Navigating the Tensions in Ukraine: A Scientific Perspective

[DennisN]

An interesting interview with Fiona Hill on recent events. Among other things she argues that one of Putin's ambitions seems to be to establish a hold on what is called Novorossiya (New Russia), which is the south of Ukraine. Furthermore, please note there is an inaccurate map in the video which is said to show which countries have sanctioned Russia.

Fiona Hill on alleged Russian atrocities in Ukraine and Putin’s future (Face The Nation, Apr 3, 2022)

Fiona Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council during the Trump administration, discusses Russia's actions in Ukraine and how Vladimir Putin could tighten his grip on power.

Another thing which I think haven't been mentioned in this thread before:

Russia threatens Wikipedia with 4 million ruble fine for coverage of war in Ukraine (WikiNews, April 2, 2022)

On Thursday, the Russian government's communication agency, Roskomnadzor, threatened to levy a 4 million rubles fine (US$47 thousand) against Wikipedia if it does not remove information about the war in Ukraine from its article 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Roskomnadzor referred to the content as "unreliable socially significant materials, as well as other prohibited information" and accused Wikipedia of deliberately misleading the Russian people, but it did not say which specific details it wanted removed.

Guidelines issued by the government of Russia last month prohibit, for example, referring to the conflict as a war. Many independent Russian news agencies and journalists either shut down or left the country.

[...]

A spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation told the press the Russian government had asked for changes twice, on March 1 and March 29. The spokesperson went on to say "The Wikimedia Foundation supports everyone's fundamental right to access free, open, and verifiable information; this escalation does not change our commitment."

[...]

 

[anorlunda]

I understand that many here think that limited war probably won't lead to WW3. But we must ask ourselves about the consequences of the improbable case. If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

Another point. The WW3 risk applies only when both combatants are nuclear superpowers, or members of NATO. If we had Sweden provide coastal defenses for Ukraine and Switzerland provide a no-fly zone, the implicit risk of resort to nuclear weapons would not be present.

 

[fresh_42]

If we had Sweden provide coastal defenses for Ukraine and Switzerland provide a no-fly zone, the implicit risk of resort to nuclear weapons would not be present.

You did not count for the moron factor. I do not think that Putin can actually be trusted in this respect.

The lesson learned from the only application of nukes in a war we know of reads: "One or two strikes win the game." I am sure it would if a nuclear weapon hit Stockholm or Zurich.

 

[Frabjous]

I understand that many here think that limited war probably won't lead to WW3. But we must ask ourselves about the consequences of the improbable case. If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

By that logic, with only the West responsible for preventing nuclear war, the Russians will win every confrontation.

 

[PeroK]

If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

And there's a good chance of a pre-emptive nuclear strike by Russia in any case. Your aspiration for a safe world is an illusion. Every day I wonder whether Putin will nuke London today.

We are not in a secure world. Not by a long way.

 

[anorlunda]

By that logic, with only the West responsible for preventing nuclear war, the Russians will win every confrontation.

The technical word relevant to our debate is deterrence. It is the foundational principle of military defense in almost all countries. It is not one-sided. It works both ways.

The Russians were deterred from intervening in Iraq. In Syria, direct NATO-Russian combat came close, but it was avoided.

Indeed, Vietnam and Korea were cases where Russia provided aid, weapons, and training, but no direct combat. That is similar to what we have done so far in Ukraine. They were deterred. We are deterred in the case of Ukraine.

We may hate it, but MAD is the reality that we live under.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see pre-emptive nuclear strike and second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

 

[PeroK]

The technical word relevant to our debate is deterrence. It is the foundational principle of military defense in almost all countries. It is not one-sided. It works both ways.

The Russians were deterred from intervening in Iraq. In Syria, direct NATO-Russian combat came close, but it was avoided.

Indeed, Vietnam and Korea were cases where Russia provided aid, weapons, and training, but no direct combat. That is similar to what we have done so far in Ukraine. They were deterred. We are deterred in the case of Ukraine.

We may hate it, but MAD is the reality that we live under.

We all understand that. The question is what do we do about Ukraine. We are already angering Putin by sanctions and supplying Ukraine militarily. As I said above, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we should perhaps become neutral (like India) and leave Ukraine at Russia's mercy.

There must, by your argument, be a greater risk of nuclear war by what we are already doing, than by abandoning Ukraine altogether.

And, you've still not given any clear indication of what if anything you are not willing to sacrifice to avoid military confrontation with Russia.

Where is your line in the sand?

 

[pinball1970]

We all understand that. The question is what do we do about Ukraine. We are already angering Putin by sanctions and supplying Ukraine militarily. As I said above, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we should perhaps become neutral (like India) and leave the Ukraine at Russia's mercy.

