4 ms·

That all seems totally reasonable to me, much more reasonable than Putin just wants more land and after Ukraine he would move further west. I especially agree,

That all seems totally reasonable to me, much more reasonable than Putin just wants more land and after Ukraine he would move further west. I especially agree, even if you manage to overthrow the government, it will be a long uphill battle to achieve anything remotely resembling stability. This leads to the next question, why does Putin want a regime change, after all regime change is not an end goal? What other avenues are there towards the underlying goals, i.e. how could he change strategy or where could be ground for a diplomatic resolution?

mindslight 4y ago
It's nonsensical to talk about a "diplomatic resolution" with a counterparty focused on unilateral taking. You offer 10, they demand 20. You offer 15, they demand 30. The only winning move is to offer nothing, because it's not a good faith negotiation. The end scenarios you're looking for are Russia voluntarily retreats out of Ukraine, Putin gone (dead or at the Hague), or Russia isolated as the next North Korea. The alternative is the breakdown of the system of international borders and end of US hegemony. And nobody is in the western world should be taking these for granted in favor of a different empire, despite their well-trodden flaws.
- danbruc 4y ago
  So you suggest to keep hitting Russia as hard as possible? You know what the Russian policy for nuclear weapons usage says? The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons [...] when the very existence of the state is put under threat. I would think twice if hitting Russia as hard as possible - whether militarily or economically - is really in the best interest of everyone. It is certainly in the best interest of the USA, the weaker Russia becomes, the better, more energy to spend on China, but I am very unsure that hitting Russia as hard as possible is in the best interest of Ukraine.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    The general question implied by your argument is "Does merely having nuclear weapons allow a country to attack whatever non-nuclear country it wants?"
    - H8crilA 4y ago
      Exactly. If this isn't respected you can be sure that Japan and a lot of other countries are going to produce nukes on a short notice.
      - danbruc 4y ago
        What about the Iraq war? A Power Point with made up stuff is seemingly enough reason for a nuclear super power to invade a non-nuclear state and kill its head of state without due process. Where were the sanctions against the USA? Where were the weapons shipments in support of Iraq? Where were the worries about nuclear proliferation to be protected from that kind of shit? And yes, I said what about, so let me be clear before you write anything about Whataboutism. I can accept a world with shitty rules where accumulating enough weapons grants you an unlimited stack of get-out-of-jail-free cards, but much worse than shitty rules are different rules for different players, that is truly unfair. Let's just tell Putin that he did a bad thing and then move on as if nothing happened. Or would it not be better if we opposed the USA - and any other country doing stupid shit - as vigorously as we oppose Putin?
        H8crilA 4y ago
        I think that Iraq second time was an atrocity too. You can debate the scale but not the basic fact. The first time was certainly acceptable though, even necessary. I am not in a position to help the Iraqis today but I am in a position to help the Ukrainians, by advocating for their victory and by direct help out of my own pocket. In general those things should be considered separately, there is no simple connection between them. But yes America got away way too easily. About nukes - the attacking coalition has simply never threatened the usage of nukes. You can also note that during the Vietnam war there was an American general that wanted to fix their military failure with nukes, and he was immediately dismissed from his job.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jcranmer 4y ago
Fundamentally, Putin wants to Make Russia Great Again--essentially, to reestablish Russia as a regional hegemon. He particularly seems incensed that even Russophile Ukrainians would rather be aligned to the West than to Russia were they forced to choose. The countries Russia seeks to assert hegemony over don't particularly want to be a part of that hegemony (even in Belarus!), and Russia doesn't have much in the way of carrots to offer those countries. Offering a diplomatic status that even freezes the status quo as de facto recognition only serves to legitimize Russia's use of invasion to get what it wants--note that this is the third war this century where Russia is invading another country to do this (the prior two being the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014).
- danbruc 4y ago
  [...] to reestablish Russia as a regional hegemon [...] Without any implications whether I agree or not and ignoring the means used in case this is what Russia wants and does, purely looking at the supposed goal - is this a bad goal?
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    Their regional hegemony has only every been possible with the use of force. Eventually Russians will have to come to terms with why none of their European neighbours like them.
    - danbruc 4y ago
      I said ignoring the means used, is the goal in itself a good one or a bad one? Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood you as saying that Russia wanting to become a reginal hegemon is bad, and I want to understand if this is bad because of the goal or because of the means.
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Russia could only become a 'regional hegemon' via two routes: 1. By convincing its neighbours to allow it to be so 2. By forcing its neighbours to accept it as such Russia's neighbours were not going to allow the former to happen for good reason, and Russia found its possible hegemony swallowed up as its former colonies joined the EU. Ukraine is just another one of these. Carrot didn't work, so the stick became the only possibility for achieving the same goal. But the carrot never would have worked anyway. Ukrainians toppled Yanukovich precisely because Putin had him withdraw from the EU accession process. The EU has been the only path to prosperity for young people in Eastern Europe; with Russia lied only poverty. So Russia not only didn't have anything to offer the countries it wished to become a hegemon of, it was also despised by the same countries because they had precisely lived under Russian hegemony within living memory. The goal was bad because the means they are using were the only possible means. Once Ukraine joined the EU, it would have been lost to Russian hegemony forever.

