5 ms·

>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

>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?
      - hbrn 4y ago
        We're all here speculating what is going to lead to a worse future outcome. To me it seems obvious that Putin has been testing the waters for the last 10-15 years. Ukraine is not the end game, it's another test. So far the response that he got is that West is weak, worst they can do is slap on the wrist. Sure, the war turned out to be way more expensive than he anticipated, but Europe is still funding it. Given Russia's rhetoric, hatred towards the west, and abundance of resources, my bet is that escalation is almost inevitable. The question is on whose terms it will happen. Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. If you're choosing between 1% chance of nuclear war today or 10% chance of nuclear war in 10 years, what will you chose?
- yucky 4y ago
  >there's no way for Russia to act irrationally according to your framework. Disagreed, it's pretty clear that the Russian position is that it would be 100% irrational to allow their biggest enemy to control Ukraine, which is essentially what happened when we meddled in Ukraine in 2014 and led to the annexation of Crimea literally the next day. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
  - hbrn 4y ago
    I've listened to this audio many years ago. I know that based on the transcript it's easy to paint the narrative that US is the puppet master pulling the strings. A narrative so favored by both US and Russian citizens. But the reality is that the sparks that lit the fire (declining to sign the EU trade deal, brutally attacking protestors, passing "dictatorship laws", etc) were completely Russian made. The reason that Russia lost control over Ukraine is Russia and Russia alone. The stupidity and yes, irrationality of their actions led them to lose all the influence they had. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan Sometimes the girlfriend dumps you simply because you're an asshole, not because she was "stolen" from you. And of course US tried to ride the wave after the revolution was triggered, why wouldn't they? Also, my understanding is that noone "controls" Ukraine. US obviously has a significant influence, but that doesn't even come close to a Russian puppet president they had in the past.
    - ghostwriter 4y ago
      > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan : After a small group of protesters attempted to storm the Government Building, police used tear gas to disperse them. Protesters also used tear gas and some fire crackers (according to police protesters were first to use them). According to the General Prosecutor's Office, more than 400 people were injured from 24 November to 13 December, including 200 policemen and 18 students. The US proclaimed this kind of events on their territory as "January 6 attempted coup", and people involved are now being prosecuted by the US authorities. > but that doesn't even come close to a Russian puppet president they had in the past The so-called puppet president didn't break state laws when he suspended preparations for signing of the Association Agreement, yet the coup happened anyways. His prior election was also recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE [1], yet he was ousted out of the country by the armed mob who didn't care about legitimacy of their actions. Meanwhile the US Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to Ukraine were deciding who would take what roles in the new Ukrainian government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...

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?
    - hbrn 4y ago
      We're all here speculating what is going to lead to a worse future outcome. To me it seems obvious that Putin has been testing the waters for the last 10-15 years. Ukraine is not the end game, it's another test. So far the response that he got is that West is weak, worst they can do is slap on the wrist. Sure, the war turned out to be way more expensive than he anticipated, but Europe is still funding it. Given Russia's rhetoric, hatred towards the west, and abundance of resources, my bet is that escalation is almost inevitable. The question is on whose terms it will happen. Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. If you're choosing between 1% chance of nuclear war today or 10% chance of nuclear war in 10 years, what will you chose?
yucky 4y ago
>there's no way for Russia to act irrationally according to your framework. Disagreed, it's pretty clear that the Russian position is that it would be 100% irrational to allow their biggest enemy to control Ukraine, which is essentially what happened when we meddled in Ukraine in 2014 and led to the annexation of Crimea literally the next day. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
- hbrn 4y ago
  I've listened to this audio many years ago. I know that based on the transcript it's easy to paint the narrative that US is the puppet master pulling the strings. A narrative so favored by both US and Russian citizens. But the reality is that the sparks that lit the fire (declining to sign the EU trade deal, brutally attacking protestors, passing "dictatorship laws", etc) were completely Russian made. The reason that Russia lost control over Ukraine is Russia and Russia alone. The stupidity and yes, irrationality of their actions led them to lose all the influence they had. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan Sometimes the girlfriend dumps you simply because you're an asshole, not because she was "stolen" from you. And of course US tried to ride the wave after the revolution was triggered, why wouldn't they? Also, my understanding is that noone "controls" Ukraine. US obviously has a significant influence, but that doesn't even come close to a Russian puppet president they had in the past.
  - ghostwriter 4y ago
    > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Euromaidan : After a small group of protesters attempted to storm the Government Building, police used tear gas to disperse them. Protesters also used tear gas and some fire crackers (according to police protesters were first to use them). According to the General Prosecutor's Office, more than 400 people were injured from 24 November to 13 December, including 200 policemen and 18 students. The US proclaimed this kind of events on their territory as "January 6 attempted coup", and people involved are now being prosecuted by the US authorities. > but that doesn't even come close to a Russian puppet president they had in the past The so-called puppet president didn't break state laws when he suspended preparations for signing of the Association Agreement, yet the coup happened anyways. His prior election was also recognized and endorsed as being fair and an accurate reflection of voters' intentions by all international agencies observing the election including the OSCE and PACE [1], yet he was ousted out of the country by the armed mob who didn't care about legitimacy of their actions. Meanwhile the US Assistant Secretary of State and the US Ambassador to Ukraine were deciding who would take what roles in the new Ukrainian government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_election#Results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Ukrainian_presidential_el...