"And if he achieves nothing, he faces the risk of being overthrown by his own security and military elites. He may feel, then, that he has little to lose by fighting on. Things can’t get much worse for him than they already are. And if he somehow manages to succeed, things might get much better for him. Gambling for resurrection can be a rational behavior. But it’s the rational behavior of a man who has become desperate and will try almost anything to save his skin."
From "Here Are Three Reasons Putin Might Fight On" by Peter Coy (NYT). The 3 reasons are: 1. sunk cost fallacy, 2. golden spike theory, and 3. (discussed in the quote above) gambling for resurrection.
Posts
74 comments:
I put some hope in this: "he faces the risk of being overthrown by his own security and military elites." He needs those security and military elites to carry out his increasingly desperate plans that are supposed to be motivated by a desire save him from being overthrown by his security and military elites.
Of course, strongmen always "risk being overthrown." It comes with the territory.
Is Putin desperate? Who knows. The costs are likely much higher than he anticipated. But he invaded because the main goal mattered a lot. In fact, it was the main goal he publicly stressed for years. So no special explanation is needed for Russia pressing on. Raising costs can change the calculation, of course, but that goes for the resistance as well, in Ukraine and beyond.
Another Putin stooge weighs in, no doubt to be vilified by brave commentators on this blog: "Allies, she added, should try to help him find a face-saving way to stand down." Sounds rational to me though. The Ukrainians and the West have gained a lot of leverage. Now use it.
What about the Samson Option? Bring the whole temple down around his ears.
Or --a close variant-- the Spurned Boyfriend Play? "If I can't have you, nobody else will."
This is how narcissists think. When they're narcissists with a big red button to push, they end up thinking of nothing else.
This is a very dangerous situation. Gerard Baker made similar points in his WSJ column "The Terrifying Paradox of Russian Weakness" on March 7.
By the way, Putin could be replaced by someone more competent and more ruthless.
Can Putin be so worried if it is true FJB is working with him on climate and Iran?
We can say the same of Biden, except we are less a pariah state for abandoning Afghanistan the Taliban. But we still lack foreign diplomatic strength which is all the more evident in dealing with Iran after they rocket attacked our nearest embassy.
But like Biden, Putin isn’t going anywhere too soon and won’t be overthrown violently. Putin is also not done in the Ukraine. He didn’t get an easy win, but he still has resources for a win. The West can boast about their sanctions, but they still rely on Russian Oil and Gas. They can claim they’ll change, but it will take a few years to decouple and find sufficient alternatives (especially when the US won’t make up Russian oil and gas production because we have a weak leader). The West hasn’t changed in the past month and likewise has Putin’s global position. I don’t like it, but I don’t see progressives giving up their socialist dreams because Putin supposedly shocks them. They weren’t shocked in 2014 nor 2008. The faux shock will be over after Ukraine formally accepts Russia conditions for a new border with land now annexed by Russia.
The article speaks of "negotiators who are trying to stop the war." Where are these negotiators? Where were they before the war started? Blinken, the former staff apparatchik who is now secretary of state, and who in 2011 encouraged Obama to begin a bombing campaign in Libya, said from the beginning that the door to NATO is open and that Ukraine's ability to join NATO was not subject to negotiation. The US basically offered nothing to Russia. Now people can respond by saying you do not negotiate with someone like Putin. Okay, then lets keep the war going, watch the destruction of cities from afar, continue to provide kindling to the fire, and hope we do not become further involved. Will be somewhat disappointing if the war spreads and more desruction occurs over issues like "Should Crimea be part of Ukraine or part of Russia." I cannot fathom why the American people should give a toss over that question, but war fever creates its own logic.
It's seven years this month since the Clinton email scandal hit, and they've kept the country in continual turmoil since. Like them, Putin will stop only when he's stopped.
