True, and there will be the issue of civilian deaths that will play into Putin's appetite. Not that he cares about civilian deaths, but he will care about international perceptions of mass casualties, which unlike Crimea and Donbas, he won't be able to shut down media reports and cell phone footage.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
True, and there will be the issue of civilian deaths that will play into Putin's appetite. Not that he cares about civilian deaths, but he will care about international perceptions of mass casualties, which unlike Crimea and Donbas, he won't be able to shut down media reports and cell phone footage.
China would of course infinitely prefer to reunify with Taiwan peacefully. For many reasons; to avoid any casualties, to not rankle the Taiwanese (the aim is to have them as a willing part of China, not to subjugate them indefinitely), to avoid economic consequences, to avoid whatever small chance there is of military response from the USA, a massively asymmetrical military strength with the USA until recently and to be able to maintain the impression of a peaceful neighbour who does not want to invade its neighbours (of course, its neighbours may already disagree). Not to mention there is a sign
They go about this through various ways. There's bringing Taiwan ever closer economically, providing easy routes for Taiwanese to come to China (compared to other countries), strong diplomatic pressure on any country or world organisation that recognises Taiwan and dangling the threat of military force.
Ultimately if China did decide to invade, I don't think the USA would respond militarily. The significance to China (and the Chinese) is infinitely more than it is for the USA and Americans. However, it would definitely put the whole region on alert.
As for your above point on whether the USA would defend the NATO baltic states from Russia. Who knows. I don't think its as simple as you say though. Of course Americans and American decision makers don't really care about the Baltics that much. What they would care about though is the maintenance of NATO and the rules based order (that they dictate of course) and lack of conflict/ security in certain areas. If they didn't respond to a Baltic invasion, the tensions in Europe would ratchet up massively and nobody would pay any attention to American treaties. Which may happen of course but would mean an incredibly isolasionist USA from then on I guess.
I don’t know much about this.
What would Russia’s ‘reason’ be for invading?
What would Russia’s ‘reason’ be for invading?
A Moscow-friendly buffer state between it and NATO. Much like Belarus is to the north.
Putin basically wants to encircle all of Russia's borders with allies. Since 2014, Ukraine has been edging towards the West and he sees that as a long term geopolitical threat.
The goal will be to install a puppet leader under the guise of protecting the Russian diaspora in Ukraine.
I hope Ukraine don't have Harry Maguire in their defence
I know nukes have pretty much killed the option but I do wonder what a nuke-less world would look like. Could have been a genuine shout to escalate into a world war much like WWI and WW2. Weird to think about since I'm at an age similar to a lot of the young lads who got conscripted in those two wars were.
I think one of the most interesting (and less talked about) unknowns here, is how Ukraine will react militarily. If they go full Bar Kokhba/Carthage level revolt then there are going to be some serious issues and Russia are fecked.
I think Putin is betting on the fact that Zelensky is weak and that they will fold, but to say Zelensky speaks for all of Ukraine would be a lie. If they say, take Kiev, Zelensky folds, and a serious resistance unfolds with army backing, it's a problem.
It's a MAD world....
Preventing Ukraine from choosing to become a member of NATO and in the process expanding Russian controlled territory. Pretty much classic neo-imperialist empire building. There's also a major geo-strategic and economic component to this in that controlling Ukraine means having naval control of most of the Black Sea as well controlling the Ukrainian economy (thereby diversifying Russia's fairly narrow oil/gas driven economy), and greater control of using Ukrainian territory to supply gas to Europe without having to rely on multiple undersea pipelines. It would also allow him more flexibility to use natural gas as a political weapon to influence European policy on Putin's behalf, and likewise prevent European policy from adversely affecting his future ambitions. It makes all the sense in the world for an expansionist authoritarian like Putin to invade.
Last edited:
Generally true, however with the BMDs starting to show they might work with usable probabilities, and certain liquid fueled icbm arsenals not necessarily being maintained properly , I fear in some minds it may look a lot less MA than, say the 1980s.
Having nukes enables nuclear powered countries to go to war with one another by unconventional means - cyber attacks, economic pressure, destablizing competing nations from within etc. It wouldn't even require going to war with conventional weapons since nations can silently attack one another without the downside of public perception that they are at war.
Having nukes also creates the conditions for the likes of Russia and China to pursue Ukraine and Taiwan by using the risk calculus that nukes will always be a deterrent, and the US or NATO won't want to get into a conventional shooting war out of fear that it would eventually escalate into nukes. This is why cyber attacks (attacking critical infrastructure) and sabotage (such as cutting undersea internet cables) are so effective - because states can repeatedly do these without provable attribution.
Not the best decade to use. Parts of the 80s were quite sketchy.
I personally think a WW like WW2 is out of the question in 2022. Too much video and too unrealistic with no end game possible for everyone. Even German can't fully annex any nation back in 1940 there's insurgent and underground movement all over Europe, and that's before the ability of global sanction and economic / information blockade.
When was the last time a country is fully annexed in modern history?
South Vietnam?
HGV's are the big issue currently I think. China has clear supremacy. That said, who knows what it'll look like in a few years once they have global space detection coverage.
US has been wasting time and money on unicorns like the HVP. That said, Arrow4 has potential.
Hong Kong?
