3 ms·

For those interested in a more analytical approach, this article/youTube video explains how the geographical vulnerability of Russia's western borders has led t

by pydry 3y ago

For those interested in a more analytical approach, this article/youTube video explains how the geographical vulnerability of Russia's western borders has led to both its high degree of overall militarization as well as its extreme sensitivity over Ukraine in particular: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/12/05/caspian_report_why_russia_thinks_it_needs_to_restore_soviet_borders.html# https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/12/05/caspian_r...! Although it is usually ignored, geography is fundamental to understanding why nations act the way they do.

cpursley 3y ago
There's actually an interesting book on this topic (first chapter covers exactly what you just wrote): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25135194-prisoners-of-geography https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25135194-prisoners-of-ge...
credit_guy 3y ago
> geographical vulnerability of Russia's western border This is Russia's argument, but it is nonsense. Nobody would attack any Russian border, western or otherwise, because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. It's as simple as that.
- pydry 3y ago
  Given the extremely high cost, why do you think countries with nuclear weapons have conventional military at all?
  - jfengel 3y ago
    Nuclear weapons prevent an all-out invasion, but they're not much good at anything else. The US, for example, could not have used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US is something of an outlier. Most countries maintain much smaller militaries. They have them on hand for a variety of purposes: disasters, foreign peacekeeping, border patrol, and keeping their hand in Just In Case. NATO countries, for example, are supposed to keep militaries so that Russia doesn't get any ideas. Say, Wagner troops meander across the border into Poland. Russia clutches its pearls and says, "Oh, no, don't end the entire world by nuking us even though it's obvious that we ordered it." So troops would get sent... which is why it never actually happens. How much military you need to achieve that is up for debate. The US often claims that other NATO countries need more, and that the European countries are relying on America to provide most of that deterrent. But the US is almost certainly providing way, way, way more deterrent than is needed -- more about national preening than serious consideration of needs.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >keeping their hand in Just In Case. Just in case of what? Nukes are the perfect defense and the only one you need you said it yourself. You think 4% of the GDP is wasted.
      - jfengel 3y ago
        That was what I was trying to explain. Nukes are a blunt weapon, and they want to have a bit more precision. They're not going to nuke Russia if Wagner group made a little, deniable cross-border excursion. Nukes get MAD real fast. If their only weapon is a nuke, their bluff could easily be called. Very few countries spend 4% of GDP on the military, and most of them are at war. Not even the US, which comes in at 3.5%. NATO countries are supposed to spend (IIRC) 2%, but most don't. It's a 2% that they might like to have back, but militaries are pretty good make-work programs. Even Japan, whose constitution prevents it from having a military, still spends 1% on its military.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    Not clear what your point is? Are you saying that indeed there was any chance of Nato invading Russia? I think that was what you're implying, but I'm not sure, since you replied to me with a question. Do you have any scenario of how that would happen, so that Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes any sense as a preemptive move?
rich_sasha 3y ago
The paradox of Russian borders is that at the current border, and also beyond it, are flat plains. So as soon as they create a "buffer zone" (let's not dwell on what that means for the people in said "buffer zone"), they create a new border... on the same flat indefensible plain. So the next policy goal is to extend the border, etc. Say Russia achieves is "geographic necessity" of conquering Ukraine (which I very much wish doesn't happen). What's beyond there? Romania is a mix of plains and mountains - so what, Russia gets to invade there? Poland is mostly flat and with few major obstacles (Vistula running south-north is probably the only major one - and a very topical one...). So then what - extend the "buffer zone" into Germany? And... Finland? And I mean, you can't trust these warmongering Swedes and Norwegian - remember the Vikings? Better pacify these guys too before it's too late. It's not a logic anyone outside of Russia wants to entertain.

by pydry 3y ago

cpursley 3y ago

There's actually an interesting book on this topic (first chapter covers exactly what you just wrote): https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25135194-prisoners-of-geography https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25135194-prisoners-of-ge...

credit_guy 3y ago

> geographical vulnerability of Russia's western border This is Russia's argument, but it is nonsense. Nobody would attack any Russian border, western or otherwise, because Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons. It's as simple as that.

pydry 3y ago
Given the extremely high cost, why do you think countries with nuclear weapons have conventional military at all?
- jfengel 3y ago
  Nuclear weapons prevent an all-out invasion, but they're not much good at anything else. The US, for example, could not have used nuclear weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US is something of an outlier. Most countries maintain much smaller militaries. They have them on hand for a variety of purposes: disasters, foreign peacekeeping, border patrol, and keeping their hand in Just In Case. NATO countries, for example, are supposed to keep militaries so that Russia doesn't get any ideas. Say, Wagner troops meander across the border into Poland. Russia clutches its pearls and says, "Oh, no, don't end the entire world by nuking us even though it's obvious that we ordered it." So troops would get sent... which is why it never actually happens. How much military you need to achieve that is up for debate. The US often claims that other NATO countries need more, and that the European countries are relying on America to provide most of that deterrent. But the US is almost certainly providing way, way, way more deterrent than is needed -- more about national preening than serious consideration of needs.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >keeping their hand in Just In Case. Just in case of what? Nukes are the perfect defense and the only one you need you said it yourself. You think 4% of the GDP is wasted.
    - jfengel 3y ago
      That was what I was trying to explain. Nukes are a blunt weapon, and they want to have a bit more precision. They're not going to nuke Russia if Wagner group made a little, deniable cross-border excursion. Nukes get MAD real fast. If their only weapon is a nuke, their bluff could easily be called. Very few countries spend 4% of GDP on the military, and most of them are at war. Not even the US, which comes in at 3.5%. NATO countries are supposed to spend (IIRC) 2%, but most don't. It's a 2% that they might like to have back, but militaries are pretty good make-work programs. Even Japan, whose constitution prevents it from having a military, still spends 1% on its military.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  Not clear what your point is? Are you saying that indeed there was any chance of Nato invading Russia? I think that was what you're implying, but I'm not sure, since you replied to me with a question. Do you have any scenario of how that would happen, so that Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes any sense as a preemptive move?

rich_sasha 3y ago

The paradox of Russian borders is that at the current border, and also beyond it, are flat plains. So as soon as they create a "buffer zone" (let's not dwell on what that means for the people in said "buffer zone"), they create a new border... on the same flat indefensible plain. So the next policy goal is to extend the border, etc. Say Russia achieves is "geographic necessity" of conquering Ukraine (which I very much wish doesn't happen). What's beyond there? Romania is a mix of plains and mountains - so what, Russia gets to invade there? Poland is mostly flat and with few major obstacles (Vistula running south-north is probably the only major one - and a very topical one...). So then what - extend the "buffer zone" into Germany? And... Finland? And I mean, you can't trust these warmongering Swedes and Norwegian - remember the Vikings? Better pacify these guys too before it's too late. It's not a logic anyone outside of Russia wants to entertain.