I wonder if Russian leadership miscalculated the scale of international response / the international community’s will to act / coordinate.
Word has it Russia has been trying to insulate themselves in case of sanctions for a while now … but things have moved very quickly and Russia seems way more isolated than before.
Even China seems more uncomfortable with the situation as time goes on.
I just hope the West didn't miscalculate Russian response to their economy's violent contraction.
Some say that if the US had never imposed sanctions on Japan in the 1930s, Japan wouldn't've attacked Pearl Harbor.
In that case, the sanctions made it hard for Japan to import petroleum with the result that the Japanese chose to secure their supply by conquest of countries with petroleum reserves (mainly Indonesia IIRC).
So the West should just let Russia invade Ukraine? The reason Japan attacked Pearl Harbor was because of the oil embargo, sure. But the oil embargo was in place because of their aggression against China. Should the US have kept selling oil to a country that was killing 100,000's of people in China? If is, where is the line drawn? When should the US have stopped supporting the Japanese war(which is what they were doing by selling the oil needed to carry it out)?
> When someone murders a person you stop them, even if the risk of them murdering more people is a possibility.
Really? There were ~800 homicides in Chicago last year.[0] I haven't lifted a finger, have you?
Maybe we should announce an "oil blockade" on the city to get them to change their behavior. Strip their funding. Block trade with other states/cities.
But (of course) we won't. Why?
Chicago? Those are our friends.
And we reward our friends! "Murder" has nothing to do with it, and neither do "libertarian" principles.
Professor John Mearsheimer (a distinguished professor of political science) gave an inciteful talk regarding these events after Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014[1]. He places the blame squarely on the US for these events. The US would react just the same if Russia started expanding its military operations on our boarders [2]. I am deeply concerned that the West keeps upping the confrontation instead of backing down. Russia is sending some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus as we speak [3]
The US did not make Putin invade Ukraine. That's like saying Iran made the US invade Iraq, because Saddam didn't give up WMDs because he was scared about Iran. The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin. The US and West are not the ones that are upping the confrontation. Putin has invaded his neighbors multiple times, is interfering in internal political processes of democracies, and is threatening nuclear weapon use constantly. You can't look at this from one side and say it's the "West's" fault without looking that the Russian actions that were just as, or more escalatory.
Edit: Also, I haven't flagged a single comment today, nor do I think I can flag a reply to my comments.
> The map of Eastern Europe and NATO expansion over the last 25 years makes the US intention to encircle Russia very clear.
Perhaps that was the evil plan of NATO. Why I feel it's different, though, is that those Eastern European countries tried to enter NATO as quickly as possible, as they still remembered Russia/USSR saving them from democracy in the 60s/70s.
> Russia asked for a buffer against NATO. The US took advantage of Russia's weakness post collapse of the USSR and didn't give them that buffer. Putin decided that he will create one by himself. That is the story.
Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that.
Also - he's a murderous, aggressive tyrant and a proven liar, so let's please stop giving him the benefit of doubt.
> Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that.
It's not bullshit. The entire point is to reduce the direct number on Russia's borders. Just because you have a few already on your border does not mean you allow even more directly line up on your border. What he is doing completely rational from a military/geopolitical perspective.
A buffer is _nobody's_ right. Not Russia's, not the US, _nobody_. Ukraine, Vietnam, you name it - those people aren't anybody's buffer, and no one has any right to speak of them that way. It's not up to Russia _or_ the US to decide these things. It's up to the citizens of Ukraine. This is what Russia fundamentally doesn't respect, but Europe and the West fundamentally does.
Yes, the US has done some horrible things in the past (see: Vietnam, somewhat less so Iraq), but Russia believes in "buffers" regardless of the desire of the inhabitants of those buffers, whereas the West believes (however imperfectly in practice) that countries should be self-determining.
In a way, the best proof of this is Europe's response to this invasion: at first, nobody was willing to get involved. When it became clear that Ukrainians themselves were fully committed to remaining sovereign, then the influx of cash and materiel began.
Saying the U.S. was wrong in the past doesn't make Russia any less wrong now. Also, the optics of Russia invading a neighboring state looks a lot different than the U.S. invading Iraq for aiding and abetting the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks.
In addition to the other response you've received, NATO is the US, for all intents and purposes. If you watch the video I linked, you'll see that most (all?) countries Russia has invaded in the past was because of NATO involvement, e.g. dangling NATO membership over their heads.
NATO is not the US. This is such an absurd statement considering the measures all of the other members have been taking over the last few days, often well before the US. Saying something like that totally discounts the rest of your argument in my mind.
Lets be real - NATO is effectively the US with a few European "puppet" states. Without the leadership or the military of the US military, NATO is dramatically and significantly weaker.
> The only person who made Putin invade Ukraine is Putin.
Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.
Ukraine has more reason than most countries to want to be a part of NATO, given that Russia invaded it in 2014 and seized territory. This war, to the extent it was provoked by anything other than Putin's hubris, was because Ukraine wants to join the EU, not because it was going to try and join NATO. Ukraine wanting its fortunes to look more like Poland's and less like Russia's is not a crime punishable by invasion, no matter what apologists blaming NATO expansion think.
In any case, Russia has existed for decades with NATO countries on its borders and not suffered an invasion. These countries have a lot of reason to fear that Russia does indeed seek to "reintegrate" them into an imperial state, given that Putin just confirmed that he seeks to do exactly that to Ukraine. The best way Russia can discourage its neighbors from joining NATO is by not giving them huge, existential reasons for doing so.
This time Europe is scared as fuck, Putin already threatened Finland, Sweden and baltic states, if he succed against Ukraine then maybe other will follow. This time he shall not pass.
All of this past week's events show that John Mearsheimer was wrong - way wrong. In 2015 John Mearsheimer claimed that Putin did not want to invade the Ukraine nor did Putin want to re-establish the old Soviet empire. His reasoning was Putin was too smart for that - Putin had seen how the invasion of Afghanistan didn't go well for the Soviets, or for the Americans for that matter.
Granted, I say John Mearsheimer was wrong in 2015 with the hindsight of 20/20 vision. I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started. Now we know that Putin fully intended to invade the Ukraine and institute regime change, not just "free" Donbas and Luhansk. Putin has also indicated he wants to re-establish the old Soviet Union as much as possible.
I'm not attacking John Mearsheimer. I too thought Putin was way smarter than this. Frankly I'm shocked by what's happening, but most of all I'm shocked and surprised by Putin's short-sightedness and stupidity. I'm sure John Mearsheimer did his analysis believing he was dealing with a rational actor. Now we know otherwise.
John Mearsheimer was working with the facts he had available at the time, clearly. You even hint at that yourself. Seven years is a long time for change in a dynamic environment. One thing I am aware of:
- Ukraine sealed the canal that delivered 85% of Crimea's fresh water supply, so it's been more costly to keep Crimea with each passing year.
>I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started.
It's been five days, hardly enough time to gather information on the environment and put together a research paper on it.
Also, a wrong conclusion does not mean the underlying research or thesis is wrong.
> In 2015 John Mearsheimer claimed that Putin did not want to invade the Ukraine nor did Putin want to re-establish the old Soviet empire.
Note that could have been true in 2015; what Putin wants can change over time.
At any rate, I watched that video some months ago, but from I recall Mearsheimer's point was that this kind of response is rational when reasoned from Putin's interests and worldview. I don't recall he said there would never be a war, and IIRC actually warned against a possible war (which we now have, albeit in a different shape than Mearsheimer thought in 2015).
It's a fair point but it's contradicted by Putin's rambling speech where he seemed to talk of a sort of Russian-version of Manifest Destiny. He expressed regret at Lenin having created some of the countries as separate states, and gave the viewer a history lesson.
That's in contradiction with the "he had no choice, he was encircled" theory.
Also the claims of neo-Nazism is wildly exaggerated, even if you have Russian sympathies. It's hard not to see that as wild propaganda.
I don't understand your point. Iran certainly did intervene though. And I don't think there are many people you can point to that say now that the invasion was a good idea.
You mean one of the first countries to join the axis that reffed up their military industrial complex even before the sanctions would not have joined the war? Sound logic :)
Not sure about that. That might be the trigger but attack USA is always in the plan to force USA out of the picture. In fact the key strategy is clean out all the aircraft carrier.
Same here, to build back Soviet Union this might be the first step not just end there. The next will force the Baltic 3 back. Then Poland. Otherwise see UKraine.
It does not work out smoothly does not mean there is no plan.
The attack on pearl harbour is not due to oil embargo. Just like invasion of Ukraine is not because of …
——
As said by others we as free people has to fight back. If no boots how about money. Can’t just sit. We will suffer as well. But better suffer now than sorry later.
