Russia has thousands of nuclear missiles. This makes them immune to NATO invasion.
But how would the nuclear option play out?
Here I am, a Russian oligarch. I ordered the Ukrainian invasion because I bet that NATO wouldn't intervene because of my nukes. But it turns out I was wrong and NATO is pushing back my invasion.
So I fire some nukes.
But then they fire nukes back at me.
????
Did I profit?
Of course, I don't believe there is such a system, or if there is it's very local; if it comes to nukes, they will come from anywhere (e.g. nuclear submarines) and can end up anywhere. If there was an effective anti-nuke system, we'd see launchers pop up everywhere, or if it's a space based one, see many launches of those to get enough coverage (like starlink).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status-6_Oceanic_Multipurpos...
I think the mistake here is to assume that the invasion is dictated by economic interests (be they oligarch interests). I don't think what's happening is driven by oligarchs, but by other geopolitical ideas (insane as they are).
As far as I can see it there's no bet. Russia pretty much knows the US will not react, and the US has no interest to start WW3 over Ukraine.
Look at where they sit strategically. The amount of resources they supply to an increasingly resource hungry world. The amount of math and science talent. The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry.
Look at what they are doing militarily right now and how effectively they are doing it.
They are an extremely significant country. This is true no matter how you feel about their government.
Overpriced healthcare, insurance and banking services might not be as valuable as oil, minerals and manufacturing going forward.
I just feel it's a huge conceptual mistake to underestimate the relative weights of forces.
Russia's economy is dependent on fossil fuels. While the decrease in Europe's use of nuclear power has been a gift to Russia, the future for fossil fuels is not bright and Russia's kleptocratic government has starved the nation of economic innovation.
I don't know what "extremely significant country" means here, but Russia is objectively a country in decline both in terms of economic and cultural power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
But that's the only thing they supply. At least in Europe (I hope) they'll start decoupling from Russian fossil resources asap.
> The amount of math and science talent
Pales in comparison to the US, China or the EU (taken as a block) and possibly even in comparison to the UK or Japan.
> The possession of advanced nuclear weaponry
This insures that MAD still works, but not much more I think.
Which is the last thing anyone should want because it will simply deepen ties between Russia and China.
Russia in 2022 has a GDP of $1.5T, and NATO has a combined GDP of $42T (2). Even if you make the case that Russia's current economic activity translates more effectively into wartime industry, I don't believe you can possibly make the case that it is 28x more effective.
Germany also had military technology and strategy advantages (see France in 1940) over its (early war) opponents. As good as Russia's "math and science talent" is, I would be shocked if it was even a quarter of the capability that the US alone has.
So no, Putin in 2022 is not comparable to Hitler in 1939.
(1) - http://www.zuljan.info/articles/0302wwiigdp.html. (2) - https://countryeconomy.com/countries/groups/nato
China is taking Russian engineers and cheap resources. In the meantime, Putin complained that they didn't invest enough back.
Total GDP ain't big either. Military is 6% of their gdp with a lot of older material too ( = maintenance cost)
Very low vaccination rates, means very low trust in the governement.
Russia is doing this because of a weak position. Not from a strong one.
China is giving something to give Russia confidence, but really not much.
I don't believe this, unless you define "significance" as nothing more than having your name in the world newspapers, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
Does NATO intervene when Russia starts (or really continues) courting pro-Russian politicians?
Does it intervene if that minority starts protesting?
Does it when that minority starts resisting?
Does it when Russia smuggles them arms?
Does it when little green men show up?
Does it when the rebels (now mostly little green men) advance West?
This go around the West tried sanctions and it obviously didn't work. Estonia is far more Western and fewer historic ties to Russia than Ukraine did. So it might not progress past step 1 in the playbook. Almost certain that Putin is going to try and likely will try for at least a couple decades to come.
For instance, we've seen it dramatised in season 3 of Berlin Station: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5191110/episodes?season=3
My imagination says: as soon as new facts are established (let's say blitz invation of a city), you are tempted to not respond because you don't want to start a world war. Of course this fails the overarching theory (MAD, tit for tat etc), but I wouldn't think it's impossible. Maybe for example USA would say it wants to respond with sanctions to avoid a larger war.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
* Use subversive tactics to destabilize countries
* Use natural resource control to pressure countries
* Use military as a last resort when influence fails
Basically, make energy deals with Germany, ignore the US and UK and install puppet governments in Eastern Europe through bribery and propaganda until they can be annexed or granted “special status”.
But how can you establish facts, when you have to kill hundreds or thousands of US soldiers in NATO country first? Do you think that the US will say "shit happens" lets do some financial sanctions? Biden already said that as soon as russians shoot US troops we have WW3. And I think no other conclusion could be drawn here.