There must, by your argument, be a greater risk of nuclear war by what we are already doing, than by abandoning Ukraine altogether.

And, you've still not given any clear indication of what if anything you are not willing to sacrifice to avoid military confrontation with Russia.

Where is your line in the sand?

I agree with you BUT we are not at that point yet.
He has invaded a non-NATO country, committed atrocities and the west is providing money arms and passage for refuges of that country.
The line in the sand is where he strays from this into A NATO country.
This means we watch him butcher a country lie about it and gets away with it while we watch.
That is the price to avoid WW3 (at the moment)

 

[wrobel]

He has invaded a non-NATO country,

Such an argument implies that a NATO-country must also be leaved without a help. The nukes factor exists in both cases independently on whether it is NATO or not. I feel that this story will bury NATO as well.

 

[russ_watters]

The technical word relevant to our debate is deterrence. It is the foundational principle of military defense in almost all countries. It is not one-sided. It works both ways.

That's not what you have been describing though. You're putting 100% of the responsibility for avoiding nuclear war by being passive on the US/west as if we don't also have nuclear weapons and a strong conventional military. And in a way you're right: we've told Putin in plain language that we will not respond militarily as long as he doesn't attack NATO, removing our deterrence power from the situation. That's why Putin felt comfortable invading.

A change in stance to active military response would put our deterrence back on the table.

...except that you don't believe that any non-zero risk is acceptable, which means that you don't really believe in deterrence, doesn't it? Deterrence requires a credible risk/threat.

But we must ask ourselves about the consequences of the improbable case. If end of the world is one of the possible outcomes, even a small chance is unacceptable.

The problem here is that we neither set the odds nor control the game. We can decline to buy a lottery ticket and still lose.

Another point. The WW3 risk applies only when both combatants are nuclear superpowers, or members of NATO. If we had Sweden provide coastal defenses for Ukraine and Switzerland provide a no-fly zone, the implicit risk of resort to nuclear weapons would not be present.

That I agree with at least a little. The question still is, who would Russia use nukes against and why/under what circumstances. If he'd only use them against the US then only the US needs to stay out. If he'd only use them against another nuclear power, then only those powers need to stay out. If he'd use them against anyone who would dare join the fight, then the only way to avoid nuclear war is let him do what he wants.

In order to assess the risk, it takes more than vaguely saying "its possible".

 

[PeroK]

I agree with you BUT we are not at that point yet.
He has invaded a non-NATO country, committed atrocities and the west is providing money arms and passage for refuges of that country.
The line in the sand is where he strays from this into A NATO country.
This means we watch him butcher a country lie about it and gets away with it while we watch.
That is the price to avoid WW3 (at the moment)

If I were in a country bordering the Ukraine I would think that anyone who allows Ukraine to be butchered is ultimately not going to protect me when the time comes.

It's not that I don't think you mean what you say, but that when my turn comes, your nerve will fail you.

If I were Putin, that's what I'd think too. If they let me butcher a country of 45 million, why would they worry about a country of 1.9 million (Latvia)?

You're not going to risk WW3 over Ukraine but will over Latvia? Really? I don't believe it! Sorry.

 

[russ_watters]

I agree with you BUT we are not at that point yet.
He has invaded a non-NATO country, committed atrocities and the west is providing money arms and passage for refuges of that country.
The line in the sand is where he strays from this into A NATO country.

Note, we are not currently providing substantial reinforcement to Europe (and didn't during the months of build-up). If he had rolled through Ukraine in 2 weeks he might have seen an empty border with Poland and thought "why not?" Even if we had wanted to fulfill our obligation we might not have been able to stop him.

Ironically Ukraine's success seems to have decreased our willingness to engage, though it was already close to zero.

 

[PeroK]

There's also a more pragmatic, strategic apsect that the loss of Ukraine is a major industrial and agricultural loss to us and gain to Russia. Not to mention the number of men of military age that can be conscripted to fight for Russia against Poland, say.

Ukraine seems worth fighting for for that reason as well.

 

[russ_watters]

We are not allowed to destroy a 100k years of human effort because we are offended by Putin and his apologists (And I do feel deeply offended) What needs to come out of this horror is a world where this will be less likely to happen next time. That is the best we can hope for, and a small victory.

We aren't the ones who would destroy it, Putin is. The argument being made here is that any direct action by the US/NATO no matter how small could trigger Putin to nuke us, so we should do nothing and let the bully tire himself out.

Fortunately the bully has shown he's not as strong as we thought. But Putin is only 69 and he has time to learn and correct his mistakes. So, what shall we teach him?