Yeah. I think the swiftness, severity, and unity of the response from the EU and US really caught them and, really, a lot of observers by surprise. China's tepid "abstain" during the Security Council vote tells you a lot about how China feels about this war and that China's ambassador to Ukraine was not evacuated when war broke out hints at China thinking war wouldn't break out. It's tragic what's happening in Ukraine but I do hope various other countries will also learn from this and refrain from using violence as a means of achieving their goals.
A large part of Russian propaganda around the outbreak of the war was about supporting their puppet separatist states. China, for obvious reason, can't be happy about it.
China would benefit, just like Russia would, from division in the west and a general sense that "world powers can seize territory of similar ethnic groups" (c.f. Taiwan). The invasion has had the opposite effect.
This is a disaster for the PRC too. It's seeming increasingly possible that Putin's government may not even survive and the consolation prize of getting a nuclear power as a Chinese sattelite state may even evaporate.
China is seeing what was communicated as a quick invasion of a city 60 miles from a land border turn into a slaughter. I bet they are now re-evaluating their own chances against the mountainous island littered with hidden bunkers and airstrips
China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia.
Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view.
They're presumably happy about a member of the dictators' club sticking one in the eye of a free country, a (half-)Asian country sticking one in the eye of US hegemony, and the business opportunity to buy stuff at fire sale prices because it's sanctioned everywhere else.
They're probably less happy about how long it's taking -- the Chinese want stability and moneymaking opportunities, war and high oil prices are bad for business. They're probably also been caught flat-footed by how the US / EU seems to be unifying on this issue, they may feel forced to choose sides. China really wants to maintain a balance of power where the US isn't dominant, but they need the US and EU as trading partners more than they need Russia.
> Russia recognised the Republic of Crimea's declaration of independence[8][9] and agreed to incorporate the Republic into the Russian Federation following a referendum.
Agnostic to the outcome of the conflict, they were / are probably just planning on the same approach.
> China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia.
You can't set that wargoal anymore without proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal". The world decided after WWII that a nation doesn't just have the right to do this anymore. Invading a sovereign country to make it your own against its will is a warcrime. Of course just as prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, this idea on the bounds of acceptable national behavior does not dampen imperial tendencies, so if you want to invade another country you need a pretext first.
It's like that South Park episode, where Stan's Uncle and Ned go hunting for bears, and scream that it's attacking them before they shoot it, when in fact it was just sitting there peacefully.
If Russia is successful in taking Ukraine, what will follow is a propaganda campaign aimed at "proving" everything Putin said about his rationale for the invasion was true. You'll have public executions of Ukrainians "admitting" to all the crimes he says they perpetrated, and he will proclaim loudly to the world that he prevented genocide and everyone should thank him for invading Ukraine.
And guess what, his allies will buy it. You and I will all see through it, and they will too but it will help them sleep at night, because not all of them are as psychopathic as Putin. Elites still need to mingle in polite company after all. It will give them something to tell their children and teach them in school. It will be something for the grieving mothers who lost their sons in the war will have a story about how their sons died for a cause, rather than the impulses driven by an insane dictator's ego.
Anyway, that story isn't as good if you went in without a pretext. Honestly though Putin got impatient and his pretext was too thin. He didn't have a 9/11 like the US did going into Iraq, so he came up with a story about Zelensky being a Nazi, which is really hard to believe. That's why a lot of people are saying his goose is cooked as a leader, because now the body bags are going back to Russia, and there's no good reason anyone has for it.
> proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal"
Well, Russia's been attacking hospitals and having their forces dress in enemy uniforms or peacekeeping symbols. So they don't exactly care about not committing war crimes.
I don't really understand very well why countries do so much shady stuff, gaslighting and propaganda. To me, it's a binary choice; either (a) you're not evil, so you don't do evil things, or (b) you are evil, so you do evil things.
Whereas for a lot of countries (Russia particularly right now, but also China, and some of the shadier stuff the US has done in the past) there seems to be a lot of instances of (c) you know what's right and wrong, but you do the wrong thing anyway and try to hide it.
To me this just seems irrational, a logical fallacy of the form "I simultaneously believe both P and not P" -- You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them).
> You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them).
I think what you're missing is that Putin does not give a pretext for his actions because he believes they are immoral, he does it because it muddies the discourse. Think of it this way: look at what happened when Putin said he was sending "peacekeepers" into Ukraine in order to stop a "genocide". American politicians called him "shrewd". Praise for him ping ponged around right-wing media, and it was reflected back onto RT to the Russian people, who were treated with looping reels of American media personalities heaping praises onto Putin.
If Putin is overt about his goals, he doesn't get the benefit of everyone spreading a message that he's stopping a genocide, or that he's being very clever by fooling everyone with his ruse -- even though he's not and didn't fool anyone who wasn't already fooled by him before. It benefits Putin that the world is calling him clever and shrewd, even though they're simultaneously calling him a murderous tyrant. His hope is that back home, he will repel the tyrant talk as much as possible and allow Russians to only hear that he's a master technician who stopped a genocide.
It also gives Ukrainians something to teach their children. The Snake Island and others. In Estonia, the last known rebel fighter from wwii committed suicide to avoid capture in 1976. Whatever the outcome now, people will remember, people will resist and the Russians will reap the sour fruits of this mess for a very long time.
Oh definitely for sure, and this is what will transform Ukraine from a place that people once called "the Ukraine" because they considered it a border region, into a unquestionably great nation. If Zelensky had fled and the Ukrainian army disbanded there maybe would have been less bloodshed (initially, the Russians would likely have executed plenty of Ukrainians anyway), but it would have been the end of Ukraine as a nation forever.
Chinese foreign policy is typically very cautious. They don't like instability of any kind. That's because they (rightly) see that if things keep on going as they currently are, they are going to outstrip everybody else economically.
NATO was obviously upsetting the world order by expanding eastward, and for
obvious historical reasons, the Chinese are not a fan of NATO, and doubly
dislike a NATO that is changing the status quo. So, they would have very much preferred if everybody had settled the matter in negotiation, with or without the Ukranian's interests being taken into account. However, they are going to be
increasingly unhappy the more bloody, divisive, and destabilizing the war
becomes.
PS: China also doesn't want instability in the west, for the record. Instability causes people like Trump, trade wars, and (god forbid) real wars, which at this point China could only lose. That's in contrast to Russia, which as a declining economy, would be well served by a chaotic situation.
PPS: Obviously, China doesn't want unity in the west either. But nobody wants unity in any bloc they are not part of, as the UK is finding out with the EU. That's not unusual at all.
> That's in contrast to Russia, which as a declining economy, would be well served by a chaotic situation.
I heard some people repeat this, but I don't follow the logic. Unless you are a major exporter of weapon system like the USA, war means draining resources. Yes you can increase local production of weapons for the local market, but in the case of Russia it's a direction downward, not upward. I read Russian press regularly and one of their major problems now is a sudden and drastic increase in mortgages. How will increased production of tanks help? Russians needs houses to live not more tanks - nobody sane is going to attack a country with so many nukes.
One narrative I've heard is that Russia is the only petro state in Europe and gets as much as 50% of their revenue from oil and gas. However, Ukraine also have some fossil fuel resources in the eastern and western edges of its territory along with huge gas reserves off of the Crimea peninsula.
So maybe Russia is not so much served by the chaos of war as much as it needs to maintain a strangle hold over the gas and oil trade to Western Europe. Annexing the Crimea and the Donbas region gives it control over most of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.
In straight terms you're right: going to war will almost certainly not help the Russian economy, almost regardless of how well it goes.
I think the question is a bit more deeper, though. Economic growth is fundamentally useful as a means to accrue legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled - that's how the CCP remains in power in China. That's how countries like the UK or USA have managed to avoid serious pressure to reform, despite obvious (and often comical) systemic flaws in their constitutions.
It is, however, not the only way to accrue legitimacy. Ayatollah Khomeini once opined "economics is for donkeys", and for his administration, it was entirely true: their legitimacy was based on religious grounds.
If you're entering into an era when the fundamentals of your economy are a declining asset (being a petro-state when everybody is switching to renewables), you are diplomatically isolated, your industries are uncompetitive, it makes sense to look for other sources of legitimacy. Putin's attempt to push 'Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality', is kinda classic.
If Putin was smarter, he could take to heart the words of Sheikh Rashid[0] who was in a similar situation. Russia has so many smart people, it's insane the state failed to support them in creating truly great things.
[0] "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel"
> it's insane the state failed to support them in creating truly great things.
Insane, and tragic. I blame Stalin. He created a state where the only people who could stomach being an apparatchik had no moral center, where real power always flowed through backchannels, and where limits on official power were always provisional and informal. Putin is just the cynical dregs of this system.
