4 ms·

>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

>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?
    - mikem170 4y ago
      > Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. I'm sure that doing nothing would have led to Russia attempting to exert control over Moldova and Poland next, at some point. I think everyone agrees on that. It's in the West's interest to make that as difficult as practical. And the other alternative, escalating more than we have, might not make a difference, because unless we destroy the Russian military nothing would really change, and trying to destroy the Russian military would cost us enormous amounts of blood and treasure. I may have misunderstood your prior "the best strategy is to close the door" remark. Are you saying that the West should be doing something more, like providing air cover to Ukraine? If we escalated too much I assume the Russian's would adjust. Perhaps they would escalate, justifying tactical nukes because the whole world is against them. Perhaps they would withdraw, bide their time, and try again some other day, based on their fears and capabilities. Perhaps it's better that we stick with what we are doing - letting the Russians fritter away their resources trying to attain something just out of their reach. I tend to think that we've been doing a good job of walking that line. We're helping Ukraine beat back Russia, trying to keep the conflict from significantly escalating, and weakening Russia in the process.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  >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. This is completely disingenuous as well as factually inaccurate.

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?
  - mikem170 4y ago
    > Escalation today seems necessary to prevent nuclear war tomorrow. I'm sure that doing nothing would have led to Russia attempting to exert control over Moldova and Poland next, at some point. I think everyone agrees on that. It's in the West's interest to make that as difficult as practical. And the other alternative, escalating more than we have, might not make a difference, because unless we destroy the Russian military nothing would really change, and trying to destroy the Russian military would cost us enormous amounts of blood and treasure. I may have misunderstood your prior "the best strategy is to close the door" remark. Are you saying that the West should be doing something more, like providing air cover to Ukraine? If we escalated too much I assume the Russian's would adjust. Perhaps they would escalate, justifying tactical nukes because the whole world is against them. Perhaps they would withdraw, bide their time, and try again some other day, based on their fears and capabilities. Perhaps it's better that we stick with what we are doing - letting the Russians fritter away their resources trying to attain something just out of their reach. I tend to think that we've been doing a good job of walking that line. We're helping Ukraine beat back Russia, trying to keep the conflict from significantly escalating, and weakening Russia in the process.
hackinthebochs 4y ago
>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. This is completely disingenuous as well as factually inaccurate.