World War III has already started – Gary Kasparov
twitter.com
twitter.com
"World War 3 has already started, don't you see it would be more dangerous not to shoot down Russian planes? The nuke plant is melting down and a Russian talk column is headed to Berlin next. The Ghost of Kyiv just needs a wingman to complete his mission in memory of the Snake Island 13!"
If NATO enters this war it will make Iraq look like an overly rough game of laser tag in comparison.
Don't immanentize the eschaton!
[1] https://twitter.com/KaminskiMK/status/1498377775350267906
Obviously, "unthinkable" is now struck out. Two weeks ago it was (at least for civilians around here) unthinkable that Putin would invade Ukraine (and many Ukrainians seem to have been of a similar opinion). Last week it was unthinkable that Russia would start to level Ukrainian cities. What's unthinkable this week?
Yup I was that idiot. Still I think it is even more stupid to start WW3 right now rather than act in response should that abomination of human decide to attack Europe. If we do not attack there is still a chance and a good one for that I think. If we do the chance might still exist but I think it would be pretty slim and do we really want to test it.
Sweden/Finland have a complicated status with NATO. It's long been understood that extending NATO up to Russia's borders would trigger a response, which is why those countries have always partnered with NATO but never been technically a member. Indeed, through this whole debacle, the folks with brass balls have been the Swedes and the Finns.
Ironically, that is part of Putin's public justification – that Ukraine may gain Finnish status. But the reality is that Sweden and Finland are very much socioeconomically Western, whereas Ukraine is not, which is partly what makes Ukraine much harder to defend. In order to defend them, they need to be part of the polity. The EU has already had a hard enough time with Poland and Romania.
There's already a bunch of NATO countries bordering Russia in Europe. Maybe not to such a large extent that Finland would be, but there definitely is.
For those wanting to involve NATO and set off WW3 along with the nuclear apocalypse, I wonder - why the rush? We can still nuke this planet's civilization to scraps after Russia's/Putin's plans for re-establishing the "Great Russian Empire" have materialzied - or rather, if they actually do.
Please excuse my cynical undertone, but this reckless calling for intervention that may very well lead to a kind of catastrophic escalation that human history would never ever recover from REALLY scares the shit out of me :(
1) Atrocities are being committed and innocent civilians are being killed right as you type this tone-deaf question.
2) Appeasing dictators only leads to escalation, and early intervention minimizes damage. This is not theoretical, just look at Putin's belligerent last decades.
3) The risk of Russia unleashing nuclear Armageddon over Ukraine is very small. For all intents and purposes the West is already involved militarily - doing so overtly would not fundamentally change the equation.
What would be the plan here, though. If Russia continues expanding towards, say, Moldavia, is NATO expected to contemplate the development?
How big of a "buffer" does Russia need? Or better yet, what would be the next excuse?
Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example.
I want those countries to join NATO. NATO members get military protection - non-NATO members do not.
We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability.
> Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example.
It's not as clear cut as you make it sound:
1. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for some time, and at at least some NATO countries have expressed a wish for it to join.
2. IIRC, Ukraine also sent troops to Afghanistan, which I believe was technically a defend-the-US NATO mission.
> We need to keep the rules crystal clear because one of the most important factors in preventing nuclear escalation is predictability.
IIRC, that's mainly about the use of nuclear forces themselves. It's also possible to be too predictable, which lets someone rules-lawyer you into submission, or to be callously bureaucratic and legalistic.
Which ones? France and Germany weren't particularly too warm about it. Heck, NSC Anthony Lake to Clinton's first term thrown it out there to let Ukraine join NATO and his colleague responded that it is the "reddest of red lines" back in 1993[0]
As NATO enlarged since the fall of the iron curtain, it's neo-containment of Russia. As new countries are added to the alliance, they form the new eastern border, where if conflict starts, it would be on their soil. There'd be self-interest to encourage adding others to move it further east. It's not a judgement on them - if I was running a place that forms the eastern front of a containment alliance, I'd want someone to take my place too.