Or the war could turn into a route against Russia and defeat would mean the end of Putin's life. Why would he not draw a red line of threatening nukes, and mean it, in that situation?
I am a NATO Commander, I order the attack on Russian Troops in Ukraine. Russia retaliates with Nukes and I fire mine back and they fire theirs back on my Home Nation.
Did I profit?
This is just a slightly different version of a Cuban Missile Crisis. It has nothing to do with economy.
This is a classic game of "chicken", and NATO has basically told everyone they wouldn't get directly involved.
All your arguments happen to apply to NATO commanders too.
Here I am, head of a NATO member. I see Russia invade a country that we don't really care that much about. If we intervene there's a chance the world might end (and I will die). If we don't do anything except say some stern words online we'll lose some face but our money and lives are safe.
Do I intervene?
In a game of "chicken" the side with the most to lose and the side that believes they are most "rational" will lose. That losing side seems to be NATO now. Putin's image of being an irrational dictator willing to win at all costs is why he's winning this "chicken" game easily.
After all, Putin told 2 days ago he wants NATO out of Romania and Bulgaria:
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/01/21/get-out-of-romania...
This is a very good question.
My guess is there will be a period of consolidation (one year, maybe two) and then the next target will be set, either Belarus will be pulled back in or Kaliningrad will be re-connected to the mothership. The fact that it isn't is a serious issue for Russia, they have to cross NATO controlled territory to get to one of their more important bases.
For instance, I think it's not one but two separate Citizen's Initiatives for joining that have each gathered enough signatures to qualify for debate in Eduskunta, the Finnish Parliament. (Not that it was all that far below that before this either.)
An attack on Moldova is not beyond conceivable. Bulgaria and Romania however are NATO members with US troops stationed there - Russia will not risk WW3 over those countries.
Serbia is a bit far to be invaded without a lot of other things happening before that.
Let's say afterwards Russia nukes Western Europe/the US. What then? That's the thing with MAD, you have to be mad to toy with the possibility.
What would make him desperate enough to sacrifice the entire current and future of Russia? Losing an invasion of Estonia?
When you are 70 years old, spending half your life revered as a great leader of a nation, you would be desperate not have your historical legacy ruined by losing a war and possibly your status and pride in your final years.
I'm definitely of the opinion that this would be an unlikely scenario, but then, are you willing to bet the future of the planet on a hunch that a single person that you don't know personally is actually not unhinged and desperate?
I don't know about you, but I'm personally going to avoid betting on anything that has a mere 1% chance of resulting in nuclear winter.
The scenario that we have been discussing is NATO's response to a Russian invasion of a NATO member such as Estonia. What are NATO's options?
1. Full scale (offensive) war. They attacked us, we will end this in Moscow 2. Repel the attack, take no aggressive action beyond what is required to come to a stalemate 3. Do nothing
I have argued elsewhere with you that I don't see 1. as being at all likely due to NATO's goals, defensive posture, and military superiority.
Doing nothing would only embolden Russia and destroy any pretense of an alliance at all. If not in Estonia, when would NATO intervene? Poland? Germany?
Thus, repel the attack and take no aggressive action. De-escalate and give options for Russia to save face.
We don't have to bet that a single person is not unhinged enough to press the button. There are command and control limitations purpose-built into even Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin also wouldn't want his historical legacy ruined by the thorough destruction of the present and future of Russia. I'd go further to say that he knows all this, and wouldn't invade a NATO member in the first place.
I hope this is not how nuclear strategy and tactics is prepared. If sane people are in charge, retaliations will be proportional and exchange will be limited.
Russia obliterates Katowice, one of several countries obliterates Volgograd. What is the next move? You just ended the lives of a million of your citizens. You just stop there?
No way do the hawks win that argument.
Imagine you're the engineer involved with launching a nuke. In times of peace even if you get a phishing call to launch a nuke, you'd have second thoughts and probably take a couple more steps to confirm. In war time, you're already primed for the possibility of the nuke being used and it takes far less for a malicious actor to end the world as we know it.
Same for all levels of decision makers. It really just takes one trigger-happy maniac to make a wrong decision somewhere.
One reason I think this to be true is exactly the risks that you mentioned - the more hot the war gets, the more bodies, the more likely mistakes are made.
In a hot war where multiple countries are involved you can't expect the fighting to just stop once you hit a border. Even when you have the upper hand, the temptation to carry through once you are already engaged in a conflict is real.
I agree that NATO would be very reluctant to so much as fire an artillery shell over the Russian border, but Russia might well forfeit a great deal of personnel and equipment in such a move, anyway. Having troops & equipment abroad is a major liability if you pick a fight with a country (or coalition) that badly outclasses you.
look at the US: Trump is Putin's buddy, and he pushed the 'America First' tagline.
