The Kremlin is burning?

[MiGG0]

No argument here. 

12 minutes ago, urbanoid 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.

 

 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

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).

Imho there are 3 halfway logical scenarios.

1. Russia fears NATO and does not want NATO tanks at the border between Russia and the Ukraine. One can disagree with the basic idea, but at least the actions taken by Russia would make sense.

2. Russia fears any former Soviet State to experience democracy and economic growths, as this would threaten the current political system. That also makes sense.

3. It is a kind of imperialistic mindset, that is enforced. Would make sense, but would be very aggressive.

I am betting on 2 with some sprinkles of 1+3.

[Stuart Galbraith]

40 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Imho there are 3 halfway logical scenarios.

1. Russia fears NATO and does not want NATO tanks at the border between Russia and the Ukraine. One can disagree with the basic idea, but at least the actions taken by Russia would make sense.

2. Russia fears any former Soviet State to experience democracy and economic growths, as this would threaten the current political system. That also makes sense.

3. It is a kind of imperialistic mindset, that is enforced. Would make sense, but would be very aggressive.

I am betting on 2 with some sprinkles of 1+3.

1 Completely irrelevant IMHO. It has NATO tanks on the Estonian border, something like 40 miles away from St Petersburg. Unless they are worried about the Germans taking Stalingrad again, Ukraine gives NATO nothing that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland and Poland dont give us already. In fact, fighting in Ukraine has made that strategic posture in the North worse. And if they are scared about Germans, my guess is they are scared shitless of Finns.

2 Yes it does, perfectly, and ive long suspected thats been at least part of Putin's motive. He cant have Ukraine, or Georgia as successes, or the Russian people will one day ask the question, why cant we have nice things as well?

3 It is absolutely imperialistic, and nationalistic. Its Dugins Eurasianism, its pure power politics on Putins behalf (appealing to nationalism wasnt exactly unknown, even in the USSR)  its nostalgia for a USSR that never really existed. Its all these things. Yes, thats certainly part of it too.

There is another one you missed. Pure ambition. My guess is, Putin wants to be someone that is remembered. If you look at the maps, historically Ruski Mir has shrunk ever since 1991. My guess is he wants to be the man to make the lines on the map move back, to enhance Russia's size and scope, particularly towards Europe. This was particualrly evident in Crimea, which is functionally useless as a territory (particularly without water), yet remains important as a symbol of Russian history.

Call the war his personal vanity project, the dying glory of an old man. Well, its not been the first time we have seen that in world history of course. Tsars and Kings did that kind of thing all the time.

 

Edited May 31, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

4 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

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

Here's where we differ. In the case of an erratic counterpart, all it gives you is the illusion of understanding. You're replacing uncertainty with prediction error. And prediction error is much worse than acknowledgement that you don't know a certain thing because rather than preparing for a number of contingencies you bet the whole farm on a specific outcome. Which, in nine out of ten cases, grants you a marginal advantage. In that tenth case however you lose everything. I'd rather be wrong where it matters little than to err when the stakes are existential. 

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

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

I don't need to, because it is your premise that there must be a convincing reason. I'm content with the fact that I don't, can't, and therefore won't know, but I do know that appeasement doesn't work and that dumping Ukraine under the bus will only encourage the reckless among the leaders in the Kremlin.

Besides, denying Ukraine the help that they need and that we can provide is just immoral.

[MiGG0]

17 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

I don't need to, because it is your premise that there must be a convincing reason. I'm content with the fact that I don't, can't, and therefore won't know, but I do know that appeasement doesn't work and that dumping Ukraine under the bus will only encourage the reckless among the leaders in the Kremlin.

Besides, denying Ukraine the help that they need and that we can provide is just immoral.

My premise is just RUS wont start war with NATO after UKR simply because there is no good reason why they would do it.
 

Dumping, appeasing or denying anything has not been any of my posts.

Edited May 31, 2024 by MiGG0

[Ssnake]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

My premise is just RUS wont start war with NATO after UKR simply because there is no good reason for it. 

No, that's your conclusion. The premise is that you can predict with reasonable certainty what Russia will do after a military victory over Ukraine. My premise is that it's utterly futile to attempt such a prediction, and that it is very dangerous (and therefore stupid) to rely on predictions in general, and especially those for a favorable outcome, when it leaves you unprepared for the opposite.

I want to deter Russia maximally against further agression. This can only be achieved with a substantial military imbalance in NATO's favor. To achieve that imbalance NATO must improve its preparations; additionally, we should weaken Russia so much that self-delusion and denial about its own grandeur and importance are impossible in the Kremlin, and ideally the general Russian population too.