0: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch
The US.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/01/nato.georgia:
> George Bush this morning said he "strongly supported" Ukraine's attempt to join Nato, and warned he would not allow Russia to veto its membership bid.
And they had enough support at the time that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations...:
> At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, NATO decided it would not yet offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine; nevertheless, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually become members.[44]
So of course US would want Ukraine to join.
>>> Which ones?
>> The US.
> So of course US would want Ukraine to join.
Then why ask "which ones"?
The point is Ukraine isn't totally outside of NATO unless you're being absurdly legalistic, and it's quite possible it would have come to a NATO country's defense.
US wants Ukraine in NATO is a given, because it would make neo-containment so much easier.
The question that I ask is which other countries in the NATO is hot on the heels to let Ukraine in? It’s certainly not Western European countries who rightly recognized that such a move is a provocation to the Russian and likely to drag themselves in a conflict that they don’t want to be in, something that’s paid in money, bullets and blood.
The newly added members on the eastern edge of NATO in their self interest, might want that, but I don’t think they’re dumb enough to be that vocal about it for the same reasons as the Western Europeans.
> The point is Ukraine isn't totally outside of NATO unless you're being absurdly legalistic, and it's quite possible it would have come to a NATO country's defense.
No. This statement above is the absurd one. Ukraine is outside of NATO. Do you see US boots on the ground? France? UK? Germany? Poland? No. NATO members has article 5, which means members have to come to the defence of a member being attacked. Invocation of article 5 obligates the rest of the members to fight, there’s no choice there.
Why would Ukraine come to a NATO country’s defence? Ukraine isn’t obligated to do so, but it can choose to. Choosing to help a NATO country’s defence has no bearing on whether one is in the alliance.
NATO is a regional security alliance that also includes a mutual defense obligation; it is not just a mutual defense alliance. Most NATO operations and missions, including most of those involving active combat, have not been mutual defense missions under Article 5.
> Finland, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Georgia, Moldova, would not send troops to defend Russia attacking a NATO member like Latvia, for example.
That's purely speculative; they absolutely could legally and indeed Ireland, as a fellow EU member, has a mutual defense commitment to Latvia without being a NATO member. The existence of one treaty with mutual defense obligations does not prohibit collective self-defense between nations that aren't members, from o a non-member to a member, or from a member to a non-member without another treaty, nor does it prevent the existence of partially overlapping treaty organizations with mutual defense commitments.
Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian population in 1999 weren't a NATO member state.
I don't expect them to accept being pushed back.
Wanna watch? https://globe.adsbexchange.com/ <- FILTER for MILITARY on the right sidebar, maybe click M for selecting multiple ones, which makes their tracks persist, let it run...
Like so: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ae01d1,ae01d5,ae01d0,ae... (some E3's and R(C)135's preselected)
In the long run, NATO might not have a choice, and then it becomes a question about who picks the time to their advantage. Right now it looks like the Russian Army miscalculated and is quite vulnerable in Ukraine. However if they're allowed to grind away to a victory, they may very learn from their mistakes, fix their issues, and be emboldened to take on a NATO country (say, one of the Baltics), from a stronger position.
If opposing the Russian Army (while they're invading an ally) unacceptably risks nuclear war, then there's really no option except cede to them whatever they want and hope that someday they'll be satisfied with less than all of it.
Just because you're good at X, does not mean you are good at Y.
Kaspaarov's good at chess. Cool. That doesn't mean anything about war, military, and the like. He's no more informed than the average layperson.
That doesn't automatically make him right, but I don't think it's fair to say he's no more informed than the average layperson.
he's better know for Russian political commentary these days, for the last decade or two. If you didn't know that, why say anything?
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/384172818063056896 (2013)
https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win... (2015)
He is described here as "Russian human rights activist Garry Kasparov"
At least that is how I read the comment. For instance, Curt Schilling was a great baseball player. That doesn't mean his understanding of politics is great, regardless of how vocal he is about it now that he is retired. Same concept.