The ones I was referring to used micro VTs and those were fine (or so I've heard
)Unwillingly, Kuwait in August 1990 I believe.
These sound like fairly long-term plans. How long is the old bastard planning to stick around as President?
Maybe we'll see SDI part 2. Was the hvp the infamous rounds for the Zumwalt?
Sorry I’m not very clued up on Russian politics. Is Putins goal here to try and rebuild the Soviet Union again? By taking the Ukraine first he can move onto to other old soviet territories?
Last edited:
He recently changed the constitution to allow him to rule until 2036 which would make him 83, but could obviously do the same again if needed. In reality, he's there for life. He can't "retire" or move on since leaving office would result in him getting prosecuted for his decades of crime and corruption by future Russian governments. He's in fairly good shape so I would've be surprised to see him govern well into his 80s or beyond.
Make no mistake; he *is* the Russian executive and legislative system. Even if her were to retire he would still ultimately be in control as “counsel” or something and he would leave an entire framework that answers directly to him, let alone just choosing his successor.
Any possible rectifying measures or cleansing of the decades of abuse of power wouldn’t possibly happen until decades after his death, if ever. Maoist in legacy building.
Putin will not face any any repercussions at all from Russian powers even if he chose to retire next year, never mind any meaningful prosecutions.
It sounds crazy but even with nuclear war implications, no US president in recent past other than Trump would dishonour a NATO treaty.
Im not sure it's as easy as that. It would be an enormous shock for Japan and the US alliance. It would be an enormous sign of US weakness and democratic weakness, and it'd hugely weaken US influence in SE Asia. It would be a hugely destabilizing event with unpredictable consequences. The US may well care about that given how sensitive it is about the rise of China and it's relative decline.
If Russia attack, can Ukraine defend itself or is it likely to be a quick take over?
It depends on how they attack. If they create air superiority and use rockets, missiles, and tanks to bomb them into submission, then there won't be much the Ukrainians can do. If they attempt a hybrid operation, such as they did in Crimea and were allegedly plotting again in Ukraine, then the Ukrainians could definitely defend themselves as it wouldn't be overwhelming. As others have suggested, he may simply want to grab a bit more Russian speaking territory and create a land bridge between Donbas and Crimea or perhaps more audaciously, from Belarus to Crimea, to expand his territory and codify all of eastern Ukraine as part of Russia. If he wants more than that, it will get extremely messy since non-Russia sympathetic Ukrainians will put up a massive fight, which could lead to casualties, which would lead to both domestic and international pressure for Putin to pull back. No one knows what's in his mind and how far he is willing to go.
Some great insight and posts in here.
Is this really happening? As in the invasion?
I still see this as a massively provocative move by Putin in order to destabilise the established order.
I still find it hard to believe that a high profile country will be invaded.
Surely it would have been done by now if they wanted it to happen, why wait?
I still see this as a massively provocative move by Putin in order to destabilise the established order.
I still find it hard to believe that a high profile country will be invaded.
Surely it would have been done by now if they wanted it to happen, why wait?
Yeah so much to process.
@Raoul makes very interesting and informed reading but I would wonder if the opinion of world leaders will influence the Russian decision too much? Putin is as loose a canon as there is in the international arena? Maybe a high death toll would be more off-putting to the non Russian side?
Yeah,
I see the news and read the words from Biden and BJ(idiot) and just feel like they are both in it for their own political gain, like it's one big game to play.
If Russia don't invade, they can paint it as a diplomatic win and reinvigorate their respective tenures,
If in the off chance Russia do invade they can point to the work they have done to prevent this, and point to the assistance they have given as a sign they have done all they can.
Interesting times ahead, but I feel for the folks in Ukraine, can't be an easy time for them.
It must be a weird confusing hell in Ukraine presently, no doubt.
The suspicious part of me thinks the endgame is a kind of unspoken arrangement, not having a clue personally what it is.
Kuwait is probably one of the more recent examples.
When this thread is on the main page it reads "Potential Russian invasion of Uk". I'd follow the story a bit more closely if that was the case!
Its also much more dense in terms of population in a very small area, which would be a giant headache and PR nightmare for China, not to mention economic countermeasures by the likes of the US and EU.
So what if next week nothing happens...quite the anti-climax?
That would be good for all sides, except perhaps Putin's personal ambitions. This could also drag on for some time as long as he has over 100,000 troops amassed across multiple borders.
Not sure what rotations have been going, but at some point these troops will really start wanting to go home. Cant see this going indefinitely unless he actively swaps the units.
We can only hope for an anti-climax at some point, but if your expecting that next week you probably pay too much attention just to mainstream western media headlines.
I don't forsee much change, the mobilisation of Russian forces toward Ukraine has shown no signs of slowing down. Every single day more equipment is sighted moving westward. The media is still quoting the month old "100k troops" figure so its easy to think there's not been any escalation on Russias part, that is not the case.
Russia also evacuated its Kyiv embassy today...
There's also the idea that Putin may have to invade for fear of looking weak and feckless in backing down from an invasion. If he were not to invade, he wouldn't be taken seriously if he threatened again at a later date.
There is no way Putin keeps up this massive expensive front at the border for much longer without doing something.
The morale of the troops and the cost of keeping them there indefinitely will sure cause him to do something by month end no ?