“This has already been pointed out but I need to say it again: wars are not easy to understand. If you have tidy and simple explanations of wars from the past, that’s a sign that your understanding is poor and distorted, not that events in the past were actually as simple as you think they were.”
Well, I should have written “easier” instead. I’ll edit the post.
However, I also said:
“This is not to say that it was always that simple, or that were never any hidden motives or corrupt interests. But I believe that the main motives were still clear and dominant.”
So what I meant is that there was always a clear main motive (or almost always, at least for the examples I gave). Even to an attentive contemporary observer (probably). Anyway, I didn’t mean to make an absolute statement, and I believe that was also clear.
On Finland, again, very different times, pre-NATO, pre-WWII, pre-globalization. Also USSR was way more ideologically driven than the current Russia of oligarchs. All this makes the real motives of that war more clear (a power grab). But again, no absolutes here, so I stress the fact that I don’t consider all previous wars easy to understand, just easier.
“There are some parallels to today’s war over Ukraine, since a militarized Finland posed a real threat to Leningrad in the event of a war”
Those parallels get slightly weakened by the vast difference between the two eras, and completely nullified by the existence of nuclear weapons today. NATO invading Russia = civilization collapse and no winners. Therefore, there is no possibility of success of an invasion of Russia. Therefore, Russia has no reason to fear an invasion.
So what I meant is that there was always a clear main motive (or almost always, at least for the examples I gave). Even to an attentive contemporary observer (probably). Anyway, I didn’t mean to make an absolute statement, and I believe that was also clear.
There are such motives for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Just to name a few:
Security concerns over NATO forces stationed in Ukraine
Irredentism over the lost territory of the Russian Empire & USSR
Retribution for the killing of Russian civilians in the war over Donbass
I don’t know how you can look at this situation and say “I have no idea what Russia’s motives are”. This war is honestly quite a bit easier to understand than the First World War.
On Finland, again, very different times, pre-NATO, pre-WWII, pre-globalization. Also USSR was way more ideologically driven than the current Russia of oligarchs. All this makes the real motives of that war more clear (a power grab). But again, no absolutes here, so I stress the fact that I don’t consider all previous wars easy to understand, just easier.
I don’t know why these are relevant. The motives behind the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 are similar to the motives behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It’s true all kinds of things have changed since 1939, but none of those are very relevant to understanding the motives behind the invasion as far as I can see.
Those parallels get slightly weakened by the vast difference between the two eras, and completely nullified by the existence of nuclear weapons today. NATO invading Russia = civilization collapse and no winners. Therefore, there is no possibility of success of an invasion of Russia. Therefore, Russia has no reason to fear an invasion.
If “Russia has no reason to fear an invasion”, what odds do you give to a foreign army occupying Moscow in the next 80 years? If these odds are significantly above 1% (as they should be) then you have to realize that your claim that “Russia has no reason to fear an invasion” is just wrong. Furthermore, you’re assuming that any war between Russia and NATO would be nuclear, which is far from obvious.
Even if in fact Russia has no reason to fear an invasion, you have to understand that psychologically from the point of view of Russian leaders the situation doesn’t look that way. You don’t need to believe that their concern is legitimate to think that the concern in fact explains their behavior. I also think that Finland posing a “moral threat” to the USSR was nonsensical, for example, but it didn’t feel that way to Soviet leaders at the time.
“There are such motives for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Just to name a few:
Security concerns over NATO forces stationed in Ukraine
Irredentism over the lost territory of the Russian Empire & USSR
Retribution for the killing of Russian civilians in the war over Donbass”
They don’t seem strong/genuine enough to me, that’s all.
“I don’t know how you can look at this situation and say “I have no idea what Russia’s motives are”.”
Because, like I said, the presented/official motives, and even most of the speculated ones, don’t seem strong enough to me. I have some ideas myself, so it’s not like “I have no idea about Russia’s motives”, I just wanted to find stronger hypothesis.
But all in all, we just have different opinions about a very subjective matter. Which is fine.
“If “Russia has no reason to fear an invasion”, what odds do you give to a foreign army occupying Moscow in the next 80 years?”
That needn’t happen only through an invasion. In fact, for the odds of that happening through an invasion, I’d give it less than 1% chance. Only for the odds of it happening through internal regime change I’d give it a more than 1% chance. Putin has clearly stated that he would use nuclear weapons if NATO invaded Russia.
