I hate it.
Sadly I don't think it'll play out that way,
From General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO deputy military commander until 2014, when Putin last invaded Ukraine.
The only upside I see is that there'll be a slew of really great spy thrillers set in Europe to read when I next get to travel internationally.
It was left intentionally vague.
Whatever lawyers decide that clause means, I think the odds of outright invasion of an EU member _not_ leading to open european/world war is basically zero
The way Russia put in their lousy equipment and untrained staff (if all the reports are to be believed) then his better troops and weapons are not yet there / ready for other use.
Hear me out. Russia is corrupt to the core with leadership that's only focused on enriching themselves.
It wouldn't surprise me if their conventional military proved to be way less capable then they're presenting it to be.
Sure, they have enough smart people that are able to design advanced weaponry, but do they have the industrial capacity to actually build? And do they have the capability to maintain it? How about troop training?
Can’t risk a military coup.
Nordic and countries next to Russia have to rethink their strategy. Maybe they decide to wait and see the next strong man from Russia will be and negotiate with them. But PEACE based purely on the words of a mad man is precursor for war.
I can understand that he was lied to, and/or he miscalculated the power of his own army. But at this point it should be clear even to him it's a complete mess and they are being ridiculed by the whole world - outdated equipment, weak morale, soldiers without food, no fuel, sinking tanks. Do they really want to be humiliated by the Nordics? I really doubt so.
My take is that Finland and Sweeden will wait a bit to see how the situation develops, and if Putin starts to bark about enlarging the invasion, they will join in a blink.
you recall how long it took to take Bagdad right? you really think Putin thought this will be over in a week?
come on.
Take a note that US came from overseas, yet they had superior logistics. They also advanced hunderds of kilometers in week inside Irak, Russia is still quite stuck close to thr borders. They just got their fist major city.
also, did you notice that they rarely kill civilians? i am by no means trying to defend them, but I have the feeling (!) that this is on purpose. and this might slow down operations. for instance today, they agreed for ceasefire and a refugee corridor. that will again take days probably. We should not forget that Ukraine is the birthplace of Russian culture. Ukraine is essential to the identity of Russia. They won't just carpet bomb it and call it a day. If anything of the stuff that Putin and his professors have written is what they truly believe, then we can assume that Russia doesn't want to annihilate the Ukrainians.
lastly, ukraine is HUGE. its bigger than France. And tanks roll slowly. Still, Russia will very soon circle Kiew and then its a siege until Ukraine gives up. No matter how many weapons they get. No stuff will get in and out. Civilians will hopefully have left already so women and kids don't have to starve.
all of this is my own opinion and I might be totally wrong.
What would that accomplish? Fins would just join NATO even faster.
Because of the geopolitics and strategical requirements of missiles, Russia loses nuclear war (in terms of response time ) if Sweden and Finland joins to NATO. Russia might go very far to prevent that.
There is a little seed of truth in their security claims, that Ukraine should stay neutral.
Missiles around country in close positions means, that West has better likelihood to win nuclear war with first strike, eliminating the most nukes from Russia. Especially, since they think that US is the enemy. And they want to hit US which is very far.
Russia loses their nuclear threat advantage, if other countries can position their missiles better, to reach far better damage with first strike.
This is the core of Cuban crisis, and why there are so many bombs, in submarines as well. Russia needs to believe that there is a balance.
Stakes are high.
Nothing Russia can do changes that. They know that. We know that. They know we know.
It's all just a game of chicken. And for Russia to win they would have to go all in 100 times in a row. Whereas NATO wins if nothing changes.
So they won't go all in. It's just a matter of NATO deciding where the final line on sand is. I think we're witnessing it being drawn and Putin mistakenly thought he can do a few more steps.
They need at least a little illusion that there is at least balance. This is about Putin’s power and their narrative. All decisions are based on the fact that Putin will stay in power and looks strong leader.
Could you elaborate on that?
NATO will not strike first. I understand you can respond to ICBMs but there's very little you can do to protect your cites against them. So what do you mean by "losing nuclear war"? Even if 10% of Soviet nuclear equipment still works, that still means hundreds of nukes. The only "winners"* would be China, South America and Africa, not Russia.
* good luck living through nuclear winter
It does not matter from Russian perspective. Anyway, cities are just third priority. Opponent’s nukes and command centers are the fist priority.
If you can place enough nukes close enough, so that response time is very low, then first strike might paralyze nation and there is no response at all.
Russia needs to consider this, regardless of narrative who strikes first.
I really hope we shed this mentality of appeasement and catering to unfounded "needs". It doesn't work and never did.
I'm assuming Russia's incentives weren't to prevent them from happening altogether, but rather to position themselves in a way that would allow them to manoeuvre when they did happen.
The fact their actions have caused these to happen sooner is certainly relevant, but whether they "lost" or not to me is simply a matter of whether their actions have placed them in the above position of better manoeuverability or not.
Whether this is the case or not, no idea.
Also, "win" and "lose" are highly relative terms here.
That said, Putin and his crew are gambling with their lives on this one, and I almost think they were led into this by forces that would like to see them gone (count me among those forces).
