Or is Putin assuming he can behave like a gangster and eventually we’ll back down? I’m not sure this is possible given that any sign of weakness leads to more threats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_research_vessel_Yantar
In terms of equivalent / proportional response, RU can fuck with maritime infra and disproportionately disrupt NATO countries more reliant on imports and trade flows / connectivitiy. NATO would have to escalate to disrupting RU within RU soil, or hit one of their critical connections to PRC which would be... bold.
I don't think the west would take kindly to commerce raiders, or cutting of cables.
If Russian forces NATO to make a kinetic response, then what is Russia's next play?
It's probably fine for Russian propaganda to claim they are fighting NATO in Ukraine, but that line becomes much harder to keep if they are suddenly fighting NATO.
- Before all sanctions, the Russian economy was about the same size as the Italian economy. Russia barely has any allies: Belarus and to some extent Iran (with some vocal supporters like Venezuela or Syria, but they have nothing substantial to offer). Neither China nor India will back Russia. You can see how isolated Russia is in the United Nations (e.g. UNGA Resolution ES-11/4).
- Russia has lost most of its conventional military capacity and capability in Ukraine. Russia is nowhere near the Soviet Union with its Warsaw Pact satellites. The illusion of its mighty power was based on propaganda. To the point where Putin himself began believe his own propaganda and Russia's invincibility.
- Yet, they threaten NATO and the aligned countries. NATO is a military superpower. These countries combined (USA, EU, UK) have a population of ~1 billion people. It is also nearly a half of the world economy.
Just because the consequences for Russia would be unimaginably bad doesn't mean much. What is important is that the de-escalation happens. And part of that involves listening to what the Russians are saying earnestly, rather than going with millennia of monkey-instincts that say to stop listening to the out group when times are tough.
It is certainly important to de-escalate, but it cannot happen under the Russian terms. The current war in Ukraine is a war of conquest. Moreover, it is genocidal (as dictator in Russia is questining the very existance of the Ukrainian nation). There must be serious consequences for this, otherwise we just go one or rather two centuries back when invading, conquering territories and enslaving the local populations was a norm.
Except for the China-Taiwan thing and the concerning risk of an unstable China after their COVID policies. We're very close to a really ugly situation.
Russia is isolated in the Ukraine conflict, but not in opposing the US military.
Poland was invaded by Germany on Sep 1 and when they overran the designated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact borders Russians occupied the rest of the country beginning on Sep 17th.
No major fighting occured between the Russians and the Polish army during the russian occupation.
It doensn't change the end result, occupation by both countries, but they're some accounts that Stalin was hesitant to send his troops early.
People are much more satisfied/apathetic, they won't collectively risk their quality of life for a war.
The biggest predictor of mass violence (war) is your run of the mill daily violence (murders, revolts, terrorism etc), those are at historic minimums.
The second biggest predictor is trust in institutions, which also is at an all time low. This is especially true in Russia, but also in the West. The shelf life of a POTUS is basically 2-6 months, that's how long the approval rating stays above 50%.
By the time the 1st anniversary of inauguration comes around every POTUS from now on will be around 35-38%. That has never been the case ever.
Russia has no allies on the world, only common enemy relations.