“Even if in fact Russia has no reason to fear an invasion, you have to understand that psychologically from the point of view of Russian leaders the situation doesn’t look that way. You don’t need to believe that their concern is legitimate to think that the concern in fact explains their behavior.”
I happen to think they’re too smart to believe their senseless propaganda. If you disagree, that’s fine.
They don’t seem strong/genuine enough to me, that’s all.
Why not?
In fact, for the odds of that happening through an invasion, I’d give it less than 1% chance.
This is extremely overconfident. I don’t know what else to say about it other than that, and even if you’re going to hold this forecast you have to understand that not everyone in the world is as confident as you are in this claim.
I happen to think they’re too smart to believe their senseless propaganda. If you disagree, that’s fine.
Even if you think Russian security concerns are somehow illegitimate, what’s senseless about Russian animosity against the post-Maidan government of Ukraine that results from the war in Donbass? Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 for quite similar reasons, and the tensions between Greek and Turkish nationalists on the island definitely set the stage for that.
“Security concerns over NATO forces stationed in Ukraine
Irredentism over the lost territory of the Russian Empire & USSR
Retribution for the killing of Russian civilians in the war over Donbass”
Doesn’t seem genuine because Russia has plenty of nukes, which make a NATO invasion a suicidal act. Yes, not all wars are fought with nukes. But there’s an very high probability that a war between the 2 greatest nuclear powers would escalate to that. Which makes such invasion irrational and suicidal. Even more when Putin has clearly stated that he would use nukes to defend himself from a NATO invasion.
Doesn’t seem genuine because I don’t see modern Russia as a highly ideological nation like the USSR was. I don’t doubt they would like to have Ukraine and the rest of the former empire back. The question is what they’re willing to sacrifice for it. Invading Ukraine is a huge sacrifice and realistically won’t even give them Ukraine back, just install a puppet government at best.
Same as 2), don’t doubt they desire that, but the cost of invading Ukraine seems just too high.
“Even if you think Russian security concerns are somehow illegitimate, what’s senseless about Russian animosity against the post-Maidan government of Ukraine that results from the war in Donbass?”
Same as 2) and 3), don’t doubt such animosity, but the cost of invading Ukraine seems just too high.
“Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 for quite similar reasons”
Same thing yet again. What’s the population and size of Cyprus? What’s its connection/strategic importance to NATO/Europe, aka likelihood of it receiving tons of military aid? Is it a huge 44 million people country at the doors of Europe?
Alright, then here is a question for you: what would Russia have to do for you to be convinced that these motivations are genuine? I’d think a full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a pretty strong signal of that, but your prior on it seems to be so low that “everything they say is propaganda that they don’t believe in” is still somehow winning over the alternative simple explanation of “they really mean what they say”.
If the motivations are genuine, they are misguided. I happen to think that the regime is intelligent and therefore isn’t that misguided. That’s why I tend to side more with domestic power-seeking explanations, like those expressed in the most upvoted comment in this post. I’m not sure of what Russia could do to convince me otherwise. “War not being enough to convince me” is an obvious fallacy.
You do realize that you’re implicitly saying everyone who disagrees with you about the legitimacy of these concerns (including me) are not intelligent, right? Are you sure this is not a case of “no true scotsman” reasoning on your part?
No, I’m not saying that at all. Foreign civilians like you and me don’t have access to the important classified information that the Kremlin has. Or to their minds. Therefore, it’s reasonable to buy into their official motivations, maybe as much as it is reasonable not to. So, sorry but that’s another obvious fallacy.
Plus, this is just my opinion, which I never claimed to be certain of.
Russia is ideologic enough that companies like Yandex and VKontakte can exist. There are no European search engines or social networks as Europeans have no ideological issues with using US services. On the other hand, Russians are ideological enough that they prefer Yandex and VKontakte over Western services.
What’s its connection/strategic importance to NATO/Europe, aka likelihood of it receiving tons of military aid? Is it a huge 44 million people country at the doors of Europe?
Ukraine has a huge population but it’s also quite poor and doesn’t have many important exports. Strategically, access to Russian gas is much more important than Ukraine to Europe. Giving it military aid is more a matter of principle than due to strategic importance.
“Europeans have no ideological issues with using US services. Russians are ideological enough that they prefer Yandex and VKontakte over Western services.”
Is it really the population who prefers, or the autocratic government who prefers it for them? Isn’t it obvious that 1) they are not a democracy like most of Europe, 2) they are not US allies like most of Europe, 3) social media has a huge influence on politics and power, therefore it’s normal that we see dominance of Russian companies which are all deeply connected to the state given their type of regime?
“Ukraine has a huge population but it’s also quite poor and doesn’t have many important exports.”
Russia is also kinda poor. But that’s not all. Population size is correlated with army size and overall defense capabilities. Or at the very least with the difficulty to dominate and seize control of a country.
“Strategically, access to Russian gas is much more important than Ukraine to Europe. Giving it military aid is more a matter of principle than due to strategic importance.”
That’s also a really blind argument. There’s the obvious threat of Russian escalation to other countries if they succeed in Ukraine, and overall a threat to continental and global peace. That’s way more important than gas.
Is it really the population who prefers, or the autocratic government who prefers it for them?
While Facebook was recently blocked, for a long time it was accessible and people still used VKontakte. Google and Bing still seem to be useable by Russian speakers even now.
If the population wouldn’t prefer using Yandex and VKontakte those wouldn’t be successful businesses.
Russia is also kinda poor.
Russia’s GDP per capita is more than twice that of Ukraine. More importantly, its major exports are wheat, sweet oils, and corn which European nations don’t want to import as we want to support our own farmers. Its iron exports might be more valuable but there are plenty of other sources for that.
There’s the obvious threat of Russian escalation to other countries if they succeed in Ukraine, and overall a threat to continental and global peace.
That’s something different than strategic importance. It’s a principle of how to react to aggression.
I don’t think Putin fears a NATO invasion of Russia. I think he fears a decline in Russian influence.
Consider the British Empire. It was a superpower of it’s time, and is a nuclear power today. Yet it is not a superpower anymore. Influential; sure, powerful; yes, but not even remotely comparable to the US, China or the USSR of old. Yet it was. And it’s decline happened entirely without invasion of it’s homeland. Portugal and Spain has similar histories.
Putin might think of that as loosing utterly, utter humiliation. If you regard Russian loss of superpower status as a loss condition, then NATO’s expansion looks different. Putin described the fall of the USSR as “the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century” which… is pretty absurd considering what else happened during the twentieth century, but is consistent with the above viewpoint.
The comparison with the British Empire has many faults. Yet Putin might think that it is a valid comparison in a few narrow, critical ways.
Yes, that’s what he has been saying all along. The question is whether we should buy it. I, personally, don’t really buy into it that much. Maybe just a bit. Like I said in my reply to Nanda Ale’s comment, I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism. Maybe not in the past, but at least it is so these days, as a result of capitalism, globalization, and the kinda nihilistic modern atmosphere (I don’t think the first 2 are bad things btw). Again, this is just my own opinion on a very subjective matter.
And then there’s also the question of, even if Putin is that full-on nationalist that he claims he is, does this war actually help in that direction? I have my doubts. What will be the end result of this for Russia? A huge loss of power and influence on all levels. So, not really that good for empire building. Unless he has the Hitler mindset of risking-it-all, which falls already into basket of irrationality/madness, specially in a time with nuclear weapons in the equation which weren’t in Hitler’s time.
So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.
I think this might be the crux of this whole debate to be honest: Me and several others have tried to explain different takes in different words, and you seem continuously dissatisfied with them (and I appreciate your dedication to finding an answer, even if at some point I run out of things to add). It is absolutely worth looking for ulterior motives, but I don’t necessarily expect to find any major ones at this point. The time to really suspect ulterior motives are when the words and actions don’t match up, or the words themselves don’t make sense.
“I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism”
I think that varies tremendously from person to person, more so than from era to era. I think what varies between eras is the Overton Window.
“does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.
“So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.”
That’s just an obvious fallacy. Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions. It’s called, like you acknowledge, lies and propaganda.
And it’s not like I can’t find any ulterior motive either. In reply to Nanda Ale’s comment I admitted those seemed like pretty plausible ulterior motives. And I suspect a few others. As others have said, wars are often complicated. So why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?
“”does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.”
