• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
When we were only a few months into this conflict I pondered if it was worth it to find a way to let Russia "save face."

It wasn't a case of Russia deserving it by any means but the idea of just floating some backdoor message to Russia with some version of "Listen we know this isn't ending well and it's your own stupid pride more than anything that's going to keep it going, so let's say we talk about ways to end this were you don't look so bad" for simple practical reasons.

Now? I don't even think that would work, morality of it aside. Even if Russia was given an out that would trade them facing full consequences for what they did in exchange for pulling us back from a potential brink, I don't think they would do it.
Click to expand...

You are a speaking of an organization that deny's reality. Rational thought is just not something they do.

“There is no great presence of water here at all,” Sosaldo calms everyone. He even says people in Kahovka can easily walk down the street with no problem and that he’s even witnessed it with his own eyes.


https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWar...re_is_no_great_presence_of_water_here_at_all/

Look at the window behind him!!!
 
I really hope NATO has some sort of war plan along the lines of "no matter what, this is going to get worse before it gets better, so we're going to go ahead and make it worse now, so that we can control the worsening and also dictate the getting better."

I mean, the US has plans for invading Canadia. They must have a plan for conventional assault on Moscow that triggers a defensive nuclear response. Even if neither plan is ever supposed to actually be put into action.

But following up on Joe's thoughts, I kind of think we might be close to a scenario where that second plan becomes the lesser evil.
 
theprestige said:
I really hope NATO has some sort of war plan along the lines of "no matter what, this is going to get worse before it gets better, so we're going to go ahead and make it worse now, so that we can control the worsening and also dictate the getting better."

I mean, the US has plans for invading Canadia. They must have a plan for conventional assault on Moscow that triggers a defensive nuclear response. Even if neither plan is ever supposed to actually be put into action.

But following up on Joe's thoughts, I kind of think we might be close to a scenario where that second plan becomes the lesser evil.
Click to expand...

I imagine the USDoD has done all kinds of wargaming for such scenarios. And I bet they've probably come to the same conclusion as I have: there is no point in a conventional assault on Russia. Once it gets to a certain point they'll launch nukes. Probably tactically. We'll respond back with the same, and they'll respond with ICBM's targeting the US. We may as well first strike them. The only reason not to is "cause we don't do that we're the good guys". Which will result in many millions of extra deaths rather than just getting it over with.

The only exception is if we do indeed, and with very high confidence, have the ability to destroy their nuclear capability conventionally.
 
lobosrul5 said:
You are a speaking of an organization that deny's reality. Rational thought is just not something they do.
Click to expand...

Winston Churchill famously said, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

I knew about the first clause long before I learned that Churchill also thought the mystery could be solved, that the riddle had a key.

And I think that throughout the Soviet Union period, Churchill was largely correct: Russia might appear to be acting strangely, but it is always trying to gain some advantage for itself. It is always trying to secure its interests in a world it perceives as full of enemies.

But I think that's no longer true, if it ever was true to begin with. Nothing Russia has done in the past year or so seems like a rational application of the principle of self-interest. Moscow is like a bully that not only does things for no benefit, but only because it can, but even continues bullying even when it's against their interests to do so.

Even if we assume Putin is acting out of some desire for historical greatness, it still doesn't explain how he's chosen to go about it. In fact, whatever motivation we ascribe to Putin's actions, they don't explain why he's taking those actions in the service of those motivations.

Russia truly is a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma. But - apologies to Churchill - there is no key.

I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. All I can tell you is that whatever it is, it will be stupid and counter-productive to its larger interests.
Actually, when I put it that way, things seem very predictable: Russia will use nukes before the year is out.
 
theprestige said:
I really hope NATO has some sort of war plan along the lines of "no matter what, this is going to get worse before it gets better, so we're going to go ahead and make it worse now, so that we can control the worsening and also dictate the getting better."

I mean, the US has plans for invading Canadia. They must have a plan for conventional assault on Moscow that triggers a defensive nuclear response. Even if neither plan is ever supposed to actually be put into action.

But following up on Joe's thoughts, I kind of think we might be close to a scenario where that second plan becomes the lesser evil.
Click to expand...

Canadia??? Really?? :eye-poppi
 
theprestige said:
I really hope NATO has some sort of war plan along the lines of "no matter what, this is going to get worse before it gets better, so we're going to go ahead and make it worse now, so that we can control the worsening and also dictate the getting better."

I mean, the US has plans for invading Canadia. They must have a plan for conventional assault on Moscow that triggers a defensive nuclear response. Even if neither plan is ever supposed to actually be put into action.

But following up on Joe's thoughts, I kind of think we might be close to a scenario where that second plan becomes the lesser evil.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping the war plan for initiating a hot war with a fellow nuclear power like Russia is for the sanest person in the room to pull out a pistol and keep shooting until all the people who think this is a good idea are dead.
 
