Ukraine

[Travis]

Now here is where you guys shine, the money thing.

How long can old Putin keep throwing resources at this war? 

I look at battle maps and the cities are surrounded.  It just doesn't look like winning.

For the reasons you just implied, time is on Ukraine's side. The longer they can hold out, the worse for Russia. A couple major cities are surrounded and it sucks for them. A couple major cities are nearly surrounded, but still able to survive with enough forces to make it very painful for Russia. Russia's ability to make any more significant gains appears limited.  They're losing hundreds of soldiers for gaining a few miles.  Kyiv is considered safe enough that the Prime Ministers of four nations felt safe enough to show up for a meeting.  Russia is asking China for food for its army.  They're running out of trained people without completely stripping other borders. Right now for Ukraine, surviving is winning.

[LennStar]

Now here is where you guys shine, the money thing.

How long can old Putin keep throwing resources at this war?  I realize he isn't motivated by the money thing. His money is locked up in western banks and he isn't going to be able to borrow easily.  Will the money thing get him or is it inconsequential? 

I also have an alternate viewpoint.  People say Ukraine is winning.  I look at battle maps and the cities are surrounded.  It just doesn't look like winning.

Money isn't really his problem, since he could not buy anything with it outside Russia anyway.

The thing is that Russia needs winning, while Ukraine simply needs not losing. Not losing means not stopping fighting.
Cities may be surrounded, but the point is they are surrounded, not taken over, right? Taking over a city in brutal house fights is extremely bloody and time consuming.

The casualties both in soldiers and equipment is mounting up. And way faster (and longer) than anyone thought.

This war - if you measure it with Putins goals, meaning installing a puppet regime in a swift operation - is already lost for Russia. If it goes on they might even lose in the sense of destroyed military capabilites. For the 3rd biggest army in the world, that is... well, hard to describe, but not good ;)

Even Putin in placid Russia might lose the grip to power if this goes on for another month or two. He has already destroyed the economic and political capital of Russia for at least a decade.
Every day longer tips the scales against him more, and that is especially true if the leading milliary needs to entertain the thoughts of getting killed in the war (or for their incompetency) themselves.

[Abe]

Ukrainians are apparently very good at fast ambush tactics, destroying tanks at an alarming (for Putin) rate. Now the US is sending cheaper, easy to use drones that are basically guided grenades designed to be flown from a sheltered area into enemy tank columns. This capitalizes on the Ukrainians’ tactics while exposing them to less return fire. Once the Russian artillery is destroyed, they will not even have the ability to carry out their war crimes. Regarding money - these drones are a fraction of the cost of even a troop carrier.

One of my professors in college was a targeting officer for the US in Vietnam. He asked himself (and us) “if I drop a $50,000 bomb on a bamboo bridge, did I destroy the bridge or did it destroy my bomb?”  This is the reverse situation (from the NATO / Ukrainian perspective)

I still think this will be a grinding guerilla war that’ll eventually be replaced in the media by some stupid scandal or what have you. But at least Ukraine has a fighting chance. If they can end the conflict before the US midterm elections, they’ll be in good shape. After that we may find another squirrel to chase.

[GuitarStv]

The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.

That is an untested hypothesis.

Shouldn't, because global nuclear war is objectively worse than every other option.

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

Should people be allowed to help Ukraine by donating arms?  Nope.  Putin might start nuclear armageddon if he doesn't win the war he created - and that's the worst option.  Should NATO defend Poland if Russia invades?  Nope.  Putin might start nuclear armageddon if there is resistance - and that's the worst option.  Should economic sanctions be levied against Russia?  Nope.  Putin might start nuclear armageddon if his economy collapses - and that's the worst option.  Declaring global nuclear war as the worst option means that the craziest man in the room with access to nuclear codes will get anything he wants.

Should we try to avoid nuclear war?  Hell yeah, of course.  But empowering terrorists to do whatever they want out of fear of nuclear war doesn't seem like a viable option.

[sonofsven]

The rest of us cannot intervene because Russia has nuclear missiles.

That is an untested hypothesis.

Shouldn't, because global nuclear war is objectively worse than every other option.

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

Should people be allowed to help Ukraine by donating arms?  Nope.  Putin might start nuclear armageddon if he doesn't win the war he created - and that's the worst option.  Should NATO defend Poland if Russia invades?  Nope.  Putin might start nuclear armageddon if there is resistance - and that's the worst option.  Should economic sanctions be levied against Russia?  Nope.  Putin might start nuclear armageddon if his economy collapses - and that's the worst option.  Declaring global nuclear war as the worst option means that the craziest man in the room with access to nuclear codes will get anything he wants.

Should we try to avoid nuclear war?  Hell yeah, of course.  But empowering terrorists to do whatever they want out of fear of nuclear war doesn't seem like a viable option.

Global nuclear war is definitely worse than any other outcome.

