All Things Russia & Ukraine

[Farfromgeneva]

One of the world's biggest assholes has be killed in Ukraine

"gays"....hmmm, don't tell us religion is involved with this type of thinking. Certainly, not.

Moe......home ED ism , perhaps

why anyone believes in casper the ghost, anymore, is stone age. And to the point of caring what consenting adults choose to get themselves off.

Question IS, why wasn't this guy killed YEARS ago ?

Cause you weren’t on the case

[Brooklyn]

Extraordinary guy:

https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/stat ... 4208752641

absolutely!

While I certainly endorse his words, I wonder why he did not address this: https://tinyurl.com/2p8kh6b7
In fact this has been ignored by far too many people. If the entire world is Ukraine as he says, then he and others should realize that Africa is a big part of that world.

[Kismet]

More interesting developments

Last night a large group of Russian warships were about to launch a landing on Odessa beaches. They approached the coast and were about to shell the beach, when they suddenly withdrew. Reports that Marines from Crimea refused to attack Odessa.

Russian convoy stalled near Kyiv has not moved since yesterday. Imagine if the Ukrainians had air assets and drones. Russian army units till short of fuel and now reportedly also rations.

More troubling reports of continued use of cluster munitions and thermobaric rockets in civilian areas of Kharkiv.

[dislaxxic]

One NATO Ally Can Easily Block Russian Warships from Joining the Battle

On Sunday, Turkish leaders labeled Russian’s invasion of Ukraine a war, a rhetorical shift that sets the stage for Turkey limiting warships transiting the Turkish Straits and entering the Black Sea. Speaking on CNN Turk, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu stated that “the situation in Ukraine has transformed into a war” and Turkey “will implement all articles of Montreux transparently.” Çavuşoğlu was referencing the 1936 Montreux Convention, an international agreement that governs the transit of all vessels and airplanes through the Turkish Straits, a strategic chokepoint that links the Black Sea with the Mediterranean Sea. As the Russia-Ukraine conflict rages, the Montreux Convention has taken on increased importance as a potential regulator of warship traffic into the conflict zone. If Turkey formally invokes Montreux’s wartime provisions, Russian warships will generally be prohibited from entering the Black Sea. This would play a small but substantive role in de-escalating Russia-Ukraine tensions.

Good history of the Montreux Convention.

..

[jhu72]

Extraordinary guy:

https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/stat ... 4208752641

absolutely!

While I certainly endorse his words, I wonder why he did not address this: https://tinyurl.com/2p8kh6b7
In fact this has been ignored by far too many people. If the entire world is Ukraine as he says, then he and others should realize that Africa is a big part of that world.

... the Ukrainians also have a White Nationalist / Fascist military unit in their army, the Azov Battalion. But then again the Russians and allies are at least as bad. Ukraine at least wants a democracy, I'll worry about them perfecting their democracy once they have secured one.

[old salt]

The Baltic nations were Soviet Republics & part of Tsarist Russia before that. They cut off Kaliningrad from Russia.
They are extremely vulnerable & will be very difficult for NATO to defend if invaded.
Minimize their importance at your peril. That's why NATO is deploying more forces there asap.
Our forces in the Baltic states are trip wires. We are not ready to hold them, yet.

Controlling Ukraine, along with Belarus, would give Putin 2 compliant buffer states between NATO & Russia.
Forcing NATO to heavily fortify their entire eastern border, from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea (or Arctic, if Finland now joins NATO)
3 days of NATO enthusiasm will take years to become deployable forces.

You're right about one thing. We're in a full blown Cold War again. Only this time, we'll no longer have a block of half-hearted Warsaw Pact nations between NATO's front & Russian controlled territory when Putin annexes Belarus & as much of Ukraine as he can take.

Being in the right is not a strategy. What are you ready for ? War with Russia ?
If it looks like we'll prevail, what's your plan to keep it from going nuclear ?