 

[geordief]

That's not what you have been describing though. You're putting 100% of the responsibility for avoiding nuclear war by being passive on the US/west as if we don't also have nuclear weapons and a strong conventional military. And in a way you're right: we've told Putin in plain language that we will not respond militarily as long as he doesn't attack NATO, removing our deterrence power from the situation. That's why Putin felt comfortable invading.

A change in stance to active military response would put our deterrence back on the table.

...except that you don't believe that any non-zero risk is acceptable, which means that you don't really believe in deterrence, doesn't it? Deterrence requires a credible risk/threat.

The problem here is that we neither set the odds nor control the game. We can decline to buy a lottery ticket and still lose.

That I agree with at least a little. The question still is, who would Russia use nukes against and why/under what circumstances. If he'd only use them against the US then only the US needs to stay out. If he'd only use them against another nuclear power, then only those powers need to stay out. If he'd use them against anyone who would dare join the fight, then the only way to nuclear war is let him do what he wants.

In order to assess the risk, it takes more than vaguely saying "its possible".

How about getting ourselves to a position where that risk no longer needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency (as it does presently)?

There is however not one obvious path to achieve this aim at this juncture since nuclear disarmament (and the prevention of nuclear proliferation) has failed.

If we bend over backwards to appease Putin's aggression we are simply kicking the can down the road but if we resist his aggression too directly we may provoke the escalation that will end with a terrible conflagration that will affect us us .

Seems like we have to steer a middle course and hope that we have competent steersmen on board.

 

[pinball1970]

There's also a more pragmatic, strategic apsect that the loss of Ukraine is a major industrial and agricultural loss to us and gain to Russia. Not to mention the number of men of military age that can be conscripted to fight for Russia against Poland, say.

Ukraine seems worth fighting for for that reason as well.

We need to step back for a minute. We are discussing WW3 and nuclear war like it is a real possibility.

Putin has already failed in Ukraine, losses, sabotage, poor morale, UN and global outrage (mostly) severe sanctions and retreat.

Biden, Johnson etc will already have a line in the sand, this far and no more.i don't know what that is but I am guessing it will cost the lives of more Ukraine people.
It is a hideous choice.

 

[pinball1970]

Note, we are not currently providing substantial reinforcement to Europe (and didn't during the months of build-up. If he had rolled through Ukraine in 2 weeks he might have seen an empty border with Poland and thought "why not?" Even if we had wanted to fulfill our obligation we might not have been able to stop him.

Ironically Ukraine's success seems to have decreased our willingness to engage, though it was already close to zero.

Yes and as a civilian I am ashamed about that, at least it is not my country being bombed and we are avoiding all out war.
As I said it is a cowards choice and a hideous one but one I support until he crosses the line

 

[neilparker62]

We are not allowed to destroy a 100k years of human effort because we are offended by Putin and his apologists (And I do feel deeply offended) What needs to come out of this horror is a world where this will be less likely to happen next time. That is the best we can hope for, and a small victory. We are a very young advanced ( i.e. one capable of self-annihilation) civilization.

That's an interesting (but probably accurate) definition of an 'advanced' civilization ! Let's hope we are advanced enough not to self-destruct!

 

[PeroK]

We need to step back for a minute. We are discussing WW3 and nuclear war like it is a real possibility.

It is. This is the result of 20 years of Putin and 20 years of no one in the west realising the danger. We have either a crazed dictator who still thinks Europe is under Nazi occupation (and has convinced perhaps 70 million of the 140 million Russians of that); or, hopefully, we have a cynical gangster who can't believe his luck.

None of us knows.

Kasparov's book that warned of all this is called Winter is Coming. We may not have reached the depths of that winter, but it's certainly arrived. And that winter brings with it the risk of nuclear war.

The day Putin invaded Ukraine I looked out my window and thought: if he nukes London what will I see? If he does, the one thing I won't feel is surprise.

 

[vela]

Someone who disgrees with you is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who proposed to run against Putin for president in 2003 and served 10 years in jail as a result. He believes that force is the only thing Putin understands or responds to and that appeasement just encourages him. Now, I'm not saying that Khodorkovsky is correct - I simply do not know - but it does mean that your proposed policy of appeasement could be the one that leads to WWIII.

I'm not really suggesting appeasement. I'm saying that going past restoring the status quo and doing the one thing that Putin's been so adamant about opposing would be provoking him.

As @artis noted, the process of Ukraine joining NATO is a long one, so just tell Putin, "We'll guarantee Ukraine won't be joining NATO for the next two decades." Come to an agreement that Ukraine will remain a neutral country for now. It wouldn't be a lie as practically speaking, that's what would have happened anyways, and it might have been enough to put Putin at ease. And then hopefully, he dies in the meantime.