No, it’s not evidence of such. If, for instance, the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment apply, he might have already thought that the war wouldn’t be easy, might even weaken Russia, yet it might consolidate his power, since Russia will still probably win, just not easily and not in a way that will be worth the victory. But it can still raise his domestic popularity and consolidate his power.
And there are many other ulterior motives which can justify a harder war, even irrationality, all-in desperate plays, etc.
“why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications? Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?”
Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (obviously) does not imply that I agree with any of Putins actions (goes without saying). I also don’t necessarily expect us to be able to converge our understanding, since we have different priors and different information. Sorry if you felt pressured, that is not my intent :) I am happy to leave this debate here if it doesn’t feel productive to you. I don’t think I’m likely to change my stance much at this point without new information or arguments, and I’m not necessarily saying that you should either. If some confusion remains as to what my stance is, I am happy to elaborate. That said:
“Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions.”
Sure. There might be an endless series of masks behind masks. But when we see that his actions consistently line up with a certain layer of mask, then that is evidence that that mask contains some real information. Basically; which of his words has predicted his actions, so far? Those might continue to do so. Obviously many of his words are blatant lies, like “we won’t invade”, “The Ukrainians are bombing their own people”, “Zelenskyy is a Nazi/Nato puppet” etc, but if we can consistently differentiate between this surface level of lies (this outermost mask), from the lower levels that may or may not have predictive power, then we might learn something about his real motives. As it happens, it seems to me that some of what he has been saying has predictive power. I’m trying to extract that. This is not a reliable process, what with all the deliberate misinformation going around, but I hope to be able to do better than chance.
“the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. “Consolidate power” is super vague at best, and I think the opposite is happening right now. If you have a different take, I’d be interested in that too.
″ I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial.”
We on Lesswrong are oversensitive about that. Some degree of it should be tolerated. But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial, at least not reaching personal levels. When I say that x is a fallacy or that you’re playing devil’s advocate a bit too much, I only say it for the argument’s sake, there’s absolutely nothing personal in it.
“It has helped me shake down my picture,”
I’m glad to hear it!
“”the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically.”
Is basically boils down to power consolidation, yes. I don’t think it’s vague. It’s a common political theme that nothing works as well as a war to either distract the populace from important matters, and/or to consolidate popularity and therefore power. Specially in less liberal-minded countries.
Other ulterior motives that I personally suspect are: hatred, and all-in desperation moves.
“This has already been pointed out but I need to say it again: wars are not easy to understand. If you have tidy and simple explanations of wars from the past, that’s a sign that your understanding is poor and distorted, not that events in the past were actually as simple as you think they were.”
Well, I should have written “easier” instead. I’ll edit the post.
However, I also said:
“This is not to say that it was always that simple, or that were never any hidden motives or corrupt interests. But I believe that the main motives were still clear and dominant.”
So what I meant is that there was always a clear main motive (or almost always, at least for the examples I gave). Even to an attentive contemporary observer (probably). Anyway, I didn’t mean to make an absolute statement, and I believe that was also clear.
On Finland, again, very different times, pre-NATO, pre-WWII, pre-globalization. Also USSR was way more ideologically driven than the current Russia of oligarchs. All this makes the real motives of that war more clear (a power grab). But again, no absolutes here, so I stress the fact that I don’t consider all previous wars easy to understand, just easier.
“There are some parallels to today’s war over Ukraine, since a militarized Finland posed a real threat to Leningrad in the event of a war”
Those parallels get slightly weakened by the vast difference between the two eras, and completely nullified by the existence of nuclear weapons today. NATO invading Russia = civilization collapse and no winners. Therefore, there is no possibility of success of an invasion of Russia. Therefore, Russia has no reason to fear an invasion.
There are such motives for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Just to name a few:
Security concerns over NATO forces stationed in Ukraine
Irredentism over the lost territory of the Russian Empire & USSR
Retribution for the killing of Russian civilians in the war over Donbass
I don’t know how you can look at this situation and say “I have no idea what Russia’s motives are”. This war is honestly quite a bit easier to understand than the First World War.
I don’t know why these are relevant. The motives behind the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 are similar to the motives behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It’s true all kinds of things have changed since 1939, but none of those are very relevant to understanding the motives behind the invasion as far as I can see.