WHY does Putin need "2 compliant buffer states between NATO and Russia? Are not "compliant buffer states" really just Russian states with a patina of being independent? Once they become "compliant buffer states" why would Putin not simply annex them into his new USSR? NOW the buffer states he needs are current NATO states. This logic makes ZERO sense. NATO is a defensive alliance. Who among them has ANY interest in "taking" part of the Russian State? Why the hell would they WANT to "take" that decrepit "state" that is getting more decrepit by the day? What is the difference between "a block of half hearted Warsaw Pact nations" and what we see today in Belarus, Krgyzstan, Georgia and some others? Putin wants Ukraine to be one of his shadow "buffer states". Ukrainians don't want that.

FTR -- this is an attempt to answer your questions. It is not praise or admiration for Putin, nor support & approval of his actions.

A neutral non-NATO Ukraine, would be an effective buffer, like Finland has been.

Putin is tapping into the long held Russian paranoia about invasion from the west, based on Russian history.
Whether he believes it or not, it's his rationale & it resonates with enough of the Russian population to keep him in power, ...so far.

Before 2014, NATO complied with a verbal commitment made during German reunification to not deploy non-national NATO forces into the former Warsaw Pact nations. That kept those nations sufficiently weak militarily, so that they were not a threat to Russia & served as an effective buffer.
That status quo held until the Maidan revolution & regime change in 2014. That prompted requests for NATO & EU membership, which were favorably recieved. That spooked Putin. He feared a NATO Ukraine on his soft underbelly & the loss of his Crimea naval base for his Black Sea Fleet. That prompted him to seize Crimea & move into the Donbass. That escalated, prompting NATO to (understandably) deploy non-national forces into Poland & the 3 Baltic states. That yielded an uneasy 7 year peace, with escalating encounters with NATO & confrontational exercises on both sides of NATO's E flank. Zelensky's election, his continued requests for NATO & EU membership, charging his predecessor with treason, alarmed Putin even farther. After our Afghanistan debacle, he sensed weakness in the west & division within NATO. With Nordstream 2 construction allowed & completed, he saw his energy dominance secured & seized the moment. He likely did not anticipate the effectiveness of the Ukrainian opposition & the magnitude of the sympathetic global response & the scope of the resulting sanctions. Other than Georgia, the other former Soviet Republics are sufficiently compliant, military allies & trading partners. They look to Putin to help them maintain internal security, as we've seen recently in Belarus & Khazakhstan. Georgia has gotten quiet about NATO & EU membership since Putin took a bite out of them.

imho -- his strategy is to make compliant satellites of Ukraine & Belarus (& the 3 Baltic naions, if he can take them) as he has done with the other former Soviet Republics. He still considers these European states as part of Mother Russia because of their history, language & ethnicity. I think he would like to unite them with the Russian Republic via the Union measures already in place with Belarus.

He has yet to unleash the full force of his military. We need a face saving way for him to back down, but I've yet to see that take shape.

[MDlaxfan76]

Turns out NATO wasn't the deciding factor, nor was "Nazification". NATO countries are already next door to Russia and no peep in flexing from Russia. The Baltic nations weren't very aligned with Russia culturally or socially and are small enough that they aren't a problem in Russia. Even though they're NATO. They can be ignored. Then throw in the paradox that annexing or controlling Ukraine means 4 more NATO countries next door. Just shows all the whining about NATO here provoking things is incorrect.

This was about preventing a strong, independent, successful and westernized Ukrainian society. Ukraine is closely aligned via culture and language with Russia, and many Ukrainian relatives are in Russia and vice-versa. A country like Ukraine at 1/3 the population of Russia, enjoying actual prosperity and freedom would have destabilized Russia. Why do you think so much money went into dividing Ukraine within and without (including high level paid US politicians) for the past couple of decades?

This is a weak dictator trying to hang on to power. He convinced himself of his own strength. He thought he had divided Europe and the US enough, but probably felt he had to act quickly since the current president wouldn't bend over for him and didn't want relations to improve, especially post-COVID. This is a dictator a good chunk of our population was in love with for the past 5+ years because they thought he was the definition of strength and manliness. The only thing he has is an outdated, poorly maintained nuke system. And he's already played that hand. We're ready.

Ukraine's future as it currently stands is uncertain, but nearly the entire world is behind them. And we're in the right.

I stand against Russia when it matters. Right now.