Not least because Poland will be next and they are in NATO. At that point you and @anorlunda will have to decide whether to throw Poland out of NATO or risk WWIII. If you don't want to risk WWIII over Ukraine, why would you risk it over Poland?

I don't think you can equate Ukraine with Poland. The Poland-Russia border is relatively small and so easier to defend. The Russia-Ukraine border isn't. We, in the West, may think, "Who cares? We're not planning to invade Russia." Putin, on the other hand, considers NATO as a threat or a potential threat. He's likely convinced that despite everything the West's assurances, the US and Europe are just waiting for the right time or the right excuse to invade Russia and take it over. That's why he likely sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat. Poland being in NATO probably doesn't make him happy, but it's not the existential threat Ukraine's membership would pose in his eyes.

I understand that you and @anorlunda are convinced that any attempt to oppose Putin militarily will lead to WWIII. But, you may in fact be dead wrong. By not standing up to Putin you may be encouraging him that all of Europe could be his. And that will lead to WWIII.

I don't think I've ever said anything like this. I certainly don't think we should let Putin have his way. At the beginning of the war, I bought into the narrative that the Russian military would take over Ukraine in a matter of days and therefore felt the western nations were being too cautious. Now, I think the best thing we can do is support Ukraine by providing arms and humanitarian aid. I'm not convinced that getting directly involved militarily would be the smartest course right now, but I also don't think we should rule it out altogether either if the situation changes.

 

[neilparker62]

How about we just invite Russia to join NATO?

That was a serious consideration at some point. In light of current events, it's perhaps somewhat tragic that a potential 'game changer' of this magnitude seems to have been overshadowed by Boris Yeltsin's drinking problems!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...p-nato-malcolm-rifkind-chequers-boris-yeltsin

 

[BillTre]

I'm saying that going past restoring the status quo and doing the one thing that Putin's been so adamant about opposing would be provoking him.

You can not take Putin at his word. It is worthless and done for domestic PR and manipulating opponents.

 

[PeroK]

I'm not really suggesting appeasement. I'm saying that going past restoring the status quo and doing the one thing that Putin's been so adamant about opposing would be provoking him.

Okay.

As @artis noted, the process of Ukraine joining NATO is a long one, so just tell Putin, "We'll guarantee Ukraine won't be joining NATO for the next two decades." Come to an agreement that Ukraine will remain a neutral country for now. It wouldn't be a lie as practically speaking, that's what would have happened anyways, and it might have been enough to put Putin at ease. And then hopefully, he dies in the meantime.

This is not a strategy. Ukraine will never be safe, because we can't trust anything Russia says. Have you seen Lavrov? He's like a character in a black comedy about dictatorship.

I don't think you can equate Ukraine with Poland. The Poland-Russia border is relatively small and so easier to defend. The Russia-Ukraine border isn't.

If he conquers Ukraine, there's your border. The border with NATO that, by the way, he claims is unacceptable to him.

We, in the West, may think, "Who cares? We're not planning to invade Russia." Putin, on the other hand, considers NATO as a threat or a potential threat.

Possibly. I'd like to see your evidence that the Russian intelligence services think that.

He's likely convinced that despite everything the West's assurances, the US and Europe are just waiting for the right time or the right excuse to invade Russia and take it over. That's why he likely sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat.

I don't buy that. Quite the opposite, in fact. I believe he sees the west as weak and decadent and more worried about fuel prices than genocide. The UN cannot act with Russia permanently on the security council in any case.

If he was really worried about NATO aggression, he must have expected us to join the war in Ukraine. Whereas, he's banking on us staying out. That doesn't add up, if you ask me.

He's also banking on us not really hurting him with sanctions because we don't want to hurt ourselves. I.e. weak and decadent. Too frightened to pull the plug on his oil and gas sales. Hoping that we just keep making token gestures.

Poland being in NATO probably doesn't make him happy, but it's not the existential threat Ukraine's membership would pose in his eyes.

Possibly. I wonder whether that view is more hope than expectation.

I don't think I've ever said anything like this. I certainly don't think we should let Putin have his way. At the beginning of the war, I bought into the narrative that the Russian military would take over Ukraine in a matter of days and therefore felt the western nations were being too cautious. Now, I think the best thing we can do is support Ukraine by providing arms and humanitarian aid. I'm not convinced that getting directly involved militarily would be the smartest course right now, but I also don't think we should rule it out altogether either if the situation changes.

Okay. That's a valid point. But, you have to be prepared for 45 million people to be crushed in the meantime.

Ultimately, it's not you or I that decides. I'm sorry that we've appreared to clash over this, but it's good to debate these things openly I think.