If “Russia has no reason to fear an invasion”, what odds do you give to a foreign army occupying Moscow in the next 80 years? If these odds are significantly above 1% (as they should be) then you have to realize that your claim that “Russia has no reason to fear an invasion” is just wrong. Furthermore, you’re assuming that any war between Russia and NATO would be nuclear, which is far from obvious.
Even if in fact Russia has no reason to fear an invasion, you have to understand that psychologically from the point of view of Russian leaders the situation doesn’t look that way. You don’t need to believe that their concern is legitimate to think that the concern in fact explains their behavior. I also think that Finland posing a “moral threat” to the USSR was nonsensical, for example, but it didn’t feel that way to Soviet leaders at the time.
“There are such motives for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Just to name a few:
Security concerns over NATO forces stationed in Ukraine
Irredentism over the lost territory of the Russian Empire & USSR
Retribution for the killing of Russian civilians in the war over Donbass”
They don’t seem strong/genuine enough to me, that’s all.
“I don’t know how you can look at this situation and say “I have no idea what Russia’s motives are”.”
Because, like I said, the presented/official motives, and even most of the speculated ones, don’t seem strong enough to me. I have some ideas myself, so it’s not like “I have no idea about Russia’s motives”, I just wanted to find stronger hypothesis.
But all in all, we just have different opinions about a very subjective matter. Which is fine.
“If “Russia has no reason to fear an invasion”, what odds do you give to a foreign army occupying Moscow in the next 80 years?”
That needn’t happen only through an invasion. In fact, for the odds of that happening through an invasion, I’d give it less than 1% chance. Only for the odds of it happening through internal regime change I’d give it a more than 1% chance. Putin has clearly stated that he would use nuclear weapons if NATO invaded Russia.
“Even if in fact Russia has no reason to fear an invasion, you have to understand that psychologically from the point of view of Russian leaders the situation doesn’t look that way. You don’t need to believe that their concern is legitimate to think that the concern in fact explains their behavior.”
I happen to think they’re too smart to believe their senseless propaganda. If you disagree, that’s fine.
Why not?
This is extremely overconfident. I don’t know what else to say about it other than that, and even if you’re going to hold this forecast you have to understand that not everyone in the world is as confident as you are in this claim.
Even if you think Russian security concerns are somehow illegitimate, what’s senseless about Russian animosity against the post-Maidan government of Ukraine that results from the war in Donbass? Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 for quite similar reasons, and the tensions between Greek and Turkish nationalists on the island definitely set the stage for that.
“Security concerns over NATO forces stationed in Ukraine
Irredentism over the lost territory of the Russian Empire & USSR
Retribution for the killing of Russian civilians in the war over Donbass”
Doesn’t seem genuine because Russia has plenty of nukes, which make a NATO invasion a suicidal act. Yes, not all wars are fought with nukes. But there’s an very high probability that a war between the 2 greatest nuclear powers would escalate to that. Which makes such invasion irrational and suicidal. Even more when Putin has clearly stated that he would use nukes to defend himself from a NATO invasion.
Doesn’t seem genuine because I don’t see modern Russia as a highly ideological nation like the USSR was. I don’t doubt they would like to have Ukraine and the rest of the former empire back. The question is what they’re willing to sacrifice for it. Invading Ukraine is a huge sacrifice and realistically won’t even give them Ukraine back, just install a puppet government at best.
Same as 2), don’t doubt they desire that, but the cost of invading Ukraine seems just too high.
“Even if you think Russian security concerns are somehow illegitimate, what’s senseless about Russian animosity against the post-Maidan government of Ukraine that results from the war in Donbass?”
Same as 2) and 3), don’t doubt such animosity, but the cost of invading Ukraine seems just too high.
“Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 for quite similar reasons”
Same thing yet again. What’s the population and size of Cyprus? What’s its connection/strategic importance to NATO/Europe, aka likelihood of it receiving tons of military aid? Is it a huge 44 million people country at the doors of Europe?
Alright, then here is a question for you: what would Russia have to do for you to be convinced that these motivations are genuine? I’d think a full-scale invasion of Ukraine is a pretty strong signal of that, but your prior on it seems to be so low that “everything they say is propaganda that they don’t believe in” is still somehow winning over the alternative simple explanation of “they really mean what they say”.
