5 ms·

It's semantics at this point. Sure, given russian values, their preference to feel proud trumps life expectancy, healthcare, wealth, technological progress, abi

by 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.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >You're missing the fact that Russia keeps redefining their interests. People seem to be endlessly confused that leaders spin various narratives to sell a war at home. Putin is no different. It is a mistake to confuse these speeches with the real motives. >because there's no way for Russia to act irrationally according to your framework No, what we can't do is a priori determine that he is acting irrational thus obviating the need of understanding and anticipating our adversary. >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. This is just blatantly a-historical and self-serving.
    - hbrn 4y ago
      > The issue is whether Russia is capable of acting rationally to secure their interests as they define them > People seem to be endlessly confused that leaders spin various narratives to sell a war at home. Putin is no different So are we talking about Putin, or about Russia? You seem to equate the two. My belief is that Putin or not, revanchism against the west after losing the cold war is the Russian zeitgeist. > we can't do is a priori determine that he is acting irrational thus obviating the need of understanding and anticipating our adversary I never said we should not try to understand him. Of course he's not an absolute unpredictable madman. But there isn't much to understand either. Clearly he's been playing foot-in-the-door game for a while now. Your suggested strategy "just give in a little bit more and hope he stops" has already been tried a few times and hasn't worked so far. You want to keep trying, but that is exactly what foot-in-the-door players want you to do. The best strategy is to close the door.
      - mikem170 4y ago
        > just give in a little bit more and hope he stops I think the idea is to relinquish as little as possible while making Russia suffer as much as possible. > The best strategy is to close the door Are you suggesting that we escalate and incur more suffering in the short term to head off a possible worse future outcome?

by hbrn 4y ago

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.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >You're missing the fact that Russia keeps redefining their interests. People seem to be endlessly confused that leaders spin various narratives to sell a war at home. Putin is no different. It is a mistake to confuse these speeches with the real motives. >because there's no way for Russia to act irrationally according to your framework No, what we can't do is a priori determine that he is acting irrational thus obviating the need of understanding and anticipating our adversary. >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. This is just blatantly a-historical and self-serving.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > The issue is whether Russia is capable of acting rationally to secure their interests as they define them > People seem to be endlessly confused that leaders spin various narratives to sell a war at home. Putin is no different So are we talking about Putin, or about Russia? You seem to equate the two. My belief is that Putin or not, revanchism against the west after losing the cold war is the Russian zeitgeist. > we can't do is a priori determine that he is acting irrational thus obviating the need of understanding and anticipating our adversary I never said we should not try to understand him. Of course he's not an absolute unpredictable madman. But there isn't much to understand either. Clearly he's been playing foot-in-the-door game for a while now. Your suggested strategy "just give in a little bit more and hope he stops" has already been tried a few times and hasn't worked so far. You want to keep trying, but that is exactly what foot-in-the-door players want you to do. The best strategy is to close the door.
    - mikem170 4y ago
      > just give in a little bit more and hope he stops I think the idea is to relinquish as little as possible while making Russia suffer as much as possible. > The best strategy is to close the door Are you suggesting that we escalate and incur more suffering in the short term to head off a possible worse future outcome?