Russia wants Ukraine to stop doing ethnic cleansing in Donbas? I’ll propose that the world makes perfect sense and everything fits together if you believe the Russian narrative, whilst nothing makes sense and nothing fits together if you believe the western narrative.
Going forward from there, the problem is, so, Ukraine shot a plane down, and the west blames Russia. Do the Russians swallow their pride and put up with this, or do they escalate? And of course they escalate. So, the Russians “suddenly and without provocation” seize Crimea and Donbas in a wildly popular referendum. Does the west back down, swallow their pride and put up with this? No, of course not, they escalate. So does Russia swallow their pride, put up with constant taunts, terrorism and (almost certainly empty) threats? No, of course not, they escalate. So does Ukraine surrender before overwhelming force? Nope, that also requires they swallow their pride.
Now, I’m getting into more speculative territory, but I expect that Russia simply doesn’t want to kill Ukrainians. They want to Win. Winning is an end to itself at this point, with no other purpose. Because they’re sick of being nettled by the evil westerners and want to show them what for. I am fully convinced the Russian war aim is for Zelensky to say “You win.” and that this entire war would be over tomorrow if he did so.
So, the Russians take up lines, and they sit and wait. Militarily, Ukraine should shortly (over the next few months) run out of supplies and become incapable of continuing the war. The typical Ukrainian soldier is not actually willing to die for his government, but he doesn’t have to, because Russia isn’t trying to kill him, just wait him out. However, Zelensky’s gambit is that he can use his utter dominance in the western press to spin the narrative to his advantage. And in fact, the number of people calling for intervention is increasing daily with each new story of Ukraine’s heroic resistance and resolve, as they sit around and do nothing. Of course, Russia, and in particular, the Russian government absolutely cannot afford to lose at this juncture. They would be overthrown and executed. So they won’t lose.
Which brings us to global thermonuclear warfare.
Or we could choose the alternative, and Lose.
So long story short, it’s a war over national pride. The west insulted Russia one too many times, and they threw a hissy fit, and now the west is split between the side that thinks we should discipline the whiny toddler and the side saying “Umm, they have nukes? This is bad? Can we, not do that?”
I’m confused about why Russia needs to conquer the entirely of Ukraine if their goal is just to make their side win in Donbas. Wouldn’t they have just invad Donbas if that was the goal?
The “people said mean things about Russia so obviously the Russian military is murdering people now” theory seems to explain too much. People say mean things about a lot countries, but most countries don’t start wars like this. What’s special about Russia here?
I observe a higher correlation between “people said mean things about X” and “X is murdering people now” than you make out? Most countries do go to war after they’re sufficiently vilified/provoked? The difficult question to me seems more direction of causation. IE, the west claims it insults people because they’re villains, I claim that around half our enemies, became so because we insulted them.
The problem with attacking the army in east Ukraine and ignoring Kyiv, is that it doesn’t result in an apology from the west. They physically prevent further acts of terrorism/genocide/ethnic cleansing, but Zelensky runs mean press articles about it every day for the rest of eternity, the west passes massive sanctions, everyone calls Putin Hitler, etc. IE, you get the exact same rhetoric as right now, but the situation isn’t resolved, so the rhetoric keeps going for the rest of eternity. It’s basically a Taiwan situation. Sure, if you arm up, and wave your nukes around, even powerful nations will probably, physically, back down. However, it means China/Ukraine/the West, will from then on write about your “illegal occupation” of Taiwan/Donbas/Crimea and how great it would be if they could kill you.
So, strategically, which plan has the lowest chance of triggering world war three? What scares me is, before the war started I saw a poll that said something like 15% of Americans want war with Russia, given that Russia conquers Ukraine. And now, same source says we’re at something like 40% of Americans want war with Russia. Note: Numbers half pulled out of hat.
I suspect that Putin believed us when we said we wouldn’t start a nuclear war over Ukraine, and, including that, decided that if he could just get a treaty in writing, all of the warmongering would blow over in a few years, and the situation would be resolved.
I should also note, Putin thought war with Ukraine would play well to the press back home, which it did. Russians are lapping this up. Putin’s popularity is at an all time high. I’m pretty sure most of Putin’s decisions revolve around what makes him popular in Russia. But that just punts the issue to, why do the Russians hate us and want to kill us?
Also, Russians are genetically/culturally strongmen who take insults poorly and resort to violence quickly. They’re not unique in this, but if you ascribe Swedish norms to Russians, you’re going to get a bloody nose.
Also, mutually assured destruction has a giant gaping hole in it. That is, Russia gets to wipe out the west, and we get to destroy, basically, just Moscow. China is left untouched. Russia likes China and dislikes us. Punting the victory to China isn’t that bad an option from their perspective.
“Ukraine shot a plane down, and the west blames Russia. Do the Russians swallow their pride and put up with this, or do they escalate? And of course they escalate.”
And to think the assassination of some Archduke was a petty starting event for a world war...
(No sarcasm, the world is indeed stupid, like that.)