[former player]

Putin sounds like he knows he's in deep trouble here -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJVYqP6eF2U

Just because western news is not talking about something doesn't mean it isn't happening.   We are being told that arms are going to Ukraine but not in what quantity.  We aren't even being told whether the Ukrainians are getting help from western satellite intelligence but can you doubt it?  We aren't being told what help the Ukrainians are getting with intercepting Russian military communications but it is clear that this is happening.  The Ukrainians have killed four Russian Generals so far, that's an indication of excellent co-ordination of intelligence and the supply of what are probably sophisticated weapons getting to boots on the ground who have got, or are getting, the training to use them.  Ukraine is regularly shooting down Russian aircraft and Russian missiles.

Ukraine does need more surface missiles that can take out Russian artillery and more ground to air missiles that can take out aircraft.  It probably needs more drones for surveillance and attack.  Does anyone have any doubts that it is getting them, perhaps not as quickly as would be desirable but certainly on their way.    The USA alone is giving $2 billion in armaments to Ukraine, on top of support from other Nato countries.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/16/fact-sheet-on-u-s-security-assistance-for-ukraine/

I don't suppose Putin has anything near $2 billion he can put into armaments for Ukraine.

What the west is doing for Ukraine is everything short of giving Putin an excuse to attack a Nato country.  The death and destruction that is happening is hard to watch, but that's what war means and it's on Putin not the failure of the west to provide arms since the war started.   If you want to pass blame, then blame Trump as his "we'll let Ukraine have the javelins if Zelensky concocts a corrupt lie against Biden", right? You might also blame the west for not taking action in relation to the Donbas and Crimea, but Putin was clever enough in those two cases to make a Nato response difficult.  Not this time, though.

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

I still think this will be a grinding guerilla war that’ll eventually be replaced in the media by some stupid scandal or what have you. But at least Ukraine has a fighting chance. If they can end the conflict before the US midterm elections, they’ll be in good shape. After that we may find another squirrel to chase.

I just find it a bit odd that the squirrel the media chase never really seems to be the global warming thing.  I guess it is the power of advertising in action.

I saw a disturbing video about the Ukraine "special operation."  Apparently, the Russians have these portable crematoria trucks.  They had videos of them and I don't think this part was faked.  So, the story goes that they are not sending bodies back home.  Perhaps, they would do that for a war, but a "special operation" does not warrant it.  The disturbing part was that the wounded don't stay wounded in the "special operation."  The video said they get a shot in the head and then take their last ride in a crematoria truck.  Retreating Russian soldiers also get shot, but that's not unexpected.

The truck story could be BS, but with the way Putin has treated his soldiers,.........truth is stranger than fiction.

[maizefolk]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

[Sibley]

- SNIP -

I still think this will be a grinding guerilla war that’ll eventually be replaced in the media by some stupid scandal or what have you. But at least Ukraine has a fighting chance. If they can end the conflict before the US midterm elections, they’ll be in good shape. After that we may find another squirrel to chase.

I just find it a bit odd that the squirrel the media chase never really seems to be the global warming thing.  I guess it is the power of advertising in action.

I saw a disturbing video about the Ukraine "special operation."  Apparently, the Russians have these portable crematoria trucks.  They had videos of them and I don't think this part was faked.  So, the story goes that they are not sending bodies back home.  Perhaps, they would do that for a war, but a "special operation" does not warrant it.  The disturbing part was that the wounded don't stay wounded in the "special operation."  The video said they get a shot in the head and then take their last ride in a crematoria truck.  Retreating Russian soldiers also get shot, but that's not unexpected.

The truck story could be BS, but with the way Putin has treated his soldiers,.........truth is stranger than fiction.

I don't know if its true, but I have seen things that indicate that Russia is killing wounded Russian soldiers AND captured Ukrainian soldiers.

[PeteD01]

"RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN ASSESSMENT, MARCH 16
Mar 16, 2022 - Press ISW


Mason Clark, George Barros, and Kateryna Stepanenko

March 16, 5:30 pm ET

Russian forces face mounting difficulties replacing combat losses in Ukraine, including the possible death of the commander of the 150th Motor Rifle Division near Mariupol. Russian efforts to deploy forces from Armenia, its proxy states in Georgia, and reserve units in the Eastern Military District will not provide Russian forces around Kyiv with the combat power necessary to complete the encirclement of the city in the near term. Russian forces made limited, unsuccessful attacks northwest of Kyiv and did not conduct offensive operations in northeastern Ukraine, toward Kharkiv, or toward Mykolayiv. Russian forces did make limited territorial gains in Donetsk Oblast and around Mariupol and continued to target civilian infrastructure in the city. Russian forces will likely continue to reduce the Mariupol pocket in the coming days, but Russian forces likely remain unable to conduct simultaneous attacks along multiple axes of advance."
...

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-16

[Blender Bender]

“86.6% Russians support the idea of ​​a military invasion of another country and believe that it should be Poland, according to an Active Group poll. According to the respondents, it is a logical continuation of the so-called military special operation of the Russian Federation.”

Those russians. They will never change. Always been this way. There should never be reset button.

https://activegroup.com.ua/2022/03/16/survey-says-86-6-of-russians-support-the-armed-invasion-of-russia-in-other-european-countries/

I hope that no-one is naive thinking that changing the putler regime, replacing with some russian opposition would matter. Nope. The opposition vastly supports the imperialism, including Navalny.