My own read on it is that China doesn't really have a stake in Ukraine vs. Russia but they have always been really uneasy about what Russia is doing in Ukraine because of what someone else already pointed out: China hates breakaway states. Coercing parts of another country to break away really runs counter to what China has been pushing for. On the ground level, there has been more than a few posts on Chinese social media in support of Ukraine. It's easy to draw the parallels between Ukraine being cut up by a more powerful neighbor with China's own "century of humiliation". Those posts didn't stay up for long though.
China, like every other country acts in its own self interest. China is/was serious about invading Taiwan. Russia has been one of the few countries that have not taken economic and diplomatic action regarding Chinese aggression.
The scale of Russia's actions and the scale of the world's reaction have shocked China. Both Xi and Putin have been escolating conflicts for domestic political advantage. Both may have overplayed their hand and be killed by their own security forces.
Xi wants the blessing of the 20th CCP congress (ccp 100 year anniversary) for unlimited power but the Jiang Zemin Faction is fighting him tooth and nail. Xi is not popular within the Party and there even talk of him destroying the CCP.
Both Putin and Xi are using very high risk stratergies and it look like Putin is losing. Will Xi lose as well?
IMVHO they are hyper-happy. Russia more then ever need a partner and one of it's historical enemy, China, is the sole available, that means for China:
- cheap natural resources in far bigger quantity than before
- more financial power to frame and drive the development of Russian economy
- probably access to hi-tech military gears they do not have had before
Probably enough to overpower USA in few years. UK and USA (mind the order) IMVHO have really miscalculated the long term effect of NATO expansion to the east or they already have an agreement with Russia and/or China, something like: with the excuse of the Ukrainian war we avoid a real new world war, and all parties have excuses to tighten the grip on their citizens, justify the hyper-stagflation, justify any social tissue disruption and dictatorial measure etc etc.
In just few days almost all protest about covid "conduct" of western government disappear, in Italy the emergency power that can't be legally renowned after two years are renowned "because of the war" until December 12, in France renewed talk about the "need" to postpone elections came out before the excuse was covid risk, "perhaps we will do e-voting", now the war, I imaging something "small scale" similar happen in almost all countries.
Honestly what I see is just a BIG win from the world power all, together even those formally against each other, and a BIG loss for the people, again for every people, regardless of their country.
> As the world overwhelmingly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese internet, for the most part, is pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.
The Chinese internet doesn't get any way without the consent (and perhaps encouragement) from the authorities. What they don't censor is sometimes as important as what they do censor.
While that me be true, Chinese sentiment is already fairly pro Russian built up from many years of propaganda. They could stop censoring the internet tomorrow and public sentiment would still be overwhelmingly pro Russian and anti American. They censor the internet more aggressively for local issues or because they want to manipulate public sentiment in some way that is more guiding rather than drastic (eg get a bunch of people to protest the Japanese embassy in Beijing…and then get them to go home when that gets out of control).
That is because the unhappy part is being broadcasted by western staff working for westrrn media. I suggest you grab hold of a China Chinese and see what China is talking about Russia. In fact many projected 2022 might be the year China invade Taiwan. Then we will see how bold the rest of the world is when they cant get their junk and inflation spike 50%.
> really caught them and, really, a lot of observers by surprise
Including, I suspect, most of those western governments who've always assumed that consensus was just too difficult.
The best insight I've seen here was earlier today in a tweet, but I forget by who. Basically: Europe is sick of Russia's bullshit. They've been stomping around on world order for decades now (poisoning dissidents on foreign soil, seizing territory, pushing disinformation at foreign political markets, etc...).. But actually fighting them back required coordination, and unanimity, which you really can't get in a normal democracy.
Until two things happened: 1. Russia went just one step too far with a full-on unjustified invasion, and 2. it went poorly. Now they can't sew this mess up quickly and get back to "normal".
And Europe smells blood in the water. Once the dominoes started falling they all went, very quickly. This is their chance to get rid of Putin.
And how would that happen? does anyone really think the oligarchs going to overthrow him, they are more afraid of him than comrade peasants were afraid of Stalin.
No one fears "Putin", or "Stalin". They fear the security apparatus that the dictator controls. And that security apparatus needs to be paid: in rubles, status, feudal power, familial influence, party promotions, regional rivalries, etc...
In 1937, Stalin could effect the Great Purge by rewarding his NKVD with nothing but things he already controlled as the head of the party, using no resources that had to be sourced from outside the borders of the USSR (and after 1940, of course, he didn't even need to pay them because they were serving him out of patriotism in an attempt to save the nation from Hitler).
In 2022 Putin needs to pay his support structure with iPhones and yachts. That's harder to do when your economy is shit.
We'll see. No one can predict a coup. But these are the circumstances that produce them.
That is why I initially think. But one minor issue … the vote in 2014 over ukraine is also abstain. I also have a bit of issue with india also abstain. Hence not sure about this.
They might think they are fine as Russia will get in so quick they think at least, just switch flag.
> I also have a bit of issue with india also abstain.
India depends on buying weapons from Russia, and they are afraid to loose Russia into even stronger hug with China. The worst thing they can do now is to spoil their relations with Putin, also they don't care about Europe (China at least partly does).
Those are for show for public consumption. Behind the scenes arent that bad. Look at Iran, we always read how bad the economy is. Bet you didnt know Iranian have no shitty places like the drug invested Phily in America. Yes, they dont have gmail and youtube. But they still get torrent, porns and lots of Internet freedom as western counterparts.
China is the obvious winner in this contest because the West has basically made Russia a Chinese satellite just like Kazahstan and Mongolia over the weekend. They are going to be economically dependent on China and India.
China has interests, not friends. They were quick to tell Russians to get the hell out of Kazakhstan after their peacekeeping mission was over after the recent failed coup.
Their interests are Siberian resources and security of trade routes. They value trade with the West more than with Russia, so happy to apply Western sanctions if needed (already happening).
China has way more ties than economically with the U.S. and the E.U. than China, doesn't it ? The Chinese care about business, and war and instability aren't great for business.
One of Russia's biggest miscalculations was its military readiness. It's now pretty clear that their vision of how the invasion would play out has not matched reality, largely due to corruption in the armed forces.
This actually feels somewhat similar to the US pullout in Afghanistan last year. In that case, the Taliban regained control of the country very quickly because many of the military assets that the allied forces were counting on simply didn't exist, they were overestimated figures for local military officials to siphon cash out of the military with.
Russia seems to be in a similar boat. They're not nearly effective enough to maintain supply lines and there's a lot of reporting that many of the infantry are young conscripts that weren't told what they were about to do. This reeks of a corrupt military collapsing under its own weight.
Russia also spent the last decade or so drumming up how amazing their new military technology is. Invincible tanks, impenetrable air defences, all-seeing radars.
That’s falling too.
Interestingly, it seems like a common theme from the Cold War too.
I had been saying for years that Russian conventional military power was vastly overestimated, yet even I have been surprised at their dismal performance so far. A week ago, I assumed decisive Russian victory to be a foregone conclusion. Now a Ukrainian victory actually seems possible and perhaps even plausible. You are right to point out that it is early, though.
It's already assured that when Russia controls the whole of Ukraine, it does so having suffered a severe blow to its reputation and its military forces. Aside from the nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone is scared of the might of the Russian army anymore.
They don't want it to attack them, but everyone is reassessing their fear of the Russian bear.
What I don't understand at this point is how Russia plans to occupy Ukraine in the long term given its military weakness. Even if Ukraine does fall, the guerilla war is gonna last for quite a while, especially now that the EU is arming Ukraine.
That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches.
Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. They didn't need to have tactics or strategy because their only strategy was completely overpowering and overrunning their opponents, and counting on them not fighting back at all.
Now Ukrainians are fighting back and Russia can't handle it. Why? Because Russia doesn't fight wars, they conduct special operations missions. They are used to rolling over their enemies and them staying down and dead. But here Ukrainians are getting back up to fight, and Russia can't deal with it because they didn't prepare for it.
For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either.
I think the biggest problem Putin has right now he made for himself: he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
> That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches.
By no means am I implying that Putin is off the hook for this. He's been the leader of that country for decades now.
> Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down.
This is true to an extent, but it also ignores the geopolitical influences that led him to strike those particular targets. He's been very aggressively countering western expansion in eastern Europe, which is a major reason why he chose to strike Ukraine. Ironically, this move may wind up backfiring in the long run.
> For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either.
Yes, establishing supply lines is military strategy 101. Tanks are not exactly fuel-efficient and require lots of logistics and service to remain battle-ready. The failure of Russian armor in Ukraine feels way more like inept leadership than it does pure hubris. Surely they knew how big the country was before they decided to invade, I have a hard time seeing them being intentionally so ill-prepared as to think they wouldn't need to refuel these multi million-dollar tanks.
> he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
I think is this way oversimplifies and glosses over many key facts around the geopolitics of the situation.