Russia wants Ukraine to stop doing ethnic cleansing in Donbas? I’ll propose that the world makes perfect sense and everything fits together if you believe the Russian narrative, whilst nothing makes sense and nothing fits together if you believe the western narrative.
Going forward from there, the problem is, so, Ukraine shot a plane down, and the west blames Russia. Do the Russians swallow their pride and put up with this, or do they escalate? And of course they escalate. So, the Russians “suddenly and without provocation” seize Crimea and Donbas in a wildly popular referendum. Does the west back down, swallow their pride and put up with this? No, of course not, they escalate. So does Russia swallow their pride, put up with constant taunts, terrorism and (almost certainly empty) threats? No, of course not, they escalate. So does Ukraine surrender before overwhelming force? Nope, that also requires they swallow their pride.
Now, I’m getting into more speculative territory, but I expect that Russia simply doesn’t want to kill Ukrainians. They want to Win. Winning is an end to itself at this point, with no other purpose. Because they’re sick of being nettled by the evil westerners and want to show them what for. I am fully convinced the Russian war aim is for Zelensky to say “You win.” and that this entire war would be over tomorrow if he did so.
So, the Russians take up lines, and they sit and wait. Militarily, Ukraine should shortly (over the next few months) run out of supplies and become incapable of continuing the war. The typical Ukrainian soldier is not actually willing to die for his government, but he doesn’t have to, because Russia isn’t trying to kill him, just wait him out. However, Zelensky’s gambit is that he can use his utter dominance in the western press to spin the narrative to his advantage. And in fact, the number of people calling for intervention is increasing daily with each new story of Ukraine’s heroic resistance and resolve, as they sit around and do nothing. Of course, Russia, and in particular, the Russian government absolutely cannot afford to lose at this juncture. They would be overthrown and executed. So they won’t lose.
Which brings us to global thermonuclear warfare.
Or we could choose the alternative, and Lose.
So long story short, it’s a war over national pride. The west insulted Russia one too many times, and they threw a hissy fit, and now the west is split between the side that thinks we should discipline the whiny toddler and the side saying “Umm, they have nukes? This is bad? Can we, not do that?”
I’m confused about why Russia needs to conquer the entirely of Ukraine if their goal is just to make their side win in Donbas. Wouldn’t they have just invad Donbas if that was the goal?
The “people said mean things about Russia so obviously the Russian military is murdering people now” theory seems to explain too much. People say mean things about a lot countries, but most countries don’t start wars like this. What’s special about Russia here?
I observe a higher correlation between “people said mean things about X” and “X is murdering people now” than you make out? Most countries do go to war after they’re sufficiently vilified/provoked? The difficult question to me seems more direction of causation. IE, the west claims it insults people because they’re villains, I claim that around half our enemies, became so because we insulted them.
The problem with attacking the army in east Ukraine and ignoring Kyiv, is that it doesn’t result in an apology from the west. They physically prevent further acts of terrorism/genocide/ethnic cleansing, but Zelensky runs mean press articles about it every day for the rest of eternity, the west passes massive sanctions, everyone calls Putin Hitler, etc. IE, you get the exact same rhetoric as right now, but the situation isn’t resolved, so the rhetoric keeps going for the rest of eternity. It’s basically a Taiwan situation. Sure, if you arm up, and wave your nukes around, even powerful nations will probably, physically, back down. However, it means China/Ukraine/the West, will from then on write about your “illegal occupation” of Taiwan/Donbas/Crimea and how great it would be if they could kill you.
So, strategically, which plan has the lowest chance of triggering world war three? What scares me is, before the war started I saw a poll that said something like 15% of Americans want war with Russia, given that Russia conquers Ukraine. And now, same source says we’re at something like 40% of Americans want war with Russia. Note: Numbers half pulled out of hat.
I suspect that Putin believed us when we said we wouldn’t start a nuclear war over Ukraine, and, including that, decided that if he could just get a treaty in writing, all of the warmongering would blow over in a few years, and the situation would be resolved.
I should also note, Putin thought war with Ukraine would play well to the press back home, which it did. Russians are lapping this up. Putin’s popularity is at an all time high. I’m pretty sure most of Putin’s decisions revolve around what makes him popular in Russia. But that just punts the issue to, why do the Russians hate us and want to kill us?
Also, Russians are genetically/culturally strongmen who take insults poorly and resort to violence quickly. They’re not unique in this, but if you ascribe Swedish norms to Russians, you’re going to get a bloody nose.
Also, mutually assured destruction has a giant gaping hole in it. That is, Russia gets to wipe out the west, and we get to destroy, basically, just Moscow. China is left untouched. Russia likes China and dislikes us. Punting the victory to China isn’t that bad an option from their perspective.
Very interestingly put, haha!
“Ukraine shot a plane down, and the west blames Russia. Do the Russians swallow their pride and put up with this, or do they escalate? And of course they escalate.”
And to think the assassination of some Archduke was a petty starting event for a world war...
(No sarcasm, the world is indeed stupid, like that.)