Steve said:
No I am saying that the name of our country is Canada, not Canadia.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that wasn't me.

ETA: oh Jesus I thought you meant "Canada really" as in the US REALLY had a plan to attack Canada, when your "really" was about theprestige's (intentional? I dunno) misspelling.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
I'm hoping the war plan for initiating a hot war with a fellow nuclear power like Russia is for the sanest person in the room to pull out a pistol and keep shooting until all the people who think this is a good idea are dead.
Click to expand...

You hope in vain. There are already detailed, comprehensive plans for war with Russia.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Yeah, that wasn't me.

ETA: oh Jesus I thought you meant "Canada really" as in the US REALLY had a plan to attack Canada, when your "really" was about theprestige's (intentional? I dunno) misspelling.
Click to expand...

No prob. Nuance is sometimes hard to recognize in written words.
 
I'm like Batman in Tower of Babel when it comes to countries having contingency plans to deal with other countries, even one they are on good terms with at the moment.

Batman: I've carefully studied every Justice Leaguer, past and present and created contingency plans to neutralize you should that become necessary.
Superman: None of us would ever do that to you.
Batman: Then you're damned fools.

Ability is not desire or intent. Yes I hope every country has a plan to deal with every other country. If Belgium attacks New Zealand tomorrow I want New Zealand to be able to go "Oh you mean scenario #53,935?"
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm like Batman in Tower of Babel when it comes to countries having contingency plans to deal with other countries, even one they are on good terms with at the moment.

Batman: I've carefully studied every Justice Leaguer, past and present and created contingency plans to neutralize you should that become necessary.
Superman: None of us would ever do that to you.
Batman: Then you're damned fools.

Ability is not desire or intent. Yes I hope every country has a plan to deal with every other country. If Belgium attacks New Zealand tomorrow I want New Zealand to be able to go "Oh you mean scenario #53,935?"
Click to expand...

Some of them would be rather short and simple plans. What is Haiti's plan to resist if the US attacks them?

 
theprestige said:
Winston Churchill famously said, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."

I knew about the first clause long before I learned that Churchill also thought the mystery could be solved, that the riddle had a key.

And I think that throughout the Soviet Union period, Churchill was largely correct: Russia might appear to be acting strangely, but it is always trying to gain some advantage for itself. It is always trying to secure its interests in a world it perceives as full of enemies.

But I think that's no longer true, if it ever was true to begin with. Nothing Russia has done in the past year or so seems like a rational application of the principle of self-interest. Moscow is like a bully that not only does things for no benefit, but only because it can, but even continues bullying even when it's against their interests to do so.

Even if we assume Putin is acting out of some desire for historical greatness, it still doesn't explain how he's chosen to go about it. In fact, whatever motivation we ascribe to Putin's actions, they don't explain why he's taking those actions in the service of those motivations.

Russia truly is a mystery, wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma. But - apologies to Churchill - there is no key.

I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. All I can tell you is that whatever it is, it will be stupid and counter-productive to its larger interests.
Actually, when I put it that way, things seem very predictable: Russia will use nukes before the year is out.
Click to expand...

The problem with trying to look at things through a strict "national interest" lens is that countries are not sole minds. Leaders of countries are balancing a lot of competing and often mutually exclusive interests. They have their own fractious domestic constituencies to keep happy.

History is full of examples of countries making what appear to be bone-headed plays that, on closer inspection, are often the result of someone in power trying to navigate a course through their own country's complicated domestic politics. hell, many times during the cold war leaders in the US took overly aggressive anti-communist stances not because that was the strategically wise move to make, but because they constantly feared being labelled softy pinko by their opposition and rivals. The occupation of Afghanistan dragged on and on and on not well after anyone in power thought there was an strategic purpose for doing so, but simply because nobody wanted to be the one having to personally bear the cost of declaring it a lost cause.

I'm not picking on the US here, these are just the examples that most immediately come to mind because they are most familiar to me. This kind of dynamic is at work across the globe. Nations are not hiveminds.

These kinds of foreign policy events are less strategic chessmaster planning 20 moves out in advance, and more people precariously trying to herd cats or spin plates. Sometimes these leaders are in positions to direct the course of history, and sometimes they are just trying to hang on for dear life as history happens.

I would guess in Putin's case there are significant voices within Russia (no doubt boosted by himself throughout the years) with an intense anti-West, anti-NATO stance that had to be contended with all the time, even if that leads to Putin walking directly into a rake in Ukraine.

This is why nuclear war brinksmanship makes me so uneasy. Nations make disastrously bad decisions all the time, and tempting fate with brinksmanship assuming cooler heads will prevail and prevent apocalyptic war is assuming a lot more clear-headedness than is justified.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom