The Kremlin is burning?

[MiGG0]

9 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

'Is far more likely' would be more acceptable to you than 'will'. For me it's good enough, anyway.

I disagree about the latter, though we may differ on what we perceive as 'Ukrainian loss'.

Far more likely is that RUS wont do anything major. They eould not gain much, but could lose everything. Simply risk&reward.

For me UKR loss is that they are forced to unfaforable peace. 

 

Edited May 30, 2024 by MiGG0

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

Something would be "very more likely".

Why you are so adamant that Russia should have it's way?

I have never say such. Should and what happens are totally different things.

[Sardaukar]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

I have never say such. Should and what happens are totally different things.

It's all about probabilities.

You base your estimate that Russia's esteemed leader would not.

Think about Saddam Hussein and similar dictators detached from reality, was it sane decision to invade Kuwait?

Can we be sure that Putler does not go with similar crazy calculus?

He sure seems to have his country prepared for major major war. 

[Sardaukar]

Thing is, there is no certainty about future.

But considering what they have done so far, nothing is off the table. 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

But even that scenario expect that NATO has failed and RUS can realistically win. I dont see any indication anywhere where RUS expect to win against NATO.

Urbanoid summed it up when he said that Russian should have been bitch slapped down every time it tried to defy the West.  That's what it's about - it's not that anyone seriously thinks Russia will invade NATO.  Just the opposite, they fear Putin never will attack NATO, and that means that he will get away with it in Ukraine.  No bitchslap is possible, unless NATO goes into Ukraine.  

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Urbanoid summed it up when he said that Russian should have been bitch slapped down every time it tried to defy the West.  That's what it's about - it's not that anyone seriously thinks Russia will invade NATO.  Just the opposite, they fear Putin never will attack NATO, and that means that he will get away with it in Ukraine.  No bitchslap is possible, unless NATO goes into Ukraine.  

It's both. Undermining correct world order isn't as bad as attacking NATO, but it's still bad. 

And the scenarios I mentioned are generally considered in the region. 

[Sardaukar]

Reminds me of ass-kicking PLA got in it's only real war of modern age by Vietnam in 1979. 

[Ssnake]

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Yes, I have but all those repeat same mantra. ”RUS could”, ”It is possible”, etc. But dont explain WHY RUS would do it if would lose? It simple question, but seems to pretty hard to get andwer. 

I don't care why they would do crazy shit. Current Russian leadership is perfectly capable of engaging in destructive behavior. Current Russian leadership already has demonstrated self-destructive behavioral pattern. Insisting on a rational explanation for irrational behavior is in itself irrational. You can recognize reality, or choose to wrap yourself in a comfy blanket of denial. I suspect you are not living in a country bordering on Russia, be it by first or second degree.

Therefore, frankly, your opinion that Russia won't behave irrationally and aggressive after a military victory over Ukraine, is about as convincing as a pink tutu disguises a Grizzly bear into a ballerina. You can assert all day that it's totally fine to dance with that Grizzly, but don't be surprised or indignant if I ignore that advice and keep preparing for a bear attack.

[glenn239]

17 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

It's both. 

No, you said it perfectly.  It's about bitch slapping Russia down for acting out of line to NATO.  If NATO does not escalate in Ukraine, then Ukraine will lose the war, and when it does, Putin will stop and not attack NATO.  He will 'get away with it', and your proscribed therapy of a bitch slapping will not occur.  

In terms of your belief system that NATO can or should try to bitch slap Russia into submission, and that this act will prevent the opening of Pandora's Box rather than opening it, we shall see.  The time for talk has passed.  

[urbanoid]

Just now, glenn239 said:

No, you said it perfectly.  It's about bitch slapping Russia down for acting out of line to NATO.  If NATO does not escalate in Ukraine, then Ukraine will lose the war, and when it does, Putin will stop and not attack NATO.  He will 'get away with it', and your proscribed therapy of a bitch slapping will not occur.  

In terms of your belief system that NATO can or should try to bitch slap Russia into submission, and that this act will prevent the opening of Pandora's Box rather than opening it, we shall see.  The time for talk has passed.  