The replacement would work for maybe 10y allowing russia to lick their wounds, then rise and repeat. It was ALWAYS like that.

Russia never developed any other national policy, and will NEVER happen. This is what the russian mob wants.

[jrhampt]

My brother-in-law in Austria has begun driving a van to Moldova and bringing back Ukrainian refugees to Vienna for temporary housing.  Lots of people have volunteered to host them.  He says it is very sad and there are lots of women with babies, people crossing the border on foot.

[Blender Bender]

Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.

[MOD NOTE:  What the -  ?  Banned.]

[PeteD01]

Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.

That would be the racist take.

[zolotiyeruki]

I don't believe support for invading Poland is anywhere near 85%.  No way.  No how.  I don't care how hard Russia is pushing their propaganda.

So....I actually lived in Russia for about two years, from 2000-2002, in the area around St. Petersburg.  There is definitely a generational divide between the old-timers who pine for the lost days of Soviet Greatness, and the younger generation, who were much more westernized.  Now, I can't speak for how things may have changed in the last 20 years, but even then, only a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the old guard seemed to be a shrinking minority.  Broader access to the internet can only have accelerated that trend.

People over there are a lot like people anywhere. The vast majority simply want to live their lives, have a family, be prosperous, and be safe.  They have little interest in conquest for the sake of national pride.  They are warm-hearted, genuine people. 

When 9/11 happened, 80% of the people I talked with were extremely sympathetic, particularly because of the 1999 Russian apartment building bombings.  The other 20% were of the "That's what you get, you capitalist dogs" attitude. :)

[PDXTabs]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

Is the new rule that any nuclear armed state can do whatever it wants? That outcome potentially seems worse.

[PeteD01]

Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.

That would be the racist take.

Not seeing how. A hammer in the head statements like that are needed to wake up and face the reality. Without understanding and knowledge there is no chance to make the word better.

It is an incredibly stupid statement that only exposes that you cannot recognize racism when it doesn´t come along as color line racism.
You are apparently living in North America which explains this ignorance.
But you are talking about Europe and Asia and there racism is much more complex and North Americans can get quickly tripped up because they are not even aware of their racist views ("Hey, they aren´t black so what are you talking about").
This problem is not just one of North American whites as Whoopi Goldberg´s recent problems illustrate.
So go and educate yourself before spewing forth more of this BS.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/whoopi-goldbergs-american-idea-race/621470/

[Watchmaker]

Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA.
People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.

That would be the racist take.

Not seeing how. A hammer in the head statements like that are needed to wake up and face the reality. Without understanding and knowledge there is no chance to make the word better.

I'm curious, do you genuinely not see why what you said is racist, or do you know but you think its okay because that kind of "bold" take is needed to wake people up ?

[YttriumNitrate]

Here is a bold statement. People from the west are lacking capabilities to judge and understand russian politics, mentality, and their intends.
Slavic people have the ability in their DNA and history. BTW: the core of russia (without Ukraine and its DNA) is not Slavic, it is more central asian DNA. People from the west are assuming that other people and honest, fair, and well wishing. This cannot be applied to russia.

While dehumanizing the opponent may be useful for improving the combat effectiveness of the average grunt on the ground, doing so at a higher level can have disastrous consequences.

[frugalnacho]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want.  Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card. 

There is also the underlying assumption that while the actual odds may be low, the consequences are so dire that it's just taken as a given in the calculus.  If something has a reasonable chance to possibly escalate to WW3, it must be avoided, even if that means turning a blind eye to genocide and other atrocities.

Thank god the Russia army has been so inept that they haven't even been able to take Ukraine.  With the red line drawn at NATO borders they could have just steam rolled every non-NATO nation and expanded their empire apparently.  And maybe even into NATO territory.  NATO says it will respond with full force, but it's still unclear to me how the risk of nuclear war changes once he crosses that predetermined line and global nuclear war becomes the preferred outcome.

I do wonder just how much genocide we will sit back and watch before someone directly intervenes and risks nuclear war.

What if he starts geocoding his own population because they don't support the state and are thus not true Russians?

[Poundwise]

My brother-in-law in Austria has begun driving a van to Moldova and bringing back Ukrainian refugees to Vienna for temporary housing.  Lots of people have volunteered to host them.  He says it is very sad and there are lots of women with babies, people crossing the border on foot.

That is amazing, thanks to your brother-in-law!!!

I read from several sources the Russian army is holding a hospital in Mariupol hostage.  Outrageous and disgusting!!

[YttriumNitrate]

I do wonder just how much genocide we will sit back and watch before someone directly intervenes and risks nuclear war.

A lot of genocide ... just look at Rwanda in the mid-90s. 3/4 of a million Tutsis and there was a collective shrug by the international community. Even assuming that the NATO countries care ten times more about white Ukrainian lives than black Tutsi lives, we've got a ways to go.

[Glenstache]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want.  Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card. 

