The Kremlin is burning?

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

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

Read what I said. The USSR didnt do it, because it made a mockery of trust in the spying game. Putin does, because he thinks trust is a mugs game.

There is no logic there. It makes it harder to recruit spies, because it means, most likely, nobody in their right mind will swap with Russia.

As the west has technical means to spy on Russia, and Russia still primarily relies on agents, they are the net losers here. Which suits me fine. They want to keep shooting themselves in the foot in this way, Im perfectly happy for them.

[MiGG0]

7 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

You try to fully rationalize and explain to yourself ex-post. 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 completely predictable. Even if you ccould know with 100% certainty what they will 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.

Fait enought, but you or snybody else have not provided any good reason why they would do it.

[Stefan Kotsch]

5 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

UKR didnt have NATO umbrella.

What is this umbrella worth? When politicians believe that the Baltic states are not worth risking a world war.
As someone here accurately said:

16 hours ago, ink said:

Honestly, who gives a flying f*** about the land.

Yes, that is truly dark humor. It can get stuck in our throats if we're not careful.

[MiGG0]

7 minutes ago, seahawk said:

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

Not really. They say lot of BS but in real actions, not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 minutes ago, seahawk said:

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

And so they are, logistically at any rate. In much the same way Nazi Germany was fighting America as early as 1940.

There are lots of people with set asumptions about what happens next. We dont know what happens next. We need to realise this. Its 1962 again, and instead of a young, virile and intelligent young American President, negotiating with a naive but well meaning if somewhat reckless Soviet president, we now have one 80 year old president that doesnt listen to anyone, not negotiating with an elderly propaganda constipated old fart, likely on heavy doses of medication.

We need to adjust our expectations accordingly. This is not likely to have a happy ending, however it turns out.

[MiGG0]

4 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Read what I said. The USSR didnt do it, because it made a mockery of trust in the spying game. Putin does, because he thinks trust is a mugs game.

There is no logic there. It makes it harder to recruit spies, because it means, most likely, nobody in their right mind will swap with Russia.

As the west has technical means to spy on Russia, and Russia still primarily relies on agents, they are the net losers here. Which suits me fine. They want to keep shooting themselves in the foot in this way, Im perfectly happy for them.

Again false argument. What use are for  ”spy” swap if otherside dont use spies?

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

What is this umbrella worth? When politicians believe that the Baltic states are not worth risking a world war.
As someone here accurately said:

Yes, that is truly dark humor. It can get stuck in our throats if we're not careful.

Well, USSR/RUS havent started war with any NATO country. I would say it is worth a lot.

[Stefan Kotsch]

20 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

I would say it is worth a lot.

The outcome of the war against Ukraine will show what this is still worth today.

[Stuart Galbraith]

21 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Again false argument. What use are for  ”spy” swap if otherside dont use spies?

Ill say it again. We have technical means. Human agents are most useful, sure, but we dont rely on them. Russia does. By killing spies they swap, they send a message alright. That Russian spy swaps arent worth shit.

Of course, im sure the 4D chess player has thought all this out. But being internal security KGB only, most likely not.

21 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Well, USSR/RUS havent started war with any NATO country. I would say it is worth a lot.

Yet.

[seahawk]

23 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Not really. They say lot of BS but in real actions, not.

The other option would be that they are saying the truth and their actions are limited by what they see as achievable. And if they do not see NATO as a threat or the EU, the whole war in the Ukraine is pointless.

[MiGG0]

20 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

The outcome of the war against Ukraine will show what this is still worth today.

Not really. UKR is not under NATO protection by any degree. RUS winning is slap to west/NATO face tough but I really think it will remain in that.

Edited May 31, 2024 by MiGG0

[MiGG0]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ill say it again. We have technical means. Human agents are most useful, sure, but we dont rely on them. Russia does. By killing spies they swap, they send a message alright. That Russian spy swaps arent worth shit.

Of course, im sure the 4D chess player has thought all this out. But being internal security KGB only, most likely not.

Yet.

Yes, but as spy Numbers are less and less, so will any need for for swaps and any could war spy deal rules. 
 

And most likely will remain so. Unless you can explain better reason than ”Putin is crazy” which sound just very weak argument.

[MiGG0]

23 minutes ago, seahawk said:

The other option would be that they are saying the truth and their actions are limited by what they see as achievable. And if they do not see NATO as a threat or the EU, the whole war in the Ukraine is pointless.