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

No, that's your conclusion. The premise is that you can predict with reasonable certainty what Russia will do after a military victory over Ukraine. My premise is that it's utterly futile to attempt such a prediction, and that it is very dangerous (and therefore stupid) to rely on predictions in general, and especially those for a favorable outcome, when it leaves you unprepared for the opposite.

I want to deter Russia maximally against further agression. This can only be achieved with a substantial military imbalance in NATO's favor. To achieve that imbalance NATO must improve its preparations; additionally, we should weaken Russia so much that self-delusion and denial about its own grandeur and importance are impossible in the Kremlin, and ideally the general Russian population too.

Yeah right I would use prediction term. Those are not exclusive. You can prepare even if you think they will not attack and that way make your prediction even more true.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Nobody wanted to believe that Russia would wage war on Ukraine. And yet it happened.
.

I told you dozens of times for 10 years before the war that Russia would wage war on Ukraine to stop NATO expansion.  You understood the point and were good with that outcome.  

Quote

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

That choice has already been made, there is no "or".  What Putin will do, we shall see.  

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, sunday said:

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

It's about the site neocons trying to convince the rest of us that a 100% chance of war with Russia now is actually less of a chance of war than a 25% (or whatever) chance of a Russian invasion later. 

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

My premise is just RUS wont start war with NATO after UKR simply because there is no good reason why they would do it.
 

Was there a good reason for the adventure in the Ukraine?

[Sardaukar]

17 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

It's about the site neocons trying to convince the rest of us that a 100% chance of war with Russia now is actually less of a chance of war than a 25% (or whatever) chance of a Russian invasion later. 

That sentence does not make any sense....

What did Xi tell to you?

[MiGG0]

17 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Was there a good reason for the adventure in the Ukraine?

For RUS? Yes, from their POW their ”sphere of influence”. 

[seahawk]

29 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

For RUS? Yes, from their POW their ”sphere of influence”. 

So what is stopping Russian from including other countries in that sphere of influence?

[ink]

15 minutes ago, seahawk said:

So what is stopping Russian from including other countries in that sphere of influence?

NATO and the limits of their own power (which, I'm sure you've noticed, they already overestimated quite badly back in 2022).

[MiGG0]

What Ink said. NATO itself is its own ”sphere of common interests that dont want to be in RUS sphere of ’influence” 🙂

Edited May 31, 2024 by MiGG0

[ink]

Of course, it's not true to say just NATO.

Russia's sphere of influence is constrained also by other powers like China, India, and Japan... Depends on where in the world you want to focus in on. In Syria, they are constrained by Turkey (sure, they're in NATO, but only just) and Israel (and probably Iran too). In Africa, there's all sorts of mess going on and I'm not sure I can really make sense of it at this stage. In Asia, they're effectively blocked now everywhere except North Korea.

They don't appear to have too many interests in Central or South America... And I think we can safely leave North America out of this discussion.

What's stopping the US from adding new countries to its sphere of influence?

Same kind of thing - butting up against other powers or the limits of its own power (slice of Afghanistan anyone?).

 

EDIT: I forgot the Caucasus and C. Asia, but y'all get the gist, right?

Edited May 31, 2024 by ink
to add something he forgot

[Stuart Galbraith]

39 minutes ago, seahawk said:

So what is stopping Russian from including other countries in that sphere of influence?

A conspicuous lack of tanks?

[urbanoid]

Styopa Sigalin received a medal from Putin

 

[ink]

20 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Styopa Sigalin received a medal from Putin

 

Why does nobody use the term defector any more?

[Sardaukar]

Well, traitor comes to my mind.

[ink]

2 minutes ago, Sardaukar said:

Well, traitor comes to my mind.

😃

[Sardaukar]

Funny thing, I did really like first couple of movies of him.

He had pretty good charisma back then and quite interesting martial arts.

Now he is another weird person Putler protects. 

[ink]

1 minute ago, Sardaukar said:

Funny thing, I did really like first couple of movies of him.

He had pretty good charisma back then and quite interesting martial arts.

Now he is another weird person Putler protects. 

I never liked his movies but I really liked his co-star in Under Siege (Erica Eleniak - not Tommy Lee Jones).

[Sardaukar]

4 minutes ago, ink said:

I never liked his movies but I really liked his co-star in Under Siege (Erica Eleniak - not Tommy Lee Jones).

Well, she was in Playboy..so there is that