There is also the underlying assumption that while the actual odds may be low, the consequences are so dire that it's just taken as a given in the calculus.  If something has a reasonable chance to possibly escalate to WW3, it must be avoided, even if that means turning a blind eye to genocide and other atrocities.

Thank god the Russia army has been so inept that they haven't even been able to take Ukraine.  With the red line drawn at NATO borders they could have just steam rolled every non-NATO nation and expanded their empire apparently.  And maybe even into NATO territory.  NATO says it will respond with full force, but it's still unclear to me how the risk of nuclear war changes once he crosses that predetermined line and global nuclear war becomes the preferred outcome.

I do wonder just how much genocide we will sit back and watch before someone directly intervenes and risks nuclear war.

What if he starts geocoding his own population because they don't support the state and are thus not true Russians?

The fundamental problem with nuclear arms is that they are a trump card. Having thousands of delivery devices (submarines, ICBMs, etc) scattered around the world is definitely so. Part of the calculus is absolutely whether we think that a given provocation will lead to nuclear retaliation. What are the ends that Putin is actually going for and what is the penalty to him for using nuclear weapons? He seems not that concerned about his home population's well being based on the systematic kleptocracy over decades and treatment of them in the last few weeks. He has demonstrated disregard for human life in his absolute decimation of entire cities in Georgia and Syria (see the term "Groznification"). He is very concerned with an abstract idea of a Russian whole (that is based in dodgy history), and how he will be ranked among the various tsars and leaders of Russia in the history books. If he loses in Ukraine and retreats to Moscow, he is also likely to lose power and not looked back on favorably. A cornered Putin with nothing to lose is a scary thing. A cornered Putin with a menu of nuclear options is very scary. I don't like it and I don't like that nukes give people like that so much power... but it does. This is why basically all former US secretaries of state work towards nuclear arms control after office (the last administration may be a departure from this).

If Putin is truly losing in Ukraine, I see a non-zero probability of a tactical nuke being used delivered by plane, artillery, or anything other than an ICBM that would trigger a massive counterstrike. Removing a city from the map in a few minutes does not seem off the table given Putin's objectives and demonstrated disregard for human life.

What are the triggers for deployment of nukes away from Ukranian soil? If NATO (and the US in particular) directly attacks Russians, especially on Russian soil, then things shift. The logic could easily shift to a validation of his vision of western aggression and "you attack my soil, I attack your soil." It doesn't have to be nuking a major US city either. It could be taking out a big chunk of a carrier group. Once the direct conflict hatch has been opened, escalation will be difficult to control and there is no guarantee that Putin will not use nukes. There have been plenty of near misses with nukes in the past, in addition to proxy conflicts between nuclear powers that did not escalate. This one is too close to Russia and the objectives and position of Putin in the conflict increase the odds of nuclear deployment in this conflict IMHO. 

I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.

[GuitarStv]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

The comment that you have pulled out of my post was poorly worded (I think it made more sense in context, but maybe not).

My concern is that fear of global nuclear war prevents us from opposing evil when it arises.  Putin's actions in Ukraine are unusually and starkly evil.  There is no shade of grey version or Russian side that makes the actions acceptable.  He should be directly and militarily opposed for this.

Nuclear war is indeed terrible . . . but fear of nuclear war can't prevent us from making very clear moral decisions.  I think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon is outweighed by the risk of fear preventing the world from doing the right thing.

I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.

There has been a push for nuclear disarmament for quite some time now.  And man, I'd love to live in a world without nuclear weapons.  But there just doesn't seem any realistic possibility of that ever happening.  The more slack we cut guys with bombs (like we're doing with Putin), the harder it becomes to sell nuclear disarmament.  Actually, if I was Ukranian right now, I'd be pretty upset that my country had disarmed it's nuclear weapons.  I bet there would be more support for a no fly zone from world leaders if Zelensky said he would nuke Russia without one.

[YttriumNitrate]

I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.

There have been four countries that have given up their nuclear weapons. One of them is currently being invaded by Russia. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I predict in the coming years there will be a lot of ink used postulating what would have happened without the Budapest Memorandum.

[Tyson]

I think that this is a stark lesson in why we should push for global nuclear disarmament. It is an absolutely insane thing to have in the world given the darker threads of human nature.

There have been four countries that have given up their nuclear weapons. One of them is currently being invaded by Russia. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but I predict in the coming years there will be a lot of ink used postulating what would have happened without the Budapest Memorandum.

I think the underlying idea was that Eastern Europe nuclear disarmament was a first step toward worldwide disarmament.  Obviously that turned out to be wrong, but I think it was worth at least trying.

[zolotiyeruki]

Let's game out the "Russian whole" scenario for a minute.  Let's say that Putin feels cornered, and sets off a nuke in Ukraine.  What then?

One scenario (1):  NATO responds by wiping out Russia's entire military operation Ukraine in about 2 days, using conventional weapons.  Maybe they even go after all Russia's missile submarines.  Maybe the rest of Russia's navy disappears, along with their satellites.  Now Russia is fighting absolutely blind.  What does Putin do here?  Set off another nuke in Ukraine?  That's status quo, except now, nukes are the *only* thing he has.  Does he continue lobbing them willy-nilly at Ukraine? To what end?  With no army to occupy the territory, it would accomplish nothing except increase his own cost of rebuilding, and further isolating him from the world.