Crimea was mostly ethnic Russian and the annexation has remained fairly popular in that part of the country. The reality is that Ukraine is a poorly segmented country that still sees major Russian support in its eastern half. It's really only the western half of Ukraine that consistently votes to join the EU and NATO.
Keep in mind that Crimea happened right after president Yanukovich was removed via a coup for being a Russian sympathizer himself, so Ukraine was in a leadership transition at the time. Zelensky OTOH has rejected many offers by the Kremlin to align with Russia, which makes him far more dangerous to Putin.
I think Putin surrounded himself with yes men that promised a swift and powerful invasion and failed to deliver because they're fundamentally corrupt and have no real idea how effective their military resources are. The Russian economy is much worse today than it was when Crimea was annexed, which in turn fuels corruption.
Please read this comment as pure speculation, as I don't have any more information than anyone else.
I was initially surprised Russians forces haven't steamrolled Ukraine, BUT, I think that's intentional move by Russian Military leadership. Throwing your hot hand in immediately at country that recently received large shipments of [known effective] Western ATGM's... probably isn't the best move. Essentially: Putin sent green 18 year-old recruits to the slaughter to see what would happen. Ukraine repels the first wave using valuable ATGM munitions, letting Russia send experienced tank crews come later when Ukraine ammunition is spent.
No matter the scenario, the real loser is again Russia. Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west.
Perhaps, but this really seems like we're having to try real hard here. To repurpose a tired phrase, don’t ascribe to planning what can be plainly explained by incompetence.
It's very difficult to imagine anyone in the Russian command planning what we're seeing here. The veterans I'm seeing comments from are baffled. Russian troops are not practicing land-war 101 here and are just walking around in the open in tightly bunched groups with their hands in their pockets.
> Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west.
This is just wishful thinking, Putin isn't an idiot even if CNN tries to portrait him as such.
I think the mission in Afghanistan was meaningless, or impossible, alternately. I dont think what happened there is a military failure but a failure to restrain ourselves and not go there in large numbers in the first place.
It’s an extremely cautionary tale of information warfare and propaganda in general. They can provide short-term benefits, but in the long run, it will be impossible to maintain a complete blanket of falsehood without obscuring the reality from yourself. There are some fine folks in US, who should take this lesson to heart, I think.
The speed, severity, and coordination of the west's response to this has been truly remarkable. Putin must be completely shocked at how this has played out.
I expect China to be taking notes and wouldn't be surprised to see them reign in their 'wolf warriors' and claw back their aggressive posturing once the dust settles. The "Taiwan issue" just became a lot more complicated for them.
> [Cheng-Yun Tsang, an expert in financial regulation at National Chengchi University in Taiwan] said Beijing’s moves to distance itself from Moscow appeared mostly symbolic, inflicting little actual pain on the Russian economy.
After reading that link, that seems to be a pretty accurate summary, when adding that
> China also relies heavily on the SWIFT system. These facts might well lead China to a somewhat prudent move when it comes to providing financing with Russia, as jeopardising its own ability to transact in US dollars would never be a good idea.
So that they are cautious to
> comply with the letter of the law, but in my opinion, not the spirit of the law [Alicia García Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis in Hong Kong]
> Gary Ng, an Asia economist at Natixis, said the current sanctions regime gives China considerable room to continue legitimate trade with Russia.
It's tough because the sanctions are meant to be bad enough but not so bad that alternative systems start to benefit too much, reducing Western - and US-$ - influence in the long run.
Playing devils advocate here, what severity exactly? Putin is still going well into Ukraine, will probably annex many sections of it. I am not saying Russia will be unscathed but Gas and all that means....
Russia is about to default on their debt. The Ruble is worthless. ATM's are running out of cash. They aren't allow to buy microchips anymore. They've had 1000's of casualties and lost hundreds of pieces of military equipment. Russia has arrested thousands of protestors in a country that had mostly given up on large-scale protests. This is not good for Putin, even if Ukraine gives up tomorrow.
I have always been skeptical about the info war machine on both sides regarding this. It took about ten days for the Taliban to retake over most cities without real resistance. Ukraine is far better equipped though small compared to the Russian army. Our guage of Russian progress will be very different to theirs. They might not even be expecting a full take over for weeks
Of course they did, that's how narcissistic psychopaths like Putin operate. And just to be clear it doesn't matter what "and Co" think, it only matters what Putin thinks. At this point he's surrounded himself with enough lickspittles and sycophants that he never hears the truth.
Think about this from Putin's perspective. Putin invaded Georgia and the world did nothing. Putin invaded Crimea and the world did nothing. Putin interfered in the American election in 2016 and not only did the world do nothing, the US party he helped actually shifted their foreign policy to be more pro Russia at the expense of Ukraine [1]. Trump stood next to Putin and in front of the world told us that he believed Putin's account of 2016, that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in the election. Republicans defended Trump and by extension Putin at all levels for this. The official party line morphed from the idea that Ukraine interfered to the idea that the interference and hacking was all a hoax that we imagined[2], again helping Putin. Why wouldn't Putin think that 50% of American politicians would support his invasion of Ukraine?
Trump's first impeachment was over Trump attempting to extort a bribe from President Zelinksy by withholding diplomatic relations, which at the time the new Zelinsky administration was hoping to use to bolster their legitimacy; and Javelin missiles, which thankfully the Ukrainians now have because they are using them to great effect against Russian armored vehicles.
So yeah, Putin probably felt pretty safe going into Ukraine. He probably felt like 50% of the United States political establishment would back him up and cause a complete gridlock for the US trying to muster a response, because they have been on his side since 2016. And he's not wrong, up until last week they were calling him "savvy" and "smart" for gaslighting the world about a Nazi genocide being conducted by Zelinsky! That was before the war crimes so a lot of them have changed their tune, but the song they were singing before was exactly what Putin wanted to hear. He's definitely high on his own supply.
[2] And if at long last you still believe it was a hoax, just remember that the loudest voices calling it a hoax for 6 years were just last week calling Putin savvy and that he would never invade Ukraine. They were were dumbstruck when Putin invaded (Tabbi, Greenwald, looking at you). Completely floored. So maybe some people need to take a step back and reassess who are credible voices when it comes to Putin and Russia. To see what Putin was doing over the last month and to conclude that he didn't intend to invade reveals a stark ignorance about Putin and Russia, so really why should we listen to them ever again on this topic? Also read the Muller report and Senate Intel report on these issues, because they're indisputable at this point.
I hope you're correct but one big difference is that cutting off trade with China would also cripple our economy, just look at what happened last year with the pandemic-induced supply chain problems.
Even that advantage is eroding over time. It obviously will take time, but there is a lot of onshoring happening. The west realizes what a mistake it was to outsource so much of the manufacturing and technology capacity to a singular entity.
Putin&Co will have plenty of food on the table, unlike common folks. Now all the desperate young men will enlist to fight for him (or maybe against him like in 1917), it was already happening with contract soldiers in Syria.
It's understandable that the only way to pressure Russia is sanctions (can't invade there or assassinate him) but it looks like putting poison in one million city water system to kill a murderer while he drinks water from bottles.
Indeed. The world may have lost an enormous opportunity to bring the russian population on its side. The following days will be crucial in revealing whether the russian people will resort to an us vs then mindset or them vs putin.
Sanctions induce poverty. Russians will be thinking how to get a bit of food on their table and survive another day, they not going to have energy to make the change. Sanctions may look like a good tool but unfortunately they just make authoritarian regimes stronger.
I'm very proud of the international community. Wars of conquest/aggression should be universally opposed and sanctioned. It's one of the key components to a peaceful future for us on earth.
I wish the best for the future of the Russian people, to get a government they deserve, one that doesn't throw human life wantonly into a meat grinder.
That we currently don't universally oppose and sanction wars of conquest and aggression doesn't mean that we shouldn't. The invasion of Ukraine is an especially egregious example, and it is good that the world is unifying to disincentivize that sort of aggression.
Like, the US at least attempted to invent a casus belli for Iraq, and it was one that Saddam couldn't aggressively contest without revealing Iraq's weakness to Iran. Gaddafi was deposed because his administration killed protestors and provoked a civil war. Yemen is a proxy conflict against Iran and while our involvement is indefensible the goal of the aggressors isn't to annex the country.
Even Russia has benefited from this ambiguity: the international response to the Russian seizure of Crimea was very limited, and there was essentially no organized sanction over their campaign in Syria (which included at least one attack on US soldiers).
In this conflict, Putin's speech ahead of the invasion of Ukraine made it absolutely clear that there is nothing provoking this conflict beyond Russian imperialism. The erroneously published document outlining the rationale assuming a Russian victory confirmed those sentiments [1].
