4 ms·

It's just not clear to me what a losing Russia looks like. Or what Russia, Ukraine, and Europe look like after the smoke clears. From my perspective (in the US

by thunky 4y ago

It's just not clear to me what a losing Russia looks like. Or what Russia, Ukraine, and Europe look like after the smoke clears. From my perspective (in the US), it seems to me that our government has an interest in extending the conflict. We're providing just enough weapons and support to help Ukraine not lose, but not enough support to end this already. Maybe this is so Russia doesn't decisively win or lose, and their military and standing pays a large price. However, I can't help but to worry that we're ultimately making the end state worse for Ukraine and possibly Europe if nukes come into play.

rendall 4y ago
> It's just not clear to me what a losing Russia looks like. Russia entirely out of Ukraine including Crimea, at least. > Or what Russia, Ukraine, and Europe look like after the smoke clears. Hard to predict the future. Ideally, Europe with a more sober energy policy, but otherwise its trend of peace and prosperity continuing upwards. Ukraine getting a handle on its corruption in order to enter the European Union. In an ideal world, Russia would pay for reconstruction in exchange for normalization. Russia either remaining a pariah, or wanting normalization, willing to do the social introspection and transformation necessary to become a member-in-good-standing of the global community. Like Germany and Japan did. Speculation is that Putin would not be able to withstand a loss to Ukraine, but that Navalny is not better. Further speculation is that such social transformation is literally not possible in Russian society given that it has been run by all-powerful Tsars for centuries. I remain hopeful that this just anti-Russian animus given the war, and not actually true. > it seems to me that our government has an interest in extending the conflict. We're providing just enough weapons and support to help Ukraine not lose, but not enough support to end this already. Personally I don't think this is an intentional choice, so much as concerns with political fallout. Midterm elections are soon. Biden's opposition already get a lot of traction criticizing the aid so far. Hopefully for global peace, the incoming faction will also understand the need for supporting Ukraine. Russia is on the back foot, though. > I can't help but to worry that we're ultimately making the end state worse for Ukraine and possibly Europe if nukes come into play. Europe and Ukraine have agency, here. It's not entirely up to the United States, and not the United States' responsibility for the outcome. The mood of the people where I sit, about 100km from the Russian border, which includes Ukrainian refugees, is immense gratitude and thankfulness to the US for helping Ukraine. As an American, I feel pretty proud of my homeland! I cannot imagine any scenario where serious people would blame the US for Russia's using nuclear weapons. As for what that would look like. Well, from my understanding, nuclear weapon use in two forms, strategic and tactical. Strategic nukes are the classic city-leveling bombs everyone thinks about. There is no advantage for Russia using these bombs at all, so their deployment would be purely for terrorism. I strongly suspect without any evidence that NATO knows where every single one of them is and is well prepared for a conventional pre-emptive strike. The more realistic concern is tactical nukes, smaller bombs and missiles. But again, from my understanding, they do not hold advantages over conventional weapons, and their use would be a shit-storm for Russia. So, the outcome for Europe depends on the scale, but their use is unlikely. Assuming something reasonably likely, I think it would be nuclear use limited to small yield, by Russia, on Ukrainian territory; leading immediately to humiliating defeat of Russia by NATO and generations of hatred of Russians that will make the distrust of Germans after WW2 look positively like love. But, hard to predict.
- thunky 4y ago
  Thanks for you perspective from close up. I hope your predictions are correct. > It's not entirely up to the United States For sure, and I realize we're not the only ones helping. Just noticing this sortof equilibrium "tug of war" state that our colletive help is maybe supporting. > Personally I don't think this is an intentional choice, so much as concerns with political fallout. Midterm elections are soon. I tend to view these blue vs red political games as a form of public distraction while the real stuff happens in private. I would also guess that Ukraine is not a top issue for voters when compared to domestic issues, and any signaling by republicans to reduce aid is mainly a cheap way to gain votes when they don't really mean it. We'll see I guess.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    No, you should not discount three important factors that alter how the Republicans and other similar forces around the world see this situation, and consider that they actually have powerful internal interests that act, effectively, pro-Putin. 1. Russia is a powerful petro-energy exporter state. Energy industry remains the cornerstone and engine of the global capitalist market. Worldwide profits are underwritten by it. 2. Major limitation or inaccessibility of Russian energy undermines profitability worldwide. The American energy sector might see Russia as competition, but it's also not that clear. There's fear of the regulation and disruption of the energy economy that this war (and climate change policies as well) have brought. 3. Russia is a conservative, effectively far right state whose ideological foundations accord with GOP foundations: Little separation between church and state & conservative social values. In Russia, as in the United State, feminism/abortion rights, gay rights, trans rights etc are framed as "western decadence/western decay" by Putinists. A similar focus is taking by Trumpists, Bolsanaro, etc. TLDR there's harmony in interests between the GOP and forces in Russia; on both cultural / ideological issues and on economic interests. It's complicated, certainly, but there are strong forces in the Republican party and in the far right in Europe that are implicity, if not explicitly, either pro-Putin, or very interested in "settling" this conflict in a way that gives Putin most of what he wants. (Mr. Wanna-be Howard Roark - Tony Stark or whatever Musk is mouthing the latter line now)

