9 ms·

>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

>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.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    There is no reason that we must retaliate against Russia for a tactical nuke used in Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum suggests otherwise.
  - mcv 4y ago
    > 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. But that's the thing: nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to provide a strategic advantage in a conventional war of conquest, or they would be used. Russia using a nuke in a war on conquest would set a terrible precedent that cannot be allowed to stand. If they can do it with Ukraine, they can do it with Moldova, and then they can do it with any other country they choose to attack. If they have no retaliation to fear, they have no reason to hold back anymore. I don't think NATO can afford not to retaliate in some manner. How, I don't know, but doing nothing will effectively reward the offensive use of nuclear weapons, which means it will happen more often.
libertine 4y ago
>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. If complete withdraw is off the table, then the game is every 10 or so years we will go through this cycle of land grabs by Russia, backed by historical revisionism and nuclear weapons - even with bad results in conventional warfare. This started with 1 region in Georgia 2008, it's 2022 and i's already a total of 4 HUGE regions - with the promise of more in Ukraine and Moldova. Where and when will it stop?
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >then the game is every 10 or so years we will go through this cycle of land grabs by Russia This isn't obviously true. Different regions will be valued differently by Russia in terms of control. It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties. If we raise the cost of victory in Ukraine to the point where that cost is higher than the anticipated benefit of occupying the next state, it is possible to prevent any further expansion. I believe we are well past that point in Ukraine. The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. >Where and when will it stop? If nothing else it stops at NATO's border. The fact is, the stability we've seen over the last 30 years is entirely due to the unquestioned dominance of the U.S. in the international sphere and the relative weakness of the next powerful nations. That era is coming to an end. If the current borders are unstable in light of current international power dynamics, they should not be defended at the threat of world war 3. The question is whether the U.S. can come to accept a world order not entirely driven by U.S. interests without fighting a world war over it.
  - moistly 4y ago
    Cooperating with criminals only empowers the criminals and neuters the law. Give up a square inch, and the cartel gangs, Putin and Semion Mogilevich among the most criminal, will take Every. Last. Square. Mile.
hbrn 4y ago
It's semantics at this point. Sure, given russian values, their preference to feel proud trumps life expectancy, healthcare, wealth, technological progress, ability to travel, etc. Being misinformed and brainwashed doesn't make you rational in your delusions. > The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine It's easy to think that when you're thousands of miles away from Russia. But there's a reason top supporters of Ukraine (in terms of GDP) are Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and so on. It is not the first expansionist war Russia has started. Any "victory" Russia gains means that next war is inevitable. Hell, this is their 3rd expansion into Ukraine, and every single time they claimed it was their last. And every single time they went a little bit further than the last. If you believe they will stop after they're done with Ukraine, that's just wishful thinking.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >It's semantics at this point. No it's not semantics. The issue is whether Russia is capable of acting rationally to secure their interests as they define them given the facts on the ground and international pressure. Your personal evaluation of their value system is irrelevant to whether their behavior accords with their values and the cost landscape they are presented with. >Any "victory" Russia gains means that next war is inevitable. It's not inevitable. Different regions will be valued differently by Russia in terms of control. It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties. If we raise the cost of victory in Ukraine to the point where that cost is higher than the anticipated benefit of occupying the next state, it is possible to prevent any further expansion. I believe we are well past that point in Ukraine. The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > The issue is whether Russia is capable of acting rationally to secure their interests as they define them You're missing the fact that Russia keeps redefining their interests. The word rational no longer has any meaning, because there's no way for Russia to act irrationally according to your framework. So yeah, it is semantics, we just have different meanings for word "rational". Yours seems quite useless, because in your world there's no way for anyone to be "irrational". > It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties Again, you're completely missing the point. Ukraine is of supreme importance because it's the easiest target right now, geography and cultural ties are what makes it the easiest. Once Ukraine is done, there will be next easiest target.
baybal2 4y ago
attentive 4y ago
> 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. That's just ruzzia propaganda parroted by their apologists all over the world. You can't get raped "a little". And be assured that ruzzia won't stop. Any concessions will only embolden them to go further to other countries. Now with the resources and people of the concurred territories. If ruzzia succeed in ANY blackmail it will keep doing it because obviously EU and US are weak. That is until it's stopped. Might as well stop them now. Just look at Crimea they occupied for 8 years, did it stop them?