No, that you have to judge on his track record. What do you think of it?
Back to the Curt Schilling example, if he were to tweet 10 things he hates about Biden, whether or not they are legit criticism would be lost on the audience due to his known biases.
So to be clear, of Mr Kasparov's track record, his 2015 book "Winter Is Coming", was basically proven correct about Mr Putin by recent events, but ... never mind the track record, bias or something?
Moreover, let's be honest: you wrote your comment just because you believed the parent that Kasparov wanted to use nuclear weapons. What he proposes is completely different, and several of these points have already been implemented, at least to some degree.
Also, spillover is on the menu:
The SCMP reports: State Department counselor Derek Chollet warned Beijing -
If China tries to help Russia evade sanctions in the wake of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, it will face countermeasures, a senior US State Department official said on Thursday, without providing details.
State Department counsellor Derek Chollet said the allied nations that have joined in sanctioning Russia represent a combined 50 per cent of the global economy; China accounts for around 15 per cent.
"China, if it were to seek to evade the sanctions, or somehow dividing the sanctions, they would be vulnerable," he said. "Any country that tries to evade these sanctions will also face the consequences of its actions. I don’t want to speculate with that would be."
> If the war on terror is to be won swiftly, Mr. Bush must not lose sight of the war's twin imperatives: a decisive counterattack and a total unwillingness to appease our enemies.
> Baghdad remains the next stop but not the last. We must also have plans for Tehran and Damascus, not to mention Riyadh. The tactics will vary, but the goal -- total defeat of terrorism -- is clear. Once American ground troops are in Iraq, the message must go out to all terrorist sponsors that this game is up.
> Those who instigated the current war must remember that Coventry and Pearl Harbor backfired on Dresden and Hiroshima. There will be no peace in Gaza, no freedom from fear in Jerusalem, until we have prosecuted the war on terror in Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus and elsewhere. U.S. leadership saved Europe from fascism and communism. It is again the last hope.
With a funny quote:
> In another striking resemblance to World War II, Russia could once again be America's valuable ally. Despite Vladimir Putin's record in Chechnya and on human rights, he is way ahead of "Uncle Joe" -- the hero of the Western liberal press from 1941-45.
His point is that price will always go up. If today nuclear is out of the question, in a year it may be.
https://twitter.com/benioff/status/549339156854214656?lang=g...
If the world is going to stick to a sanctions plan it needs to destroy all those pipelines now and sanction Russian Oil, shutting down only the parts of Russia's economy that don't reinforce Putin's power is only going to work if it has been done early enough and it has been over 2 decades, so probably it is not.
So, yes, I think that the current stance has a good chance of avoiding it. Much higher than the possibility of a nuclear war in case of NATO directly helping Ukraine.
Ad hominem attacks are always weak.
The Polgar vs Kasparov incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r#Kasparov_tou...
The Nakamura incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wcvtqVZndE
p.s. His name is spelt Garry not Gary.
And the presence of propaganda (however that's being defined now), while super unfortunate, doesn't relieve us of our duty to act when there is injustice in the world. It can make it hard to know things, but we can still rely on what we can be confident is true: innocent people are being massacred.
And if that moral argument alone doesn't seem to matter, the logistical one should; that we are the frog in the pot while the water slowly heats to a boil. It becomes a matter of confidence that the violence won't end here, regardless of how Ukraine shakes out.
e.g. from 2013
> "In chess the rules are fixed and the result is unknown, while too often in politics the results are fixed and the rules unknown, esp in Russia."
The one thing I do know, is that I do not know.
Indeed.
> The one thing I do know, is that I do not know.
Any you made zero effort to find out anything at all about the matter before asserting that "Gary doesn't know any more than anyone else" (about Russian politics)
It's "Garry" not "Gary" BTW.
He has written a book on the subject too BTW. Written in 2015, and seems to have been proved accurate by recent events. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/24945308-winter-is-comin...