One thing I do know is not to place any faith in NYT understanding anything about the situation and if by dumb luck they do know something, they would not discuss it unless they believed it helps Democrats. Here its hard to tell anything. I suspect this is more liberals talking past the sale, imagining the thing they want to be true- Putin’s defeat- is already happening…
Maybe Putin invaded Ukraine because it's fun or exciting. He is like a gambler -- a loser who will go home with empty pockets but, nevertheless, entertained and buzzed on adrenalin and endorphins.
More undocumented filler. When something real happens, it will be obvious to everyone. Until then, people believe what they want to believe.
I will say that after 4-years of Trump and the divisions sown during Covid, I am very pleased with you people here who are not drinking the FoxSB Kool aid. It proves Lincoln postulate about fooling the people.
Putin and Trump have a lot in common.
Everyone is media knows what they're thinking and what to think about what they're thinking.
rehajm said:
"I suspect this is more liberals talking past the sale, imagining the thing they want to be true- Putin’s defeat- is already happening."
That's the problem -- liberals imagining all sorts of things all the time. Imagine is one of Kamala's favorite words. Imagine this... Imagine that... Liberals actually believe that their imaginations make it so. That's utter foolishness.
Isn't the point that the sunk costs here are not a fallacy to Putin, if his survival depends on the level of success he achieves? He can't simply say, "I took the best deal I was able to get." He has to show some sort of victory, or he's gone.
Will Putin give up?
No. He has nothing to lose by fighting on.
The question is all the other people there who do NOT have their entire existence invested in enslaving Ukraine.
How much will they let him get away with before they decide their families lives are more important than Putin's ego
Sebastian said...
Is Putin desperate? Who knows. The costs are likely much higher than he anticipated. But he invaded because the main goal mattered a lot. In fact, it was the main goal he publicly stressed for years. So no special explanation is needed for Russia pressing on.
So, Sebastian, what is this "main goal"? Why, exactly is it so important?
I'll offer my answers, you tell us where I'm wrong.
Main goal: dismember and then absorb Ukraine
Importance: If Ukraine joins NATO then Putin's fantasies of recreating the URRS as "Greater Russia" go away
Threat to Russia if can't keep Ukraine out of NATO: None. NATO isn't going to invade Russia, they're just going to keep Russia from invading its neighbors
Now, do tell us what legitimate threats Putin is responding to
Sebastian said...Another Putin stooge weighs in, no doubt to be vilified by brave commentators on this blog
One of my favorite techniques of political argument--make up opinions out thin air, assign those opinions to other people, and then criticize those people for holding the opinions.
Leland said...
But like Biden, Putin isn’t going anywhere too soon and won’t be overthrown violently. Putin is also not done in the Ukraine. He didn’t get an easy win, but he still has resources for a win
No, he doesn't.
Because just as Russia/USSR backed Norther Korea and North Vietnam when they fought the US, the US is free to keep on backing a Ukrainian Resistance, with Javelins, Stingers, drones, and all the other cool weapons of war, until such time as Russia is forced to retreat out of Ukraine completely.
The USSR/Russia couldn't hold Afghanistan, despite far less aid that the US could give the mujahideen. They won't be able to hold the larger Ukraine, esp after they killed so many people as to have a large base of people who hate them, while not killing enough to cause them to all cower in terror.
Tucker Carlson took on Mitt Romney yesterday and it was great. As for Putin, does the media EVER get tired of their ridiculous mindreading and slander? Again, I'm just amazed how our Regime media puts out the party line "Hate russia. Hate Putin. Putin is Hitler" and everyone just laps it up like a bunch of brain dead morons.
BothSidesNow said:
Will be somewhat disappointing if the war spreads and more desruction occurs over issues like "Should Crimea be part of Ukraine or part of Russia." I cannot fathom why the American people should give a toss over that question, but war fever creates its own logic.
I agree that the concrete example of who owns Crimea is not of major or even minor day-to-day importance to Americans. The more abstract question of, "Should countries bite chunks out of other countries' territory?" is maybe more relevant. I would prefer a world in which that does not happen. I am not excited about our (America's, or indeed humanity's) ability to keep it from happening, though.