Not even NATO, but Western order in general. They should have never been given a leeway starting with probably Transnistria, Georgia at the absolute latest. Same with China in Taiwan, same with Iran in the Middle East etc. etc. Thou shalt not even dream of upending current order and all that. 

I'm not necessarily sure that 'Ukraine will lose the war without NATO stepping in', if even the remnants (more or less what they contol now) will defend their sovereignty and will be free to pursue their international allegiances I'll count that as a win. I do concede that the West did far less than it could to help Ukraine.

And yes, I do believe that if he gets away with Ukraine war then further aggressive steps from Russia are far more likely than they would have been otherwise. 

[glenn239]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

Not even NATO, but Western order in general. They should have never been given a leeway starting with probably Transnistria, Georgia at the absolute latest. Same with China in Taiwan, same with Iran in the Middle East etc. etc. Thou shalt not even dream of upending current order and all that. 

You're not wrong on the preemptive thing.  I've little doubt but that NATO could have been more proactive to ward off the current war.  Not so much in Georgia or whatever, but in admitting Ukraine into NATO back in 2006.   Taiwan 1999, same idea.  But that was then and this is now.

Quote

I'm not necessarily sure that 'Ukraine will lose the war without NATO stepping in', if even the remnants (more or less what they contol now) will defend their sovereignty and will be free to pursue their international allegiances I'll count that as a win. I do concede that the West did far less than it could to help Ukraine.

IMO, this entire discussion about the West standing up to Putin has sprung back from out of nowhere into a central theme.  That hasn't happened because everyone thinks the Ukrainians are winning.  It's happened because it's pretty clear they are losing, and now the frustration at the implications of that are starting to bubble over.  

Quote

And yes, I do believe that if he gets away with Ukraine war then further aggressive steps from Russia are far more likely than they would have been otherwise. 

I think Putin wants to rebuild some sort of cypher of the Soviet Union and then die a hero equal to Peter the Great in the annals of Russian history.  If so, then two things.  First, he will not attack NATO as NATO is not the Soviet Union, and he will use aggression in Central Asia if necessary to complete the reconstruction of the SU. 

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

You're not wrong on the preemptive thing.  I've little doubt but that NATO could have been more proactive to ward off the current war.  Not so much in Georgia or whatever, but in admitting Ukraine into NATO back in 2006.   Taiwan 1999, same idea.  But that was then and this is now.

IMO, this entire discussion about the West standing up to Putin has sprung back from out of nowhere into a central theme.  That hasn't happened because everyone thinks the Ukrainians are winning.  It's happened because it's pretty clear they are losing, and now the frustration at the implications of that are starting to bubble over.  

I think Putin wants to rebuild some sort of cypher of the Soviet Union and then die a hero equal to Peter the Great in the annals of Russian history.  If so, then two things.  First, he will not attack NATO as NATO is not the Soviet Union, and he will use aggression in Central Asia if necessary to complete the reconstruction of the SU. 

What I'm implying is that while NATO 'industrial' mobilisation have been on the whole laughable compared to what could have been achieved due to things like GDP and population alone, it was still enough to make Russia basically be fought to a standstill (as current rates of Russian advance are also laughable). 

Yeah, a lot of this is about retard's 'legacy', same with Xi in China. As for the possibility of attacking NATO check my earlier posts and try to at least see the conditions I mentioned that make it more possible than they would have been otherwise. But then again the next retard-in-charge might want to take care about his legacy as well and...

[MiGG0]

4 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

It's all about probabilities.

You base your estimate that Russia's esteemed leader would not.

Think about Saddam Hussein and similar dictators detached from reality, was it sane decision to invade Kuwait?

Can we be sure that Putler does not go with similar crazy calculus?

He sure seems to have his country prepared for major major war. 

As I said already we dont know for sure. Nevertheless Logic dictates that there is no reason for RUS to start war with NATO. There is nothing to gain for them versus risks. 
 

Purin have had Logic in his actions even when it seems crazy for west. Purin want to keep RUS spehere of influence and all those actions have been dictated by that (west stepping over read line, bla, bla) He even had said it many times. He is ofcourse wrong but it still follow Logic

 

 

[MiGG0]

4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I don't care why they would do crazy shit. Current Russian leadership is perfectly capable of engaging in destructive behavior. Current Russian leadership already has demonstrated self-destructive behavioral pattern. Insisting on a rational explanation for irrational behavior is in itself irrational. You can recognize reality, or choose to wrap yourself in a comfy blanket of denial. I suspect you are not living in a country bordering on Russia, be it by first or second degree.