The soviets were sending SAMs and soviet operators into Vietnam which shot down American planes. That was more directly WWIII than where we're at now.
And we are sending a massive amount of Swedish AT4 antitank weapons, along with stingers, javelins, planes and the surprisingly effective turkish drones.
There is this line that we can't cross which is sending NATO troops directly into Ukraine, which is just insane logic driven by nuclear weapons. If you do that you risk response directly on sites in NATO countries and can tit-for-tat into a "strategic missile exchange" that risks the entire planet.
There is a reasonably agreed upon policy for keeping conflicts between superpowers contained so that they don't boil over into nuking the planet and we're following that policy. That means Ukrainians have to do all the dying. The alternative is everyone dies.
Is there a version of WWIII where nukes are not lobbed around the world? I don't think so. If that's right, then Gary is asking us to accelerate a timeline toward the end-game, mutually assured destruction and our modern world ending as we know it.
Mr. Kasparov implies that cratering the Russian economy with sanctions, isolating the country, ruining the lives of the Russian Oligarchs, are the actions of weakness. In my very western view, they are not.
If there is even a slim chance Mr. Kasparov is wrong and the non direct military pressures being exerted upon Russia will ultimately erode Putin's ability to exert authority on his slowly starving, battle weary, and drained military, then we have to do everything we can to increase that chance.
We need to take as many bullets out of the gun as we can before Putin pulls the trigger.
There isn't going to be a World War IV.
From your post, it appears you believe he's not a madman in the face of economic strangulation, and he's also not a madman when the West supplies weapons that kill his forces.
If the sanctions and the weapons work to lose him the war, does he retain his sanity? Or does he only remain sane if the sanctions and weapons fail, and he prevails in Ukraine?
Regarding nuclear brinkmanship, I suspect that a purely rational actor will lose: the nuclear thug will take some, then take some more, and each time the rational actor will acquiesce to avoid nuclear war. This will result in the nuclear thug taking over the world, piece by piece. Ergo, it makes sense to risk nuclear war, or at least convey that you're willing to risk it, because if you don't you lose.
Given the widespread reports during this war of Russian equipment in poor condition, I've been thinking about this possibility for a while:
* Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might.
* The weapon is a dud.
I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!
Indeed; Russia was expected to completely flatten all major Ukrainian cities by air in the first day of the war. All those clips of angry Ukrainians jeering nervous Russian troops wouldn't exist if the troops simply gunned down all hostile civilians.
This is also why I am reluctant to call the war "genocide" or a "war crime". They are both terms with pretty specific definitions. Not all wars are genocidal. What Putin and Russian troops are doing is bad enough without misrepresenting their actions.
1. Putin overwhelms Ukraine, via dirtier and dirtier tactics and we lose the leader of a generation (Putin Wins completely)
2. Ukraine resists for an unusual period of time, creating an even more irrational Putin (Conflict gets worse and wider spread, guaranteeing a world war)
3. Putin is knowingly targeted by his own ranks (Putin becomes cornered animal / nightmare scenario)
4. Put is taken out by his own people swiftly, and soon (We win)
There are even more scenarios. I'm mostly trying to point out (via speculation), that the only bullet point that exists on this infinite list where we win is number 4. The rest are all bad and we are in the world's worst casino odds.
Sanctions do not do nothing. But if Putin has complete control and everyone is too scared to touch him, then sanctions will do nothing and we have a much larger problem on our hands. We are kind of assuming he cares even a little bit about his own people. If he doesn't at all, we're fucked.
The only way that’s a win is if someone better steps in, could very easily be someone worse.
EDIT: very specific KGB education, weird imperialistic ambitions. Country with unimaginable resources and majority still living in XVIII century. Probably declining health combined with substance abuse. New imaginary friends from complete isolation every day.