Ukrainian resistance bought time for a coordinated response and the personal heroism and charisma of Zelenskyy (along with strong American leadership in the background) galvanized Europe. A hard line against wars of conquest is a good one to draw and rally around, even if it isn't perfect.
> the US at least attempted to invent a casus belli for Iraq
Again: reward your friends, punish your enemies.
Lie ("invent a casus belli") if you have to in order to punish your enemies.
Everyone here trying to give some ideological reason why we did such and such in this case, but not in this other case, is entirely mistaken. Literally everything is spin to justify the core motivation: reward your friends, punish your enemies.
Ukraine is no different. We can invade Iraq because they are our enemy. Russia CANNOT invade Ukraine because they are our friend.
----
Answering your follow up here (I'm rate-limited):
> What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies?
As I understand things, Crimea is literally the friend/enemy distinction in action (Russian perspective):
Crimea, arguably (and certainly, effectively) was/is a Russian territory, autonomous (but pro-Russian) and with an active Russian naval base, that came under the nominal control of the West after the 2014 regime change (enemy); thus Russia militarily took it back (friend), ensuring its continued independence and pro-Russian stance.
Ukraine responded to Crimea's post-2014 autonomy/invasion/rescue/independence by cutting off their water supply, something Russia built for Crimea during the USSR. (I'm honestly surprised this step wasn't/isn't a Hague-level human rights violation. Maybe the Hague is also operating primarily under the friend/enemy distinction?)
The point is that international affairs are complicated enough to make any principled stand difficult, and the world should be commended for rallying behind the idea that unprovoked wars of conquest are enough to get you excluded from global society. The sanctions are going to cause a lot of pain in the countries leveling them, so it is an even less straightforward calculus.
Russia was able to invade Ukraine and annex a big chunk of its territory in 2014, and the idea that Ukraine was less our "friend" then than it is now doesn't hold water to me. What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies?
Was in response to a US-supported coup against a president friendly to Russia. What are a US Ambassador and a US Assistant Secretary of State doing at a political protest in a foreign country?[1]
> U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland arrived on Wednesday morning at Independence Square in Kyiv and began speaking with protesters rallying in support for Ukraine's integration with the European Union, an Interfax correspondent reported from the scene.
> Nuland is treating protesters with cookies, biscuits and bread from a big package. She is being accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Demonstrators are cheering Nuland with joyful shouts, some are chanting "God bless you."
> Nuland also approached Interior Forces troops deployed at the square and also offered them cookies, which the soldiers accepted silently.
Responding to huge events that were unfolding in eastern Europe? I get that the Euromaidan protests are inconvenient to Russian propaganda efforts, but why is it at all sinister that a U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs was present at a protest? Why is it suspicious that the US' Ambassador was present at protests that were protesting what amounted to Putin vetoing a very popular effort to deepen ties between Ukraine and the EU?
None of that, of course, is responsive to the original question of why Ukraine wasn't a friend in 2014 (in your narrative, this follows a coup and the installation of a friendly, western regime) but seems to be a friend now. Why Russia was able/allowed to annex Crimea with minimal international outcry is obvious—he either had or successfully fabricated a plausible enough claim—but doesn't fit in with the idea that all rules of conduct are applied only against enemies and not to friends.
I wonder what these extreme sanctions will do to Putin. They obviously have not made him stop fighting. But these sanctions are so severe that they'll probably even prevent him from rebuilding his army following this due to sanctions blocking imports to fuel his war industry. So, since he is still fighting, what is he fighting _for_? Still trying to expand Russia? But the Russia we knew is already not going to be the same as it once was. Putin will never be able to return to a status quo again. Does he not understand this, that he is already a pariah on the world stage? Does he now fight under some sort of tunnel vision? And what is such a man capable of? This scares me.
Putin offered stability and a sort of pride for Russia. Not that I like despots, but I can understand that.
He doesn’t offer that to Russians anymore…
Word has it Russians largely thought there wouldn’t even be a war.
I hope the locals can deal with him quickly and change course.
As for Putin himself, this whole situation seems odd even for a macho saber rattler like Putin. I think there is something to wondering an his frame of mind.
It takes a while for a ruler who has surrounded himself with yes-men to face reality.
> And what is such a man capable of? This scares me.o
Yes, this is a scary time. I saw someone on twitter suggest that we need to offer him some sort of safe haven he can retire to so he doesn't feel so cornered. Not sure it that would work, though, probably too much pride. Probably the best we can hope for at this point is some kind of palace coup. Some of the oligarchs are already speaking out publicly against him which indicates that any level of fear they had of him is waning. An internal coup would've been an unrealistic expectation a few days ago, now it seems within the realm of possibility.
In the last two years his social contacts were significantly reduced, as can be seen even from his meetings where there’s a distance of at least 5 meters from him to other people. He lives in a self-supporting information bubble, so yes, kind of a tunnel vision. We cannot guess what is he thinking about.
Good news are that he cannot trigger nuclear war alone, and I don’t think Shoigu or Gerasimov are willing to go to hell with him.
I think the timer started counting until the coup. Oligarchs are really pissed and may return to politics despite the risks. Ordinary people starting feeling the pain queuing at banks and ATMs, noticing already raising prices, or being stuck abroad without access to money or any options to return home. Many people lost significant part of their savings that was invested in stock. Army is likely feeling betrayed - many officers who have to send their soldiers to Ukraine now didn’t expect the war with slavic brothers.
What we see in Ukraine now may be just a first act of an enormous tragedy.
The sanctions worked; all the oligarchs have fled [0] (conveniently before airspace was blocked off), but the tunnel vision is true, and he is still surrounded by those who believe in him [1]
> But these sanctions are so severe that they'll probably even prevent him from rebuilding his army following this due to sanctions blocking imports to fuel his war industry. So, since he is still fighting, what is he fighting _for_? Still trying to expand Russia?
The smartest defence thinkers I know and/or follow (I worked in the space for a few years, enough to know I didn't want to be there but I did meet some really sharp people) have all switched to a pretty cautious tone in the last few days. Not because they think Ukraine will lose the war necessarily, but that short of a palace coup we need to give someone as unhinged as Putin a way out of this. The "dunking" has been coming fast and furious and for good reason, but we could get to a place where he has no way out but forward. Historically it's rare or non existent that a losing strongman would go out quietly.
Best case scenario is for us to discover Putin had been poisoned with something which made him aggressive and delusional. This would be about the only way to fully revert to status quo.
141 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 202 ms ] threadWord has it Russia has been trying to insulate themselves in case of sanctions for a while now … but things have moved very quickly and Russia seems way more isolated than before.
Even China seems more uncomfortable with the situation as time goes on.
Some say that if the US had never imposed sanctions on Japan in the 1930s, Japan wouldn't've attacked Pearl Harbor.
In that case, the sanctions made it hard for Japan to import petroleum with the result that the Japanese chose to secure their supply by conquest of countries with petroleum reserves (mainly Indonesia IIRC).
Hopefully this all ends soon, for everyone’s sake.
When someone murders a person you stop them, even if the risk of them murdering more people is a possibility.
Really? There were ~800 homicides in Chicago last year.[0] I haven't lifted a finger, have you?
Maybe we should announce an "oil blockade" on the city to get them to change their behavior. Strip their funding. Block trade with other states/cities.
But (of course) we won't. Why?
Chicago? Those are our friends.
And we reward our friends! "Murder" has nothing to do with it, and neither do "libertarian" principles.
[0] https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-2021...
We're just gonna pretend "ended the Holocaust" doesn't sit on the other side of that scale, eh?
[1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
[3] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=belarus+nuclear
Also, please don't flag my comment again. Everyone who's replied to you so far has had their comment flagged.
Edit: Also, I haven't flagged a single comment today, nor do I think I can flag a reply to my comments.
Perhaps that was the evil plan of NATO. Why I feel it's different, though, is that those Eastern European countries tried to enter NATO as quickly as possible, as they still remembered Russia/USSR saving them from democracy in the 60s/70s.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1956
Except, he already borders 4 (6 if you count Lithuania and Poland due to Kaliningrad) by land, plus Turkey by water), and if he conquered Ukraine the count would rise by 3, so let's call bullshit on that.
Also - he's a murderous, aggressive tyrant and a proven liar, so let's please stop giving him the benefit of doubt.
It's not bullshit. The entire point is to reduce the direct number on Russia's borders. Just because you have a few already on your border does not mean you allow even more directly line up on your border. What he is doing completely rational from a military/geopolitical perspective.
It's not that the US/NATO want to extend, it's that the countries of Eastern Europe seek protection from the mad neighbor to the east.
Yes, the US has done some horrible things in the past (see: Vietnam, somewhat less so Iraq), but Russia believes in "buffers" regardless of the desire of the inhabitants of those buffers, whereas the West believes (however imperfectly in practice) that countries should be self-determining.
