5 ms·

I agree with most of the post/diagram, except the last step. There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma befor

I agree with most of the post/diagram, except the last step. There's a joke that appeared early this year: a Russian had an accident and fell into a coma before the war, and just wakes up. He's asking for news, and the nurse tells him that it's bad: they're in a war with NATO, and they already lost 60k people, 2000 tanks and 500 planes. "And NATO?", he asks. "What are their losses?". The nurse answers: "Ah, NATO hasn't showed up yet". The best chance Putin has to lose and still keep political power is for NATO to show up. I can't really imagine him successfully losing to Ukraine alone, land lease or no land lease. It's actually the only scenario where interests align even a bit in this whole mess. Putin would like to win _something_, but at this point he's probably happy to be rid of the whole mess and still be in power. NATO would love to give him a bloody nose and see him turn back. And Ukraine would definitely love to be rid of Russia and start on reconstructing and integrating into the west. Now, in a rational world they could just have a nice chat over tea and settle things like adults - and who knows, maybe they're actually talking this out in a zoom call, the kind we won't see declassified even in 50 years. But in the real world, the only one we see, they need to perform the dance. For Putin to retreat he needs NATO to bloody his nose. NATO needs a very good reason to do that, because the west is political and has a lot of pacifists. So he throws a nuke or three, NATO bombs the shit out of the Russian forces in Ukraine, and he finally has an excuse and internal political power to sue for peace on realistic terms. Who knows, he might even get to keep Crimea, de facto if not de jure.

beachy 4y ago
That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time. Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      The question here is: what nuclear threat? Russia is not threatening Nato. There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
      - spywaregorilla 4y ago
        Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so. If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate. > I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game. This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.

beachy 4y ago

That's a truly realpolitik analysis, but it still may leave Putin in great danger. The US has apparently warned Putin of the retaliation that awaits if he goes nuclear. Sinking the black sea fleet has been mentioned as a possibility. That means that all the sailors on those ships are sitting ducks, to be annihilated in their thousands in seconds, should Putin decide to go nuclear. Surely, even in Russia, the blowback from families losing their sons under such circumstances - for no military advantage - would be threatening to Putin's rule.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
First thing to do when threats are made is to decide whether they are credible. The sinking of the Black Sea Fleet would be a huge escalation and a declaration of war, not to mention not a smart thing to announce your plan in advance. To me it's the same as when Russia makes big threats. It's a war of words but with no plan for actual action. Edit: It seems to me that the US are trying to corner Russia into escalation and warning of potential Russian escalation as the same time. Russia has made a mistake in invading Ukraine but the US seem to be the force behind making the situation worse and worse since, possibly with the objective of regime change in Russia. Considering the US's track record that should make everyone worry.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  The west would generally need to pursue a severe escalation in response to a nuclear threat otherwise it sets a terrible precedent. I think something on that scale, but well below a nuclear response, is likely.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    The question here is: what nuclear threat? Russia is not threatening Nato. There are talks that Russia might use tactical nukes in Ukraine. I don't know how likely that is and that would indeed be a bad precedent, but are you going to declare war on Russia over that? That does not seem sensible. I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      Establishing a norm of using nuclear weapons in any context is unacceptable. The west has made their position on this very clear. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons and the west did not respond, Russia would effectively be told its fine and would continue to do so. If the west believes Russia will not destroy every living thing on earth including themselves and will instead back down, its rational to escalate. > I don't know what game the US are playing, and have been playing for years now (and I suspect it is partly anti-China) but it is dangerous, as dangerous as Russia's game. This is a very silly statement. They're playing geopolitics, as they always have been. Refusing to play geopolitics simply means you're losing at geopolitics.