He may feel, then, that he has little to lose by fighting on. Things can’t get much worse for him than they already are.
Russian History shows us, that when their leader doesn't deliver.. He Often.. dies
Because of THAT, and the fact that: He may feel, then, that he has little to lose by fighting on. Things can’t get much worse for him than they already are...
WHAT'S to Stop Mr Putin from using "the Nuclear Option"
(please, do NOT say, "oh, he'd NEVER do That! You'd Have To Be INSANE to use Nukes")
Gambling for resurrection can be a rational behavior. But it’s the rational behavior of a man who has become desperate and will try almost anything to save his skin.
Coy is coyly saying that it's rational behavior but not really what "we" would call rational behavior for a rational person, meaning a person like us.
"We" probably wouldn't invade another country even if we could, but if we did -- if we made that commitment -- we wouldn't drop out at the first setbacks and sue for peace.
"We" probably wouldn't invade another country? Well, whatever we've been doing around the world in past years, we tended to stay in, not bug out at the first opportunity.
Owen said...
What about the Samson Option? Bring the whole temple down around his ears.
Or --a close variant-- the Spurned Boyfriend Play? "If I can't have you, nobody else will."
This is how narcissists think. When they're narcissists with a big red button to push, they end up thinking of nothing else.
Because, ignoramus, there's not just some big red button that automatically causes all of Russia's nukes to launch without any other human input.
Now, do explain why all those other people will be so eager to commit suicide, for themselves and their families, along with Putin.
Amadeus 48 said...
By the way, Putin could be replaced by someone more competent and more ruthless.
Putin's main limits are imposed by the weakness of Russia. Russia's kleptocracy keeps it from being technologically competent:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1501360272442896388.html
You can't possibly be more competently ruthless than Putin. But there's no top level technocratic base of people who can run more competent Russia.
If they want to shoot all their oligarchs and create an actual functioning non-corrupt economy, I'll face that risk
How blessed we are to see another useless prognostication from an NYT drelb. The left journo world must offer brownie points for these bits of drivel with no subtractions for getting it wrong.
Putin turns 70 this year, that's above average for a Russian man. No doubt he has decided it is time to set up his legacy; reversing the loss of power that Russia suffered in 1991. He will not stop, which is why his ultimate legacy may be failure.
It is certainly true that Putin has little to lose by fighting on to the bitter end in Ukraine. However, Russia has a lot to lose by this course of action. Therefore, the interests of Russia and Putin diverge. This status is risky for Putin and is an incentive for some powerful Russian, or cabal of powerful Russians to try to seize power. If they succeed, they will be hailed as national saviors and become much more powerful in the bargain.
If they fail, they will be executed though.
Maybe Putin's doctors told him he's got a year to live and he doesn't give a damn...
Greg: "Now, do tell us what legitimate threats Putin is responding to"
Depends on what the meaning of "legitimate" is. You and I consider it absurd for any power to view a neighboring NATO member as a threat. Not legit. But Putin disagrees, has said so repeatedly, and has acted on it. That's a fact. You and I consider it absurd for Russia to have great power pretensions when they are an economic basket case and an authoritarian backwater. But Putin disagrees, thinks Russia is a great power, and has acted like the leaders of other great powers, pursuing his strategic and security interests. He may have miscalculated, and of course the results of his actions are dreadful, but his behavior is no mystery. Of course, we can keep trying to impose our view of "legitimacy," as we have tried to do for many years, and the world would be a better place if we could. But we haven't, and chances are, we can't. Maybe those chances will change, and maybe we can effect regime change. Even then, Ukraine will still be in a tough spot. Unless, we and the Europeans are prepared to take much stronger action to remove not just Putin but dictate terms to any future Russian government, the rational alternative is to find a way out for him, for Ukraine, for Europe now dealing with 3M+ refugees, and for us.