 

[anorlunda]

Sigh. I'm discouraged by this form of debate on PF. Seldom does anyone (including me) change their mind. We (including me) engage in point-counterpoint on a shoot-from-the-hip basis with several exchanges per day.

I'm a big fan of well conducted Oxford style debates, especially https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/

Debaters are chosen because of their research, long involvement and publications on the question. They have ample time to prepare. They are cognizant of the likely arguments by the opponents. The format gives them ample time to state their case without interruption, but not enough time to put the audience to sleep. The format also provides for challenges to their points by the opposition and the moderator, plus time for an uninterrupted final statement. Audiences to such debates are more amenable to persuasion.

Therefore, I'm going to unfollow this thread.

 

[russ_watters]

We, in the West, may think, "Who cares? We're not planning to invade Russia." Putin, on the other hand, considers NATO as a threat or a potential threat. He's likely convinced that despite everything the West's assurances, the US and Europe are just waiting for the right time or the right excuse to invade Russia and take it over. That's why he likely sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat.

You really believe he believes that? That would be a powerful combination of crazy and stupid if it's true, and doesn't indicate to me that we can trust his stability enough for appeasement to produce a fruitful result for us.

Poland being in NATO probably doesn't make him happy, but it's not the existential threat Ukraine's membership would pose in his eyes.

It's tough for me to imagine that it isn't turtles all the way down. If we had designs on invading Russia already and Ukraine becomes a weak part of Russia that we were previously contemplating bringing under our protection, why wouldn't that motivate us to invade Russia (Ukraine)? If we're the aggressors then the "buffer zone" isn't for him it's for us. It's a neutral country that we'd have to step over to get to him. If he's next door then we can just attack him from our (NATO's) border. In that case the only real benefit for him taking over Ukraine would be in making it part of Russia in name only; in reality just being a crumple zone that he doesn't care about. This would require that he isn't actually imperialistic (despite invading and conquering his neighbors!) and was lying when he said that Ukraine is a historical part of Russia and the USSR's dissolution was a tragedy.

But again, I suppose if he's crazy/stupid then trying to apply logic here will fail anyway. But the tortuous logical knots here are part of the reason why I believe the situation is exactly as it appears to be at face value. No knots required.

 

[artis]

I don't think you can equate Ukraine with Poland. The Poland-Russia border is relatively small and so easier to defend. The Russia-Ukraine border isn't. We, in the West, may think, "Who cares? We're not planning to invade Russia." Putin, on the other hand, considers NATO as a threat or a potential threat. He's likely convinced that despite everything the West's assurances, the US and Europe are just waiting for the right time or the right excuse to invade Russia and take it over. That's why he likely sees Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat. Poland being in NATO probably doesn't make him happy, but it's not the existential threat Ukraine's membership would pose in his eyes.

Indeed you cannot equate Ukraine with Poland. This Polish border with Russia is also much different because instead of bordering with the mainland like Ukraine where you can station tons of equipment and troops , Kaliningrad oblast is a small territory surrounded from all sides by NATO, Russia would never be able to put so many weapons there without having some sort of intervention happening especially given how the situation now has changed.

 

[pinball1970]

Sigh. I'm discouraged by this form of debate on PF. Seldom does anyone (including me) change their mind. We (including me) engage in point-counterpoint on a shoot-from-the-hip basis with several exchanges per day.

I'm a big fan of well conducted Oxford style debates, especially https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/

Debaters are chosen because of their research, long involvement and publications on the question. They have ample time to prepare. They are cognizant of the likely arguments by the opponents. The format gives them ample time to state their case without interruption, but not enough time to put the audience to sleep. The format also provides for challenges to their points by the opposition and the moderator, plus time for an uninterrupted final statement. Audiences to such debates are more amenable to persuasion.

Therefore, I'm going to unfollow this thread.

This is not a normal situation but I hope you check in and or stay in.
I think absolutely everyone is on the same page wrt stopping Putin and saving lives in Ukraine.
Action from NATO is where posters differ.

 

[neilparker62]

Sigh. I'm discouraged by this form of debate on PF. Seldom does anyone (including me) change their mind. We (including me) engage in point-counterpoint on a shoot-from-the-hip basis with several exchanges per day.

I'm a big fan of well conducted Oxford style debates, especially https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/

Debaters are chosen because of their research, long involvement and publications on the question. They have ample time to prepare. They are cognizant of the likely arguments by the opponents. The format gives them ample time to state their case without interruption, but not enough time to put the audience to sleep. The format also provides for challenges to their points by the opposition and the moderator, plus time for an uninterrupted final statement. Audiences to such debates are more amenable to persuasion.

Therefore, I'm going to unfollow this thread.

Thanks for your contributions all the same - thought provoking.

