They've already lost strategically. In very short time they've managed: German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy.
This is so plainly obvious these days that I can't help but ask, what the Russian elites' goal even is from a "grand strategy" POV. Do they really hate the West so much that they're willing to destroy their country's long term strategic positioning for the sake of being so visibly anti-West? It's like they literally took all that early-2000s rhetoric about "rouge states which hate us for our freedom" at face value and thought delivering on it would be a great idea. It's hard to come to terms with such seemingly irrational behavior.
What Russian elites? Nobody in Russia holds enough power over Putin to change his mind. Since the start of COVID he has closed himself off and basically only talks to a club of ideologues who read and write alternative history.
In one week they've freed the US from the burden of defending Europe against non-atomic war with Russia: rearmament of Germany, forced Poland to reorganize and modernize their army (going up to 300k), Sweden, Finland, forcing Turkey to get of their fence.
This allows US to concentrate on Pacific theater. I'm sure China is furious.
The sanctions will be lifted. Gotta have that methane gas, companies gotta sell their stuff there. And this will happen in a few years again, but then with Macedonia or one of the other "unimportant" Baltic states (even if NATO).
Lets hope its 4D chess. Putin wants to destroy Russia so it can be reborn as a pacifist winter tech wonderland, because everyone finally did the math and having a giant military and a stack of nuclear weapons is more expensive than peace.
Sadly I don't think it'll play out that way,
From General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO deputy military commander until 2014, when Putin last invaded Ukraine.
Not so quick. Finland and Sweden have not (yet?) joined NATO. There has been quite some discussion, especially in Finland. The public opinion has tilted towards joining NATO, and maybe we will. Such things take time.
It does matter. Putin can invade Finland and Sweden now, and NATO can’t do anything other than supply weapons. If Finland and Sweden are in NATO, article 5 is automatically triggered and NATO will have to respond militarily immediately.
The clause says "members must assist with all the means in their power" or similar wording.
Whatever lawyers decide that clause means, I think the odds of outright invasion of an EU member _not_ leading to open european/world war is basically zero
I didn't. EU mutual defense is loosely defined by lawyers. If EU wants to declare war on Russia, they need NATO and most importantly, Americans. I don't want to knock on Western Europe on military, but without Americans' command and control, as well as logistic support, I don't think EU can mount any substantial military troop movements quickly in respond to an invasion.
The way Russia put in their lousy equipment and untrained staff (if all the reports are to be believed) then his better troops and weapons are not yet there / ready for other use.
Hear me out. Russia is corrupt to the core with leadership that's only focused on enriching themselves.
It wouldn't surprise me if their conventional military proved to be way less capable then they're presenting it to be.
Sure, they have enough smart people that are able to design advanced weaponry, but do they have the industrial capacity to actually build? And do they have the capability to maintain it? How about troop training?
They probably don’t. As with almost all modern dictatorships, the military is there to protect the elites from the general populace, and is not fit for much more purpose. Besides Russia doesn’t have to worry about external invaders, because they have their nuclear deterrent. So the state of their military makes perfect sense.
No one knows for sure. Also, if Putin survives this whole Ukraine mess, who's to say he won't try again in 5 years? The point being, the narrative of business is usual is gone. All the countries that are next to or depend on Russia can no longer count on money or appeasement.
Nordic and countries next to Russia have to rethink their strategy. Maybe they decide to wait and see the next strong man from Russia will be and negotiate with them. But PEACE based purely on the words of a mad man is precursor for war.
I can understand that he was lied to, and/or he miscalculated the power of his own army. But at this point it should be clear even to him it's a complete mess and they are being ridiculed by the whole world - outdated equipment, weak morale, soldiers without food, no fuel, sinking tanks. Do they really want to be humiliated by the Nordics? I really doubt so.
My take is that Finland and Sweeden will wait a bit to see how the situation develops, and if Putin starts to bark about enlarging the invasion, they will join in a blink.