Another scenario (2): NATO doesn't respond, but Ukraine surrenders, since it's much more likely than before that Putin will detonate another nuke.  Tens of millions of people flee the country.  Russia takes over, but now they have to deal with a radioactive city, a whole lot of rubble, and resources that Russia doesn't have the ability to exploit.  This is the *best* scenario for Putin.

A third scenario(3):  NATO doesn't respond, but Ukraine keeps fighting, and the West keeps supplying them. Will Putin drop another nuke?  That just gets him back to either status quo, or scenario 2, but worse.

A fourth scenario (4):  NATO responds with nukes, somewhere, and Russia uses that as an excuse for a full-on nuclear exchange.

Scenarios 1 and 4 don't help Putin establish himself as a great leader, but rather "the doofus who got our military wiped off the map" or "the doofus that started nuclear armageddon." Scenario 2, at best, labels him as "the idiot who ruined the place we wanted to conquer." If Ukraine wears down the Russians to the point they have to leave, Putin becomes "the moron who destroyed our army and economy."

IMO, the only way Putin gets in the history books for a good thing is if he is able to claim some sort of victory in Ukraine without nukes.  And even then, it's likely to be at the cost of Ukraine joining the EU, and some of Russia's northern neighbors joining NATO.

Realistically, though, we are all just speculating at what Putin might do, and that's probably exactly what he wants.  We've already called his bluff several times over the last few weeks, by imposing sanctions and continuing to arm the Ukrainians.  If that keeps up, and the Ukrainians continue their success against the Russian army, he'll have to decide whether conquering an irradiated wasteland is worth the effort.

[pecunia]

- SNIP -



The fundamental problem with nuclear arms is that they are a trump card. Having thousands of delivery devices (submarines, ICBMs, etc) scattered around the world is definitely so. Part of the calculus is absolutely whether we think that a given provocation will lead to nuclear retaliation. What are the ends that Putin is actually going for and what is the penalty to him for using nuclear weapons? He seems not that concerned about his home population's well being based on the systematic kleptocracy over decades and treatment of them in the last few weeks. He has demonstrated disregard for human life in his absolute decimation of entire cities in Georgia and Syria (see the term "Groznification"). He is very concerned with an abstract idea of a Russian whole (that is based in dodgy history), and how he will be ranked among the various tsars and leaders of Russia in the history books. If he loses in Ukraine and retreats to Moscow, he is also likely to lose power and not looked back on favorably. A cornered Putin with nothing to lose is a scary thing. A cornered Putin with a menu of nuclear options is very scary. I don't like it and I don't like that nukes give people like that so much power... but it does. This is why basically all former US secretaries of state work towards nuclear arms control after office (the last administration may be a departure from this).

- SNIP -

I just don't get that.  Most. if all, of these Czars ruled a country with dirt poor primitive peasants.  These guys led them on expeditions to conquer their neighbors.  They used these peasants like cannon fodder.  They were taught and believed that they were given their positions by God almighty  In the many times their people tried to get a little bit of freedom, they squashed them like bugs.  Why would any ruler want to be grouped with a bunch of a**holes like them?

Come to think of it Putin recently used the bug analogy and he has been treating Russian boys like cannon fodder.  Whatever his odd motives, he seems to be succeeding.

Maybe we won't have to worry about nukes quite as much when we get people living off of the planet.  Until then, that genie is out of the bottle.

[maizefolk]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want.  Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card. 

It's not an argument. It's a question. Some people won't have any answers. Some people will.

What is a specific example of something that Russia could try doing that would be bad enough you'd be willing to have you, your family, and everyone you've ever met die to prevent them from doing it?

I'm not telling you that you cannot have answers to the question other than "nothing", I'm just curious what those answers are.

[BNgarden]

I continue to rely on experts for their read on the situation and tend to favour Tom Nichols' analysis, see for example:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-war-nato-intervention/627092/

Also, I was interested in a tactic towards (further?) collapsing Russia's army morale / commitment, mentioned at the end of the history lesson by Kamil Galeev:
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1503768312236421120

[maizefolk]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

The comment that you have pulled out of my post was poorly worded (I think it made more sense in context, but maybe not).

My concern is that fear of global nuclear war prevents us from opposing evil when it arises.  Putin's actions in Ukraine are unusually and starkly evil.  There is no shade of grey version or Russian side that makes the actions acceptable.  He should be directly and militarily opposed for this.

Nuclear war is indeed terrible . . . but fear of nuclear war can't prevent us from making very clear moral decisions.  I think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon is outweighed by the risk of fear preventing the world from doing the right thing.

Okay, if you are arguing that less than 100% risk of global nuclear war is less bad than a certainty of some other bad thing, that's a position I can much more easily understand.