If the motivations are genuine, they are misguided. I happen to think that the regime is intelligent and therefore isn’t that misguided. That’s why I tend to side more with domestic power-seeking explanations, like those expressed in the most upvoted comment in this post. I’m not sure of what Russia could do to convince me otherwise. “War not being enough to convince me” is an obvious fallacy.
You do realize that you’re implicitly saying everyone who disagrees with you about the legitimacy of these concerns (including me) are not intelligent, right? Are you sure this is not a case of “no true scotsman” reasoning on your part?
No, I’m not saying that at all. Foreign civilians like you and me don’t have access to the important classified information that the Kremlin has. Or to their minds. Therefore, it’s reasonable to buy into their official motivations, maybe as much as it is reasonable not to. So, sorry but that’s another obvious fallacy.
Plus, this is just my opinion, which I never claimed to be certain of.
Russia is ideologic enough that companies like Yandex and VKontakte can exist. There are no European search engines or social networks as Europeans have no ideological issues with using US services. On the other hand, Russians are ideological enough that they prefer Yandex and VKontakte over Western services.
Ukraine has a huge population but it’s also quite poor and doesn’t have many important exports. Strategically, access to Russian gas is much more important than Ukraine to Europe. Giving it military aid is more a matter of principle than due to strategic importance.
“Europeans have no ideological issues with using US services. Russians are ideological enough that they prefer Yandex and VKontakte over Western services.”
Is it really the population who prefers, or the autocratic government who prefers it for them? Isn’t it obvious that 1) they are not a democracy like most of Europe, 2) they are not US allies like most of Europe, 3) social media has a huge influence on politics and power, therefore it’s normal that we see dominance of Russian companies which are all deeply connected to the state given their type of regime?
“Ukraine has a huge population but it’s also quite poor and doesn’t have many important exports.”
Russia is also kinda poor. But that’s not all. Population size is correlated with army size and overall defense capabilities. Or at the very least with the difficulty to dominate and seize control of a country.
“Strategically, access to Russian gas is much more important than Ukraine to Europe. Giving it military aid is more a matter of principle than due to strategic importance.”
That’s also a really blind argument. There’s the obvious threat of Russian escalation to other countries if they succeed in Ukraine, and overall a threat to continental and global peace. That’s way more important than gas.
While Facebook was recently blocked, for a long time it was accessible and people still used VKontakte. Google and Bing still seem to be useable by Russian speakers even now.
If the population wouldn’t prefer using Yandex and VKontakte those wouldn’t be successful businesses.
Russia’s GDP per capita is more than twice that of Ukraine. More importantly, its major exports are wheat, sweet oils, and corn which European nations don’t want to import as we want to support our own farmers. Its iron exports might be more valuable but there are plenty of other sources for that.
That’s something different than strategic importance. It’s a principle of how to react to aggression.
I’ve heard an opinion that VK has much better user interface than FB. Didn’t verify.
Russia’s Gini index is 1.5 times higher, so part of that difference means “Putin is rich”.
When trading with another country total wealth does matter but income is also still double.
I don’t think Putin fears a NATO invasion of Russia. I think he fears a decline in Russian influence.
Consider the British Empire. It was a superpower of it’s time, and is a nuclear power today. Yet it is not a superpower anymore. Influential; sure, powerful; yes, but not even remotely comparable to the US, China or the USSR of old. Yet it was. And it’s decline happened entirely without invasion of it’s homeland. Portugal and Spain has similar histories.
Putin might think of that as loosing utterly, utter humiliation. If you regard Russian loss of superpower status as a loss condition, then NATO’s expansion looks different. Putin described the fall of the USSR as “the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century” which… is pretty absurd considering what else happened during the twentieth century, but is consistent with the above viewpoint.
The comparison with the British Empire has many faults. Yet Putin might think that it is a valid comparison in a few narrow, critical ways.
Yes, that’s what he has been saying all along. The question is whether we should buy it. I, personally, don’t really buy into it that much. Maybe just a bit. Like I said in my reply to Nanda Ale’s comment, I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism. Maybe not in the past, but at least it is so these days, as a result of capitalism, globalization, and the kinda nihilistic modern atmosphere (I don’t think the first 2 are bad things btw). Again, this is just my own opinion on a very subjective matter.
