4 ms·

>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 differ

>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.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Truisms from interpersonal relationships are counterproductive when it comes to engaging with nuclear adversaries.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hbrn 4y ago
> 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 Which costs are you talking about? Unlike the west, Russia clearly doesn't measure those costs in dollars or human lives.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  This is the kind of self-serving narrative I'm talking about. Of course he values cost in dollars and human lives, at least in part. But he's certainly willing to sacrifice more dollars and lives to achieve his objective in Ukraine than is conceivable from our western sensibilities. Aside from dollars and lives, there is economic stability, current and future security, political stability at home, and so on.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    > there is economic stability, current and future security, political stability at home, and so on. Did any of those improve after 2014 invasion? Did any of those improve after 2022 invasion? Again, you're trying to present him as this rational actor that shares western values. He does not. Obviously they are not completely irrelevant. But they are nice to have. Not nice enough to convince him to change course.
    - hackinthebochs 4y ago
      >Again, you're trying to present him as this rational actor that shares western values. I'm literally doing the opposite (re: western values). What I'm saying is not to assume he's an inhuman creature whose behavior is wholly unintelligible to us.
libertine 4y ago
> 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. Well we things differently then. From what I see the rhetoric remains: to have Ukraine under Russian control, and all actions point in that direction. So I'd say, so far, it's holding up. > If nothing else it stops at NATO's border. Well, then the message is clear - join NATO or you risk being gobbled until it's borders, since that's the new limit. I don't think that's much of a game to be played in 2022. Plus it won't stop any World War, history has shown in the past what territorial concessions to expansionist leads to. > That era is coming to an end. I not sure if that's straight forward, and I'm not seeing many wanting to play with Russia in the split you're talking about, especially after these events. And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of.
- mikem170 4y ago
  > And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of. Is there any limit to how much you would escalate a war with Russia to defend the weak? It's interesting that we are having this discussion about Ukraine, justifying a military response based on how morally wrong it was for Putin to start this war, while Ethopia and Sudan are fighting each other and nobody cares. I assume that Western governments care about Ukraine because it is strategically important to them. It seems that self-interest is ultimately more important than morality in geopolitics.
  - hbrn 4y ago
    Of course it's not about morals. But Russia does see the west and US specifically as their major enemy. And morals are a good way to justify your strategic interests. So yeah, it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses. Because the end goal of Russia is not Ukraine. It's revanchism.
    - mikem170 4y ago
      You're talking too high-falutin for me! Major enemy, justify, revanchism - people don't want to die for those words, words I consider to be propaganda words. What are the people running Russia really afraid of? I assume they've been feeling existentially threatened, their boarders being indefensible, centuries of being invaded repeatedly across the open plains, declining economy and demographics, etc. Putin rolled the dice trying to take more of Ukraine, on his way towards defensible mountain passes, and it hasn't gone well for him. The real motivation is not revanchism, it's strategic. Countries come and go, sometimes disappearing. Russia is in decline, and they are doing what they think will improve their situation. What are the people running the West afraid of? I assume they'd rather arm Ukrainians and have them die fighting Russians, in order to avoid having Western Europe possibly be involved first-hand in a war. Better that Ukrainians die than Westerners. The US is not existentially threatened, but we feel that it is in our interests to be involved in this war, as opposed to others that we don't care about. I agree with what you said that it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses, but I wonder if I look at it more cynically than you do. I guess I'd be happier if people recognized that states are usually selfish more than moral, and often hypocrites.

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.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
Truisms from interpersonal relationships are counterproductive when it comes to engaging with nuclear adversaries.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hbrn 4y ago

> 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 Which costs are you talking about? Unlike the west, Russia clearly doesn't measure those costs in dollars or human lives.

hackinthebochs 4y ago
This is the kind of self-serving narrative I'm talking about. Of course he values cost in dollars and human lives, at least in part. But he's certainly willing to sacrifice more dollars and lives to achieve his objective in Ukraine than is conceivable from our western sensibilities. Aside from dollars and lives, there is economic stability, current and future security, political stability at home, and so on.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > there is economic stability, current and future security, political stability at home, and so on. Did any of those improve after 2014 invasion? Did any of those improve after 2022 invasion? Again, you're trying to present him as this rational actor that shares western values. He does not. Obviously they are not completely irrelevant. But they are nice to have. Not nice enough to convince him to change course.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    >Again, you're trying to present him as this rational actor that shares western values. I'm literally doing the opposite (re: western values). What I'm saying is not to assume he's an inhuman creature whose behavior is wholly unintelligible to us.

libertine 4y ago

> 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. Well we things differently then. From what I see the rhetoric remains: to have Ukraine under Russian control, and all actions point in that direction. So I'd say, so far, it's holding up. > If nothing else it stops at NATO's border. Well, then the message is clear - join NATO or you risk being gobbled until it's borders, since that's the new limit. I don't think that's much of a game to be played in 2022. Plus it won't stop any World War, history has shown in the past what territorial concessions to expansionist leads to. > That era is coming to an end. I not sure if that's straight forward, and I'm not seeing many wanting to play with Russia in the split you're talking about, especially after these events. And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of.

mikem170 4y ago
> And to leave the weak at the will of an expansionist nation doesn't seem like much of world to be part of. Is there any limit to how much you would escalate a war with Russia to defend the weak? It's interesting that we are having this discussion about Ukraine, justifying a military response based on how morally wrong it was for Putin to start this war, while Ethopia and Sudan are fighting each other and nobody cares. I assume that Western governments care about Ukraine because it is strategically important to them. It seems that self-interest is ultimately more important than morality in geopolitics.
- hbrn 4y ago
  Of course it's not about morals. But Russia does see the west and US specifically as their major enemy. And morals are a good way to justify your strategic interests. So yeah, it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses. Because the end goal of Russia is not Ukraine. It's revanchism.
  - mikem170 4y ago
    You're talking too high-falutin for me! Major enemy, justify, revanchism - people don't want to die for those words, words I consider to be propaganda words. What are the people running Russia really afraid of? I assume they've been feeling existentially threatened, their boarders being indefensible, centuries of being invaded repeatedly across the open plains, declining economy and demographics, etc. Putin rolled the dice trying to take more of Ukraine, on his way towards defensible mountain passes, and it hasn't gone well for him. The real motivation is not revanchism, it's strategic. Countries come and go, sometimes disappearing. Russia is in decline, and they are doing what they think will improve their situation. What are the people running the West afraid of? I assume they'd rather arm Ukrainians and have them die fighting Russians, in order to avoid having Western Europe possibly be involved first-hand in a war. Better that Ukrainians die than Westerners. The US is not existentially threatened, but we feel that it is in our interests to be involved in this war, as opposed to others that we don't care about. I agree with what you said that it is strategically important for the West that Russia loses, but I wonder if I look at it more cynically than you do. I guess I'd be happier if people recognized that states are usually selfish more than moral, and often hypocrites.