Then we're into the dark and murky waters of how likely is a given decision to lead to global nuclear war and how bad is the alternative thing if we don't risk it.

Kennedy was willing to risk a global nuclear war to keep nuclear missiles out of Cuba. Clearly that particular role of the dice paid off, but I honestly don't know I would have made the same calculus in his shoes.

In any case I'm glad we can agree that the actual fact of wiping out the vast majority of humanity, and a large fraction of the non-human biosphere is a really REALLY bad outcome.

[LennStar]

You could also argue that since a nuclear war means nobody is going to survive, you must act like there are no nuclear weapons because otherwise you will be totally unable to do anything.

[maizefolk]

You could also argue that since a nuclear war means nobody is going to survive, you must act like there are no nuclear weapons because otherwise you will be totally unable to do anything.

I'm not sure that I agree with this.

If you're locked in an elevator with a crazy person wearing a suicide vest with a dead man's trigger, should you just act like the suicide vest doesn't exist because if the crazy person's hand slips off the trigger nobody is going to survive?

That doesn't mean you do absolutely anything the crazy person with the vest tells you (after all there are some things worse than death), but personally in that situation I would certainly factor the risk of death into my decision making.

[Abe]

To clarify - no country is worth total nuclear Armageddon. Not in my book. Not even my own, or the several countries I like more. If the price of not having the entire world explode, even in 1 of 100 multiverses, is a bunch of refugees and crumbled cities, then that’s the price we collectively will have to pay for not forseeing this and heading it off (obviously the non-Ukrainian price is much lower and it is crap because they’ve been warning us for years). Yeah it sucks he has a crazy suicide trigger switch, but the world does generally suck and we deal.

However, the current strategy is working, it’s just going to be a way worse slog than either side wants. That’s why starting wars is always stupid. however, trying to ride in on horses with shining armor isn’t always a good idea either. We just have to be smart about crippling Russia so they don’t try something stupid like this again. It’s worth noting that Russia has made basically no significant gains in the last week.

[Travis]

You could also argue that since a nuclear war means nobody is going to survive, you must act like there are no nuclear weapons because otherwise you will be totally unable to do anything.

That's basically the Mutually Assured Destruction that we lived under from 1960 until today. As long as the US and USSR/Russia didn't fight each other directly, the use of nukes was off the table because the expected outcome was total destruction.

[frugalnacho]

You're saying that global nuclear war is worse than every other option?  That's bullshit.

What outcomes do you consider worse than a global nuclear war?

I feel like we hashed this out a bit already, but the logical extension of this argument is that any nuclear power can do literally whatever they want.  Nuclear terrorism has no limits because it's the ultimate trump card. 

It's not an argument. It's a question. Some people won't have any answers. Some people will.

What is a specific example of something that Russia could try doing that would be bad enough you'd be willing to have you, your family, and everyone you've ever met die to prevent them from doing it?

I'm not telling you that you cannot have answers to the question other than "nothing", I'm just curious what those answers are.

I find it a hard question to answer, and I don't know if you even can it by only looking at isolated examples.  When you make a binary comparison between "global nuclear war" or some alternative heinous act that doesn't cause global nuclear war, then the alternative act will win every time, no matter how heinous, because there is no single thing in isolation that warrants the extinction of our species.  But when you follow that to the logical extreme it's absurd.  If Putin declared himself king of the earth, and demanded 50% of the population was to be purged, and all world leaders executed, and everyone else would live peacefully forever after under the world russian federation, that would obviously be a no-go (IMO, maybe others disagree) and governments would risk nuclear warfare.  Even though 50% of the population dead is objectively better than 100% dead, that kind of terrorism couldn't be tolerated.

I don't know where that line is that you need to risk it and put your foot down, or if it's even an objective line, or if everyone can agree on it.

[dang1]

Given that Russia is ruled by a mafia headed by Putin, devoid of deep ideological / religious fanaticism, the motivation for those gangsters is wealth and power maintenance to indulge in the good life.

Criminals gangs, Putin's included, rule by wanton violence to keep usurpers from getting uppity. Well, what more to show off power than by literally pummeling Ukraine to submission. Putin invading Ukraine, is just him wanting to show off he's the baddest mofo in the 'hood.

Thing is, with global nuclear war- then no more fancy lifestyle for the ruling Russian mafia. Someone, some sub-clique, within that coterie will off Putin before he crazily pulls the nuclear trigger

[pecunia]

Given that Russia is ruled by a mafia headed by Putin, devoid of deep ideological / religious fanaticism, the motivation for those gangsters is wealth and power maintenance to indulge in the good life.

Criminals gangs, Putin's included, rule by wanton violence to keep usurpers from getting uppity. Well, what more to show off power than by literally pummeling Ukraine to submission. Putin invading Ukraine, is just him wanting to show off he's the baddest mofo in the 'hood.

