3 ms·

Putin could simply accept that he's made a mistake and order to stop fighting. I know it's unlikely because he's stupid or whatnot, but sane people reconsider w

Putin could simply accept that he's made a mistake and order to stop fighting. I know it's unlikely because he's stupid or whatnot, but sane people reconsider what they do or have done and change based on that.

madspindel 2y ago
Reminds me about that NATO joke: “What kind of war?” “Russia is fighting NATO.” “Are you serious?” “Yes, yes! Russia is fighting NATO.” “So how’s it going?” “Well, 70,000 Russian soldiers are dead. The missile stockpile has almost been depleted. A lot of equipment is damaged, blown up.” “And what about NATO?” “What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet.”
- 9999px 2y ago
  US and NATO personnel, equipment and cash have been in Ukraine for almost a decade now. Operation Sea Breeze couldn't have happened otherwise.
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    not sure why this is downvoted, it's 100% correct. more specifically, a lot of NATO support following Euromaidan and "separatist" fighting 2014-2015. after a few black eyes fighting the Little Green Men, the AFU leaned hard on NATO assistance for training and armament. it's why the Ukrainians held out against Russia, and why Russia struggled so much -- they thought they were fighting the 2015 AFU, not the 2022 AFU.
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      It's probably downvoted because they put "personnel" first, but we all know the number of NATO soldiers in the conflict is essentially 0.
      - 9999px 2y ago
        "Essentially" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. NATO _personnel_ (not necessarily soldiers, but officers and staff) have been active in Ukraine since 2014-15.
        lostmsu 2y ago
        Well why don't you estimate the number and compare it to the total size of _personnel_ so people could judge if that number is indeed essentially zero? (spoiler alert, it is)
mdp2021 2y ago
We come from very many years of analysis spent on the case, especially in the past three years. They do not draw the picture with that brush or detail. I suggest you elect a few important commentators and check their writings. You should make an idea of the motivations that brought to action, and read the future possibilities in view of the motivations (still playing actively in the game) and the current results on all sides, including the military, the political and the geopolitical.
- lostmsu 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > sheer amount of stupidity you just listed Care to explain? You do not seem to have got the point of my post, which suggests you may have also have greatly misunderstood the content. > called sunken cost fallacy So you seem to believe that the "existential concerns" that were identified as the motives behind the action are now retracted. But your guess clashes with that of specialists, so (also since that) your assertions cannot suffice. Edit: Incidentally, <curses>, in view of your «does not want to look extremely stupid», how do you read my «political [results and factors]»?
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      No, I call it sunken cost exactly because the "existential concerns", if they even made any sense before, now make none. Because the current situation is 10x if not 100x worse existential risk to Russia as a state vs whatever was before 2022. Because the war will eventually be lost, and with the loss of the occupied territories some internal territories might be lost as well, or the whole thing might fall apart even. Might not happen right away, but with 100k+ killed and many more wounded + the brain drain of probably even larger number of highly educated people + all the secondary effects of these two will definitely do that. And the longer this stupidity lasts, and the more losses are accumulated, the higher grow the chances of the total collapse of the state. At this point, it already looks worse than USSR in late 198x. UPD. looking into history, Russia basically fell flat on its face in what would be USSR's "Prague Spring" moment when Kiev kicked out their puppet, now you could say events rush toward the new 90s, except instead of being a superpower Russia looks pathetic, especially considering involvement of low-lifes, e.g. North Korea.
rsynnott 2y ago
Trouble is, if he does that, his life expectancy is probably measured in hours. Dictatorship produces unfortunate incentives; declaring defeat becomes extremely personally dangerous for the dictator.

madspindel 2y ago

Reminds me about that NATO joke: “What kind of war?” “Russia is fighting NATO.” “Are you serious?” “Yes, yes! Russia is fighting NATO.” “So how’s it going?” “Well, 70,000 Russian soldiers are dead. The missile stockpile has almost been depleted. A lot of equipment is damaged, blown up.” “And what about NATO?” “What about NATO? NATO hasn’t even arrived yet.”

9999px 2y ago
US and NATO personnel, equipment and cash have been in Ukraine for almost a decade now. Operation Sea Breeze couldn't have happened otherwise.
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  not sure why this is downvoted, it's 100% correct. more specifically, a lot of NATO support following Euromaidan and "separatist" fighting 2014-2015. after a few black eyes fighting the Little Green Men, the AFU leaned hard on NATO assistance for training and armament. it's why the Ukrainians held out against Russia, and why Russia struggled so much -- they thought they were fighting the 2015 AFU, not the 2022 AFU.
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    It's probably downvoted because they put "personnel" first, but we all know the number of NATO soldiers in the conflict is essentially 0.
    - 9999px 2y ago
      "Essentially" is carrying a lot of weight in that sentence. NATO _personnel_ (not necessarily soldiers, but officers and staff) have been active in Ukraine since 2014-15.
      - lostmsu 2y ago
        Well why don't you estimate the number and compare it to the total size of _personnel_ so people could judge if that number is indeed essentially zero? (spoiler alert, it is)

mdp2021 2y ago

We come from very many years of analysis spent on the case, especially in the past three years. They do not draw the picture with that brush or detail. I suggest you elect a few important commentators and check their writings. You should make an idea of the motivations that brought to action, and read the future possibilities in view of the motivations (still playing actively in the game) and the current results on all sides, including the military, the political and the geopolitical.

lostmsu 2y ago
[flagged]
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > sheer amount of stupidity you just listed Care to explain? You do not seem to have got the point of my post, which suggests you may have also have greatly misunderstood the content. > called sunken cost fallacy So you seem to believe that the "existential concerns" that were identified as the motives behind the action are now retracted. But your guess clashes with that of specialists, so (also since that) your assertions cannot suffice. Edit: Incidentally, <curses>, in view of your «does not want to look extremely stupid», how do you read my «political [results and factors]»?
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    No, I call it sunken cost exactly because the "existential concerns", if they even made any sense before, now make none. Because the current situation is 10x if not 100x worse existential risk to Russia as a state vs whatever was before 2022. Because the war will eventually be lost, and with the loss of the occupied territories some internal territories might be lost as well, or the whole thing might fall apart even. Might not happen right away, but with 100k+ killed and many more wounded + the brain drain of probably even larger number of highly educated people + all the secondary effects of these two will definitely do that. And the longer this stupidity lasts, and the more losses are accumulated, the higher grow the chances of the total collapse of the state. At this point, it already looks worse than USSR in late 198x. UPD. looking into history, Russia basically fell flat on its face in what would be USSR's "Prague Spring" moment when Kiev kicked out their puppet, now you could say events rush toward the new 90s, except instead of being a superpower Russia looks pathetic, especially considering involvement of low-lifes, e.g. North Korea.

rsynnott 2y ago

Trouble is, if he does that, his life expectancy is probably measured in hours. Dictatorship produces unfortunate incentives; declaring defeat becomes extremely personally dangerous for the dictator.