by thunky 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

> It's just not clear to me what a losing Russia looks like. Russia entirely out of Ukraine including Crimea, at least. > Or what Russia, Ukraine, and Europe look like after the smoke clears. Hard to predict the future. Ideally, Europe with a more sober energy policy, but otherwise its trend of peace and prosperity continuing upwards. Ukraine getting a handle on its corruption in order to enter the European Union. In an ideal world, Russia would pay for reconstruction in exchange for normalization. Russia either remaining a pariah, or wanting normalization, willing to do the social introspection and transformation necessary to become a member-in-good-standing of the global community. Like Germany and Japan did. Speculation is that Putin would not be able to withstand a loss to Ukraine, but that Navalny is not better. Further speculation is that such social transformation is literally not possible in Russian society given that it has been run by all-powerful Tsars for centuries. I remain hopeful that this just anti-Russian animus given the war, and not actually true. > it seems to me that our government has an interest in extending the conflict. We're providing just enough weapons and support to help Ukraine not lose, but not enough support to end this already. Personally I don't think this is an intentional choice, so much as concerns with political fallout. Midterm elections are soon. Biden's opposition already get a lot of traction criticizing the aid so far. Hopefully for global peace, the incoming faction will also understand the need for supporting Ukraine. Russia is on the back foot, though. > I can't help but to worry that we're ultimately making the end state worse for Ukraine and possibly Europe if nukes come into play. Europe and Ukraine have agency, here. It's not entirely up to the United States, and not the United States' responsibility for the outcome. The mood of the people where I sit, about 100km from the Russian border, which includes Ukrainian refugees, is immense gratitude and thankfulness to the US for helping Ukraine. As an American, I feel pretty proud of my homeland! I cannot imagine any scenario where serious people would blame the US for Russia's using nuclear weapons. As for what that would look like. Well, from my understanding, nuclear weapon use in two forms, strategic and tactical. Strategic nukes are the classic city-leveling bombs everyone thinks about. There is no advantage for Russia using these bombs at all, so their deployment would be purely for terrorism. I strongly suspect without any evidence that NATO knows where every single one of them is and is well prepared for a conventional pre-emptive strike. The more realistic concern is tactical nukes, smaller bombs and missiles. But again, from my understanding, they do not hold advantages over conventional weapons, and their use would be a shit-storm for Russia. So, the outcome for Europe depends on the scale, but their use is unlikely. Assuming something reasonably likely, I think it would be nuclear use limited to small yield, by Russia, on Ukrainian territory; leading immediately to humiliating defeat of Russia by NATO and generations of hatred of Russians that will make the distrust of Germans after WW2 look positively like love. But, hard to predict.

thunky 4y ago
Thanks for you perspective from close up. I hope your predictions are correct. > It's not entirely up to the United States For sure, and I realize we're not the only ones helping. Just noticing this sortof equilibrium "tug of war" state that our colletive help is maybe supporting. > Personally I don't think this is an intentional choice, so much as concerns with political fallout. Midterm elections are soon. I tend to view these blue vs red political games as a form of public distraction while the real stuff happens in private. I would also guess that Ukraine is not a top issue for voters when compared to domestic issues, and any signaling by republicans to reduce aid is mainly a cheap way to gain votes when they don't really mean it. We'll see I guess.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  No, you should not discount three important factors that alter how the Republicans and other similar forces around the world see this situation, and consider that they actually have powerful internal interests that act, effectively, pro-Putin. 1. Russia is a powerful petro-energy exporter state. Energy industry remains the cornerstone and engine of the global capitalist market. Worldwide profits are underwritten by it. 2. Major limitation or inaccessibility of Russian energy undermines profitability worldwide. The American energy sector might see Russia as competition, but it's also not that clear. There's fear of the regulation and disruption of the energy economy that this war (and climate change policies as well) have brought. 3. Russia is a conservative, effectively far right state whose ideological foundations accord with GOP foundations: Little separation between church and state & conservative social values. In Russia, as in the United State, feminism/abortion rights, gay rights, trans rights etc are framed as "western decadence/western decay" by Putinists. A similar focus is taking by Trumpists, Bolsanaro, etc. TLDR there's harmony in interests between the GOP and forces in Russia; on both cultural / ideological issues and on economic interests. It's complicated, certainly, but there are strong forces in the Republican party and in the far right in Europe that are implicity, if not explicitly, either pro-Putin, or very interested in "settling" this conflict in a way that gives Putin most of what he wants. (Mr. Wanna-be Howard Roark - Tony Stark or whatever Musk is mouthing the latter line now)