Thing is, with global nuclear war- then no more fancy lifestyle for the ruling Russian mafia. Someone, some sub-clique, within that coterie will off Putin before he crazily pulls the nuclear trigger

Do you think these guys have less morals than the old USSR gang?  Take Stalin, he was a bad person.  However, I think the old government at least tried to do sh*t for their people.  I'm kind of thinking the new crowd, the oligarchs, just do what they need to so they are pacified.  Right now they are doing the thing that they used to do in some of the places I used to work.  You guys know, "The Mushroom Management."  The guys in charge of Russia are keeping the people in the dark and tossing some shi* on them once in a while.

[frugalnacho]

Given that Russia is ruled by a mafia headed by Putin, devoid of deep ideological / religious fanaticism, the motivation for those gangsters is wealth and power maintenance to indulge in the good life.

Criminals gangs, Putin's included, rule by wanton violence to keep usurpers from getting uppity. Well, what more to show off power than by literally pummeling Ukraine to submission. Putin invading Ukraine, is just him wanting to show off he's the baddest mofo in the 'hood.

Thing is, with global nuclear war- then no more fancy lifestyle for the ruling Russian mafia. Someone, some sub-clique, within that coterie will off Putin before he crazily pulls the nuclear trigger

He's wrecking up their economy pretty fucking bad right now.  I would think the same logic should hold true for causing economic devastation even without any nukes.  Why hasn't someone stepped in and offed him?  Surely they value their mega yachts, and billions of dollars, and lucrative international deals more than they value Putin's life, so why are they allowing all this economic havoc?

Maybe we just need more time for the reality of the devastation to fully sink in for them.  Or maybe the devastation isn't targeted at the elite enough and they aren't hurting as much as we think they are.  Or maybe they are more afraid of Putin than losing the money.  Or maybe despite the embarrassing military show and laughable miscalculations, Putin is actually very shrewd and has insulated himself from domestic threats; Maybe they want to kill him, but can't, because he saw this coming a mile away and has internal barriers that prevent anyone from going rogue on him.  You don't rise to the level Putin has without a good amount of competency in that area. 

[Glenstache]

It's pretty clear this didn't go the way Putin intended. All signs are that he expect Ukraine to fold and be greeted as a great unifier/liberator. If this sounds insane, remember the absolute bullshit expectations leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Now he is stuck and doesn't have a good way out so is simply pressing forward by brute force, which has been the go to strategy in other conflicts. If the invasion seems like it doesn't make sense, that is an indicator that you are misjudging Putin's values and intended ends.

This is simply a shit situation for all parties at this point. Putin is fucked. As of today Ukraine is fucked from the damage of the invasion and there are no paths that won't have that getting worse. If NATO directly engages Russia, Putin will have a propaganda win at home and things are likely to escalate or spiral into bad places... even if it remains a conventional arms war. At the end of the day, this is a game of hard power and the goal needs to be the "least bad" way to get to the eventual political solution.

[pecunia]

--------SNIP ------

He's wrecking up their economy pretty fucking bad right now.  I would think the same logic should hold true for causing economic devastation even without any nukes.  Why hasn't someone stepped in and offed him?  Surely they value their mega yachts, and billions of dollars, and lucrative international deals more than they value Putin's life, so why are they allowing all this economic havoc?

Maybe we just need more time for the reality of the devastation to fully sink in for them.  Or maybe the devastation isn't targeted at the elite enough and they aren't hurting as much as we think they are.  Or maybe they are more afraid of Putin than losing the money.  Or maybe despite the embarrassing military show and laughable miscalculations, Putin is actually very shrewd and has insulated himself from domestic threats; Maybe they want to kill him, but can't, because he saw this coming a mile away and has internal barriers that prevent anyone from going rogue on him.  You don't rise to the level Putin has without a good amount of competency in that area.

They say there is no honor among thieves.  Is it true?

Putin made these people what they were.  I'm sure some of them went from near poverty in the Soviet Union to wealth they never dreamed of.  Are these sanctions an attempt to buy their allegiance?  Maybe they band together more than we conjecture?  Much of their wealth has been removed.  Has it been permanently been removed? Are they waiting it out?  If they attempt to take the big man out, is there is a good chance they will be discovered and taken out themselves?  Is there little doubt that Putin tracks every one of these oligarchs?  It's only been three weeks, the fate of Ukraine can still turn on a dime.

What kind of chaos would ensue were Putin removed?  Would the oligarchs be able to keep their wealth if it were returned or would the new Russian regime take this wealth that many say was stolen from the Russian people?  Is it better to have the devil you know or the devil you do not?

[former player]

Sanctions against the oligarchs are mainly about sending a message to western populations that their politicians are 1) honest and 2) taking effective action against Putin.  Make your own mind up about those two.  They are also partly about preventing Putin from accessing that money to get around other sanctions.

It is a mistake to think that the oligarchs have any influence on Putin.  They are his clients, not his employer.

Sanctions in themselves are not confiscation: that would be a separate process.

Putin puts a lot of effort into not being assasinated: those long tables are nothing to do with covid because when the people in the room are not a potential threat (.all those air stewardesses) he sits next to them.  Even if it were possible to kill Putin it would have to be a suicide mission.