> would still likely prefer to stop fighting putin's farce of a war because it just makes them look weak
You don't seem to understand the stakes here. Completely giving up on the war would make Putin or any other leader look weak and would undermine any credulity they have. If the war ends diplomatically Russia will have to gain something by it in order to satisfy both internal and external perception of them as well as their desire to secure themselves against perceived threat. A skillful and level headed leader might be able to negotiate this but an unskilled person newly entering a leadership position and being buffeted by internal forces would probably make the wrong choices and wind up with even more blood spilled.
This invasion has been a massive blunder. Complete failure and frankly makes the likelihood of him being killed off higher than its ever been before. Incredible incompetence on his part.
> You don't seem to understand the stakes here. Completely giving up on the war would make Putin or any other leader look weak and would undermine any credulity they have.
If putin ends the war without an extremely, extremely compelling reason, I'd expect him to be assassinated fairly quickly due to appearances of weakness. It's very difficult to imagine a world where this ends well for him regardless. The best case for him is he gets his version of Afghanistan for decades and suffers severe economic sanctions for a long time.
If putin is killed and replaced, the obvious geopolitical move is to say "no, russia's not bad, putin was bad. Take off the sanctions and I'll be a good boy for a few years".
6. Nuclear attack on kyiv, without further nuclear conflict.
7. Individual western country steps in without the whole of NATO, possibly provoking (6) but otherwise ending the conflict.
The war goes on for decades or more, with growing desperation on both sides. The Russian economy bleeds through any loose change under the couch cushions to build more tanks & artillery. Ukrainian resistance sustains a long term insurgency against the occupiers, using essentially the same tactics as the Mujahideen or modern Taliban. The West slowly stops caring as other "breaking news" pushes this down the front page. Years of war bankrupt the central government, and regime change deposes Putin. American and British companies come in and privatize anything left. The country is left in poverty and austerity. And then the same thing more or less happens 30-50 years later...
Data might be wrong so I am open for different perspectives.
[1] - Ukraine war: 'My city's being shelled, but mum won’t believe me' - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60600487
[2] - Putin's approval rating rises https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-ra...
We are standing by as a bully dominates another country, its culture and people. It's understandable why we'd do this, as they are a nuclear power. But what signal does it send Moscow and the world and where will it end? That we won't fight even when a country that is our friend is razed? Does he even believe that we'll defend ourselves if he decides to conquer Europe? Perhaps we will lay down our arms in order to avoid nuclear war.
I'm not saying that Kasparov is necessarily correct in his thinking. The military option of the US/EU/NATO sending a joint communication telling Russia to lay down their arms or face war is incredibly dangerous. But openly considering it does seem necessary to me and it might be inevitable.
Is Putin an irrational actor? Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions.
Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.
But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If that were the case, it would be soldiers themselves that voted to take us to war.
If someone is pro war, they should see their convictions through.
But don't worry: you don't need convictions here on the internet. You can just impotently post, make all the insinuations you want, and then go back to Netflix. The internet is great because you don't have to actually do the hard work of following a belief through, and can instead adopt styles of posting while they're relevant.
Decisions to go to war aren't only taken by people that directly put their lives at risk. This has never been the case and it wouldn't be a good idea if it were the case. Also, I don't agree that your decision to impotently post on the internet is somehow more dignified than my own because it better aligns with your default behaviour (in-action, passivity towards violence, etc). Neither of us are doing hard work to follow our beliefs.
I simply disagree that "appeasement" or "detente" policies are necessarily better in the long-run. We don't know this and should seriously consider the possibility that they aren't, even if in this case, not going to war is still the best option (which should be our assumption by default).
Attacking Ukraine, without crossing the red line, doesn't mean that Putin doesn't respect the red line. We just don't know.
If a country has nukes, the dictator can stay in power and do whatever he wants. North Korea knows this and so doesn't Iran. SO some method that really works need to be found and employed. Starving the dictators Country does nothing since all he needs to do is keep his military happy. Happy military, happy life for the dictator.
What signal do all these wars send, i wonder. Why dont we see a hysteria in the news about them? Questions, questions.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflict...