 

[pinball1970]

This may sound whimpy to posters and I understand why. Supply Ukraine with more drones, SAM everything we have. Everything. Not planes that's his excuse. Everything else. What do we need these for if not this?
From the UK?
Carry on ramping up the sanctions and provide succour to our Ukrainian brothers WITH an apology.
He touches Latvia? Yes, we launch. Population does not matter, it is the line.
@PeroK

 

[PeroK]

I feel like I've posted enough on this thread. The war is consuming my thoughts, so I ought to give it a rest for a while.

 

[artis]

By the way, today Vladimir Zhirinovsky died, at age 75.
Apart from his drunk rants of nuking US and how George Bush is a idiot cowboy (the video is still out there but since the man died , well let's forget) he was also a strong supporter of Putin's imperialist policy.
He once said that in a war with NATO , most bombs would fall in the parts closer to Russia etc.
For those that care about the details you can google his name the news are full.

 

[vela]

You can not take Putin at his word. It is worthless and done for domestic PR and manipulating opponents.

But you can take a Russian spokeperson at his/her word that they have no intention of using nuclear weapons? Just because Putin says something doesn't mean it's automatically a lie. He's been consistent about insisting Ukraine stay out of NATO, and it's not implausible he feels this way because he sees NATO as a threat, even though we don't.

 

[vela]

You really believe he believes that? That would be a powerful combination of crazy and stupid if it's true, and doesn't indicate to me that we can trust his stability enough for appeasement to produce a fruitful result for us.

I think he thinks if western leaders (except Trump) had the chance, they'd try to get him removed from power and replaced. It's a vicious circle. He acts out based on his assumptions. We see him as evil, corrupt, and a danger to the rest of the world and treat him accordingly, which simply reinforces his belief we're out to get him.

Invading Russia might not be the most likely way of removing him from power, but it's also not infeasible. He saw the US make up fake reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.

I think you have a tendency to think Putin sees us the way we see ourselves. We're the West. We're good! American exceptionalism at its finest. He doesn't think of us that way.

 

[BillTre]

But you can take a Russian spokeperson at his/her word that they have no intention of using nuclear weapons? Just because Putin says something doesn't mean it's automatically a lie.

Its also not implausible that all that is coming out of Russia on this is a continuous stream of BS going back (lo these many years) to when he first got in power and ment to benefit only Putin.

He's been consistent about insisting Ukraine stay out of NATO, and it's not implausible he feels this way because he sees NATO as a threat, even though we don't.

There is nothing really supporting this (like real actions) and it seems stupid to me.
"He wants to get nuked because the neighbors of the biggest country in the world have changed."
Jeez. What a bunch of crap!

His motivations are Putinian:
He has a lot to gain if people take his rantings more seriously than they should, with little consequences (since many wouldn't believe him anyway).
When he's telling the truth. its an accident, like a stopped clock being right twice a day.

 

[DennisN]

The war is consuming my thoughts, so I ought to give it a rest for a while.

I understand. This is very serious stuff, and it takes its toll. I also feel it. Take care!

 

[bob012345]

The Doomsday Clock hasn't been moved any closer since the invasion of Ukraine. It is still set at 100 seconds to midnight as it was in January.

https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/bul...=Web&utm_campaign=DoomsdayClockMarchStatement

 

[russ_watters]

I think he thinks if western leaders (except Trump) had the chance, they'd try to get him removed from power and replaced...

Invading Russia might not be the most likely way of removing him from power, but it's also not infeasible.

So that would make this about him, not about Russia. I didn't realize that's what you meant and doesn't seem to fit his narrative. Still, I guess it's possible that he sees this but it would be a halucination.

I think you have a tendency to think Putin sees us the way we see ourselves. We're the West. We're good! American exceptionalism at its finest. He doesn't think of us that way.

No, I don't. Those are opinions, not facts. I don't expect him to share my "good" vs "bad" opinions. But as a former intelligence officer I would expect him to be good at evaluating facts, regardless of his opinion of us. I would expect that he's aware of the facts that the US has not acquired any new territory since WWII and has never expressed any desire much less made any move to invade Russia or depose him personally. And that since the end of the Cold War we've only withdrawn from Europe. From a military standpoint I would expect he could accurately have assessed that prior to this war we were less of a threat to him/Russia than any time since WWII.

I suppose he could view Lithuania being part of NATO as the US's "bad" influence, but he can't be unaware of the fact that we are not stationing troops in Lithuania.

He saw the US make up fake reasons to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.

It's possible he saw that and extended it to himself, but it would be a stretch and again require him to have a loose screw and an additional knot.

BTW, Bush was honest where it should matter to a guy like Putin: he clearly and honestly stated the goal of deposing Hussein.