mindslight 4y ago

It's nonsensical to talk about a "diplomatic resolution" with a counterparty focused on unilateral taking. You offer 10, they demand 20. You offer 15, they demand 30. The only winning move is to offer nothing, because it's not a good faith negotiation. The end scenarios you're looking for are Russia voluntarily retreats out of Ukraine, Putin gone (dead or at the Hague), or Russia isolated as the next North Korea. The alternative is the breakdown of the system of international borders and end of US hegemony. And nobody is in the western world should be taking these for granted in favor of a different empire, despite their well-trodden flaws.

danbruc 4y ago
So you suggest to keep hitting Russia as hard as possible? You know what the Russian policy for nuclear weapons usage says? The Russian Federation retains the right to use nuclear weapons [...] when the very existence of the state is put under threat. I would think twice if hitting Russia as hard as possible - whether militarily or economically - is really in the best interest of everyone. It is certainly in the best interest of the USA, the weaker Russia becomes, the better, more energy to spend on China, but I am very unsure that hitting Russia as hard as possible is in the best interest of Ukraine.
- mindslight 4y ago
  The general question implied by your argument is "Does merely having nuclear weapons allow a country to attack whatever non-nuclear country it wants?"
  - H8crilA 4y ago
    Exactly. If this isn't respected you can be sure that Japan and a lot of other countries are going to produce nukes on a short notice.
    - danbruc 4y ago
      What about the Iraq war? A Power Point with made up stuff is seemingly enough reason for a nuclear super power to invade a non-nuclear state and kill its head of state without due process. Where were the sanctions against the USA? Where were the weapons shipments in support of Iraq? Where were the worries about nuclear proliferation to be protected from that kind of shit? And yes, I said what about, so let me be clear before you write anything about Whataboutism. I can accept a world with shitty rules where accumulating enough weapons grants you an unlimited stack of get-out-of-jail-free cards, but much worse than shitty rules are different rules for different players, that is truly unfair. Let's just tell Putin that he did a bad thing and then move on as if nothing happened. Or would it not be better if we opposed the USA - and any other country doing stupid shit - as vigorously as we oppose Putin?
      - H8crilA 4y ago
        I think that Iraq second time was an atrocity too. You can debate the scale but not the basic fact. The first time was certainly acceptable though, even necessary. I am not in a position to help the Iraqis today but I am in a position to help the Ukrainians, by advocating for their victory and by direct help out of my own pocket. In general those things should be considered separately, there is no simple connection between them. But yes America got away way too easily. About nukes - the attacking coalition has simply never threatened the usage of nukes. You can also note that during the Vietnam war there was an American general that wanted to fix their military failure with nukes, and he was immediately dismissed from his job.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

jcranmer 4y ago

Fundamentally, Putin wants to Make Russia Great Again--essentially, to reestablish Russia as a regional hegemon. He particularly seems incensed that even Russophile Ukrainians would rather be aligned to the West than to Russia were they forced to choose. The countries Russia seeks to assert hegemony over don't particularly want to be a part of that hegemony (even in Belarus!), and Russia doesn't have much in the way of carrots to offer those countries. Offering a diplomatic status that even freezes the status quo as de facto recognition only serves to legitimize Russia's use of invasion to get what it wants--note that this is the third war this century where Russia is invading another country to do this (the prior two being the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014).

danbruc 4y ago
[...] to reestablish Russia as a regional hegemon [...] Without any implications whether I agree or not and ignoring the means used in case this is what Russia wants and does, purely looking at the supposed goal - is this a bad goal?
- mannerheim 4y ago
  Their regional hegemony has only every been possible with the use of force. Eventually Russians will have to come to terms with why none of their European neighbours like them.
  - danbruc 4y ago
    I said ignoring the means used, is the goal in itself a good one or a bad one? Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood you as saying that Russia wanting to become a reginal hegemon is bad, and I want to understand if this is bad because of the goal or because of the means.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      Russia could only become a 'regional hegemon' via two routes: 1. By convincing its neighbours to allow it to be so 2. By forcing its neighbours to accept it as such Russia's neighbours were not going to allow the former to happen for good reason, and Russia found its possible hegemony swallowed up as its former colonies joined the EU. Ukraine is just another one of these. Carrot didn't work, so the stick became the only possibility for achieving the same goal. But the carrot never would have worked anyway. Ukrainians toppled Yanukovich precisely because Putin had him withdraw from the EU accession process. The EU has been the only path to prosperity for young people in Eastern Europe; with Russia lied only poverty. So Russia not only didn't have anything to offer the countries it wished to become a hegemon of, it was also despised by the same countries because they had precisely lived under Russian hegemony within living memory. The goal was bad because the means they are using were the only possible means. Once Ukraine joined the EU, it would have been lost to Russian hegemony forever.