Current Affairs Ukraine

Status
Not open for further replies.
Keeping the Western powers off-balance and suffering from internal chaos has always been Putin's forte, hence all the election interference and poisonings of defectors. He looks at our leaders and sees a gang of lightweights he can terrify into submission and look tough against. Biden's in his 80s and doesn't know what day it is usually. The new German Chancellor is a massive downgrade from Merkel. Johnson is considered a total laughing stock on the world stage. It's only really Macron he considers a worthy adversary, hence why he invited him to Moscow the other day for a meeting.

His strong-man image is absolutely everything in Russia. There is zero chance of retirement for him, he knows the moment he gave up power he'd be facing a very grisly fate due to the countless enemies he has at home and abroad. This crisis with Ukraine is just the latest gambit he's undertaken to keep his total grip on power. With Crimea in 2014 he followed through with an invasion because he knew NATO would do sod all. Massive victory for him. This time though he's surely bluffing, and if it's called then his days in the Kremlin really are numbered. If he's not bluffing then it's essentially WW3, and Putin for all his evilness doesn't strike me as a the madman you'd have to be to want that scenario.

It's all coming to a head for him one way or another.
 
Martin Alvito said:
We've been over this. NATO has clearly signaled that it's not going to extend Article 5 protections to non-members, which is probably wise.

The Russia-Ukraine problem is radically different than the China-Taiwan problem because the Taiwan Strait exists. See above.

Russia is almost certainly not going to try to take the Baltic States, much less Poland, without very reliable intelligence suggesting that NATO will fracture. A total fracture is slow suicide; no NATO/EU members want to repeat the mistakes of Chamberlain. At the same time, NATO does not a war right now, so any forces in Ukraine will have orders to evacuate/stand down.

Both the US and Russia already have clear no-first-use policies with respect to nukes. The US has been working diligently in the last two decades towards securing an advantage in the strategic space. We withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty, started working on shooting down ICBMs, and recently conducted successful tests of that capability. We have also dramatically improved the hard-target kill capability of what we do have deployed in our ICBM force with targeting and fuse upgrades. If I were on Putin's side of the table, I would be edgy. One way of interpreting those developments, especially if you're a former counterintelligence guy, is that those moves are a prelude to future aggression.

Look at it this way - the only thing preventing first-use is the risk of an unacceptable response. If the US gains 100% superiority in the nuclear space (ie: we can nuke you and we know you can't nuke us back), mutually assured destruction collapses. The US could then credibly threaten to nuke much of Russia. The combination of the country's size and the direction of prevailing winds means that the fallout would stay right where we want it to - over them.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right.

In terms of strategy, Putin has played his hand very well. Much of Western Europe is totally dependent on Russia for gas. He knows he has the leverage on that front. He is also talking openly about nuclear conflict. He knows there would be widespread opposition to us getting involved.
 
cooperman said:
I hope you're right.

In terms of strategy, Putin has played his hand very well. Much of Western Europe is totally dependent on Russia for gas. He knows he has the leverage on that front. He is also talking openly about nuclear conflict. He knows there would be widespread opposition to us getting involved.
Click to expand...
He has played it well. He has advantages. He has a unified, coordinated strategy where the EU, by its nature, does not. He knows where the weak points are, he knows where the divisions lay, and he presses his advantage along those fracture points.

He has some disadvantages along the domestic political front, long borders and an ungodly amount of dirt to defend. It doesn't really surprise me that dealing with the security challenges is fairly high up on his list of priorities, so he can focus on keeping his rule secure.
 
EFCPaul said:
Keeping the Western powers off-balance and suffering from internal chaos has always been Putin's forte, hence all the election interference and poisonings of defectors. He looks at our leaders and sees a gang of lightweights he can terrify into submission and look tough against. Biden's in his 80s and doesn't know what day it is usually. The new German Chancellor is a massive downgrade from Merkel. Johnson is considered a total laughing stock on the world stage. It's only really Macron he considers a worthy adversary, hence why he invited him to Moscow the other day for a meeting.

His strong-man image is absolutely everything in Russia. There is zero chance of retirement for him, he knows the moment he gave up power he'd be facing a very grisly fate due to the countless enemies he has at home and abroad. This crisis with Ukraine is just the latest gambit he's undertaken to keep his total grip on power. With Crimea in 2014 he followed through with an invasion because he knew NATO would do sod all. Massive victory for him. This time though he's surely bluffing, and if it's called then his days in the Kremlin really are numbered. If he's not bluffing then it's essentially WW3, and Putin for all his evilness doesn't strike me as a the madman you'd have to be to want that scenario.

It's all coming to a head for him one way or another.
Click to expand...
It'll not be WW III. The West will impose sanctions and that's it; in military terms, he has a free-hand to invade. The issue is how people will react economically.
 
EFCPaul said:
Keeping the Western powers off-balance and suffering from internal chaos has always been Putin's forte, hence all the election interference and poisonings of defectors. He looks at our leaders and sees a gang of lightweights he can terrify into submission and look tough against. Biden's in his 80s and doesn't know what day it is usually. The new German Chancellor is a massive downgrade from Merkel. Johnson is considered a total laughing stock on the world stage. It's only really Macron he considers a worthy adversary, hence why he invited him to Moscow the other day for a meeting.

His strong-man image is absolutely everything in Russia. There is zero chance of retirement for him, he knows the moment he gave up power he'd be facing a very grisly fate due to the countless enemies he has at home and abroad. This crisis with Ukraine is just the latest gambit he's undertaken to keep his total grip on power. With Crimea in 2014 he followed through with an invasion because he knew NATO would do sod all. Massive victory for him. This time though he's surely bluffing, and if it's called then his days in the Kremlin really are numbered. If he's not bluffing then it's essentially WW3, and Putin for all his evilness doesn't strike me as a the madman you'd have to be to want that scenario.