[edit]
Let's play that out a bit more. Suppose this is all about him personally. Suppose he viewed the next steps as:

1. Ukraine joins NATO
2. US moves troops into Ukraine
3. US invades Russia to depose Putin

Him invading Ukraine would have to be a pre-pre-emptive strike to prevent these. But why would we need Ukraine to execute our evil plan? Latvia is a member of NATO, borders Russia and is about the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine is. And it has a nice port (as do its neighbors, which are also in NATO). Why didn't we just send all our troops to attack from there?

It would be odd for Ukraine to be the linchpin in our evil plan that there's no evidence exists.

[Edit] Skipped part of this:

I think he thinks if western leaders (except Trump) had the chance, they'd try to get him removed from power and replaced. It's a vicious circle.

Circle? Cycle? I'm not seeing what you're referring to. I only see a cycle of Putin invading and conquering neighbors with little reaction from us. Laying low for a little while, then repeating. Until now.

 

[russ_watters]

I feel like responding point-by-point is diluting my position so I will restate more succinctly:

The United States does not now nor has it ever had a desire to invade Russia. Not this or any president nor any substantial fraction of the population. This is fact. If Putin is not aware of or does not believe this fact then he has a poor grasp of critical facts. That would be shocking for a seasoned intelligence officer. So I do not believe that he does.

 

[Vanadium 50]

or has it ever had a desire to invade Russia.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

 

[bob012345]

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_Siberia

That wasn't so much a desire to invade and conquer Russia as a necessity to stop the Bolsheviks.

 

[vela]

The United States does not now nor has it ever had a desire to invade Russia. Not this or any president nor any substantial fraction of the population. This is fact. If Putin is not aware of or does not believe this fact then he has a poor grasp of critical facts. That would be shocking for a seasoned intelligence officer. So I do not believe that he does.

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

 

[BillTre]

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

I think the rest of Europe needs a buffer from Russia, in case it decides to invade some other country.

Oh, but I guess that is just so much more unlikely to happen than NATO invading Russia!

 

[russ_watters]

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

That's just silly and you're moving the goalposts. Previously it was that we want to depose Putin but now you're accepting that we don't but asking if I/we can promise it will never change. No, of course we can't - that would be impossible for anybody. But by that logic there's 38,000 other wars that should start now based on lack of future guarantees that Chile doesn't intend to invade Namibia (therefore Namibia should invade!) or New Zealand might later decide to invade Canada (therefore Canada should invade!). Or, of course, we should invade Russia because Russia might in the future decide it wants to invade us. That framing leads to every possible combination of combatants initiating wars against each other.

At this point I can't tell what you're after. Are you still speculating on behalf of Putin or are these your opinions? I can't fathom these thoughts appearing in Putin's head.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the rest of Europe needs a buffer from Russia, in case it decides to invade some other country.

Oh, but I guess that is just so much more unlikely to happen than NATO invading Russia!

Well, if we invade Ukraine to create a buffer against Russia does that count as invading Russia since Ukraine is Russia? What if we invade and then withdraw, does that make it a neutral buffer zone? Just to be sure, maybe we should bulldoze and mine the entire country and put up a wall on each side to make it clear that what's in the middle is definitely a neutral buffer zone.

 

[vela]

That's just silly and you're moving the goalposts.

It seems like you never understood where the goalposts were, and you're the one making ridiculous extrapolations.

You asserted Ukraine should be brought into NATO. I said that could very well provoke Putin. My argument was that Putin sees NATO as an adversary, and he absolutely doesn't want an enemy nation on a hard-to-defend portion of the border in the event that a conflict between NATO and Russia erupts. It's not just about the past and the present. It's about what might happen in the future. Putin's not going to be fine with Ukraine joining NATO simply because NATO hasn't seriously threatened Russia so far.

Your argument seems to be there's no reasonable way for Putin to think NATO is a threat to him now or in the future, but it doesn't really matter what you think is reasonable. It's what he thinks and fears based on his experiences that matters here.

 

[artis]

I suppose he could view Lithuania being part of NATO as the US's "bad" influence, but he can't be unaware of the fact that we are not stationing troops in Lithuania.

I'm afraid this is not true.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/where-nato-forces-are-deployed-2022-01-24/
NATO does station troops within the alliance borders. Some are stationed permanently while others rotate.
We in the Baltics have had all sorts of troops rotate here, Germans, Italians, Americans etc.
US soldiers have participated in drills and some are stationed here.
One thing is certain, the number of troops stationed here so far was minimal, it was barely enough to fill all the tanks with fuel at once, let alone attack Russia.
Putin is making a bargain, he takes Ukraine (if he does) but he gets many times more NATO troops on the other nearby territories + increased EU defense spending, all under way.
Apparently Ukraine is worth it politically and strategically , I do not believe that Kremlin did not anticipate any of this.

