6 ms·

The Ukraine invasion is going to go down as one of the biggest own-goals in recent history. Even if Russia took all of Ukraine tomorrow it looks like it'd still

by api 2y ago

The Ukraine invasion is going to go down as one of the biggest own-goals in recent history. Even if Russia took all of Ukraine tomorrow it looks like it'd still be a pyrrhic non-victory given how much it cost them in money, lives, and international standing. It's basically reduced them to a Chinese vassal state. It's like Putin watched the US experience in Iraq and said "I can do something much dumber than that..."

CamperBob2 2y ago
Understand that Kim Jong Un doesn't want to be Putin when he grows up. Instead, it is Putin who envies Kim. He wants to live a life of lucre and luxury while the rest of the world is more-or-less forced to prop up his failed state for humanitarian and political reasons. As stupid as this sounds, no other explanation for Putin's behavior makes any more sense. Come up with a better one? I'm all ears... but there's a lot you'll need to explain.
- layer8 2y ago
  Putin wants Russia to be great again (the image of Russia he grew up with), and to undo the historic “injustice” of the fall of the USSR and Lenin’s “mistake” of ceding territory to Ukraine.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    People want a lot of things they can't have. Putin knows what's possible and what isn't, and that isn't.
    - layer8 2y ago
      I’m not sure that Putin knows what is and isn’t possible.
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    That’s the public line, of course, but likely not his actual reasoning. Putin wants to stay in charge, because once he’s not in charge, his life expectancy is measured in hours.
    - layer8 2y ago
      He didn’t have to attack the Crimea and Ukraine to stay in charge. And his rhetorics regarding Russia go back more than twenty years.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I think the parent's (@layer8's) snippet provides a pretty accurate and succinct statement of Putin's true (internal) position, actually (most of it anyway -- there was also his hope that the SMO would help keep Ukraine and Belarus out of Western influence, and forever grateful for the Motherland's tender affections and embraces; and likely strengthen Russia's long-term position in the oil and gas markets, as a sweet little bonus on top). Even more basically, it was all about enhanced "stature" vis-a-vis the West, which he presumed Russia would naturally and rightly win as a result of the brilliant technical operation he had planned. As opposed to the external narratives -- about NATO expansion, denazification, and the supposed need to "protect" the Russian-speaking population, and all that garbage (that unfortunately a certain contingent on HN seems all too eager and happy to believe, pretty much exactly at face value). At the start of the invasion, anyway. By now things have changed dramatically of course, and his true position is probably a lot closer to your description.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      >Once he’s not in charge, his life expectancy is measured in hours. No it is not. Every Soviet or Russian leader since 1917 died peacefully in his bed, and a handful of those (Gorby and Yeltsin certainly) lost power well before they died.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - aguaviva 2y ago
- hakfoo 2y ago
  The explanation might be simpler. He still needs to play, in some way, to a domestic audience. The fall of the USSR was objectively bad for a large part of the Russian population. Their economy and quality-of-life metrics have never really returned to pre-1991 levels. Their geopolitical relevance has been degraded, and Western institutions have nibbled away at their sphere of influence. They've lost millions of square kilometres of territorial holdings that date to Imperial times. He needs to perform some action to prove he's delivering something, and a stilted "you bait us long enough and we'll bite back" response might well fit, especially if they're already on a "the West is encroaching on our motherland" narrative. I still believe that if the Ukraine had made some token concession-- for example, offering a binding secession referrendum in the Donbass, that would have given Putin the bacon he needed to bring home without an actual war.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    I still believe that if the Ukraine had made some token concession-- for example, offering a binding secession referrendum in the Donbass, that would have given Putin the bacon he needed to bring home without an actual war. The de-facto capture of Crimea wasn't enough, but the Donbass would've been. Got it.
    - klibertp 2y ago