That could be the case aswell, but end result is same -> Direct attack to NATO makes no sense.
 

I think RUS goal with UKR had always been ”under RUS sphere of influence in any cost”. You could call that land crap, buy imo it is more just that they could control the area. Initial goals have failed so now that are salvaging what ever they can (more or less current areas).

[Stefan Kotsch]

22 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

but I really think it will remain in that.

Just as a conclusion:

Based on Clark's law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

[MiGG0]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Just as a conclusion:

Based on Clark's law:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Does that make me right? I have atleast couple times said you cannot be sure. 😀

There just more reasons ”not to” vs not single good reason why RUS would do it. Really any reason given here basically comes to ”Putin is crazy” (and that is very lazy and poor argument)

[sunday]

Is this thread about experimental science, or about international relations?

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Does that make me right? I have atleast couple times said you cannot be sure. 😀

There just more reasons ”not to” vs not single good reason why RUS would do it. Really any reason given here basically comes to ”Putin is crazy” (and that is very lazy and poor argument)

IF they see an opening they could possibly exploit, they have every reason to. They don't like the very idea of NATO, they don't like US presence in Europe, they want a 'multipolar world' - which to them in practice means 'we'll carve out spheres of influences with our fellow great powers and the 'subjects' will have fuck all to say about it'.

NATO is not some divine being from the outer space that rains destruction on anyone violating its borders. There are more than 30 states and for now the deterrence disproportionately relies on the biggest one. There are possible situations where NATO might not be able to effectively respond and trying to exploit those makes sense to the Russians, given their belief that NATO shouldn't exist and their idea of what the international relations should like. The commitment to NATO also varies between members and I'm pretty sure some would be saying that they won't be 'dying for Narva', 'where there are mostly Russians anyway'. IF they succeed there, NATO will be effectively dead.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 minutes ago, sunday said:

Is this thread about experimental science, or about international relations?

Like there is a difference.

[MiGG0]

6 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

IF they see an opening they could possibly exploit, they have every reason to. They don't like the very idea of NATO, they don't like US presence in Europe, they want a 'multipolar world' - which to them in practice means 'we'll carve out spheres of influences with our fellow great powers and the 'subjects' will have fuck all to say about it'.

NATO is not some divine being from the outer space that rains destruction on anyone violating its borders. There are more than 30 states and for now the deterrence disproportionately relies on the biggest one. There are possible situations where NATO might not be able to effectively respond and trying to exploit those makes sense to the Russians, given their belief that NATO shouldn't exist and their idea of what the international relations should like. The commitment to NATO also varies between members and I'm pretty sure some would be saying that they won't be 'dying for Narva', 'where there are mostly Russians anyway'. IF they succeed there, NATO will be effectively dead.

Oh, I totally agree RUS is oppoturnist and could try if they see good change for victory. But as you illustrated there is too many IFs to that happen by any indication.

[urbanoid]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

Oh, I totally agree RUS is oppoturnist and could try if they see good change for victory. But as you illustrated there is too many IFs to that happen by any indication.

One of the roles of the states and alliances is to be prepared for such 'ifs'.

[ink]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

It's a lovely fiction and I would eagerly buy into it but...

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

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.

It's easy to be harsh on them (and they are usually a bunch of self-serving corrupt arseholes, so they probably deserve it), but I feel like the structures of forces and interests were always against them, even if they ever dreamt of "doing the right thing".

For one, the system of powerful oligarchs that emerged under and because of Yeltsin (and his Western friends and advisors) necessarily resulted in a political culture that would serve their interests first. The US is rather unusual in that respect, since they were able to handle both the robber barons and the monopolies in two waves of resistance to moneyed interests. Though, of course, the Russians had their own settling of accounts with the rich and powerful... It just didn't pan out. I wonder if America will be able to come to terms with the new post-Cold War moneyed class - the outlook is bleak.

Anyway, Putin came along and gave some shape to the oligarchy that was at least stable and reigned in some (though by no means all) of their excesses. Yet, their interests continued to come first.

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

All this is entirely Russia's fault. They blame the west for not being the superpower they once were.