We (everyone) have a pretty good look on what is happening, and even propaganda can't hide that. This was designed to be a fast invasion. Everything is pointing into that, relying on the surrender of Ukraine's citizens and military. It failed and we can see consequences.
They have rockets, hundreds of aircraft, thousands of tanks and yet the advancement is so slow. Their logistics have failed and there is clearly no proper communication. Well, eventually you win which such a force.
Take a note that US came from overseas, yet they had superior logistics. They also advanced hunderds of kilometers in week inside Irak, Russia is still quite stuck close to thr borders. They just got their fist major city.
"just got their first major city". after not even a week
also, did you notice that they rarely kill civilians? i am by no means trying to defend them, but I have the feeling (!) that this is on purpose. and this might slow down operations. for instance today, they agreed for ceasefire and a refugee corridor. that will again take days probably. We should not forget that Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian culture. Ukraine is essential to the identity of Russia. They won't just carpet bomb it and call it a day. If anything of the stuff that Putin and his professors have written is what they truly believe, then we can assume that Russia doesn't want to annihilate the Ukrainians.
lastly, ukraine is HUGE. its bigger than France. And tanks roll slowly. Still, Russia will very soon circle Kiew and then its a siege until Ukraine gives up. No matter how many weapons they get. No stuff will get in and out. Civilians will hopefully have left already so women and kids don't have to starve.
all of this is my own opinion and I might be totally wrong.
And it is very dangerous question right now. What will Putin do if they consider joining, just before agreenment? Instead of eliminating one country, he might have lost three countries for Nato instead. Will he send some small warning Nukes into Finland as last hope?
Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time ) if Sweden and Finland joins to NATO. Russia might go very far to prevent that.
There is a little seed of truth in their security claims, that Ukraine should stay neutral.
Missiles around country in close positions means, that West has better likelihood to win nuclear war with first strike, eliminating the most nukes from Russia. Especially, since they think that US is the enemy. And they want to hit US which is very far.
Russia loses their nuclear threat advantage, if other countries can position their missiles better, to reach far better damage with first strike.
This is the core of Cuban crisis, and why there are so many bombs, in submarines as well. Russia needs to believe that there is a balance.
> Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war
Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know.
It's all just a game of chicken. And for Russia to win they would have to go all in 100 times in a row. Whereas NATO wins if nothing changes.
So they won't go all in. It's just a matter of NATO deciding where the final line on sand is. I think we're witnessing it being drawn and Putin mistakenly thought he can do a few more steps.
> Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know.
They need at least a little illusion that there is at least balance. This is about Putin’s power and their narrative. All decisions are based on the fact that Putin will stay in power and looks strong leader.
> Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time )
Could you elaborate on that?
NATO will not strike first. I understand you can respond to ICBMs but there's very little you can do to protect your cites against them. So what do you mean by "losing nuclear war"? Even if 10% of Soviet nuclear equipment still works, that still means hundreds of nukes. The only "winners"* would be China, South America and Africa, not Russia.
> NATO will not strike first. I understand you can respond to ICBMs but there's very little you can do to protect your cites against them.
It does not matter from Russian perspective. Anyway, cities are just third priority. Opponent’s nukes and command centers are the fist priority.
If you can place enough nukes close enough, so that response time is very low, then first strike might paralyze nation and there is no response at all.
Russia needs to consider this, regardless of narrative who strikes first.
There is no 'winning' a nuclear war, once it starts everyone loses. Retaliation from either side will be immediate because no one knows what will be left once the other sides nukes land. The submarines are not going to be asked to wait and see if enemy nukes make it.
I'm assuming Russia's incentives weren't to prevent them from happening altogether, but rather to position themselves in a way that would allow them to manoeuvre when they did happen.
The fact their actions have caused these to happen sooner is certainly relevant, but whether they "lost" or not to me is simply a matter of whether their actions have placed them in the above position of better manoeuverability or not.