""Let’s say Putin realizes he’s in deep trouble. Russia has become a pariah state. His reputation, not great to begin with, is blackened.""
Who talks like this? These people are a complete joke talking as if they are actually fighting Putin or something.
They are a bunch of douchey shitheads that don't even know what war is about or what happens in areas that are in conflict. There are many conflicts in the world right now that look just like Ukraine at different scale.
Putin fucked up. He got a bunch of cash from inflated oil prices. He listened to his generals who gave him a rosy picture. He saw the US president shitting his pants in public. And the only person dumber than Biden on the world stage was Kamala Harris.
He is done now or in a few years. I doubt Russia ends up with anything better but we can always hope.
More likely with this Regime is they will try to replace Putin with a corrupt and pliable puppet regime like they have in Ukraine. This wont do anything for the people of Russia. This regime will keep oil prices high so whatever corrupt shithead replaces Putin will be able to rebuild the security state.
Hopefully now though we can end NATO. Russia will not be a threat to Europe now for a decade.
If we get a decent president then oil prices will go down and Russia will never be able to do this again and the Russian regime will have less power to maintain control.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Now, do explain why all those other people will be so eager to commit suicide, for themselves and their families, along with Putin.
The problem is that it doesn't take many to go along and Putin will have selected for the most loyal for these roles.
I don't think Putin is suicidal in this way.
But I would say that putin and people around him would rather see a nuke let off in some Ukrainian city than they end up prosecuted in the Hague.
This doesn't seem as impossible as people are saying. Russian will probably complete conquest of the eastern oblasts soon. At some point, Zelensky agrees not to join NATO and that the easter oblasts are independent. Putin can declare victory, hug Zelensky, and leave.
Who will not accept this result? The United States?
Blogger rcocean said...
Tucker Carlson took on Mitt Romney yesterday and it was great. As for Putin, does the media EVER get tired of their ridiculous mindreading and slander? Again, I'm just amazed how our Regime media puts out the party line "Hate russia. Hate Putin. Putin is Hitler" and everyone just laps it up like a bunch of brain dead morons.
I agree and wonder about all these chickenhawks in DC. Both parties. The Democrats are trying to hide their failures behind this war. Why are nominal Republicans helping them? Romney calling LT Col Tulsi Gabbard a "Traitor" ignoring the fact that no one in his family has ever served in the military.
"Threat to Russia if can't keep Ukraine out of NATO: None. NATO isn't going to invade Russia, they're just going to keep Russia from invading its neighbors"--Yes, this.
there has been mention of the weakness of bench wrt D and R politicos.
why expect any better anywhere else?
sunk costs here are not a fallacy to Putin..
==
never understood if there difference between sunk cost and unfinished [but on going] business / project
The more abstract question of, "Should countries bite chunks out of other countries' territory?" is maybe more relevant.
============
is not USA politics like 2 snakes/countries swallowing each other by the tails?
Putin seems to be commanding the Red Army of WW II in the military analysis going on in the NYT, New Yorker, etc. But think on this. 40% of the Dems in this country would leave the country rather than fight for it. This is an insight into the present soy-boy state of lefty young men. Why should it be different in Russia? Do the young folk there really care at all about restoring their nation to imperial glory? Die for that? Isn't this whole younger generation in the US the last group one would ever call on the fight and sacrifice and maybe die for a chance to be a colonizer? Why should we think its different in Russia? Fighting to defend one's homeland, realizing one cares - yes. Passionately longing to die in the Ukraine to realize imperial dreams? I think not. And you know, Putin is not the Czar and he is not a Communist leader and he is not the Patriarch so what are his qualifications as wartime leader? Who is the clown right now?
I couldn't read the article (subscription required). A question for anyone who did. I'm familiar with sunken costs. My former marriage, for example. But what is the "golden spike" theory? I'm familiar with the golden spike historically (the railroad in Utah) and geologically. I can't for the life of me apply that to Putin, or to human psychology in general. I found nothing online, other than what I just mentioned. What am I missing? Did this writer make it up?