It's all coming to a head for him one way or another.
Click to expand...

That first bit is why this is such a bad move from him - he will not be able to do that anything like as easily as before if he does this; even the politically similar troll-nationalist regimes (like the one in Poland, or Orban) are going to be reminded of their recent fates under Russian control and probably return to some sort of cooperation with the rest out of their own self-interest.

There will be far more NATO troops on the border very quickly, far less opportunity to interfere (even we will probably be forced to give up the Russian money that has corrupted the City, various law firms and fed the Tories for so long) and (probably) a better calibre of leader in the near future as populations see more risk in their futures and have less tolerance for "characters" or for the usual political games that have facilitated what he's been doing. We might even find NATO expanding again, as Finland and Sweden look at whats happened to Ukraine (and Belarus) and end up with a choice of being eaten or not.

I'd even suggest this might be the catalyst that gets an actual and effective EU Armed Forces created - the argument for having them was strong before now but after this (and Brexit removing its main internal opponent) it is probably overwhelming if this happens. That should terrify Moscow as it could lead to a perfect storm for them, several orders worse than what happened in the 80s - they'd be trying to militarily compete against an opponent that has much deeper pockets, a much bigger population, an incentive and huge capacity to expand its power in that respect, a considerable societal pull on the Russian population as well as the capacity to peacefully expand itself (which the US lacked).
 
I've always thought that Russia would walk in invited to Ukraine and the west would look like idiots.

Russia just has to park its forces within its borders or inside those of Belarus and the situation normalises and the west loses focus. If the situation stays as it is for 6 months even most of the swivel eyed loons going on about nuclear warfare in this thread will lose interest.

There's no 'winning' to be had through conflict. Want to take Russia out as an enemy, it's a long term entanglement of their economy into the western one whilst enforcing anti-laundering of criminal and pilfered assets. Culturally they're ripe for the taking. It would take a unified effort though so looks like this drama will repeat itself for some time to come.
 
tsubaki said:
That first bit is why this is such a bad move from him - he will not be able to do that anything like as easily as before if he does this; even the politically similar troll-nationalist regimes (like the one in Poland, or Orban) are going to be reminded of their recent fates under Russian control and probably return to some sort of cooperation with the rest out of their own self-interest.

There will be far more NATO troops on the border very quickly, far less opportunity to interfere (even we will probably be forced to give up the Russian money that has corrupted the City, various law firms and fed the Tories for so long) and (probably) a better calibre of leader in the near future as populations see more risk in their futures and have less tolerance for "characters" or for the usual political games that have facilitated what he's been doing. We might even find NATO expanding again, as Finland and Sweden look at whats happened to Ukraine (and Belarus) and end up with a choice of being eaten or not.

I'd even suggest this might be the catalyst that gets an actual and effective EU Armed Forces created - the argument for having them was strong before now but after this (and Brexit removing its main internal opponent) it is probably overwhelming if this happens. That should terrify Moscow as it could lead to a perfect storm for them, several orders worse than what happened in the 80s - they'd be trying to militarily compete against an opponent that has much deeper pockets, a much bigger population, an incentive and huge capacity to expand its power in that respect, a considerable societal pull on the Russian population as well as the capacity to peacefully expand itself (which the US lacked).
Click to expand...
My sense is that the physical security risks are further up his list of concerns than long run grand strategy. He has a relatively short time horizon at this point. Reality is that we can't realistically launch an invasion staging from the Baltics. The troops would be too vulnerable to WMDs. I also think he figures that the political and economic fallout will die down over time, as it always has before, and he's probably right about that.

Since the EU has a mutual defense component, I would tend to predict some of the same things you're predicting with respect to the EU arming. I do think that they'll free-ride as hard as they can unless/until the US becomes untrustworthy. I also think that the one-foot-in, one-foot-out states that are in the EU, but not NATO, will be pushed towards membership in both. I don't see it becoming a truly cohesive whole. The identity politics are just too strong.

I don't have a lot of optimism with respect to improved governance in the West. Very few people over here, including the ostensibly educated ones, are capable of looking much what they perceive to be short-run self-interest. Isolationism is quite popular, blatant corruption is tolerated, and those that are less well-off are vulnerable to demagoguery.

My guess would be that the game stalemates from here, which should suit Putin just fine. He wants the Baltic states back, but they're just not worth the risk. He'll saber-rattle a bit when he needs to domestically, keep chipping away at the EU and NATO, and probably start trying to sow further division between the G7 and China.
 
It's scary how much we rely on Russia for energy supplies. A war is something that no one wants.

Yet if Russia attack Ukraine, i just don't see standing by and doing nothing, as a viable option tbh.

NATO and the US will have to respond in kind. If airstrikes are launched on Ukraine, then such a thing cannot go unanswered imo.
 
Only Corbyn and his subservient acolytes believed Putin to be anything but an opportunistic autocrat. Only Corbyn questioned the obvious Salisbury poisonings which showed the Russian leaders true intentions. Corbyn was Putin's useful idiot but now Putin sees an even bigger one in the White house.

Taliban Joe Biden is possibly the weakest president in living memory, certainly since the last century and Jimmy Carter. Weakness when demonstrated so spectacularly in Afghanistan is often preyed upon by a militaristic bully or hardman as Putin would term it.

Seeing Germany's dependence on the oil line, a pathetically weak president even in historical terms in Taliban Biden and the laughable Macron, Putin knows he'll never have a better opportunity to further any expansionist ambitions.

It's also perhaps a little revealing just how poor has been the continents response to giving anything to Ukraine, it seems we send troops and continental Europe does nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top