In a way, the best proof of this is Europe's response to this invasion: at first, nobody was willing to get involved. When it became clear that Ukrainians themselves were fully committed to remaining sovereign, then the influx of cash and materiel began.
Well, yes; but when dealing with such high-stakes international politics you need to consider what consequences your actions will have, even if you think your actions are completely justified and the consequences are stupid. To say "Ukraine is the West's Fault" is a bit clickbait-y, and the actual content is more nuanced, but I do think there's truth in that we ("the west") could and should have acted with more caution and consideration of the possible consequences rather than operate on grand ideals.
In any case, Russia has existed for decades with NATO countries on its borders and not suffered an invasion. These countries have a lot of reason to fear that Russia does indeed seek to "reintegrate" them into an imperial state, given that Putin just confirmed that he seeks to do exactly that to Ukraine. The best way Russia can discourage its neighbors from joining NATO is by not giving them huge, existential reasons for doing so.
Granted, I say John Mearsheimer was wrong in 2015 with the hindsight of 20/20 vision. I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started. Now we know that Putin fully intended to invade the Ukraine and institute regime change, not just "free" Donbas and Luhansk. Putin has also indicated he wants to re-establish the old Soviet Union as much as possible.
I'm not attacking John Mearsheimer. I too thought Putin was way smarter than this. Frankly I'm shocked by what's happening, but most of all I'm shocked and surprised by Putin's short-sightedness and stupidity. I'm sure John Mearsheimer did his analysis believing he was dealing with a rational actor. Now we know otherwise.
- Ukraine sealed the canal that delivered 85% of Crimea's fresh water supply, so it's been more costly to keep Crimea with each passing year.
>I haven't seen where he has made any public statements since the invasion started.
It's been five days, hardly enough time to gather information on the environment and put together a research paper on it.
Also, a wrong conclusion does not mean the underlying research or thesis is wrong.
Note that could have been true in 2015; what Putin wants can change over time.
At any rate, I watched that video some months ago, but from I recall Mearsheimer's point was that this kind of response is rational when reasoned from Putin's interests and worldview. I don't recall he said there would never be a war, and IIRC actually warned against a possible war (which we now have, albeit in a different shape than Mearsheimer thought in 2015).
> Russia is sending some of its nuclear arsenal to Belarus as we speak
Remind me again who keeps upping the confrontation?
That's in contradiction with the "he had no choice, he was encircled" theory.
Also the claims of neo-Nazism is wildly exaggerated, even if you have Russian sympathies. It's hard not to see that as wild propaganda.
Same here, to build back Soviet Union this might be the first step not just end there. The next will force the Baltic 3 back. Then Poland. Otherwise see UKraine.
It does not work out smoothly does not mean there is no plan.
The attack on pearl harbour is not due to oil embargo. Just like invasion of Ukraine is not because of …
——
As said by others we as free people has to fight back. If no boots how about money. Can’t just sit. We will suffer as well. But better suffer now than sorry later.
I’m not saying China is a devious country who loves shelling civilians, just that it’s hard to establish their attitude given the circumstances.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_t...
This is a disaster for the PRC too. It's seeming increasingly possible that Putin's government may not even survive and the consolation prize of getting a nuclear power as a Chinese sattelite state may even evaporate.
Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view.
They're presumably happy about a member of the dictators' club sticking one in the eye of a free country, a (half-)Asian country sticking one in the eye of US hegemony, and the business opportunity to buy stuff at fire sale prices because it's sanctioned everywhere else.
They're probably less happy about how long it's taking -- the Chinese want stability and moneymaking opportunities, war and high oil prices are bad for business. They're probably also been caught flat-footed by how the US / EU seems to be unifying on this issue, they may feel forced to choose sides. China really wants to maintain a balance of power where the US isn't dominant, but they need the US and EU as trading partners more than they need Russia.
> Putin instead recognizing the breakaway regions as independent sets a bad precedent from China's point of view.
and:
> China presumably really wishes Russia had set a wargoal of annexing Donbas / Crimea / all of Ukraine to be part of Russia.
are just part of the same process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_of...
> Russia recognised the Republic of Crimea's declaration of independence[8][9] and agreed to incorporate the Republic into the Russian Federation following a referendum.
Agnostic to the outcome of the conflict, they were / are probably just planning on the same approach.
You can't set that wargoal anymore without proclaiming to the world that you intend to be and are proudly taking the mantle of "warcriminal". The world decided after WWII that a nation doesn't just have the right to do this anymore. Invading a sovereign country to make it your own against its will is a warcrime. Of course just as prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, this idea on the bounds of acceptable national behavior does not dampen imperial tendencies, so if you want to invade another country you need a pretext first.
It's like that South Park episode, where Stan's Uncle and Ned go hunting for bears, and scream that it's attacking them before they shoot it, when in fact it was just sitting there peacefully.
If Russia is successful in taking Ukraine, what will follow is a propaganda campaign aimed at "proving" everything Putin said about his rationale for the invasion was true. You'll have public executions of Ukrainians "admitting" to all the crimes he says they perpetrated, and he will proclaim loudly to the world that he prevented genocide and everyone should thank him for invading Ukraine.
And guess what, his allies will buy it. You and I will all see through it, and they will too but it will help them sleep at night, because not all of them are as psychopathic as Putin. Elites still need to mingle in polite company after all. It will give them something to tell their children and teach them in school. It will be something for the grieving mothers who lost their sons in the war will have a story about how their sons died for a cause, rather than the impulses driven by an insane dictator's ego.
Anyway, that story isn't as good if you went in without a pretext. Honestly though Putin got impatient and his pretext was too thin. He didn't have a 9/11 like the US did going into Iraq, so he came up with a story about Zelensky being a Nazi, which is really hard to believe. That's why a lot of people are saying his goose is cooked as a leader, because now the body bags are going back to Russia, and there's no good reason anyone has for it.
Well, Russia's been attacking hospitals and having their forces dress in enemy uniforms or peacekeeping symbols. So they don't exactly care about not committing war crimes.
I don't really understand very well why countries do so much shady stuff, gaslighting and propaganda. To me, it's a binary choice; either (a) you're not evil, so you don't do evil things, or (b) you are evil, so you do evil things.
Whereas for a lot of countries (Russia particularly right now, but also China, and some of the shadier stuff the US has done in the past) there seems to be a lot of instances of (c) you know what's right and wrong, but you do the wrong thing anyway and try to hide it.
To me this just seems irrational, a logical fallacy of the form "I simultaneously believe both P and not P" -- You simultaneously recognize that morality is important (because you try to actively cover up or lie about your immoral actions), and you spit on it at the same time (because you do the immoral actions when you have an alternative course of not doing them).
I think what you're missing is that Putin does not give a pretext for his actions because he believes they are immoral, he does it because it muddies the discourse. Think of it this way: look at what happened when Putin said he was sending "peacekeepers" into Ukraine in order to stop a "genocide". American politicians called him "shrewd". Praise for him ping ponged around right-wing media, and it was reflected back onto RT to the Russian people, who were treated with looping reels of American media personalities heaping praises onto Putin.
If Putin is overt about his goals, he doesn't get the benefit of everyone spreading a message that he's stopping a genocide, or that he's being very clever by fooling everyone with his ruse -- even though he's not and didn't fool anyone who wasn't already fooled by him before. It benefits Putin that the world is calling him clever and shrewd, even though they're simultaneously calling him a murderous tyrant. His hope is that back home, he will repel the tyrant talk as much as possible and allow Russians to only hear that he's a master technician who stopped a genocide.
NATO was obviously upsetting the world order by expanding eastward, and for obvious historical reasons, the Chinese are not a fan of NATO, and doubly dislike a NATO that is changing the status quo. So, they would have very much preferred if everybody had settled the matter in negotiation, with or without the Ukranian's interests being taken into account. However, they are going to be increasingly unhappy the more bloody, divisive, and destabilizing the war becomes.
PS: China also doesn't want instability in the west, for the record. Instability causes people like Trump, trade wars, and (god forbid) real wars, which at this point China could only lose. That's in contrast to Russia, which as a declining economy, would be well served by a chaotic situation.
PPS: Obviously, China doesn't want unity in the west either. But nobody wants unity in any bloc they are not part of, as the UK is finding out with the EU. That's not unusual at all.
I heard some people repeat this, but I don't follow the logic. Unless you are a major exporter of weapon system like the USA, war means draining resources. Yes you can increase local production of weapons for the local market, but in the case of Russia it's a direction downward, not upward. I read Russian press regularly and one of their major problems now is a sudden and drastic increase in mortgages. How will increased production of tanks help? Russians needs houses to live not more tanks - nobody sane is going to attack a country with so many nukes.