Greg-
The Russian mindset requires a buffer with the West. A neutral Ukraine is the limit they are willing to accept. Ukraine in NATO is viewed as an existential threat, regardless of NATO’s intent. I read that the US and Ukraine signed a deal whose endgame was getting Ukraine into NATO. If true, Russia was going to respond to protect its buffer zone.
Putin is wrong for going into the Ukraine, obviously. But from a Russian perspective he is behaving rationally.
Is Putin in deep trouble? I don't know that's true? Do any of you?
We are in the third week of this invasion. The Germans took five weeks to subdue the Poles, and that was with the Poles having to fight the Soviets in the East as well for much of that time. Our media have become far too enamored with Israeli six day wars and lightning drives on Baghdad.
"You can't possibly be more competently ruthless than Putin. But there's no top level technocratic base of people who can run more competent Russia."
You may be right, but I don't think the invasion of Ukraine demonstrates any competence by Putin, and his level of ruthlessness has yet to be tested by competent opposition.
Stalin demonstrated ruthlessness without limits.
Here, in the 21st Century, we have one nation that has begun a conquest of its neighbor. We have another nation that is openly considering a war of conquest. Perhaps I have a misunderstanding, but it seems to me that that makes the first nation a medium to long term pariah by modern standards. Can Russia expect to go back to courting foreign investment, hosting the Olympics? Sure they are nuclear capable, but is that going to get them global trade? Is that going to allow the oligarchs to vacation over the world? The next 10 years look bleak and austere for Russia, to me.
The wild card is food. Food is a human right, right? For food importing countries like China and to a lesser degree Russia, are they sure they can feed their masses? That is a requirement for a dictator's well being.
I think that Putin has f'ed the wrong pooch here due to hubris and his personal estimate of his enemies capabilities. He is pretty doomed no mater how it plays out. Hopefully China will learn by the bad example.
Ukraine became an activists' solution in 2014 with the Slavic Spring with "benefits".
That might explain why Peter Coy continues writing for the NYT. He's a cis white male, short, not getting any younger. Things can’t get much worse for him than they already are. Whereas, if he keeps penning inane speculations about people he is incapable of comprehending, maybe that cute chick with the pink hair and the nose ring will let him suck on her toes.
Dream on, Pete.
What’s the golden spike theory?
If Putin can hold the territory that he has captured, then he doesn’t lose the war, he just doesn’t achieve all of his objectives. I don’t think that he necessarily gets forced in that situation. It’s a question of whether he can reorient Russia’s economy away from the sanctions. Over the long run, he probably can do without trade with the West, if he can still trade with China.
There still is a great benefit to Putin striking a peace deal with Ukraine. It’s a question of whether he can bring himself to offer good enough terms that Ukraine will take the deal,
Putin, Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain, and, apparently, others, too, have investments in the Spring series from Tripoli to Cairo to Damascus to Kabul to Wuhan 2.0, probable other illicit affairs, to backing a Slavic Spring, an insurrection and war in Kiev, disenfranchisement and assault of civilian populations a la Clinton's Serbian war, from 2014 in progress.
"NATO isn't going to invade Russia".
You're probably right, but if you are Russian, do you believe that? Hitler had a peace agreement with Stalin, yet he invaded. NATO wasn't supposed to expand eastward, but it did.
NATO bombed your ally in Serbia. NATO bombed your ally in Libya. If you are Russian, how confident are you in NATO's word?
"I can't for the life of me apply that to Putin, or to human psychology in general. I found nothing online, other than what I just mentioned. What am I missing? Did this writer make it up?'
Yes, he made it up and it's a stretch.
He's saying that at some point Putin will have reached a level of success that will place him in a better position than he was before the war and at that point he can declare victory without complete success (symbolically represented by driving home the golden spike).