It is entirely their fault but you're wrong about what they blame the West for. My feeling is (and this is a huge generalisation because Russia is a large country and contains a bewildering panoply of views) that they blame the West for (1) the interference during the 1990s that led to shock therapy and the consequent plummeting of living standards, (2) the world order in which the US can go around crushing states formerly friendly to the USSR without so much as a by or leave, (3) the tightening of the military noise around Russia via NATO expansion and the missile shield, (4) interference in Russian commercial interests, such as the pipeline projects to Europe.

No, you may dismiss some or all of those "concerns" but they are what they are. I'd be interested to hear whether I've nailed them but @Roman Alymov seems not to be around any more.

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

But self reflection is seemingly beyond them. This is on them. Its not western meddling that drove Ukraine away. It was their own actions.

Oh certainly. They are 1000% to blame for the invasion of Ukraine and all that goes with it (especially, in my view, the suffering they've caused the Ukrainian people).

Edited May 31, 2024 by ink

[Stuart Galbraith]

17 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

IF they see an opening they could possibly exploit, they have every reason to. They don't like the very idea of NATO, they don't like US presence in Europe, they want a 'multipolar world' - which to them in practice means 'we'll carve out spheres of influences with our fellow great powers and the 'subjects' will have fuck all to say about it'.

NATO is not some divine being from the outer space that rains destruction on anyone violating its borders. There are more than 30 states and for now the deterrence disproportionately relies on the biggest one. There are possible situations where NATO might not be able to effectively respond and trying to exploit those makes sense to the Russians, given their belief that NATO shouldn't exist and their idea of what the international relations should like. The commitment to NATO also varies between members and I'm pretty sure some would be saying that they won't be 'dying for Narva', 'where there are mostly Russians anyway'. IF they succeed there, NATO will be effectively dead.

In 2014, when people were waking up to the threat Putin presented, there was several scenarios sketched out in the media, in online blogs and even one BBC documentary. If Putin presents a threat, backed by nuclear weapons, NATO has a choice. it either responds in kind, precipitating a nuclear war. Responding conventionally, which probably means its going to take serious losses before it prevails. Or it capitulates, which effectively hands Putin a win, and the dissolution of NATO.

From Putins perspective, responding in kind is unlikely with the amoutn of nuclear firepower Russia has. Responding conventionally is more likely, and little threat of NATO removing Putin for the same as outcome one. The third outcome for Putin is the best of all, so one has to say that if he is at risk of losing office, an exterior threat where he can rally the Russian nation around him, or outright capitulation of NATO, where he wins Ukraine by default, look like good options.

In this case, its not about land. Its about leveraging conditions to either stay in power, or win outright. And the odds of that are pretty good indeed.

The Baltic states are tailor made for this circumstance. I dont think he is going to tackle Finland. They are too good, and too close to St Petersburg to take the risk.

Edited May 31, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

One of the roles of the states and alliances is to be prepared for such 'ifs'.

Yes, and NATO is arming for such scenario -> Lot less likely that RUS would try it after UKR like I have said.

[ink]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

What about America over Vietnam or the Phillipines?

 

America has one, of course. You're in it, for one. And it's because it has made them so rich and powerful that everyone wants one now.

[urbanoid]

25 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Yes, and NATO is arming for such scenario -> Lot less likely that RUS would try it after UKR like I have said.

Even less likely with what remains of Ukraine being admitted into NATO (or having very close relationship with the West with security guarantees, which would be 'de facto NATO', like Finland and Sweden before they actually joined), especially if they manage to 'demobilize' even more Russians and their equipment. Not to mention that such Ukraine's potential of all kinds would be part of the larger Western one and not Russian. 

For NATO on the whole the silver lining of this war is (slow, insufficient, but still) the realisation that history hasn't actually ended, the level of unity in order to achieve a single purpose (i.e. help Ukraine) is probably the highest it ever was after the Cold War. No more comments about the alliance being 'brain dead' helps too. Success in Ukraine will further revitalize NATO, failure would likely more than undo the progress made.

The message that the West sends by helping Ukraine is that we won't tolerate certain things, especially in Europe, NATO or no NATO. If we fold after all this time, that sends a much worse (for us) message. Similarly bad message would be sent if the US decided to abandon Taiwan, where not only there is no official alliance, but even official recognition. The latter would have likely been even worse, as the US has been Taiwan's protector for decades and has always been expected to defend them, even if there's no 'paper' to back it up. De facto trumps (ha!) de iure.

 

Edited May 31, 2024 by urbanoid