And then there’s also the question of, even if Putin is that full-on nationalist that he claims he is, does this war actually help in that direction? I have my doubts. What will be the end result of this for Russia? A huge loss of power and influence on all levels. So, not really that good for empire building. Unless he has the Hitler mindset of risking-it-all, which falls already into basket of irrationality/madness, specially in a time with nuclear weapons in the equation which weren’t in Hitler’s time.
“that’s what he has been saying all along”
So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.
I think this might be the crux of this whole debate to be honest: Me and several others have tried to explain different takes in different words, and you seem continuously dissatisfied with them (and I appreciate your dedication to finding an answer, even if at some point I run out of things to add). It is absolutely worth looking for ulterior motives, but I don’t necessarily expect to find any major ones at this point. The time to really suspect ulterior motives are when the words and actions don’t match up, or the words themselves don’t make sense.
“I believe that love for personal power/wealth/influence is stronger than nationalism”
I think that varies tremendously from person to person, more so than from era to era. I think what varies between eras is the Overton Window.
“does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.
“So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don’t believe his word and can’t find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don’t understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.”
That’s just an obvious fallacy. Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions. It’s called, like you acknowledge, lies and propaganda.
And it’s not like I can’t find any ulterior motive either. In reply to Nanda Ale’s comment I admitted those seemed like pretty plausible ulterior motives. And I suspect a few others. As others have said, wars are often complicated. So why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?
“”does this war actually help”
Not the way it is currently playing out, no. If he would in fact have been greeted with flowers, and taken most of the country in a few days with little resistance, it would have been a huge win for him. This is evidence that he thought this would happen.”
No, it’s not evidence of such. If, for instance, the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment apply, he might have already thought that the war wouldn’t be easy, might even weaken Russia, yet it might consolidate his power, since Russia will still probably win, just not easily and not in a way that will be worth the victory. But it can still raise his domestic popularity and consolidate his power.
And there are many other ulterior motives which can justify a harder war, even irrationality, all-in desperate plays, etc.
“why aren’t I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications?
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn’t make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil’s advocate with Putin. Or, I don’t know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?”
Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (obviously) does not imply that I agree with any of Putins actions (goes without saying). I also don’t necessarily expect us to be able to converge our understanding, since we have different priors and different information. Sorry if you felt pressured, that is not my intent :) I am happy to leave this debate here if it doesn’t feel productive to you. I don’t think I’m likely to change my stance much at this point without new information or arguments, and I’m not necessarily saying that you should either. If some confusion remains as to what my stance is, I am happy to elaborate.
That said:
“Words can justify actions and yet not coincide with the real motivations behind said actions.”
Sure. There might be an endless series of masks behind masks. But when we see that his actions consistently line up with a certain layer of mask, then that is evidence that that mask contains some real information. Basically; which of his words has predicted his actions, so far? Those might continue to do so. Obviously many of his words are blatant lies, like “we won’t invade”, “The Ukrainians are bombing their own people”, “Zelenskyy is a Nazi/Nato puppet” etc, but if we can consistently differentiate between this surface level of lies (this outermost mask), from the lower levels that may or may not have predictive power, then we might learn something about his real motives. As it happens, it seems to me that some of what he has been saying has predictive power. I’m trying to extract that. This is not a reliable process, what with all the deliberate misinformation going around, but I hope to be able to do better than chance.
“the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically. “Consolidate power” is super vague at best, and I think the opposite is happening right now. If you have a different take, I’d be interested in that too.
″ I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial.”
We on Lesswrong are oversensitive about that. Some degree of it should be tolerated. But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial, at least not reaching personal levels. When I say that x is a fallacy or that you’re playing devil’s advocate a bit too much, I only say it for the argument’s sake, there’s absolutely nothing personal in it.
“It has helped me shake down my picture,”
I’m glad to hear it!
“”the ulterior motives of Nanda Ale’s comment”
Could you summarize what they are? I’m not sure what you are referring to specifically.”
Is basically boils down to power consolidation, yes. I don’t think it’s vague. It’s a common political theme that nothing works as well as a war to either distract the populace from important matters, and/or to consolidate popularity and therefore power. Specially in less liberal-minded countries.
Other ulterior motives that I personally suspect are: hatred, and all-in desperation moves.
“But I don’t even think this discussion has been really adversarial”
I’m relived to hear it!
re:Ulterior motives
I believe we are mostly in agreement over the underlying forces behind this conflict then.