The Baltic nations were Soviet Republics & part of Tsarist Russia before that. They cut off Kaliningrad from Russia.
They are extremely vulnerable & will be very difficult for NATO to defend if invaded.
Minimize their importance at your peril. That's why NATO is deploying more forces there asap.
Our forces in the Baltic states are trip wires. We are not ready to hold them, yet.

Controlling Ukraine, along with Belarus, would give Putin 2 compliant buffer states between NATO & Russia.
Forcing NATO to heavily fortify their entire eastern border, from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea (or Arctic, if Finland now joins NATO)
3 days of NATO enthusiasm will take years to become deployable forces.

You're right about one thing. We're in a full blown Cold War again. Only this time, we'll no longer have a block of half-hearted Warsaw Pact nations between NATO's front & Russian controlled territory when Putin annexes Belarus & as much of Ukraine as he can take.

Being in the right is not a strategy. What are you ready for ? War with Russia ?
If it looks like we'll prevail, what's your plan to keep it from going nuclear ?

Can we agree on the following?

1) Putin is the aggressor. He made a brutal choice, lied as he did it. We know it, those around him know it, and most of the educated in Russia know it.

2) The west, NATO, EU, the US is NOT the aggressor. Welcoming self determination, freely and democratically made, is not aggression. Not all Russians would agree with the simplicity of that statement, but we should. The Ukrainians should.

3) However, Putin's calculation is that continuance of the trend towards such self determination could be existential, whether to his ambitions or his very life.

4) The working assumption has to be that he's going to continue to double and triple down on brutality until his own calculus or life is changed.

5) There are really only two possibilities as to his mental health, either a) he is rational about the tradeoffs to not achieving his ambitions but preserving his life, or b) he is irrational and could choose to try to destroy all he can on his way out of life.

So, what does that mean?

b) is a huge issue, but if that's the reality, then that's going to come in any scenario in which he doesn't achieve his ambitions. He's set himself up as needing to acquire Ukraine, at a minimum, and that's just not going to happen without immense bloodshed. And his ambitions are far more than just Ukraine.

a) requires a sacrifice of those ambitions, a choice in which he decides to preserve whatever power he can (and his life) despite the embarrassment of having led Russia astray.

So, I think the calculus needs to change a whole lot in order to make a) the only path out. That means he needs to believe that continued aggression will only lead to consequences for others such that they will indeed have no choice but to kill him...and pray he's still a rational actor.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Baltic nations were Soviet Republics & part of Tsarist Russia before that. They cut off Kaliningrad from Russia.
They are extremely vulnerable & will be very difficult for NATO to defend if invaded.
Minimize their importance at your peril. That's why NATO is deploying more forces there asap.
Our forces in the Baltic states are trip wires. We are not ready to hold them, yet.

Controlling Ukraine, along with Belarus, would give Putin 2 compliant buffer states between NATO & Russia.
Forcing NATO to heavily fortify their entire eastern border, from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea (or Arctic, if Finland now joins NATO)
3 days of NATO enthusiasm will take years to become deployable forces.

You're right about one thing. We're in a full blown Cold War again. Only this time, we'll no longer have a block of half-hearted Warsaw Pact nations between NATO's front & Russian controlled territory when Putin annexes Belarus & as much of Ukraine as he can take.

Being in the right is not a strategy. What are you ready for ? War with Russia ?
If it looks like we'll prevail, what's your plan to keep it from going nuclear ?

WHY does Putin need "2 compliant buffer states between NATO and Russia? Are not "compliant buffer states" really just Russian states with a patina of being independent? Once they become "compliant buffer states" why would Putin not simply annex them into his new USSR? NOW the buffer states he needs are current NATO states. This logic makes ZERO sense. NATO is a defensive alliance. Who among them has ANY interest in "taking" part of the Russian State? Why the hell would they WANT to "take" that decrepit "state" that is getting more decrepit by the day? What is the difference between "a block of half hearted Warsaw Pact nations" and what we see today in Belarus, Krgyzstan, Georgia and some others? Putin wants Ukraine to be one of his shadow "buffer states". Ukrainians don't want that.

FTR -- this is an attempt to answer your questions. It is not praise or admiration for Putin, nor support & approval of his actions.

A neutral non-NATO Ukraine, would be an effective buffer, like Finland has been.