Definitely not ideal but I can understand the reluctance to go that route. Very much all or nothing
Anyway, I think Putin's aggression is a very bad thing, but I worry about hawkish posts like this that frame it as "we have no choice but to engage in armed conflict". THAT is how you get WWIII.
On which side though? That's exactly what Putin said.
And when Russia comes to the West? What does the West do? Oh, we take photos, apparently.
https://www.euronews.com/2022/03/03/sweden-summons-russian-o...
NATO: No Action; Talk Only.
So if NATO put troops in ukraine to just defend it (not attacking pro-actively russian forces or territories), what would happen?
Is the scare now that Putin is so mad that he would immediately start nuking random NATO cities around the world if that happened?
Of course Gary. We'll just start WW3 right now so that you can be sure. I did not know playing chess melts one's brain to such degree. If you are so brave what are you doing sitting in NY? Go buy a ticket to Kyiv and join the fight. You can still post from there.
https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/garry-kasparov/win...
The NATO response has very very much been calibrated for three things: 1. Do not send NATO troops to defend non-NATO members (with caveats, see Sweden/Finland). 2. Damage Putin as much as possible, within the constraints of the previous point, and 3. Try to give Putin a way out (again, complicated because different members have been less confrontational than others, but this has essentially been the theme).
I'm sorry, Gary Kasparov might be good at chess, but he does not understand geopolitics.
I believe he’s demonstrated for years that he does understand Putin, however, and predicted this scenario long in advance.
So you may feel his advice is bad, but it’s also possible, even likely, that we have no good options and his is the most likely route to something resembling peace.
As long as they don't bomb Russia or Belarus (territory).
NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past.
I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_.
Then it wouldn't be the NATOs choice weather or not to start a nuclear war, but Russias like it already is.
Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support.
At the same time while thinks are not looking good, they also make it increasingly harder for China to take action against Taiwan... China might already be quite annoyed with Russia by now tbh. (If the war would have been over in a day it would have been a complete different matter.)
Not true.
You think Putin will just roll over and allow NATO to kill Russian soldiers? We've almost gone to war for a lot less than that, doing so would be an egregious act of war.
> NATO already promised Ukrain membership in the past.
This means absolutely nothing, they also promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards and look what happened.
> I don't think there is any clause to prevent the NATO from making Ukrain a member _now_.
That would immediately invoke Article 5 and start WWIII
> Plus Russia can't use Nukes, they would be done for, not because of Nuclear war but because of losing Chinas support.
I'm sorry, this is just so incredibly foolish. Do you honestly think nuclear war is not a big deal? All sides lose in a nuclear exchange, not just from the cities that will burn but from all of the ensuing fallout and climate effects. If you think CO2 is bad for the atmosphere just take a peek at what ash and dust clouds can do.
Only if Russia doesn't drawback, Article 5 in _no way_ requires an all out war instantaneous actions, revenge attacks or anything like this.
> promised they wouldn't expand Eastwards
Which was an informal promise between Politicians, which btw. did not had the authority to deny a sovereign state access to NATO.
In difference to the written Agreement Russia had with Ukrain to not attack them if they remove their Nukes...
Not that it matter.
> nuclear war is not a big deal
It is a big deal, the biggest. That's the point.
Ukraine didn't join military alliances. This isn't our war.
Russia has done lots of things before this, but they weren't invasion of a sovereign nation.
We don't approve of this war ethically or morally. Russia is no longer invited to be involved with us in any way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoney_War (or "Sitzkrieg")
And, most ridiculous of all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_...
There is a point where war is unavoidable, and the problem with fights between 2 parties is simple: if one party believes it is in a fight ... you're in a fight. It does not matter what the other party thinks.
If Putin believes we're at war with Russia, we are at war with Russia and we will need to fight. Fight a little or a lot? Today we could fight a little. Tomorrow we will have to fight a lot.
I think not. If Putin agrees, we may well find out.