 

[artis]

Can you guarantee that will never change? If NATO were to decide, for whatever reason, to attack Russia, Putin would much prefer having Ukraine as a buffer than as a enemy nation right on its hard-to-defend border.

I think vela is right in a sense. I myself don't believe NATO would attack Russia though but let's look at it from a numbers approach

As I said before in this thread , from a purely strategic and military viewpoint having NATO in Ukraine is a weakness for Russia.
We are focusing all the time on politics and good will, yes sure I also don't think NATO will just try to invade Russia, but that is besides the point. If you laid out a battle map in front of an absolutely neutral war expert and asked in which position Russia is better off militarily, and there were 3 options where

Option 1 ) Ukraine in NATO
Option 2 ) Ukraine neutral buffer
Option 3) Ukraine part of Russia or under Russian influence

What do you honestly think would the neutral expert say?

And this is again just from a strategy viewpoint, not taking into account the wishes of smaller nations or value of human life, just pure numbers and maps and positions.

I think the answer is clear, Russia is better off militarily by option 2 or 3.The US has actually done similarly just the difference is that the US tried to do it with much less violence and bloodshed. Instead of just invading Cuba which US had the power to do, they tried to take down Castro alone. Not sure how they managed to fail so many times but still this is historical fact, US tried to overthrown regime in Cuba more times than I can count.
And let's not kid ourselves , US did not care about the freedom or well being of Cubans, US cared about Cuba not being a close position controlled by enemy forces. Cuba is/was important for US as a tactical position. That is why having USSR ICBM's on the island was a red line crossed.This is the sad fate of smaller nations being close to large nations they often get in the crosshairs.
it's just that Russia is on average more violent and tends to deal their political and military objectives with less care for surrounding nations, but Russia is not the only major power that has behaved this way. Pretty much every empire in history from Romans to USSR have done this.
That is not an excuse, given my location I would be dumb to excuse Russian aggression (contrary to what some, one? emotion driven member here has thought a while ago) I'm just stating the facts. Whether you like em or not is up to the reader

 

[artis]

Oh and one more thing, let's stop being hypocritical , I still recall how @ergospherical told me I'm just a armchair wiseguy with slightly above average googling skills , and yet here we are where most of you have piled up the last couple of pages with tons of emotion based speculation and arguing as if any of us had any say in this or any other world conflict.
If anything I should be the one who speculates emotionally given the risk to my well being that my proximity to the conflict gives, maybe @Bandersnatch too as he is even closer to Ukraine I believe.

Sorry for this but I felt I had to say it, otherwise I got criticized for something others are doing and having no problem. Yes I might have been a bit preachy, that I agree is annoying.

I think we need to remember that we are not enemies here nor aggressors, so let us not hold any grudge over one another, politics is a hellish subject to discuss anyway. It is very unfortunate that while discussing a dictator and his actions we start a proxy war on an internet forums.
I honestly don't think anyone here agrees with violence or invasion as a way of international relations, it;s just the details we get tangled up.

 

[PeroK]

It seems like you never understood where the goalposts were, and you're the one making ridiculous extrapolations.

You asserted Ukraine should be brought into NATO. I said that could very well provoke Putin. My argument was that Putin sees NATO as an adversary, and he absolutely doesn't want an enemy nation on a hard-to-defend portion of the border in the event that a conflict between NATO and Russia erupts. It's not just about the past and the present. It's about what might happen in the future. Putin's not going to be fine with Ukraine joining NATO simply because NATO hasn't seriously threatened Russia so far.

Your argument seems to be there's no reasonable way for Putin to think NATO is a threat to him now or in the future, but it doesn't really matter what you think is reasonable. It's what he thinks and fears based on his experiences that matters here.

Could you, in all honesty, go to Ukraine and look into the eyes of the people there and expound your view? Explain to them that it was the West's expansionism threatening Russia that forced Putin into action against them? That really they should be blaming the EU, the US and the UK for the shelling of their cities, the rape and murder of their people?

What are you going to say to the people of Ukraine? That they should stop "threatening" Russia as Putin demands?

The whole of Russian state TV is 24x7 "pure hatred" as @wrobel tells us. Do you disbelieve him? How is it possible for a sane human being not to see the tidal wave of hatred, fear and violence that Putin and his supporters and army have unleased on an essentially peaceful, democratic country?

This is as pure a war of naked aggression as you will ever find in any history books. As unprovoked as any. There was no threat to Russia that was not invented by Putin expressly for the purpose of justifiying a war.

 

[artis]