Therefore, frankly, your opinion that Russia won't behave irrationally and aggressive after a military victory over Ukraine, is about as convincing as a pink tutu disguises a Grizzly bear into a ballerina. You can assert all day that it's totally fine to dance with that Grizzly, but don't be surprised or indignant if I ignore that advice and keep preparing for a bear attack.

Why is important factor because it determines motives behind any move. All RUS moves so far have been logical even if not ”right”. They have not done crazy stuff just because they can (they could blow ie nuke for that) but all have been to keep their ”sphere of influence” and they have avoided direct conflict with NATO.

And I do live next to Russia.

Edited May 31, 2024 by MiGG0

[MiGG0]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Urbanoid summed it up when he said that Russian should have been bitch slapped down every time it tried to defy the West.  That's what it's about - it's not that anyone seriously thinks Russia will invade NATO.  Just the opposite, they fear Putin never will attack NATO, and that means that he will get away with it in Ukraine.  No bitchslap is possible, unless NATO goes into Ukraine.  

Urbanoid explanatio has been best so far, but it still misses my point. It answers mostly how RUS could do it. It still dont answer why would do it. 

I do agree with you that not attacking NATO would be better for RUS. -> The RUS bitch slapped west/NATO and got away with it.

Edited May 31, 2024 by MiGG0

[seahawk]

Russia has already won. The West has shown to be weak, corrupt and imperialistic.

[Pavel Novak]

4 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You're not wrong on the preemptive thing.  I've little doubt but that NATO could have been more proactive to ward off the current war.  Not so much in Georgia or whatever, but in admitting Ukraine into NATO back in 2006.   Taiwan 1999, same idea.  But that was then and this is now.

IMO, this entire discussion about the West standing up to Putin has sprung back from out of nowhere into a central theme.  That hasn't happened because everyone thinks the Ukrainians are winning.  It's happened because it's pretty clear they are losing, and now the frustration at the implications of that are starting to bubble over.  

I think Putin wants to rebuild some sort of cypher of the Soviet Union and then die a hero equal to Peter the Great in the annals of Russian history.  If so, then two things.  First, he will not attack NATO as NATO is not the Soviet Union, and he will use aggression in Central Asia if necessary to complete the reconstruction of the SU. 

The thinking that it is irrational for Russia to invade NATO and thus we should ignore such option is part of problem.

Even though keeping Cold war armies was unsustainable we could and should have kept 1990s armies. CZ had in mid 1990s befor NATO 8 mech brigades, several mobilization territorial (infantry) brigades and still stored several times more equipment than what Russia demanded for Ukraine to have.

We could have been much more secure if we kept this and we could really argue that conventional Russian attack against NATO is highly improbable. But european states (with few exceptions) were on the ride that next major war in Europe cannot be - because exactly your and others flawed logic. And if war cannot be why keeping armies and thus we have created weakness and now we are open for next major war in Europe.

[MiGG0]

Your argument has flaw in it. USSR/RUS never have directly attacked NATO -> so NATO has worked so far and Logic will say that will remain as is. Bigger/stronger NATO would not help UKR if NATO dont intervene. If it does, then current NATO would be enough to win in conventional war.
 

It is those countries that are not in NATO are in danger and thats why Finland/Sweden immediately joined to it.

 

But I do agree overall that most Europe were wrong bringing down their armies. Best deterrant is strong army.

Edited May 31, 2024 by MiGG0

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

Why is important factor because it determines motives behind any move. All RUS moves so far have been logical even if not ”right”. They have not done crazy stuff just because they can (they could blow ie nuke for that) but all have been to keep their ”sphere of influence” and they have avoided direct conflict with NATO.

Fine, but

a) motivations are unknowable, and subject to (quick) revision, especially in autocratic regimes

b) the concept of "spheres of influence" goes right against the whole idea of the UN charta, and is imperialistic at the core; it's neither just, nor is it even safer, as the lead-up to WW1 demonstrates (and arguably, carving up Czecheslovakia and Poland prior to/on the onset of WW2 was a manifestation of such "spheres" too

c) if you say that Russian actions were logical, explain to me the decision to attack Ukraine with insufficient forces - a "logical decision" merely hobbled by flawed data? Then what guarantees do you have that Russia, once "reunited" with Ukraine and Belarus, will not attempt to reunite with the Baltic Republics next; just because it appears a stupid move to you or all the other Putin mind-readers here ("therefore he won't do it"), how will you know how the case is presented to him?

You can't know it.

What we do know, for certain, because Putin and his stooges told us, are the imperial ambitions to restore the Soviet Empire in full. A lot of Jews were very certain that the Nazis would not murder them because it was unthinkable. And then the unthinkable happened. The survivors' conclusion: If there's someone who says that he wants to kill you, take him for his word, and act accordingly.

[MiGG0]

3 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Fine, but

a) motivations are unknowable, and subject to (quick) revision, especially in autocratic regimes

b) the concept of "spheres of influence" goes right against the whole idea of the UN charta, and is imperialistic at the core; it's neither just, nor is it even safer, as the lead-up to WW1 demonstrates (and arguably, carving up Czecheslovakia and Poland prior to/on the onset of WW2 was a manifestation of such "spheres" too

c) if you say that Russian actions were logical, explain to me the decision to attack Ukraine with insufficient forces - a "logical decision" merely hobbled by flawed data? Then what guarantees do you have that Russia, once "reunited" with Ukraine and Belarus, will not attempt to reunite with the Baltic Republics next; just because it appears a stupid move to you or all the other Putin mind-readers here ("therefore he won't do it"), how will you know how the case is presented to him?

You can't know it.

What we do know, for certain, because Putin and his stooges told us, are the imperial ambitions to restore the Soviet Empire in full. A lot of Jews were very certain that the Nazis would not murder them because it was unthinkable. And then the unthinkable happened. The survivors' conclusion: If there's someone who says that he wants to kill you, take him for his word, and act accordingly.

As explained already. Because direct war against NATO would not be winnable for them so logically it is against all their goals. RUS do know that Soviet Empire in full is imbosible, but they try to salvage what ever they can -> bullying countries that are not in NATO

[Ssnake]

How was it possible that Russia attacked Ukraine with insufficient forces? Wasn't this an objectively bad decision for Russia?

Why will they never make a bad-for-Russia decision again?

[ink]

There's a whole wealth of international relations theory out there explaining all this very clearly. You guys are all classic realists (in international relations terms) and would all enjoy Mearsheimer - his early 1980s and 1990s work especially:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

Btw, that's no insult. Realism has been incredibly influential in US policy circles throughout the Cold War and beyond.

Where realism stumbles, is the internal workings of states... But even by ignoring this, it goes a long way to explain the way international affairs unfold.

Anyway, the point ultimately is that realists would say the Ukraine situation was broadly inevitable as Russia grew in strength. Likewise, some sort of friction between the US and China is also inevitable (it really needn't be Taiwan)... In many ways, it'll be a test of where China is as a power - if Taiwan is the focus, that'll be a sign of China's overall weakness. If China can force a situation somewhere in the Pacific that's more closely aligned with the US, that'll be a sign that she's stronger than we thought.

The fact that the Ukraine war took place, that's also a sign of Russian weakness. Had Russia been able to express her power without "needing" to go to war - that would have been more indicative of real strength.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Why is important factor because it determines motives behind any move. All RUS moves so far have been logical even if not ”right”. They have not done crazy stuff just because they can (they could blow ie nuke for that) but all have been to keep their ”sphere of influence” and they have avoided direct conflict with NATO.

And I do live next to Russia.

Was Salisbury 'Logical'? Was irradiating half of central london with Polonium 210 just to kill a middling political opponent 'Logical'? Was invading Crimea, to stop an illusory NATO naval base that would not have affected Russian naval domination of the Black Sea, and losing access to Ukrainian engine makers required to build that navy 'Logical'?

Are we therefore going to conclude he is playing 4D chess with us, and we cannot possibly grasp the extremities of his logic? Or are we forced to conclude Putin is actually a bit of a fucking idiot, making up moves as he goes along, without considering anything other than his long term survival?

And if you are still feeling comfortable, maybe its time to drop this bombshell. Still think they arent up to doing crazy stuff?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/think-tank-close-kremlin-says-164723170.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO_SINK&ncid=crm_19907-1202927-20240531-0&bt_user_id=gdzOUKo7s8IQzL6ok3GBxOvT95si%2Fp7DPQd4gX2rjSShBLGOjTTNQ%2B7GeyUq3NmN&bt_ts=1717118691217

(Reuters) - A senior member of a Russian think tank whose ideas sometimes become government policy has suggested Moscow consider a "demonstrative" nuclear explosion to cow the West into refusing to allow Ukraine to use its arms against targets inside Russia.

The proposal, by Dmitry Suslov, a member of the Moscow-based Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, was issued a day after President Vladimir Putin warned the West that NATO members in Europe were playing with fire by proposing to let Kyiv use Western weapons to strike deep inside Russia, something he said could trigger a global conflict.

Ukraine's leadership says it needs to be able to strike Russian forces and military targets inside Russia with long-range Western missiles to be able to defend itself and prevent air, missile and drone attacks, a view which has found some support among some Western countries but not yet with Washington.

Russia, which possesses the world's largest nuclear arsenal, has warned it would view such a step as a grave escalation that would pull NATO and the countries concerned into a direct conflict with Moscow, increasing the risk of nuclear war.

Suslov, a member of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, a think tank praised by Putin who has said the authorities sometimes pick up its policy ideas, said Russia needed to act to dissuade the West from crossing a red line.

"To confirm the seriousness of Russia's intentions and to convince our opponents of Moscow's readiness to escalate, it is worth considering a demonstrative (i.e. non-combat) nuclear explosion," Suslov wrote in business magazine Profil.

"The political and psychological effect of a nuclear mushroom cloud, which will be shown live on all TV channels around the world, will hopefully remind Western politicians of the one thing that has prevented wars between the great powers since 1945 and that they have now largely lost - fear of nuclear war."

 

[seahawk]

37 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

As explained already. Because direct war against NATO would not be winnable for them so logically it is against all their goals. RUS do know that Soviet Empire in full is imbosible, but they try to salvage what ever they can -> bullying countries that are not in NATO

But that is a decision Russia can not make, as NATO has already started its war against Russia.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, ink said:

There's a whole wealth of international relations theory out there explaining all this very clearly. You guys are all classic realists (in international relations terms) and would all enjoy Mearsheimer - his early 1980s and 1990s work especially:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

Btw, that's no insult. Realism has been incredibly influential in US policy circles throughout the Cold War and beyond.

Where realism stumbles, is the internal workings of states... But even by ignoring this, it goes a long way to explain the way international affairs unfold.

Anyway, the point ultimately is that realists would say the Ukraine situation was broadly inevitable as Russia grew in strength. Likewise, some sort of friction between the US and China is also inevitable (it really needn't be Taiwan)... In many ways, it'll be a test of where China is as a power - if Taiwan is the focus, that'll be a sign of China's overall weakness. If China can force a situation somewhere in the Pacific that's more closely aligned with the US, that'll be a sign that she's stronger than we thought.

The fact that the Ukraine war took place, that's also a sign of Russian weakness. Had Russia been able to express her power without "needing" to go to war - that would have been more indicative of real strength.

 

It would be more accurate to say that what happened in Ukraine was inevitable as Ukraine grew away from Russia and started determining its own future, and Russia declined in power.

There was a good book on the end of the Cold War by Robert Service. He said that the mentality in the Soviet Union was to let Ukraine go, and then 20 years hence, when the Russian economy recovered, they would inevitably come back in a loser affiliation. They honestly believed this. The problem of course being, the Russian economy has never really recovered, if you ignore the kleptocrats and oligarchs. And for Ukraine, the EU has had an increasingly bigger draw. It is therefore Russia's relative decline, in population, in economy, compared to Europe, that has triggered all this. Call it a last desperate throw of the dice to pull back Ukraine in a stronger confederation, before they inevitably lose it.

Which is precisely what was meant on the paperwork when they signed to 'Independence'. Caveat emptor.