Whether this is the case or not, no idea.
Also, "win" and "lose" are highly relative terms here.
Disagree. May happen, even soon, but hasn't happened yet. Dependency on Russian gas, oil, wheat and raw materials in inexorable. China may have to intervene in some manner to prevent regime change in Moscow that degrades the relationship with Beijing. With India and China remaining pro-Moscow at present, its hard to make the case for true isolation of Russia yet.
That said, Putin and his crew are gambling with their lives on this one, and I almost think they were led into this by forces that would like to see them gone (count me among those forces).
I wonder what they looked toward as a possible successful outcome? It seems like most of the things you’ve written should have been seen in advance as either likely or at the very least possible risks, so what was the gain they sought?
They were planning on quickly taking Kiev and forcing a regime change. Relatively bloodless operation would have allowed the west to yet again impose some irrelevant sanctions (e.g. Crimea) and wait for everything to go back to normal.
> German rearmament, unified all parts of Ukraine, permanent stationment of US troops in frontier countries, pushed Sweden and Finland to Nato membership, started the real process of energy diversification in Europe, unified EU countries and destroyed Russia economy.
OTOH, for a dictatorship, of a just plain bad economy with no external actor to pin the blame on and a miserable economy with a clear external actor to blame and a grievance narrative, the latter can at times be more politically useful, though its obviously worse for the people: Russia may have lost strategically, but Russia-as-actor is a anthropomorphistic fiction. The harder question is has Putin lost strategically. And while there may be hope for that, I don’t think it is anywhere near as clear.
Lets not forgot pushing themselves into the arms of China who ideologically hates them. They hold Manchuria... if the '1 china policy' is such a big deal... shouldn't they want manchuria back asap?
How the hell is Russia and China allied at all? China is basically the one protecting Russia and allowing them to invade Ukraine.
Nope. China and Russia share an oligarchic & mercantilistic ideology. They share a common adversary. They are economically interdependent. They conduct military exercises together. The countries support each other diplomatically. One even wonders if the West's preferred outcome is regime change in Moscow that weakens the Sino-Russian relationship.
>Nope. China and Russia share an oligarchic & mercantilistic ideology. They share a common adversary. They are economically interdependent. They conduct military exercises together. The countries support each other diplomatically. One even wonders if the West's preferred outcome is regime change in Moscow that weakens the Sino-Russian relationship.
This is something I don't quite understand.
After Crimea happened, nobody really did much. 70-80% of Crimea is Russian and it probably should have been their own republic after USSR fell. However, Ukraine just kind of got to keep that land? It was ultimately a problem. It's fine for Crimea to be self-determining.
NATO has never threatened Russia. A defensive alliance is never a threat. Obviously you only find it a threat if you have plans to invade like they do. Yet China and Russia feel threatened?
Even more unusually... it is NATO who feels threatened. They are worried China and allies are about to invade various entities. Taiwan is the first one, but Japan and South Korea are immediately next. India shortly after. Australia is not long after India. Obviously the USA will be involved in all of those.
Lets also look at the tally card. Russia is the one doing the invade thing. Not anyone else. What has been the response? Everyone united against Russia's aggression. Said, 'no thanks we're out, you can go play with yourself from now on' Where's the threat from us? We ultimately dont care about who is in power. We said, nope, we are closing our borders to you and your trade. We cant ethically or morally support Russia in their actions.
Mind you, who am I? I'm nobody and know nothing. China's own actions will reveal the truth in the near future.
If China truly believes in world peace and the end of cold war mentality. Building tall is far more intelligent than invading for land. It is china's ally right now who is breaking this. It is their ally whose actions are justifying the 'west' to be so defensive and feel threatened.
You know what the west wants? They want the sanctions to work. If such powerful sanctions can cripple a nuclear power's ability to wage war. The threat to the rest of the world is that the same will happen to you if you declare war. It would mean we are post-war. People can feel safe within their borders. Nobody is threatening anyone else anymore.
