The Kremlin is burning?

[sunday]

29 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:

(...)

Considering the worship for that rules-based international order thing, it looks like there are more neocons than realists around here.

Also, I would not be surprised if there are people here considering Mearsheimer as an example of antisemite.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Pretty much yes as NATO wont want direct conflight either as RUS would escalate that to nuclear fast (because it is their only choice how NATO cannot win either)

Lets turn that on its head. If we were doing that to Russia, can we be sure that they wouldnt launch an escalation? Demonstrative nuclear use for example?

If we determine that yes, they might, then it means one side is capable of flipping off at things which we have had to put up with for some decades. And at that point, one cannot conceive that the Russian side is logical, or considered, but driven purely by the emotional rage of Vladimir Putin.

We dont know what is going to happen next.We just dont. Things might go on like this for another 2 years, or Putin might detonate an atomic bomb next week. Events are now beyond prediction.  Im not going to accept that Putin wont launch a war against Europe, particularly when he has a proven history of making bad decisions in the past.  Yes, it would be illogical, yes, it would be ill considered. Well name a part of his premiership that has been well thought out.

Edited May 31, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[ink]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

I meant "inevitable" in an international relations theory sense... But, yes, realists would say that Ukraine's initial drift away from Russia was inevitable too (as Russia weakened, one could hardly expect Ukraine to stick around).

[ink]

8 minutes ago, sunday said:

Considering the worship for that rules-based international order thing, it looks like there are more neocons than realists around here.

My feeling is people don't really believe in that stuff. They just say it because it can add weight to whatever argument they're making.

8 minutes ago, sunday said:

Also, I would not be surprised if there are people here considering Mearsheimer as an example of antisemite.

Yeah, maybe, but I wasn't going to get into all that.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 minutes ago, ink said:

I meant "inevitable" in an international relations theory sense... But, yes, realists would say that Ukraine's initial drift away from Russia was inevitable too (as Russia weakened, one could hardly expect Ukraine to stick around).

Here is a crazy alternative fiction. Yeltsin dies in office in the mid 1990's. An unknown politician by the name of Boris Nemtsov gets elected to President (unlikely, but surely no more unlikely than Zelensky's rise to office). He institutes reforms, breaks the back of the FSB. And slowly, the Russian economy begins to normalize over the rest of the decade. He doesnt get embroiled in a second chechen war. The Army becomes professionial, and a lot smaller. Russia becomes  just a bit European. But Instead of drifting towards the EU, like Putin, he envisages a Russian version. A commonwealth that actually functions like a much looser USSR. And then, most of the independent states, whom remain independent if sometimes under despostic regimes, slowly drift back. Particularly the Ukraine, which remains still something like a headless chicken.

That would have been the best solution for Russia. probably the best solution for Europe. And here is the kicker, it never happened, purely because Russian politicians were more interested in lining their pockets and playing games iwth the Russian minds to maintain control, rather than doing best for them.

All this is entirely Russia's fault. They blame the west for not being the superpower they once were. But self reflection is seemingly beyond them. This is on them. Its not western meddling that drove Ukraine away. It was their own actions.

 

Edited May 31, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stefan Kotsch]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

If NATO does not escalate in Ukraine, then Ukraine will lose the war, and when it does, Putin will stop and not attack NATO.

Nobody wanted to believe that Russia would wage war on Ukraine. And yet it happened.
In 2014, the West had already de-escalated to the maximum. Although it was obvious to anyone who wanted to see that Russia was already at war with Ukraine. To this day I still don't understand why no one clearly and unambiguously named Russia as the aggressor in 2014/2015. Putin will stop and not attack NATO?

The outcome of the war in Ukraine will set an example. The West can give the signal that we will not risk war because the former Soviet republics are not worth it to us. Then next comes the turn of the Baltic States. Because Putin is now sure that nothing will be done against him this time either. Except perhaps the delivery of 5,000 steel helmets and the summoning of the ambassador. As an act of desperation.

Or we can help Ukraine with all the consequences. Then Putin will stop and not attack NATO.

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

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?

Yes, but it was probably based wrong assumptions (Georgia 2). Aim still probably was/id to get that ”sphere of influence”

[Stuart Galbraith]

14 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Nobody wanted to believe that Russia would wage war on Ukraine. And yet it happened.
In 2014, the West had already de-escalated to the maximum. Although it was obvious to anyone who wanted to see that Russia was already at war with Ukraine. To this day I still don't understand why no one clearly and unambiguously named Russia as the aggressor in 2014/2015. Putin will stop and not attack NATO?

The outcome of the war in Ukraine will set an example. The West can give the signal that we will not risk war because the former Soviet republics are not worth it to us. Then next comes the turn of the Baltic States. Because Putin is now sure that nothing will be done against him this time either. Except perhaps the delivery of 5,000 steel helmets and the summoning of the ambassador. As an act of desperation.

Or we can help Ukraine with all the consequences. Then Putin will stop and not attack NATO.

Probably for the same reason Obama told Ukraine not to resist the Russian occupation of Ukraine, that it would start a war. Which yes, that show show feeble Americans leadership during the Ukraine crisis has been.

I dont know what Putin will do next. But it remains a fact that he said before the war that it was going to be followed by a reappraisal of their borders with NATO. Is he still serious about that? I submit, it would be deeply unwise to assume he has changed his mind. Honour the threat, as the USAF says.

Im not sure that even helping Ukraine will stop Putin. I think he believes Ukraine is sysnonymous with his leadership, and it has to be presented as a success, or he will fall. I dont believe its going to be 'peace', even if Ukraine gets all its former territories back, and lets face it, its unlikely they shall.

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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."

 

In short yes. They still use cold war era Logic in those actions. Nobody needs to like it,  but they do have Logic in those aswell (erase/punish those who they perceive ”traitors”).

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Yes, but it was probably based wrong assumptions (Georgia 2). Aim still probably was/id to get that ”sphere of influence”

Why is he entitled to one?

Lets look at this. Lets say Britain wanted a 'sphere of influence' over Eire, would anyone accept that? Or India perhaps?

What about Germany over Kaliningrad and Western Poland?

What about America over Vietnam or the Phillipines?

What about France over Algeria? Or Greece over Iran. Or Spain over Chile. And so on and so on.

If in all those cases, we determine that former colonial powers have no right to anything, why does Russia have the right to more than the square root of fuck all over its former colonial territories? Former territories moreover, that became independent of the Russian empire, and wwere only reannexed by the Soviet Union by  military force?

I truly dont get this. That so many people are ostensibly anticolonialist, particularly when its my country, but suddenly say 'Oh well, they JUST want a sphere of influence!' as if it explains anything.

 

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Why is he entitled to one?

Lets look at this. Lets say Britain wanted a 'sphere of influence' over Eire, would anyone accept that? Or India perhaps?

What about Germany over Kaliningrad and Western Poland?

What about America over Vietnam or the Phillipines?

What about France over Algeria? Or Greece over Iran. Or Spain over Chile. And so on and so on.

If in all those cases, we determine that former colonial powers have no right to anything, why does Russia have the right to more than the square root of fuck all over its former colonial territories? Former territories moreover, that became independent of the Russian empire, and wwere only reannexed by the Soviet Union by  military force?

I truly dont get this. That so many people are ostensibly anticolonialist, particularly when its my country, but suddenly say 'Oh well, they JUST want a sphere of influence!' as if it explains anything.

 

No, but discussion (for me atleast) is not  about ”rights”. It just what motivates them and why RUS does it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

In short yes. They still use cold war era Logic in those actions. Nobody needs to like it,  but they do have Logic in those aswell (erase/punish those who they perceive ”traitors”).

Brrr! Im sorry, that is the wrong answer. The right answer is 'The cold war is over'. I distinctly remember it, it was even on TV.

Even during the cold war, it was rare, so rare that I cant think of an example, that former spies that defected were assassinated. Political opponents, yes. War criminals (by their definition), yes. Spies? No. That only started on the Putin watch, and we have been retconned into believing they have always done it.

And we havent fo rthat matter. One might reflect on the remarkably long life of Kim Philby in the Soviet Union, or George Blake whom died only a year or two ago. There was at least one CIA flunky that defected that lived out his life in the USSR and died of alcoholism iirc. Well, we went to the right place.

 

[MiGG0]

28 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Nobody wanted to believe that Russia would wage war on Ukraine. And yet it happened.
In 2014, the West had already de-escalated to the maximum. Although it was obvious to anyone who wanted to see that Russia was already at war with Ukraine. To this day I still don't understand why no one clearly and unambiguously named Russia as the aggressor in 2014/2015. Putin will stop and not attack NATO?

The outcome of the war in Ukraine will set an example. The West can give the signal that we will not risk war because the former Soviet republics are not worth it to us. Then next comes the turn of the Baltic States. Because Putin is now sure that nothing will be done against him this time either. Except perhaps the delivery of 5,000 steel helmets and the summoning of the ambassador. As an act of desperation.

Or we can help Ukraine with all the consequences. Then Putin will stop and not attack NATO.

False arguments. Baltics are NATO, UKR is not. 

[MiGG0]

Just now, Stuart Galbraith said:

Brrr! Im sorry, that is the wrong answer. The right answer is 'The cold war is over'. I distinctly remember it, it was even on TV.

Even during the cold war, it was rare, so rare that I cant think of an example, that former spies that defected were assassinated. Political opponents, yes. War criminals (by their definition), yes. Spies? No. That only started on the Putin watch, and we have been retconned into believing they have always done it.

And we havent fo rthat matter. One might reflect on the remarkably long life of Kim Philby in the Soviet Union, or George Blake whom died only a year or two ago. There was at least one CIA flunky that defected that lived out his life in the USSR and died of alcoholism iirc. Well, we went to the right place.

 

Not for RUS. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

No, but discussion (for me atleast) is not  about ”rights”. It just what motivates them and why RUS does it.

If you are saying 'They are motivated by this' then I completely agree. The problem is, there are so many around here that extend that to saying 'And its easy for us to indulge, and its justified'.

If you are saying the former, then I agree with your perception. If you are also saying the latter, then I respectfully disagree.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

False arguments. Baltics are NATO, UKR is not. 

Should I laugh? This is now incredibly unrealistic. Risk a world war because of three 'dwarf' states?

Glenn: If NATO does not escalate ..., Putin will stop ... .

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

Not for RUS. 

Did you ever read Seri Plokhy's 'The man with the poison gun?' Its about the KGB's wet department. The guy whom was in it only killed 2 guys, none of them spies. Even Georgi Markov, IIRC, that was Bulgarians that did it, so the KGB could keep it arms length.

There is a particularly good reason why the USSR didnt kill spies. If they wanted to swap for someone, as they did Gary powers for Rudolf Abel, then if you killed the guy you swap afterwards, pretty soon your oponents dont want to swap anymore. its about trust. The KGB even accepted back at least one guy that didnt get on in the west, and allowed him to go home, didnt execute him. Because again, its about trust. Word gets about you kill people that come home, nobody else will. They were remarkably well thought out in how they handled such situations.

This is the remarkable stupidity of what the Russians have done. They have made it harder to recruit spies, because they knew if they are ever caught, they will have to be abandoned, because the West is going to be unlikely to do any more spy swaps. It makes absolutely no sense.

[seahawk]

Where most of us are wrong, is the idea that leading politicians are rational persons. Very few leaders see themselves as the bad guys. Most often they see themselves and their country as victims and believe they are defending.

[Ssnake]

23 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Yes, but it was probably based wrong assumptions (Georgia 2). Aim still probably was/id to get that ”sphere of influence”

So, the assumption of logic and rationality doesn't help you, if decisions to start a war are based on incomplete information, erroneous estimates, or even completely fictional data. Like the Russians would never lie up the command chain to tell them what they want to hear; has happened elsewhere too.

[MiGG0]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you are saying 'They are motivated by this' then I completely agree. The problem is, there are so many around here that extend that to saying 'And its easy for us to indulge, and its justified'.

If you are saying the former, then I agree with your perception. If you are also saying the latter, then I respectfully disagree.

First thing. They are morivated by it and thats why they do it.

[Ssnake]

21 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

No, but discussion (for me atleast) is not  about ”rights”. It just what motivates them and why RUS does it.

You try to fully rationalize and explain to yourself ex-post what happened, to draw conclusions about what will happen next. That's understandable, but too risky for my taste, because we will never have a complete understanding of the motivations and decision-making processes inside the Kremlin (or any other nation). It is terminally stupid to assume that you can have that information, or that the lack of a part of that information makes Russian actions any less predictable. Even if you could know with 100% certainty what they will do next, it still won't help you if you're unprepared, and they switch on war mode because some unexpected event changed the balance.

In short, I accuse you of wishful thinking. You don't want a war between Russia and NATO. Neither do I. But I think that a military defeat of Ukraine makes the confrontation more likely, not less so.

[MiGG0]

11 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Should I laugh? This is now incredibly unrealistic. Risk a world war because of three 'dwarf' states?

Glenn: If NATO does not escalate ..., Putin will stop ... .

 

Again RUS wont attack NATO just. UKR didnt have NATO umbrella.

[seahawk]

2 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Again RUS wont attack NATO just. UKR didnt have NATO umbrella.

Unlikely, as Russia believes that it is already fighting NATO in the Ukraine.

[MiGG0]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Did you ever read Seri Plokhy's 'The man with the poison gun?' Its about the KGB's wet department. The guy whom was in it only killed 2 guys, none of them spies. Even Georgi Markov, IIRC, that was Bulgarians that did it, so the KGB could keep it arms length.

There is a particularly good reason why the USSR didnt kill spies. If they wanted to swap for someone, as they did Gary powers for Rudolf Abel, then if you killed the guy you swap afterwards, pretty soon your oponents dont want to swap anymore. its about trust. The KGB even accepted back at least one guy that didnt get on in the west, and allowed him to go home, didnt execute him. Because again, its about trust. Word gets about you kill people that come home, nobody else will. They were remarkably well thought out in how they handled such situations.

This is the remarkable stupidity of what the Russians have done. They have made it harder to recruit spies, because they knew if they are ever caught, they will have to be abandoned, because the West is going to be unlikely to do any more spy swaps. It makes absolutely no sense.

It totally does. It showed what happens to ”traitors”. Again nobody need to like it, but there it twisted Logic in there.

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

So, the assumption of logic and rationality doesn't help you, if decisions to start a war are based on incomplete information, erroneous estimates, or even completely fictional data. Like the Russians would never lie up the command chain to tell them what they want to hear; has happened elsewhere too.

Using Logic wont make you immune to mistakes. But it will help to understand motives and goals.