      Don't compare Crimea and Donbas. There's literally nothing in common there, save for Putin being the one to decide.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I think you’re possibly overthinking it. Being a dictator doesn’t normally come with a particularly enviable pension plan; once you fall out of the saddle, at best you’re going into exile, but often they just kill you. So Putin needs to stay in the saddle, forever. And thus, this sort of thing.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    No, that's exactly what I said. His goal is to stay in the saddle for the rest of his natural life, propped up by Western charity and Chinese interests just like the Kim dynasty has been. That's the whole idea. For someone in Putin's position, a projection of genuine strength is actually less sustainable. As a nuclear-armed loser, he's a threat to global stability. Since he evidently can't be removed or ignored, he must be indulged, which is why he has gone out of his way to project weakness at every level since the start of the invasion. Losing the Black Sea fleet to a country with no navy, complaining about NATO encroachment while taking actions guaranteed to increase it, making a big show out of (temporarily) forgiving a usurper, releasing weird-as-hell photos in which he cowers at the end of a table the size of a bowling lane, along with videos in which he's quivering with a nervous tic that mysteriously doesn't seem to be getting worse... the examples are as numerous as they are nonsensical, and as irrational as they are irrefutable. Either I'm terrible at making my point, or many people vehemently disagree while being unable to offer a better explanation.
RandomThoughts3 2y ago
I would like to believe it too but western economic sanctions have overall done little. Russia is still finding takers for its gas (India and China notably but even European countries are still actually buying through third parties). It has found new allies in Africa. Plus it’s highly likely they will end up with territorial gain one the dust settles. The war also highlighted some weaknesses and a general unpreparedness of the western allies. The cost in human lives was high but I’m not convinced you can really call it a strategical defeat at this point sadly.
- stnikolauswagne 2y ago
  If this is not a strategic defeat then I struggle to think of what a defeat would actually look like. Ukrainian Troops entering the Kremlim? They managed to: -get Sweden and Finland to finally join Nato -completely demolish their entire military export potential -lose half their warchest because they kept it in foreign banks -lose all kinds of prestige the „mighty“ russian military had -severely diminish the arms stocks they had left over from the soviet union -lose the flagship of one of their fleets to a nation without a navy -publically had one of their mercenary companies march on their capital in revolt In exchange the land might gain from this is going to be completely devastated from the war. Compare all of this to the 2014 fiasco where they ended up with crimea in exchange for some minor-ish sanctions,
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    > -completely demolish their entire military export potential Which buyer have they lost? I fail to see any. Most of their customers distrust the US and Turkey didn’t denounce their contracts as far as I know. > -lose all kinds of prestige the „mighty“ russian military had Did they? That’s unclear to me. Wagner is in more countries than ever. > -severely diminish the arms stocks they had left over from the Soviet Union Their defence industry output is the highest it has ever been and wasn’t stopped by the various embargo they are under. > -publically had one of their mercenary companies march on their capital in revolt Before Putin very publicly showing that he is still the sole master of the country. With Russian propaganda on the ground, it wasn’t ever a minor setback for them. Plus, give it six months more and they might have humiliated the west by actually mostly winning the war with Ukraine which everyone say they would never win. I know the western media needs to parrot that Russian is the complete loser here to keep support high but the reality doesn’t seem that clear to me. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying it’s an overwhelming victory from Russia. I’m saying that if you look at it like if Russia had overwhelming lost, you will completely misanalyse both the situation today and its implication for the future.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
klibertp 2y ago
Then Netanyahu came and made both Iraq and Ukraine look almost sane. I suspect we're still not anywhere near the inflection point: it's going to get much worse before it starts to get better.
a3n 2y ago
> It's basically reduced them to a Chinese vassal state. I like to think of them as North Korea's client state.

