Russia keeps losing, Putin is dead, and he knows it. If he's desperate enough, he can't lose much more by nuking something big enough to make it clear he dares, but small enough not to start a complete nuclear escalation. That's a very thin line to walk.
  - nyokodo 4y ago
    > That's a very thin line to walk. The other powers would have to respond in a devastating way albeit hopefully non-nuclear otherwise they’re giving Carte Blanche to North Korea, China, Pakistan etc to use tactical nukes or even allies.
    - deleted 4y ago

chinabot 4y ago

While I am actually reassured by this that some US Military leaders are not just jarheads, the solution, unfortunately, is not with the US being the world policeman or rest of the world but with the Russian People to recognise the lies being told, shake off the nationalistic crap being spouted and Remove Putin.

sacrosancty 4y ago
It could also be solved by Ukranian people doing a similar thing. The eastern parts of Ukraine are hardly even Ukraine anyway. Borders are malleable. Just do a bit of surrender to end the war.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  What does that even mean. There are tons of ethically Russian people -- at least four that I know of in my extended social circle, one of whom has already died -- proudly claim Ukrainian nationality (if not ethnicity) and were among the first to take up arms and volunteer to fight against Russia. If borders are malleable so too are ethnicity and nationality malleable.
- hbrn 4y ago
  Borders are malleable is an incredibly naive, if not malicious thing to say. Kenyan ambassador explained it really well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofijY6M-OA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofijY6M-OA8
- rasz 4y ago
  There is a lot of surrender already happening in those part already. Mostly by homeless drunk bums in russian military uniforms living in woodland encampments. https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574754437335318529 https://twitter.com/666_mancer/status/1574754437335318529
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rasz 4y ago

twoquestions 4y ago

This is from February of 2022, and we've had significant changes on the ground since then. For a more detailed look at what's been going on, ISW has some fairly fact-based reporting on the situation. https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-30 https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-... I find it more than a little funny that they're failing to conceal their obvious contempt for Russian incompetence in the last couple months, at the beginning of the war they were as neutral as one can get.

yucky 4y ago
Keep in mind the ISW is literally a neocon think tank with Bill Kristol on the Board and leading the charge as Director. For anybody who doesn't know, Bill Kristol is perhaps the biggest warmonger alive, next to Kissinger. He is the neocon kingmaker. Understandingwar.org should be viewed only through the lens that these are the same people who were cheerleading the 20 year debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- twoquestions 4y ago
  Ah, good to know, thanks for the heads up.

riddleoo 4y ago

graderjs 4y ago

Fascinating discussion, thank you everyone! :) I didn't expect to see this level of sophisticated critical engagement.

rtwrtwer54 4y ago

I think the article is naive in the sense that NATO has done everything in its hands to steer and asure everyone in the world that this is absolutely a regional conflict, nothing to be worry about, nobody is going to globally deploy any force to handle anything, because you don't need to mobilize a dozen of armies resources for a fairly local conflict, even if the conflict involves a potencially hostile - to NATO - nuclear power. Hence, MAD is not present in most of the scenarios probably evaluated in some tables around the globe. Even here, I think nobody is even mentioning great chances of a massive nuclear confrontation. So, Russia has the upper hand in the game, and there's no MAD as a variable. So perspectives look awry from going towards a clean exit from the conflict. Nuclear options, are just of the several bad outcomes for EU. I think by now NATO has lost the war and Ukraine is by itself, most probably any further military, intelligence assistant directly regarding about regaining control of the south of their country is being re-assesed right now. They probably know they will have the lines of cooperation open just a couple more of hours till they fall to silence, and they will try to exact the most advances possible in this grim situation, for those lines would probably be stable for years, as it happened with Crimea.