The analogy fails because the golden spike represented an actual completion of a task, not a false one.
It's weak. Maybe he needed a hook and considered "declare victory then go home" trite.
And now, Zelenskyy has given up on joining NATO (at least for now). Can't blame him.
Talk about an internal overthrowing of Putin, never talks about filling the massive power vacuum.
I just don't see how a replacement will not double down on the raw abuse demonstrated by Putin. What exactly is "Russian"? Unless there is a charismatic leader with a vision, it nothing but the same that happens in a mob family.
More of the same, ratcheted up. Only with Nukes to fiddle with
Left Bank of the Charles said...
What’s the golden spike theory?
An academic theory that states that we are currently living in the Antropocene Epoch (The Age of Humans) and includes a proposal to add the Antropocene Epoch to the recognized geological timeline.
What that has to do with Putin is anybody's guess.
Putin isn't losing. Nor is he going to allow Russia to lose. He will probably not engage in house to house fighting. No Stalingrad or Berlin for him. Just massive barrages blasting whatever cities he needs to blast and when enough Ukrainians die from bombardments and hunger they will fold. In the meantime I would presume he will have his forces advance to and take control of any border areas where weapons and food can come in the Ukraine. Old school, horrific but effective siege campaign strategy.
"Golden Spike" theory. I.e., when he finishes the job he gets great reward, and nothing if he doesn't. Don't build half a bridge.
Doesn't apply here. If Putin can get independence for the eastern provinces, and get Ukraine to agree to be neutral, and get out alive, he doesn't need to conquer the rest of Ukraine and presumably won't try.
"I am in blood / Stepped in so far that should I wade no more, / Returning were
as tedious as go o'er." And do remember who spoke those words.
But, at this unexpected point in the blooded stream, for Putin (albeit not for Russia) to go o'er may very well appear much less tedious than returning. For Putin personally, as for the quoted speaker, returning may not be a realistic option and to go o'er offers at least some chance of winning.
“A second idea that might lead Putin to fight on doesn’t have a name that I know of, so I’ll call it the golden spike theory. The golden spike was a railway spike driven in 1869 in Promontory Summit in the Utah Territory to complete the first transcontinental railroad, joining the segments coming from the east and the west. The railroad was mostly useless until that final connection was made, after which it became immensely valuable. Similarly, Putin may be thinking that just another few weeks of fighting will be enough to subdue Ukraine.”
That is mostly true, but it is still the same thing as the sunk cost fallacy, if a small additional investment will generate a great return your sunk cost does not matter, and you should spend the additional amount based on its future return.
Years ago while at a fast-food restaurant in the city with my two young sons, I watched as a man in a wheelchair with a boombox in his lap (playing skull-thumpingly glorious James Brown) repeatedly rammed the front door until someone opened it for him and he was able to enter. He flipped the boombox off and declared to the entire restaurant, in a convincingly loud James Brown voice, "I do what I want." Since then it's been family code for everything from bratty children to hardened criminals, and I offer it to the New York Times as the fourth and most likely reason Putin will continue to do what he does.
but is that going to get them global trade? WHO is going to NOT buy from them?
The wild card is Oil.
fixed it for you! Here's your chance, to say; "we're Not Buying from them"! and i'll say
Which increases the price that they'll get from the Germans
Achilles said ...
"Hopefully now though we can end NATO. Russia will not be a threat to Europe now for a decade."
Once again you win the thread for the most inane comment. Your record winning streak continues. And it's not like you don't have stiff competition.
A whole decade? Talk about living in the moment. My grandkid will be 12 by then.
"In the meantime I would presume he will have his forces advance to and take control of any border areas where weapons and food can come in the Ukraine."
That might bring him in direct military conflict with NATO. It's a dangerous game with unintended consequences. I wouldn't want to gamble the safety of the world on some nervous, scared shitless 19 year old border guard.