So maybe Russia is not so much served by the chaos of war as much as it needs to maintain a strangle hold over the gas and oil trade to Western Europe. Annexing the Crimea and the Donbas region gives it control over most of Ukraine's fossil fuel resources.
I think the question is a bit more deeper, though. Economic growth is fundamentally useful as a means to accrue legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled - that's how the CCP remains in power in China. That's how countries like the UK or USA have managed to avoid serious pressure to reform, despite obvious (and often comical) systemic flaws in their constitutions.
It is, however, not the only way to accrue legitimacy. Ayatollah Khomeini once opined "economics is for donkeys", and for his administration, it was entirely true: their legitimacy was based on religious grounds.
If you're entering into an era when the fundamentals of your economy are a declining asset (being a petro-state when everybody is switching to renewables), you are diplomatically isolated, your industries are uncompetitive, it makes sense to look for other sources of legitimacy. Putin's attempt to push 'Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality', is kinda classic.
[0] "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel"
Insane, and tragic. I blame Stalin. He created a state where the only people who could stomach being an apparatchik had no moral center, where real power always flowed through backchannels, and where limits on official power were always provisional and informal. Putin is just the cynical dregs of this system.
The scale of Russia's actions and the scale of the world's reaction have shocked China. Both Xi and Putin have been escolating conflicts for domestic political advantage. Both may have overplayed their hand and be killed by their own security forces.
Xi wants the blessing of the 20th CCP congress (ccp 100 year anniversary) for unlimited power but the Jiang Zemin Faction is fighting him tooth and nail. Xi is not popular within the Party and there even talk of him destroying the CCP.
Both Putin and Xi are using very high risk stratergies and it look like Putin is losing. Will Xi lose as well?
- cheap natural resources in far bigger quantity than before
- more financial power to frame and drive the development of Russian economy
- probably access to hi-tech military gears they do not have had before
Probably enough to overpower USA in few years. UK and USA (mind the order) IMVHO have really miscalculated the long term effect of NATO expansion to the east or they already have an agreement with Russia and/or China, something like: with the excuse of the Ukrainian war we avoid a real new world war, and all parties have excuses to tighten the grip on their citizens, justify the hyper-stagflation, justify any social tissue disruption and dictatorial measure etc etc.
In just few days almost all protest about covid "conduct" of western government disappear, in Italy the emergency power that can't be legally renowned after two years are renowned "because of the war" until December 12, in France renewed talk about the "need" to postpone elections came out before the excuse was covid risk, "perhaps we will do e-voting", now the war, I imaging something "small scale" similar happen in almost all countries.
Honestly what I see is just a BIG win from the world power all, together even those formally against each other, and a BIG loss for the people, again for every people, regardless of their country.
They publicly support it: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/business/china-russia-ukr...
> As the world overwhelmingly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese internet, for the most part, is pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.
The Chinese internet doesn't get any way without the consent (and perhaps encouragement) from the authorities. What they don't censor is sometimes as important as what they do censor.
Including, I suspect, most of those western governments who've always assumed that consensus was just too difficult.
The best insight I've seen here was earlier today in a tweet, but I forget by who. Basically: Europe is sick of Russia's bullshit. They've been stomping around on world order for decades now (poisoning dissidents on foreign soil, seizing territory, pushing disinformation at foreign political markets, etc...).. But actually fighting them back required coordination, and unanimity, which you really can't get in a normal democracy.
Until two things happened: 1. Russia went just one step too far with a full-on unjustified invasion, and 2. it went poorly. Now they can't sew this mess up quickly and get back to "normal".
And Europe smells blood in the water. Once the dominoes started falling they all went, very quickly. This is their chance to get rid of Putin.
And how would that happen? does anyone really think the oligarchs going to overthrow him, they are more afraid of him than comrade peasants were afraid of Stalin.
In 1937, Stalin could effect the Great Purge by rewarding his NKVD with nothing but things he already controlled as the head of the party, using no resources that had to be sourced from outside the borders of the USSR (and after 1940, of course, he didn't even need to pay them because they were serving him out of patriotism in an attempt to save the nation from Hitler).
In 2022 Putin needs to pay his support structure with iPhones and yachts. That's harder to do when your economy is shit.
We'll see. No one can predict a coup. But these are the circumstances that produce them.
They might think they are fine as Russia will get in so quick they think at least, just switch flag.
India depends on buying weapons from Russia, and they are afraid to loose Russia into even stronger hug with China. The worst thing they can do now is to spoil their relations with Putin, also they don't care about Europe (China at least partly does).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93China_25-year_Coo...
This actually feels somewhat similar to the US pullout in Afghanistan last year. In that case, the Taliban regained control of the country very quickly because many of the military assets that the allied forces were counting on simply didn't exist, they were overestimated figures for local military officials to siphon cash out of the military with.
Russia seems to be in a similar boat. They're not nearly effective enough to maintain supply lines and there's a lot of reporting that many of the infantry are young conscripts that weren't told what they were about to do. This reeks of a corrupt military collapsing under its own weight.
Russian conventional military capabilities seem dramatically poorer than anyone expected.
As you note, supply lines, coordination, poor conscripts with out support/ knowing what is going on.
No ability to fight at night…
Really surprising.
That’s falling too.
Interestingly, it seems like a common theme from the Cold War too.
They don't want it to attack them, but everyone is reassessing their fear of the Russian bear.
What I don't understand at this point is how Russia plans to occupy Ukraine in the long term given its military weakness. Even if Ukraine does fall, the guerilla war is gonna last for quite a while, especially now that the EU is arming Ukraine.
That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches.
Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. They didn't need to have tactics or strategy because their only strategy was completely overpowering and overrunning their opponents, and counting on them not fighting back at all.
Now Ukrainians are fighting back and Russia can't handle it. Why? Because Russia doesn't fight wars, they conduct special operations missions. They are used to rolling over their enemies and them staying down and dead. But here Ukrainians are getting back up to fight, and Russia can't deal with it because they didn't prepare for it.
For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either.
I think the biggest problem Putin has right now he made for himself: he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
By no means am I implying that Putin is off the hook for this. He's been the leader of that country for decades now.
> Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down.
This is true to an extent, but it also ignores the geopolitical influences that led him to strike those particular targets. He's been very aggressively countering western expansion in eastern Europe, which is a major reason why he chose to strike Ukraine. Ironically, this move may wind up backfiring in the long run.
> For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either.
Yes, establishing supply lines is military strategy 101. Tanks are not exactly fuel-efficient and require lots of logistics and service to remain battle-ready. The failure of Russian armor in Ukraine feels way more like inept leadership than it does pure hubris. Surely they knew how big the country was before they decided to invade, I have a hard time seeing them being intentionally so ill-prepared as to think they wouldn't need to refuel these multi million-dollar tanks.
> he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
I think is this way oversimplifies and glosses over many key facts around the geopolitics of the situation.
Crimea was mostly ethnic Russian and the annexation has remained fairly popular in that part of the country. The reality is that Ukraine is a poorly segmented country that still sees major Russian support in its eastern half. It's really only the western half of Ukraine that consistently votes to join the EU and NATO.
Keep in mind that Crimea happened right after president Yanukovich was removed via a coup for being a Russian sympathizer himself, so Ukraine was in a leadership transition at the time. Zelensky OTOH has rejected many offers by the Kremlin to align with Russia, which makes him far more dangerous to Putin.
I think Putin surrounded himself with yes men that promised a swift and powerful invasion and failed to deliver because they're fundamentally corrupt and have no real idea how effective their military resources are. The Russian economy is much worse today than it was when Crimea was annexed, which in turn fuels corruption.
I was initially surprised Russians forces haven't steamrolled Ukraine, BUT, I think that's intentional move by Russian Military leadership. Throwing your hot hand in immediately at country that recently received large shipments of [known effective] Western ATGM's... probably isn't the best move. Essentially: Putin sent green 18 year-old recruits to the slaughter to see what would happen. Ukraine repels the first wave using valuable ATGM munitions, letting Russia send experienced tank crews come later when Ukraine ammunition is spent.
No matter the scenario, the real loser is again Russia. Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west.
It's very difficult to imagine anyone in the Russian command planning what we're seeing here. The veterans I'm seeing comments from are baffled. Russian troops are not practicing land-war 101 here and are just walking around in the open in tightly bunched groups with their hands in their pockets.
This is just wishful thinking, Putin isn't an idiot even if CNN tries to portrait him as such.
I expect China to be taking notes and wouldn't be surprised to see them reign in their 'wolf warriors' and claw back their aggressive posturing once the dust settles. The "Taiwan issue" just became a lot more complicated for them.
After reading that link, that seems to be a pretty accurate summary, when adding that
> China also relies heavily on the SWIFT system. These facts might well lead China to a somewhat prudent move when it comes to providing financing with Russia, as jeopardising its own ability to transact in US dollars would never be a good idea.