by api 2y ago

CamperBob2 2y ago

Understand that Kim Jong Un doesn't want to be Putin when he grows up. Instead, it is Putin who envies Kim. He wants to live a life of lucre and luxury while the rest of the world is more-or-less forced to prop up his failed state for humanitarian and political reasons. As stupid as this sounds, no other explanation for Putin's behavior makes any more sense. Come up with a better one? I'm all ears... but there's a lot you'll need to explain.

layer8 2y ago
Putin wants Russia to be great again (the image of Russia he grew up with), and to undo the historic “injustice” of the fall of the USSR and Lenin’s “mistake” of ceding territory to Ukraine.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  People want a lot of things they can't have. Putin knows what's possible and what isn't, and that isn't.
  - layer8 2y ago
    I’m not sure that Putin knows what is and isn’t possible.
- rsynnott 2y ago
  That’s the public line, of course, but likely not his actual reasoning. Putin wants to stay in charge, because once he’s not in charge, his life expectancy is measured in hours.
  - layer8 2y ago
    He didn’t have to attack the Crimea and Ukraine to stay in charge. And his rhetorics regarding Russia go back more than twenty years.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I think the parent's (@layer8's) snippet provides a pretty accurate and succinct statement of Putin's true (internal) position, actually (most of it anyway -- there was also his hope that the SMO would help keep Ukraine and Belarus out of Western influence, and forever grateful for the Motherland's tender affections and embraces; and likely strengthen Russia's long-term position in the oil and gas markets, as a sweet little bonus on top). Even more basically, it was all about enhanced "stature" vis-a-vis the West, which he presumed Russia would naturally and rightly win as a result of the brilliant technical operation he had planned. As opposed to the external narratives -- about NATO expansion, denazification, and the supposed need to "protect" the Russian-speaking population, and all that garbage (that unfortunately a certain contingent on HN seems all too eager and happy to believe, pretty much exactly at face value). At the start of the invasion, anyway. By now things have changed dramatically of course, and his true position is probably a lot closer to your description.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >Once he’s not in charge, his life expectancy is measured in hours. No it is not. Every Soviet or Russian leader since 1917 died peacefully in his bed, and a handful of those (Gorby and Yeltsin certainly) lost power well before they died.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - aguaviva 2y ago
hakfoo 2y ago
The explanation might be simpler. He still needs to play, in some way, to a domestic audience. The fall of the USSR was objectively bad for a large part of the Russian population. Their economy and quality-of-life metrics have never really returned to pre-1991 levels. Their geopolitical relevance has been degraded, and Western institutions have nibbled away at their sphere of influence. They've lost millions of square kilometres of territorial holdings that date to Imperial times. He needs to perform some action to prove he's delivering something, and a stilted "you bait us long enough and we'll bite back" response might well fit, especially if they're already on a "the West is encroaching on our motherland" narrative. I still believe that if the Ukraine had made some token concession-- for example, offering a binding secession referrendum in the Donbass, that would have given Putin the bacon he needed to bring home without an actual war.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  I still believe that if the Ukraine had made some token concession-- for example, offering a binding secession referrendum in the Donbass, that would have given Putin the bacon he needed to bring home without an actual war. The de-facto capture of Crimea wasn't enough, but the Donbass would've been. Got it.
  - klibertp 2y ago
    Don't compare Crimea and Donbas. There's literally nothing in common there, save for Putin being the one to decide.
rsynnott 2y ago
I think you’re possibly overthinking it. Being a dictator doesn’t normally come with a particularly enviable pension plan; once you fall out of the saddle, at best you’re going into exile, but often they just kill you. So Putin needs to stay in the saddle, forever. And thus, this sort of thing.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  No, that's exactly what I said. His goal is to stay in the saddle for the rest of his natural life, propped up by Western charity and Chinese interests just like the Kim dynasty has been. That's the whole idea. For someone in Putin's position, a projection of genuine strength is actually less sustainable. As a nuclear-armed loser, he's a threat to global stability. Since he evidently can't be removed or ignored, he must be indulged, which is why he has gone out of his way to project weakness at every level since the start of the invasion. Losing the Black Sea fleet to a country with no navy, complaining about NATO encroachment while taking actions guaranteed to increase it, making a big show out of (temporarily) forgiving a usurper, releasing weird-as-hell photos in which he cowers at the end of a table the size of a bowling lane, along with videos in which he's quivering with a nervous tic that mysteriously doesn't seem to be getting worse... the examples are as numerous as they are nonsensical, and as irrational as they are irrefutable. Either I'm terrible at making my point, or many people vehemently disagree while being unable to offer a better explanation.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

I would like to believe it too but western economic sanctions have overall done little. Russia is still finding takers for its gas (India and China notably but even European countries are still actually buying through third parties). It has found new allies in Africa. Plus it’s highly likely they will end up with territorial gain one the dust settles. The war also highlighted some weaknesses and a general unpreparedness of the western allies. The cost in human lives was high but I’m not convinced you can really call it a strategical defeat at this point sadly.

stnikolauswagne 2y ago
If this is not a strategic defeat then I struggle to think of what a defeat would actually look like. Ukrainian Troops entering the Kremlim? They managed to: -get Sweden and Finland to finally join Nato -completely demolish their entire military export potential -lose half their warchest because they kept it in foreign banks -lose all kinds of prestige the „mighty“ russian military had -severely diminish the arms stocks they had left over from the soviet union -lose the flagship of one of their fleets to a nation without a navy -publically had one of their mercenary companies march on their capital in revolt In exchange the land might gain from this is going to be completely devastated from the war. Compare all of this to the 2014 fiasco where they ended up with crimea in exchange for some minor-ish sanctions,
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  > -completely demolish their entire military export potential Which buyer have they lost? I fail to see any. Most of their customers distrust the US and Turkey didn’t denounce their contracts as far as I know. > -lose all kinds of prestige the „mighty“ russian military had Did they? That’s unclear to me. Wagner is in more countries than ever. > -severely diminish the arms stocks they had left over from the Soviet Union Their defence industry output is the highest it has ever been and wasn’t stopped by the various embargo they are under. > -publically had one of their mercenary companies march on their capital in revolt Before Putin very publicly showing that he is still the sole master of the country. With Russian propaganda on the ground, it wasn’t ever a minor setback for them. Plus, give it six months more and they might have humiliated the west by actually mostly winning the war with Ukraine which everyone say they would never win. I know the western media needs to parrot that Russian is the complete loser here to keep support high but the reality doesn’t seem that clear to me. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying it’s an overwhelming victory from Russia. I’m saying that if you look at it like if Russia had overwhelming lost, you will completely misanalyse both the situation today and its implication for the future.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

klibertp 2y ago

Then Netanyahu came and made both Iraq and Ukraine look almost sane. I suspect we're still not anywhere near the inflection point: it's going to get much worse before it starts to get better.

a3n 2y ago

> It's basically reduced them to a Chinese vassal state. I like to think of them as North Korea's client state.