Thank you, Rabel, and others, for defining the "golden spike" theory. I agree that it's a lousy application. In fact, it makes no sense at all in the context of Putin's war in Ukraine. The writer must have thought he was being clever.
jim5301 said...
Achilles said ...
"Hopefully now though we can end NATO. Russia will not be a threat to Europe now for a decade."
Once again you win the thread for the most inane comment. Your record winning streak continues. And it's not like you don't have stiff competition.
A whole decade? Talk about living in the moment. My grandkid will be 12 by then.
Maybe you will join the army and go sit in Europe.
Or not.
We know that you are talking about someone else when it comes to fighting Russia. You are a douche and a coward and would never do anything yourself.
Europe has the means. They can defend themselves.
If individual conutries like Poland or Estonia/baltics want to make a deal I would be fine with that.
But fuck subsidizing Germany and France and fuck chickenhawks like you.
gilbar said...
but is that going to get them global trade? WHO is going to NOT buy from them?
The wild card is Oil.
fixed it for you! Here's your chance, to say; "we're Not Buying from them"! and i'll say
Which increases the price that they'll get from the Germans
These people know Putin is getting his money and none of this stops the war.
They need this war to continue to hide their failures and corruption.
When the war ends they need Ukraine and Russia to fall apart and turn into failed state war zones.
They are just shitheads.
Achilles said...
I don't think Putin is suicidal in this way.
But I would say that putin and people around him would rather see a nuke let off in some Ukrainian city than they end up prosecuted in the Hague.
3/15/22, 11:45 AM
A WMD attack on a Ukrainian city is an obvious false flag to spark NATO intervention. Which makes sense, otherwise Zelensky will be quite lucky if all the Russians do is execute him.
No, if the Russians insist on using WMD as a warning, it will be against the Western nations that have most directly tried to weaken it. I suspect Geneva, because it pretended to be neutral while stealing Russian money. But if Russia has to destroy more than one city, they do have thousands of warheads to do so...
Blogger jim5301 said...
Achilles said ...
"Hopefully now though we can end NATO. Russia will not be a threat to Europe now for a decade."
Once again you win the thread for the most inane comment.
It's interesting how this topic brings out the idiots to comment. NATO was designed to protect Europe against the Soviet Union, which ended 30 years ago. The more recent version of NATO has expected the US to defend them while they lambast us as beneath contempt. Trump suggested that they get their act together. Now, all the rhetoric about Ukraine and NATO has caused a war. I think it is an excellent idea to let NATO do their own thing and not depend on us, especially as we have the most incompetent regime in our history as a government.
rcocean said...
Tucker Carlson took on Mitt Romney yesterday and it was great. As for Putin, does the media EVER get tired of their ridiculous mindreading and slander? Again, I'm just amazed how our Regime media puts out the party line "Hate russia. Hate Putin. Putin is Hitler" and everyone just laps it up like a bunch of brain dead morons.
Yeah! How dare they say that a former KGB Colonel who mourns the end of the USSR, wants to enslave all his neighbors, murders people for the crime of speaking out against him, and likes to carry out massacres is a "bad person"!
A sane person could say "I don't think this is America's fight".
You say "God I love Putin and think it's horrible how mean everyone is being to him!"
You're just fucked in the head
Sebastian said...
Greg: "Now, do tell us what legitimate threats Putin is responding to"
Depends on what the meaning of "legitimate" is. You and I consider it absurd for any power to view a neighboring NATO member as a threat. Not legit. But Putin disagrees, has said so repeatedly, and has acted on it.
Wow! Former KGB Colonel Putin lies for public consumption! What a shock! I can't believe that!
Are you fucking insane?
Putin also said they were invading Ukraine to "de-Nazify" it.
Do you claim toe believe that, too?
But Putin disagrees, thinks Russia is a great power, and has acted like the leaders of other great powers, pursuing his strategic and security interests. He may have miscalculated, and of course the results of his actions are dreadful, but his behavior is no mystery
You are correct. His behavior is no mystery. He intends to enslave every country around Russia that he can, and will keep on doing so until forcibly stopped.