Look at the UK, they broke away from the EU.
Look at the eastern countries, Poland and Hungary; they have right-leaning governments that broke the rule of law and the separation of legislative branches, which caused them to get sanctioned by the EU, which fuels anti-EU sentiments. And in eastern Europe, anti-EU is pretty much equivalent to pro-Russia.
I haven't heard about it myself, but I'm sure anti-NATO sentiments will increase as well. It's only a matter of time before they get people to leave NATO. Especially if NATO does not come to the defense of a NATO country, they will lose their trustworthiness then.
But if anything, Eastern European countries will cling to NATO more than ever, they most certainly won't leave it.
Just look at the most recent speech of the Czech president, who is generally pro-Russian (the president, not the whole country). In the speech he absolutely condemned Russia's aggression and expressed support to Ukraine. Moreover, he urged to kick Russian Federation out of the SWIFT system as soon as possible.
But Russia doesn't need to fight those countries. They are hundreds of kilometers away from the Russian border. Ukraine on the other hand is hundreds of meters away. Having Ukraine in NATO or in the EU is a threat to Russia and its leadership today. So Russia will look to poison Ukraine for these 2 organizations and make it an unattractive member.
When EU got too close in 2013-2014 Russia responded in exactly the same way. Both the US and Russia have reacted in the same manner when the enemy tried to reach their borders in any way (via Cuba or via Ukraine). So in 2022 pursuing any relationship particularly between NATO and Ukraine could not have had any other result. It is absolutely inconceivable that this was unexpected given the obviousness, so it's a safe assumption that the goal is to keep Russia fighting and draining the little they have left, with Ukraine paying the (biggest) price. "Buffer" countries always do.
This seems a leap, or am I misunderstanding your comment?
My view is that this is about maintaining a fading colonial empire. Ukraine has been drifting away from Russian influence at least since 2014 and since Russia does not have the economy to re-assert its influence through trade it has to do so by military means.
I have no facts to base it on other than news propaganda, but I think they are too late to re-capture Ukraine and this rather desperate move will only bolster the Ukrainian nationalism. The Russian forces also will not be able to hold the Ukraine well enough to extract any sort of economic benefit from it. 45 million is a lot of people.
Putin has stated that he views Ukrainian membership in NATO and the presence of NATO forces on their border as an existential threat to Russia so that is at least the public reason that they are doing this. If we take that at face value then the objective is to destabilize Ukraine to the point where they are ineligible to join NATO for a long time. That doesn't bode well for the Ukrainian people.
Any intent with Donetsk and Lugansk -- such as "protecting their borders"; which "borders", the ones with Ukraine? -- is an intent with Ukraine. Donetsk and Lugansk are "countries" only in the eyes of Russia and Belarus; in the world the rest of us live in, they're parts of Ukraine. (Like Crimea.)
> Putin has stated that he views Ukrainian membership in NATO and the presence of NATO forces on their border as an existential threat to Russia so that is at least the public reason that they are doing this. If we take that at face value...
Here's a better idea: Let's not.
And yet no single (super)power in the world would accept this assurance and allow adversaries to take positions at their borders. The US didn't allow Russian missiles in Cuba, and most definitely wouldn't allow China to set up base there today despite any assurances that China would never preemptively invade the US.
There may be many reasons behind this war that we'll never know but the one you don't have to guess. It's been tested and proven accurate over our entire history.
Without centralised command issuing computerised targeting info, it will be for missile officers own initiative to launch them, fully knowing from what they learned in the military academy that an uncoordinated launch will likely be futile.
USA missile defences in Arctic, and North Pacific can guarantee intercept a dozen uncoordinated launches, if what Raytheon says is true.
This is very dangerous nonsense.
Russia has >6000 Nukes. If most were launched and missile defense systems have a 99% success rate that is still 10s of Nuclear strikes on the US Mainland. This would be the end of the US and likely irradiates large parts of North America...
32 Bulavas on 2 Yasens in Pacific
46 R36, 6 with 20MT warheads, 40 with 10 1MT MIRV. 406 warheads total.
36 UR100
162 Topols
The Russian airforce doesn't have serious nukes, the land force don't have megaton scale weapons either.
R36, and UR100 in silos are the only genuine first strike option, everything else is a retaliation weapon. Only a coordinated first strike gives Russia a chance on victory, it's impossible with military C3 beheaded. The surviving military officers in bunkers in far reaches of the country would know that each of them don't have enough forces under their command to continue the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targeta...
> Only a coordinated first strike gives Russia a chance on victory
The idea that a nuclear war can be won died a while ago too.