Sure militaries must still exist. Civil wars, insurgencies, etc are still going to exist. United Nations peacekeeping will always be a thing in the world.
china could lead the way. recognize taiwan as a country within a country. see quebec in canada. Then hold russia up to their diplomatic commitment to ukraine. dispell the rumours they are about to invade and demand immediate peace.
There are two primary reasons we think the Russians did it.
Putin has gone full conspiracy theorist, nostalgic, delusions of grandeur, fear of dying. He has locked himself away with alternative history since the start of covid. If Russia wants to defend its borders, capturing Ukraine decrease the length of the borders significantly. In a 100 years who knows? NATO might try to expand.
Personally, i don't see how anybody under the age of 60 can be persuaded with this logic. But it does explain part of the failure so far. Putin beliefs it had to be far easier and cheaper than it turned out so far.
I think the economic reason to do it is far more plausible.
Ukraine as a sovereign nation is an existential threat to Gas/Oil Russia. Since 2012 it has become clear that they hold enough gas and shale oil that it would break Russia's monopoly to the EU. That's could half their state budget, in a time the social security for the baby boom needs to be paid out.
I personally think they could have figured it out, but Putin is obsessed with gas and oil. To him they are the foundation of a Great Russia.
>I think the economic reason to do it is far more plausible. Ukraine as a sovereign nation is an existential threat to Gas/Oil Russia. Since 2012 it has become clear that they hold enough gas and shale oil that it would break Russia's monopoly to the EU. That's could half their state budget, in a time the social security for the baby boom needs to be paid out.
That doesn't seem right. The EU is intending to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Recent events probably hugely accelerated this roadmap. Even if they had started building infrastructure now Ukraine's gas fields won't be production ready for quite some time. That leaves them with a 10 year time window where Russia would have to compete for a slice of a dwindling cake.
Natural gas is a big deal, but so is food; isn't Ukraine a major exporter of wheat? Crimea got Russia the port access they wanted, with few consequences, and this is a time when the West appeared particularly weak.
I don't buy this. Once you get a country in the mood for war, the marginal cost to them of more war gets less and less. In for a penny/in for a pound as they say.
If anything, I bet China has had to think twice about Taiwan after seeing the way the world has reacted to Russia. China has not been tested against a determined, capable enemy and their credibility as a superpower is at stake. They could lose to Taiwan even if no one helps Taiwan.
This is an oversimplification. China can't support Russia directly for couple of reasons (from Taiwan perspective). Even neutral is a kinda bad.
* Russia is foreign country, invading other country. China respects sovereignty. Their claims for Taiwan are based on that - Taiwan is not independent according to their narrative. Huge military invasion into Taiwan is against this ideology. It proves that Taiwan was not part of China.
* If they are OK with invasion of Ukraine, then other countries have arguments for invading China, and help Tibet, Inner Mongolia or Xinjiang to be independent nations. China really does not want that.
Also they remind us all the time, that what happens in the country, happens in the country (China). It is country's business and nobody else should take part for that.
I'm not sure China is as motivated about the logical consistency of these positions as much as their strategic impact on China. In their defense, most countries only bother holding consistent positions when it is advantageous for them to do so.
As Mao Zedong put it, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
They certainly engage in public relations efforts to burnish their public image and I agree that Xi is not crazy and would not make that task any more difficult than necessary.
But it does not seem like logical consistency is the driving force of their foreign policy.
Oh ya, like I totally dont get the relationships going on in asia. Pakistan, who typically hates Russia, is supporting them? China has a no limit alliance that apparently has limits. The 3 of them are seemingly dunking on India. India used to be good friends with Russia. Then you have border issues between India and China.
> Pakistan, who typically hates Russia, is supporting them
A rival for influence in Central Asia backing you committing to a fight in Europe that aligns the rest of the world strongly against you as long as it persists might not be doing it because they support you in any meaningful sense of the word.