[Tyson]

Number of Russian troops deployed to Ukraine - 210k
Number of people in Ukraine Military - 200k

I'm not actually seeing a big numbers advantage for the Russians here.  And the Ukraine's don't need to 'waste' any other their soldiers on things like logistics or convoys.  So the actual number of fighters is quite possibly higher for Ukraine than for Russia. 

[Sibley]

Number of Russian troops deployed to Ukraine - 210k
Number of people in Ukraine Military - 200k

I'm not actually seeing a big numbers advantage for the Russians here.  And the Ukraine's don't need to 'waste' any other their soldiers on things like logistics or convoys.  So the actual number of fighters is quite possibly higher for Ukraine than for Russia.

Are you just counting their military? Because they also have the Territorial Defense, and the last number I heard for that was $100k, plus various international volunteers (many of whom have serious skills and experience).

Russia has more of everything of course, but it's really a question of what they're willing/able to commit.

From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.

[lemanfan]

Speaking from Sweden here:

One thing is for sure, this has changed a lot of politics in Europe.  More unity, re-arming militaries that has been dormant since the fall of soviet / communist block, definitely some changes in upcoming elections (we have one in Sweden this fall).  Not all of this may be good.

The 30 year effects of this is huge. Like Zelenskyy said recently, this is our 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

[lemanfan]

From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.

I really wonder how many of this long range missiles they have?  They must be expensive and e.g. the Iskander system was at least before this invasion reported to be more at the borders to be able to reach northen Europe from Kaliningrad and near St Petersburg, and some in the east to be able to do some damage in Japan and China.

That's of course just the launching systems, but each missile must also cost a sweet dime so they cannot be endless in supply.  Sending troops close to the target and just using simpler weapons must be cheaper, especially as they don't seem to care for russian soldiers lives.

[Watchmaker]

From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.

I really wonder how many of this long range missiles they have?  They must be expensive and e.g. the Iskander system was at least before this invasion reported to be more at the borders to be able to reach northen Europe from Kaliningrad and near St Petersburg, and some in the east to be able to do some damage in Japan and China.

That's of course just the launching systems, but each missile must also cost a sweet dime so they cannot be endless in supply.  Sending troops close to the target and just using simpler weapons must be cheaper, especially as they don't seem to care for russian soldiers lives.

I haven't seen any numbers on how many they might have, or how many they can build a year (and do they need imported parts to do that?). But aren't these the same missile systems that would deliver nuclear warheads, so wouldn't they need to keep a lot of them reserved for that?

I do remember reading early on that they had used some of the older missile systems as well, in addition to the Iskander.

[Tyson]

Speaking from Sweden here:

One thing is for sure, this has changed a lot of politics in Europe.  More unity, re-arming militaries that has been dormant since the fall of soviet / communist block, definitely some changes in upcoming elections (we have one in Sweden this fall).  Not all of this may be good.

The 30 year effects of this is huge. Like Zelenskyy said recently, this is our 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

Yep, nothing unites people like a common enemy.

[Just Joe]

I feel like the best outcome would be for Ukraine to actually hold off Russia without other nations 'stepping in'.  Here's the thing, if some other nation steps in, I think Putin would blame his failure on that other nation.  But if Ukraine beats him straight up, there's no other mitigating factor for him to lay blame on.

Unfortunately regardless of the outcome - we are faced with a world placing new emphasis on their military might. The peace was nice while it lasted. Good gosh humans are a violent species.

[Sibley]

From what I can tell, the area where Ukraine is really screwed is Russia's long range bombing capability. If they're shooting missiles from 100 miles inside Russia, that's really hard for Ukraine to counter. They don't have that capability.

I really wonder how many of this long range missiles they have?  They must be expensive and e.g. the Iskander system was at least before this invasion reported to be more at the borders to be able to reach northen Europe from Kaliningrad and near St Petersburg, and some in the east to be able to do some damage in Japan and China.

That's of course just the launching systems, but each missile must also cost a sweet dime so they cannot be endless in supply.  Sending troops close to the target and just using simpler weapons must be cheaper, especially as they don't seem to care for russian soldiers lives.

I haven't seen any numbers on how many they might have, or how many they can build a year (and do they need imported parts to do that?). But aren't these the same missile systems that would deliver nuclear warheads, so wouldn't they need to keep a lot of them reserved for that?

I do remember reading early on that they had used some of the older missile systems as well, in addition to the Iskander.

I'm at work, or there's a couple sources I could link for you. There's the OIST or something like that (I see on Twitter), they track visually confirmed destroyed equipment. Michael something is a researcher/policy/military/whatever guy, from what I can tell he's legit and I know I've seen some stuff from him somewhere about how much Russia is estimated to have. Then there's a Kamil something guy who's less military but very much seems to know his stuff on the culture/history side of things, which absolutely does impact the military. Then there's the Institute of War (thinktank) that is closely following events, and posting on their website. I haven't been reading their stuff but from what I can tell, they are respected and referred to by actual militaries.

I will try to remember to come back and update with links.

Bottom line - Russia has a LOT. It's more how much they're willing to spend on Ukraine, because their resupply is limited, especially with the sanctions.