So that they are cautious to
> comply with the letter of the law, but in my opinion, not the spirit of the law [Alicia García Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis in Hong Kong]
> Gary Ng, an Asia economist at Natixis, said the current sanctions regime gives China considerable room to continue legitimate trade with Russia.
It's tough because the sanctions are meant to be bad enough but not so bad that alternative systems start to benefit too much, reducing Western - and US-$ - influence in the long run.
They’re advancing but I think the general impression is everyone expected the Russians to make way more progress vs a far “weaker” foe.
Abandoned vehicles, no air superiority….
I’m short they look weak even while advancing.
I wonder if Putin and Co believed their own BS?
China, I wonder if they were caught off guard by it, the war, the response, or even just Russian performance in the war.
China’s statements have been evolving quickly.
Of course they did, that's how narcissistic psychopaths like Putin operate. And just to be clear it doesn't matter what "and Co" think, it only matters what Putin thinks. At this point he's surrounded himself with enough lickspittles and sycophants that he never hears the truth.
Think about this from Putin's perspective. Putin invaded Georgia and the world did nothing. Putin invaded Crimea and the world did nothing. Putin interfered in the American election in 2016 and not only did the world do nothing, the US party he helped actually shifted their foreign policy to be more pro Russia at the expense of Ukraine [1]. Trump stood next to Putin and in front of the world told us that he believed Putin's account of 2016, that it was Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in the election. Republicans defended Trump and by extension Putin at all levels for this. The official party line morphed from the idea that Ukraine interfered to the idea that the interference and hacking was all a hoax that we imagined[2], again helping Putin. Why wouldn't Putin think that 50% of American politicians would support his invasion of Ukraine?
Trump's first impeachment was over Trump attempting to extort a bribe from President Zelinksy by withholding diplomatic relations, which at the time the new Zelinsky administration was hoping to use to bolster their legitimacy; and Javelin missiles, which thankfully the Ukrainians now have because they are using them to great effect against Russian armored vehicles.
So yeah, Putin probably felt pretty safe going into Ukraine. He probably felt like 50% of the United States political establishment would back him up and cause a complete gridlock for the US trying to muster a response, because they have been on his side since 2016. And he's not wrong, up until last week they were calling him "savvy" and "smart" for gaslighting the world about a Nazi genocide being conducted by Zelinsky! That was before the war crimes so a lot of them have changed their tune, but the song they were singing before was exactly what Putin wanted to hear. He's definitely high on his own supply.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568310790/2016-rnc-delegate-t...
[2] And if at long last you still believe it was a hoax, just remember that the loudest voices calling it a hoax for 6 years were just last week calling Putin savvy and that he would never invade Ukraine. They were were dumbstruck when Putin invaded (Tabbi, Greenwald, looking at you). Completely floored. So maybe some people need to take a step back and reassess who are credible voices when it comes to Putin and Russia. To see what Putin was doing over the last month and to conclude that he didn't intend to invade reveals a stark ignorance about Putin and Russia, so really why should we listen to them ever again on this topic? Also read the Muller report and Senate Intel report on these issues, because they're indisputable at this point.
But war is war...
Cut a deal to pull out.
Would be great for everyone. Blame Putin, gives everyone an out.
I wish the best for the future of the Russian people, to get a government they deserve, one that doesn't throw human life wantonly into a meat grinder.
Naw, that would have prevented us from toppling Sadam in Iraq, or Gaddafi in Libya. We couldn't support Saudi Arabia's current War in Yemen.
Better to be realistic: reward our friends, punish our enemies.
Ukraine? Friend.
Russia? Enemy.
It's simpler this way.
Like, the US at least attempted to invent a casus belli for Iraq, and it was one that Saddam couldn't aggressively contest without revealing Iraq's weakness to Iran. Gaddafi was deposed because his administration killed protestors and provoked a civil war. Yemen is a proxy conflict against Iran and while our involvement is indefensible the goal of the aggressors isn't to annex the country.
Even Russia has benefited from this ambiguity: the international response to the Russian seizure of Crimea was very limited, and there was essentially no organized sanction over their campaign in Syria (which included at least one attack on US soldiers).
In this conflict, Putin's speech ahead of the invasion of Ukraine made it absolutely clear that there is nothing provoking this conflict beyond Russian imperialism. The erroneously published document outlining the rationale assuming a Russian victory confirmed those sentiments [1].
Ukrainian resistance bought time for a coordinated response and the personal heroism and charisma of Zelenskyy (along with strong American leadership in the background) galvanized Europe. A hard line against wars of conquest is a good one to draw and rally around, even if it isn't perfect.
[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-state-news-published...
Again: reward your friends, punish your enemies.
Lie ("invent a casus belli") if you have to in order to punish your enemies.
Everyone here trying to give some ideological reason why we did such and such in this case, but not in this other case, is entirely mistaken. Literally everything is spin to justify the core motivation: reward your friends, punish your enemies.
Ukraine is no different. We can invade Iraq because they are our enemy. Russia CANNOT invade Ukraine because they are our friend.
----
Answering your follow up here (I'm rate-limited):
> What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies?
As I understand things, Crimea is literally the friend/enemy distinction in action (Russian perspective):
Crimea, arguably (and certainly, effectively) was/is a Russian territory, autonomous (but pro-Russian) and with an active Russian naval base, that came under the nominal control of the West after the 2014 regime change (enemy); thus Russia militarily took it back (friend), ensuring its continued independence and pro-Russian stance.
Ukraine responded to Crimea's post-2014 autonomy/invasion/rescue/independence by cutting off their water supply, something Russia built for Crimea during the USSR. (I'm honestly surprised this step wasn't/isn't a Hague-level human rights violation. Maybe the Hague is also operating primarily under the friend/enemy distinction?)
More detail here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE (Why Russia is Invading Ukraine)
Russia was able to invade Ukraine and annex a big chunk of its territory in 2014, and the idea that Ukraine was less our "friend" then than it is now doesn't hold water to me. What was different about the 2014 invasion if it is strictly realpolitik friends and enemies?
Was in response to a US-supported coup against a president friendly to Russia. What are a US Ambassador and a US Assistant Secretary of State doing at a political protest in a foreign country?[1]
> U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland arrived on Wednesday morning at Independence Square in Kyiv and began speaking with protesters rallying in support for Ukraine's integration with the European Union, an Interfax correspondent reported from the scene.
> Nuland is treating protesters with cookies, biscuits and bread from a big package. She is being accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Demonstrators are cheering Nuland with joyful shouts, some are chanting "God bless you."
> Nuland also approached Interior Forces troops deployed at the square and also offered them cookies, which the soldiers accepted silently.
[1] U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Nuland arrives at opposition rally in Kyiv (https://web.archive.org/web/20220228205358/https://en.interf...)
None of that, of course, is responsive to the original question of why Ukraine wasn't a friend in 2014 (in your narrative, this follows a coup and the installation of a friendly, western regime) but seems to be a friend now. Why Russia was able/allowed to annex Crimea with minimal international outcry is obvious—he either had or successfully fabricated a plausible enough claim—but doesn't fit in with the idea that all rules of conduct are applied only against enemies and not to friends.
It would have stopped us from what is nearly universally considered a horrible mistake that led to immense bloodshed?
Why do you say that like a bad thing?
He doesn’t offer that to Russians anymore…
Word has it Russians largely thought there wouldn’t even be a war.
I hope the locals can deal with him quickly and change course.
As for Putin himself, this whole situation seems odd even for a macho saber rattler like Putin. I think there is something to wondering an his frame of mind.
> And what is such a man capable of? This scares me.o
Yes, this is a scary time. I saw someone on twitter suggest that we need to offer him some sort of safe haven he can retire to so he doesn't feel so cornered. Not sure it that would work, though, probably too much pride. Probably the best we can hope for at this point is some kind of palace coup. Some of the oligarchs are already speaking out publicly against him which indicates that any level of fear they had of him is waning. An internal coup would've been an unrealistic expectation a few days ago, now it seems within the realm of possibility.
I think the timer started counting until the coup. Oligarchs are really pissed and may return to politics despite the risks. Ordinary people starting feeling the pain queuing at banks and ATMs, noticing already raising prices, or being stuck abroad without access to money or any options to return home. Many people lost significant part of their savings that was invested in stock. Army is likely feeling betrayed - many officers who have to send their soldiers to Ukraine now didn’t expect the war with slavic brothers. What we see in Ukraine now may be just a first act of an enormous tragedy.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30476246
[1] https://imgur.com/a/IQ4ZHVT
I don't know if this is 100% accurate, but it seemed to help my understanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
tldw - oil, a better border where Belarus cannot be surrounded by NATO, and better access to shipping ports.