Putin is tapping into the long held Russian paranoia about invasion from the west, based on Russian history.
Whether he believes it or not, it's his rationale & it resonates with enough of the Russian population to keep him in power, ...so far.

Before 2014, NATO complied with a verbal commitment made during German reunification to not deploy non-national NATO forces into the former Warsaw Pact nations. That kept those nations sufficiently weak militarily, so that they were not a threat to Russia & served as an effective buffer.
That status quo held until the Maidan revolution & regime change in 2014. That prompted requests for NATO & EU membership, which were favorably recieved. That spooked Putin. He feared a NATO Ukraine on his soft underbelly & the loss of his Crimea naval base for his Black Sea Fleet. That prompted him to seize Crimea & move into the Donbass. That escalated, prompting NATO to (understandably) deploy non-national forces into Poland & the 3 Baltic states. That yielded an uneasy 7 year peace, with escalating encounters with NATO & confrontational exercises on both sides of NATO's E flank. Zelensky's election, his continued requests for NATO & EU membership, charging his predecessor with treason, alarmed Putin even farther. After our Afghanistan debacle, he sensed weakness in the west & division within NATO. With Nordstream 2 construction allowed & completed, he saw his energy dominance secured & seized the moment. He likely did not anticipate the effectiveness of the Ukrainian opposition & the magnitude of the sympathetic global response & the scope of the resulting sanctions. Other than Georgia, the other former Soviet Republics are sufficiently compliant, military allies & trading partners. They look to Putin to help them maintain internal security, as we've seen recently in Belarus & Khazakhstan. Georgia has gotten quiet about NATO & EU membership since Putin took a bite out of them.

imho -- his strategy is to make compliant satellites of Ukraine & Belarus (& the 3 Baltic naions, if he can take them) as he has done with the other former Soviet Republics. He still considers these European states as part of Mother Russia because of their history, language & ethnicity. I think he would like to unite them with the Russian Republic via the Union measures already in place with Belarus.

He has yet to unleash the full force of his military. We need a face saving way for him to back down, but I've yet to see that take shape.

Taken as you intended, not an endorsement of anything Putin has done.

I think the problem is that we know that Putin is a complete liar. And that he has ambitions that cannot be explained, persuasively, at least to us, as 'defensive'. No longer.

Sure, he can make that case to the Russian public. But the bulk of the educated Russians actually know better.

From our perspective, do we want to face a malign Russia with not only that sphere of influence but also the confidence to extend their influence wherever and whenever they want, spreading authoritarianism?

We can buy a little time with maybe a million Ukrainian lives lost and 4-10 million refugees, but if Putin succeeds in achieving the first two steps of Ukraine and Belarus, he's not stopping there.

[old salt]

Can we agree on the following?

1) Putin is the aggressor. He made a brutal choice, lied as he did it. We know it, those around him know it, and most of the educated in Russia know it.

2) The west, NATO, EU, the US is NOT the aggressor. Welcoming self determination, freely and democratically made, is not aggression. Not all Russians would agree with the simplicity of that statement, but we should. The Ukrainians should.

3) However, Putin's calculation is that continuance of the trend towards such self determination could be existential, whether to his ambitions or his very life.

4) The working assumption has to be that he's going to continue to double and triple down on brutality until his own calculus or life is changed.

5) There are really only two possibilities as to his mental health, either a) he is rational about the tradeoffs to not achieving his ambitions but preserving his life, or b) he is irrational and could choose to try to destroy all he can on his way out of life.

So, what does that mean?

b) is a huge issue, but if that's the reality, then that's going to come in any scenario in which he doesn't achieve his ambitions. He's set himself up as needing to acquire Ukraine, at a minimum, and that's just not going to happen without immense bloodshed. And his ambitions are far more than just Ukraine.

a) requires a sacrifice of those ambitions, a choice in which he decides to preserve whatever power he can (and his life) despite the embarrassment of having led Russia astray.

So, I think the calculus needs to change a whole lot in order to make a) the only path out. That means he needs to believe that continued aggression will only lead to consequences for others such that they will indeed have no choice but to kill him...and pray he's still a rational actor.

Agree. That's why we need to find a face saving way for him to back down, as soon as possible, or watch him continue to decimate Ukraine, no matter the toll on both sides, then figure out what to do next. Unless he's toppled internally, then there's no telling who & what comes next.

[NattyBohChamps04]

imho -- his strategy is to make compliant satellites of Ukraine & Belarus (& the 3 Baltic naions, if he can take them) as he has done with the other former Soviet Republics. He still considers these European states as part of Mother Russia because of their history, language & ethnicity. I think he would like to unite them with the Russian Republic via the Union measures already in place with Belarus.

The Baltics don't share a Russian language or ethnicity though, and only a little bit of forced history. The Baltic tribes were independent and different from the Slavic tribes. Then they were under a wide variety of rule, from self-rule to the Teutonic Order, in their own massive empire, then under , Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and yes both Russian Empire and the USSR. They have been independent nations for 50 years or so out of the last 100. The languages are also very different, and don't even share the same alphabet as Russian.

Russia and the Soviets tried to wipe out the culture and language of the Baltics and assimilate them as occupiers, unsuccessfully. They've been a member of NATO for nearly 2 decades, and the younger Baltic people (40-50 and under) are very pro-EU and anti-Soviet. A vast majority of the youth speak English in addition to their own languages and don't speak Russian. The Baltics enjoy the most prosperous economies of any former-Soviet occupied country and they're getting better each year.

They're very different from Ukraine and Belarus as far as Russian history goes, and require a much different observational lens.

[MDlaxfan76]

Can we agree on the following?

1) Putin is the aggressor. He made a brutal choice, lied as he did it. We know it, those around him know it, and most of the educated in Russia know it.

2) The west, NATO, EU, the US is NOT the aggressor. Welcoming self determination, freely and democratically made, is not aggression. Not all Russians would agree with the simplicity of that statement, but we should. The Ukrainians should.

3) However, Putin's calculation is that continuance of the trend towards such self determination could be existential, whether to his ambitions or his very life.

4) The working assumption has to be that he's going to continue to double and triple down on brutality until his own calculus or life is changed.

5) There are really only two possibilities as to his mental health, either a) he is rational about the tradeoffs to not achieving his ambitions but preserving his life, or b) he is irrational and could choose to try to destroy all he can on his way out of life.

So, what does that mean?

b) is a huge issue, but if that's the reality, then that's going to come in any scenario in which he doesn't achieve his ambitions. He's set himself up as needing to acquire Ukraine, at a minimum, and that's just not going to happen without immense bloodshed. And his ambitions are far more than just Ukraine.

a) requires a sacrifice of those ambitions, a choice in which he decides to preserve whatever power he can (and his life) despite the embarrassment of having led Russia astray.

So, I think the calculus needs to change a whole lot in order to make a) the only path out. That means he needs to believe that continued aggression will only lead to consequences for others such that they will indeed have no choice but to kill him...and pray he's still a rational actor.

Agree. That's why we need to find a face saving way for him to back down, as soon as possible, or watch him continue to decimate Ukraine, no matter the toll on both sides, then figure out what to do next. Unless he's toppled internally, then there's no telling who & what comes next.

I can imagine the Ukrainians saying they'd accept giving up the Donbass, but they're definitely not going to give up their western trajectory, their right to want to be part of the EU and NATO.

Can Putin swallow that? I don't think he will. At this point, I don't think NATO could even agree to a moratorium on NATO membership and it would assuage him...he'll keep going.

I think we need to be destroying that convoy, whether with drones or direct action. Preferably drones, and/or any other means with plausible responsibility in Ukraine's hands.

It's been quite amazing how fast public opinion has shifted. 6 days. I'm worried that it's going to shift even harder as the slaughter gets much worse.

Watching Boris Johnson get confronted by the Ukrainian journalist...I'm not sure how any of the political leaders of most of the NATO countries will be able to stand by watching that slaughter, claiming we're levying sanctions, sending aid...yet, the slaughter continues.

[old salt]

imho -- his strategy is to make compliant satellites of Ukraine & Belarus (& the 3 Baltic naions, if he can take them) as he has done with the other former Soviet Republics. He still considers these European states as part of Mother Russia because of their history, language & ethnicity. I think he would like to unite them with the Russian Republic via the Union measures already in place with Belarus.

The Baltics don't share a Russian language or ethnicity though, and only a little bit of forced history. The Baltic tribes were independent and different from the Slavic tribes. Then they were under a wide variety of rule, from self-rule to the Teutonic Order, in their own massive empire, then under , Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and yes both Russian Empire and the USSR. They have been independent nations for 50 years or so out of the last 100. The languages are also very different, and don't even share the same alphabet as Russian.

Russia and the Soviets tried to wipe out the culture and language of the Baltics and assimilate them as occupiers, unsuccessfully. They've been a member of NATO for nearly 2 decades, and the younger Baltic people (40-50 and under) are very pro-EU and anti-Soviet. A vast majority of the youth speak English in addition to their own languages and don't speak Russian. The Baltics enjoy the most prosperous economies of any former-Soviet occupied country and they're getting better each year.

They're very different from Ukraine and Belarus as far as Russian history goes, and require a much different observational lens.

Agree that the Baltics have been independent too long to go back.
They have done more than most other NATO members to defend themselves.
...but tell that to Putin. They still cut off Kaliningrad.
Putin still sees them as part of Mother Russia & the USSR.
He's from the Baltic coast, nearby, in an adjoining SR.

[old salt]

Can we agree on the following?

1) Putin is the aggressor. He made a brutal choice, lied as he did it. We know it, those around him know it, and most of the educated in Russia know it.

2) The west, NATO, EU, the US is NOT the aggressor. Welcoming self determination, freely and democratically made, is not aggression. Not all Russians would agree with the simplicity of that statement, but we should. The Ukrainians should.

3) However, Putin's calculation is that continuance of the trend towards such self determination could be existential, whether to his ambitions or his very life.

4) The working assumption has to be that he's going to continue to double and triple down on brutality until his own calculus or life is changed.

5) There are really only two possibilities as to his mental health, either a) he is rational about the tradeoffs to not achieving his ambitions but preserving his life, or b) he is irrational and could choose to try to destroy all he can on his way out of life.

So, what does that mean?

b) is a huge issue, but if that's the reality, then that's going to come in any scenario in which he doesn't achieve his ambitions. He's set himself up as needing to acquire Ukraine, at a minimum, and that's just not going to happen without immense bloodshed. And his ambitions are far more than just Ukraine.

a) requires a sacrifice of those ambitions, a choice in which he decides to preserve whatever power he can (and his life) despite the embarrassment of having led Russia astray.

So, I think the calculus needs to change a whole lot in order to make a) the only path out. That means he needs to believe that continued aggression will only lead to consequences for others such that they will indeed have no choice but to kill him...and pray he's still a rational actor.

Agree. That's why we need to find a face saving way for him to back down, as soon as possible, or watch him continue to decimate Ukraine, no matter the toll on both sides, then figure out what to do next. Unless he's toppled internally, then there's no telling who & what comes next.

I can imagine the Ukrainians saying they'd accept giving up the Donbass, but they're definitely not going to give up their western trajectory, their right to want to be part of the EU and NATO.

Can Putin swallow that? I don't think he will. At this point, I don't think NATO could even agree to a moratorium on NATO membership and it would assuage him...he'll keep going.

I think we need to be destroying that convoy, whether with drones or direct action. Preferably drones, and/or any other means with plausible responsibility in Ukraine's hands.

It's been quite amazing how fast public opinion has shifted. 6 days. I'm worried that it's going to shift even harder as the slaughter gets much worse.

Watching Boris Johnson get confronted by the Ukrainian journalist...I'm not sure how any of the political leaders of most of the NATO countries will be able to stand by watching that slaughter, claiming we're levying sanctions, sending aid...yet, the slaughter continues.

If the convoy's destroyed, then what ? What's your end game ? You're dealing with Hitler with nukes.

[dislaxxic]

Aren't we, at some point, trying to find a way to be OK with Vlad telling us that democracy - the will of the people in a sovereign place - are AOK as long as the application of said democracy produces a result that is "compliant" with Mr. Putin?

We're OK with that...?

..

[Kismet]

Can we agree on the following?

1) Putin is the aggressor. He made a brutal choice, lied as he did it. We know it, those around him know it, and most of the educated in Russia know it.

2) The west, NATO, EU, the US is NOT the aggressor. Welcoming self determination, freely and democratically made, is not aggression. Not all Russians would agree with the simplicity of that statement, but we should. The Ukrainians should.

3) However, Putin's calculation is that continuance of the trend towards such self determination could be existential, whether to his ambitions or his very life.

4) The working assumption has to be that he's going to continue to double and triple down on brutality until his own calculus or life is changed.

5) There are really only two possibilities as to his mental health, either a) he is rational about the tradeoffs to not achieving his ambitions but preserving his life, or b) he is irrational and could choose to try to destroy all he can on his way out of life.

So, what does that mean?

b) is a huge issue, but if that's the reality, then that's going to come in any scenario in which he doesn't achieve his ambitions. He's set himself up as needing to acquire Ukraine, at a minimum, and that's just not going to happen without immense bloodshed. And his ambitions are far more than just Ukraine.

a) requires a sacrifice of those ambitions, a choice in which he decides to preserve whatever power he can (and his life) despite the embarrassment of having led Russia astray.

So, I think the calculus needs to change a whole lot in order to make a) the only path out. That means he needs to believe that continued aggression will only lead to consequences for others such that they will indeed have no choice but to kill him...and pray he's still a rational actor.

Agree. That's why we need to find a face saving way for him to back down, as soon as possible, or watch him continue to decimate Ukraine, no matter the toll on both sides, then figure out what to do next. Unless he's toppled internally, then there's no telling who & what comes next.

Dunno. Remember that Gorbachev barely survived a coup from communist hardliners before he made a deal and dissolved the USSR.
While not likely or anticipated here at his point, there are any number of groups/coalitions who could decide to step in to save their country before their economy implodes and they find themselves broke and threatened.

Nordstream 2 consortium just declared bankruptcy and canned their entire staff.

Don't think its a good idea to push Putin too far alone - he has nukes and will likely use them if threatened. Are any of you prepared for that?

[NattyBohChamps04]

Agree that the Baltics have been independent too long to go back.
They have done more than most other NATO members to defend themselves.
...but tell that to Putin. They still cut off Kaliningrad.
Putin still sees them as part of Mother Russia & the USSR.
He's from the Baltic coast, nearby, in an adjoining SR.

He can see them as part of the USSR all he wants. You're talking about a multi-front war invading three NATO countries, war vs NATO as a whole, war in Ukraine, occupation in Georgia, occupation in Moldova, and action in Syria at the same time? Not gonna happen.

They're having massive issues handling the logistics of invading a non-NATO member.

If the convoy's destroyed, then what ? What's your end game ? You're dealing with Hitler with nukes.

You give him an off-ramp where Putin can withdraw and then save face internally. We're giving him the stick, present him with a carrot. You're not suggesting we simply roll over and let him take over Ukraine because he has nukes are you?

[old salt]

Aren't we, at some point, trying to find a way to be OK with Vlad telling us that democracy - the will of the people in a sovereign place - are AOK as long as the application of said democracy produces a result that is "compliant" with Mr. Putin?

We're OK with that...?

What else do you propose we do ? It's not a perfect world.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Agree that the Baltics have been independent too long to go back.
They have done more than most other NATO members to defend themselves.
...but tell that to Putin. They still cut off Kaliningrad.
Putin still sees them as part of Mother Russia & the USSR.
He's from the Baltic coast, nearby, in an adjoining SR.

He can see them as part of the USSR all he wants. You're talking about a multi-front war invading three NATO countries, war vs NATO as a whole, war in Ukraine, occupation in Georgia, occupation in Moldova, and action in Syria at the same time? Not gonna happen.

They're having massive issues handling the logistics of invading a non-NATO member.

If the convoy's destroyed, then what ? What's your end game ? You're dealing with Hitler with nukes.

You give him an off-ramp where Putin can withdraw and then save face internally. We're giving him the stick, present him with a carrot. You're not suggesting we simply roll over and let him take over Ukraine because he has nukes are you?

Hitler with nukes?…..for 5 years we were told it’s USA and NATOs fault and the guy is rational…and standing up to him didn’t matter.

[Dip&Dunk]

If the convoy's destroyed, then what ? What's your end game ? You're dealing with Hitler with nukes.

So at what point is enough, enough? Are we several steps into brinksmanship?

For brinkmanship to be effective, both sides continuously escalate their threats and actions. However, a threat is ineffective unless it is credible, and at some point, an aggressive party may have to prove its commitment to action. This then brings up mutual assured destruction.

Following brinksmanship, escalating threats of hostilities, then limited war then nuclear war and massive retaliation, both parties have to respond with more force with each step. The principle of the tactic is that neither party would prefer to yield to the other, but one of them would simply have to yield, or the outcome would be the worst possible for both of them.

But, as you say, we are dealing with "Hitler with nukes". aka the madman theory.

Have we reversed the madman theory? The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with US President Richard Nixon's foreign policy. Nixon and his administration tried to make the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations think he was irrational and volatile. According to the theory, those leaders would then avoid provoking the United States, fearing an unpredictable American response. But now we ascribe the madness to Putin and live in fear of provoking him?

[MDlaxfan76]

Can we agree on the following?

1) Putin is the aggressor. He made a brutal choice, lied as he did it. We know it, those around him know it, and most of the educated in Russia know it.

2) The west, NATO, EU, the US is NOT the aggressor. Welcoming self determination, freely and democratically made, is not aggression. Not all Russians would agree with the simplicity of that statement, but we should. The Ukrainians should.

3) However, Putin's calculation is that continuance of the trend towards such self determination could be existential, whether to his ambitions or his very life.

4) The working assumption has to be that he's going to continue to double and triple down on brutality until his own calculus or life is changed.

5) There are really only two possibilities as to his mental health, either a) he is rational about the tradeoffs to not achieving his ambitions but preserving his life, or b) he is irrational and could choose to try to destroy all he can on his way out of life.

So, what does that mean?

b) is a huge issue, but if that's the reality, then that's going to come in any scenario in which he doesn't achieve his ambitions. He's set himself up as needing to acquire Ukraine, at a minimum, and that's just not going to happen without immense bloodshed. And his ambitions are far more than just Ukraine.

a) requires a sacrifice of those ambitions, a choice in which he decides to preserve whatever power he can (and his life) despite the embarrassment of having led Russia astray.

So, I think the calculus needs to change a whole lot in order to make a) the only path out. That means he needs to believe that continued aggression will only lead to consequences for others such that they will indeed have no choice but to kill him...and pray he's still a rational actor.

Agree. That's why we need to find a face saving way for him to back down, as soon as possible, or watch him continue to decimate Ukraine, no matter the toll on both sides, then figure out what to do next. Unless he's toppled internally, then there's no telling who & what comes next.

I can imagine the Ukrainians saying they'd accept giving up the Donbass, but they're definitely not going to give up their western trajectory, their right to want to be part of the EU and NATO.

Can Putin swallow that? I don't think he will. At this point, I don't think NATO could even agree to a moratorium on NATO membership and it would assuage him...he'll keep going.

I think we need to be destroying that convoy, whether with drones or direct action. Preferably drones, and/or any other means with plausible responsibility in Ukraine's hands.

It's been quite amazing how fast public opinion has shifted. 6 days. I'm worried that it's going to shift even harder as the slaughter gets much worse.

Watching Boris Johnson get confronted by the Ukrainian journalist...I'm not sure how any of the political leaders of most of the NATO countries will be able to stand by watching that slaughter, claiming we're levying sanctions, sending aid...yet, the slaughter continues.

If the convoy's destroyed, then what ? What's your end game ? You're dealing with Hitler with nukes.

Hitler had destructive power the world had never seen before, with no one with greater ready capacity at any level, ground, air, naval. Yes, pre nukes. But massive destructive firepower.

But had he been stopped early, by a force with capacities greater than his own, imagine the millions who would likely not have perished so awfully.

Nukes cannot be a shield enabling naked aggression.

Yes, taking out the convoy and similar actions will enable the Ukrainians to continue to fight, be re-suppled, and rebuff Putin for an extended period of time. Enabling the sanctions to bite and bite and bite...and hopefully to result in Putin's ending.