OTOH, for a dictatorship, of a just plain bad economy with no external actor to pin the blame on and a miserable economy with a clear external actor to blame and a grievance narrative, the latter can at times be more politically useful, though its obviously worse for the people: Russia may have lost strategically, but Russia-as-actor is a anthropomorphistic fiction. The harder question is has Putin lost strategically. And while there may be hope for that, I don’t think it is anywhere near as clear.
History books will talk more about Putin than before. But likely in a different role than he wanted to be remembered with.
How the hell is Russia and China allied at all? China is basically the one protecting Russia and allowing them to invade Ukraine.
This is something I don't quite understand.
After Crimea happened, nobody really did much. 70-80% of Crimea is Russian and it probably should have been their own republic after USSR fell. However, Ukraine just kind of got to keep that land? It was ultimately a problem. It's fine for Crimea to be self-determining.
NATO has never threatened Russia. A defensive alliance is never a threat. Obviously you only find it a threat if you have plans to invade like they do. Yet China and Russia feel threatened?
Even more unusually... it is NATO who feels threatened. They are worried China and allies are about to invade various entities. Taiwan is the first one, but Japan and South Korea are immediately next. India shortly after. Australia is not long after India. Obviously the USA will be involved in all of those.
Lets also look at the tally card. Russia is the one doing the invade thing. Not anyone else. What has been the response? Everyone united against Russia's aggression. Said, 'no thanks we're out, you can go play with yourself from now on' Where's the threat from us? We ultimately dont care about who is in power. We said, nope, we are closing our borders to you and your trade. We cant ethically or morally support Russia in their actions.
Mind you, who am I? I'm nobody and know nothing. China's own actions will reveal the truth in the near future.
If China truly believes in world peace and the end of cold war mentality. Building tall is far more intelligent than invading for land. It is china's ally right now who is breaking this. It is their ally whose actions are justifying the 'west' to be so defensive and feel threatened.
You know what the west wants? They want the sanctions to work. If such powerful sanctions can cripple a nuclear power's ability to wage war. The threat to the rest of the world is that the same will happen to you if you declare war. It would mean we are post-war. People can feel safe within their borders. Nobody is threatening anyone else anymore.
Sure militaries must still exist. Civil wars, insurgencies, etc are still going to exist. United Nations peacekeeping will always be a thing in the world.
china could lead the way. recognize taiwan as a country within a country. see quebec in canada. Then hold russia up to their diplomatic commitment to ukraine. dispell the rumours they are about to invade and demand immediate peace.
There are two primary reasons we think the Russians did it.
Putin has gone full conspiracy theorist, nostalgic, delusions of grandeur, fear of dying. He has locked himself away with alternative history since the start of covid. If Russia wants to defend its borders, capturing Ukraine decrease the length of the borders significantly. In a 100 years who knows? NATO might try to expand.
Personally, i don't see how anybody under the age of 60 can be persuaded with this logic. But it does explain part of the failure so far. Putin beliefs it had to be far easier and cheaper than it turned out so far.
I think the economic reason to do it is far more plausible. Ukraine as a sovereign nation is an existential threat to Gas/Oil Russia. Since 2012 it has become clear that they hold enough gas and shale oil that it would break Russia's monopoly to the EU. That's could half their state budget, in a time the social security for the baby boom needs to be paid out.
I personally think they could have figured it out, but Putin is obsessed with gas and oil. To him they are the foundation of a Great Russia.
That doesn't seem right. The EU is intending to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Recent events probably hugely accelerated this roadmap. Even if they had started building infrastructure now Ukraine's gas fields won't be production ready for quite some time. That leaves them with a 10 year time window where Russia would have to compete for a slice of a dwindling cake.
Its a little strange whenever i find media from before the invasion talking about Putins position.
Getting a European war going that draws US forces out of the Pacific is an obvious benefit if you want to invade Taiwan.
In contrast to the Russians, the Chinese are completely dependent on international trade to keep people fed and the lights on.
If anything, I bet China has had to think twice about Taiwan after seeing the way the world has reacted to Russia. China has not been tested against a determined, capable enemy and their credibility as a superpower is at stake. They could lose to Taiwan even if no one helps Taiwan.
No, they "made up" recently. Russia supports Chinas claim to Taiwan and China supports Russias claims.
This makes the whole situation even more ugly.
* Russia is foreign country, invading other country. China respects sovereignty. Their claims for Taiwan are based on that - Taiwan is not independent according to their narrative. Huge military invasion into Taiwan is against this ideology. It proves that Taiwan was not part of China.
* If they are OK with invasion of Ukraine, then other countries have arguments for invading China, and help Tibet, Inner Mongolia or Xinjiang to be independent nations. China really does not want that.
As Mao Zedong put it, "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
They need to be logical to maintain the image.
But it does not seem like logical consistency is the driving force of their foreign policy.
A rival for influence in Central Asia backing you committing to a fight in Europe that aligns the rest of the world strongly against you as long as it persists might not be doing it because they support you in any meaningful sense of the word.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/average-annua...