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.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  There is no reason that we must retaliate against Russia for a tactical nuke used in Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum suggests otherwise.
- mcv 4y ago
  > 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. But that's the thing: nuclear weapons cannot be allowed to provide a strategic advantage in a conventional war of conquest, or they would be used. Russia using a nuke in a war on conquest would set a terrible precedent that cannot be allowed to stand. If they can do it with Ukraine, they can do it with Moldova, and then they can do it with any other country they choose to attack. If they have no retaliation to fear, they have no reason to hold back anymore. I don't think NATO can afford not to retaliate in some manner. How, I don't know, but doing nothing will effectively reward the offensive use of nuclear weapons, which means it will happen more often.

libertine 4y ago

>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. If complete withdraw is off the table, then the game is every 10 or so years we will go through this cycle of land grabs by Russia, backed by historical revisionism and nuclear weapons - even with bad results in conventional warfare. This started with 1 region in Georgia 2008, it's 2022 and i's already a total of 4 HUGE regions - with the promise of more in Ukraine and Moldova. Where and when will it stop?

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>then the game is every 10 or so years we will go through this cycle of land grabs by Russia This isn't obviously true. Different regions will be valued differently by Russia in terms of control. It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties. If we raise the cost of victory in Ukraine to the point where that cost is higher than the anticipated benefit of occupying the next state, it is possible to prevent any further expansion. I believe we are well past that point in Ukraine. The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. >Where and when will it stop? If nothing else it stops at NATO's border. The fact is, the stability we've seen over the last 30 years is entirely due to the unquestioned dominance of the U.S. in the international sphere and the relative weakness of the next powerful nations. That era is coming to an end. If the current borders are unstable in light of current international power dynamics, they should not be defended at the threat of world war 3. The question is whether the U.S. can come to accept a world order not entirely driven by U.S. interests without fighting a world war over it.
- moistly 4y ago
  Cooperating with criminals only empowers the criminals and neuters the law. Give up a square inch, and the cartel gangs, Putin and Semion Mogilevich among the most criminal, will take Every. Last. Square. Mile.

hbrn 4y ago

It's semantics at this point. Sure, given russian values, their preference to feel proud trumps life expectancy, healthcare, wealth, technological progress, ability to travel, etc. Being misinformed and brainwashed doesn't make you rational in your delusions. > The only way to surely avoid nuclear war is to allow Russia an avenue to some kind of victory in Ukraine It's easy to think that when you're thousands of miles away from Russia. But there's a reason top supporters of Ukraine (in terms of GDP) are Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Czech Republic and so on. It is not the first expansionist war Russia has started. Any "victory" Russia gains means that next war is inevitable. Hell, this is their 3rd expansion into Ukraine, and every single time they claimed it was their last. And every single time they went a little bit further than the last. If you believe they will stop after they're done with Ukraine, that's just wishful thinking.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
>It's semantics at this point. No it's not semantics. The issue is whether Russia is capable of acting rationally to secure their interests as they define them given the facts on the ground and international pressure. Your personal evaluation of their value system is irrelevant to whether their behavior accords with their values and the cost landscape they are presented with. >Any "victory" Russia gains means that next war is inevitable. It's not inevitable. Different regions will be valued differently by Russia in terms of control. It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties. If we raise the cost of victory in Ukraine to the point where that cost is higher than the anticipated benefit of occupying the next state, it is possible to prevent any further expansion. I believe we are well past that point in Ukraine. The assumption that any victory in Ukraine for Putin will inevitably result in further expansive attempts is a convenient narrative but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > The issue is whether Russia is capable of acting rationally to secure their interests as they define them You're missing the fact that Russia keeps redefining their interests. The word rational no longer has any meaning, because there's no way for Russia to act irrationally according to your framework. So yeah, it is semantics, we just have different meanings for word "rational". Yours seems quite useless, because in your world there's no way for anyone to be "irrational". > It is clear that Ukraine is of supreme importance to Putin in terms of geography and cultural ties Again, you're completely missing the point. Ukraine is of supreme importance because it's the easiest target right now, geography and cultural ties are what makes it the easiest. Once Ukraine is done, there will be next easiest target.

baybal2 4y ago

attentive 4y ago

> 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. That's just ruzzia propaganda parroted by their apologists all over the world. You can't get raped "a little". And be assured that ruzzia won't stop. Any concessions will only embolden them to go further to other countries. Now with the resources and people of the concurred territories. If ruzzia succeed in ANY blackmail it will keep doing it because obviously EU and US are weak. That is until it's stopped. Might as well stop them now. Just look at Crimea they occupied for 8 years, did it stop them?