So, why do you have so much difficulty grasping the obvious?
Even then, Ukraine will still be in a tough spot. Unless, we and the Europeans are prepared to take much stronger action to remove not just Putin but dictate terms to any future Russian government, the rational alternative is to find a way out for him, for Ukraine, for Europe now dealing with 3M+ refugees, and for us.
Ukraine is a tough spot if you get your way and they're dismembered for Russia's benefit.
They're not in a tough spot if the Russian invasion is defeated, the Russians are kicked out, and Ukraine is made part of NATO, with a couple of US bases there so future Russia dictator know they're going to have to just try to enslave someone else, instead.
The ONLY stable solution is "Ukraine wins, Putin and Russia lose." Because anything else encourages Russia and Putin to try again later.
Because to Putins mind Ukraine is part of Russia. Which means taking it over leaves Russia with NATO on the border. So what must be established is that Russia doesn't get a choice: NATO's on the border and won't take any shit from Russia
MartyH said...
Greg-
The Russian mindset requires a buffer with the West.
No, it doesn't. The Warsaw Pact wasn't a "buffer", it was an extension of "Russia". Which is why the 56 Budapest uprising and the 68 Prague Spring were both crushed.
Because the entire Warsaw Pact was "Russian" territory.
Russia is and always has been an expansionist empire that seeks to destabilize, invade, control, and enslave all its neighbors.
The only times they've EVER stopped expanding was when they were forced to.
The idea that they would leave a lopped of "Ukraine buffer" alone is ahistorical and ludicrous.
Any time the people of Ukraine elect the "wrong" government, Putin will intervene. Because he's not looking for a "buffer", he's looking for another slave State just like Belarus.
A neutral Ukraine is the limit they are willing to accept.
No, it's just the lie Putin is selling now. In the hope that chumps will swallow the lie, give him part of what he wants, and set him up to be able to grab more, later.
Because if the current Ukraine can't stop Putin, then a future 1/2 Ukraine that's forced to be without allies won't be able to stop the next Russian invasion.
You know, the one where Putin "restores" Russia to what it was before WWI
Ukraine in NATO is viewed as an existential threat,
No, it isn't.
Ukraine in NATO is an ego threat, which is to say it makes it so Putin can't conquer them like he wants to.
Nothing more.
If Ukraine in NATO was an existential threat, then the Baltic States all being in NATO would also be an existential threat.
So, are you going to throw them to the bear, next? After all, while Belarus and Ukraine were both original members of the UN as "separate States", the Baltics were all just part of Russia.
It either ends with "no Putin, you can't have anything, fuck off", or it never ends, with Russia always pushing, always attacking, always trying to get more.
If you ever want peace, you want Putin to lose here
cubanbob said...
Putin isn't losing. Nor is he going to allow Russia to lose. He will probably not engage in house to house fighting. No Stalingrad or Berlin for him. Just massive barrages blasting whatever cities he needs to blast and when enough Ukrainians die from bombardments and hunger they will fold
And then he tries to set up some sort of puppet government with Russia soldiers backing it. And Ukrainian partisans kill whoever joins the government, and the Russia soldiers backing it.
And they keep on killing until Russia is gone. While Western voters look at video of teh Russian wholesale murder of Ukraine, and refuse to let their government's end the sanctions against Russia.
Why are you so desperate for Putin to win?
Oh, and cubanbob, where are the Russians going to get the logistics to bring in all the explosives they're going to use in their campaign of mass murder?
They're certainly not going to pull that off with the Air Force that they've shown so far
Achilles said... Greg The Class Traitor said...
Now, do explain why all those other people will be so eager to commit suicide, for themselves and their families, along with Putin.
The problem is that it doesn't take many to go along and Putin will have selected for the most loyal for these roles.
I don't think Putin is suicidal in this way.
But I would say that putin and people around him would rather see a nuke let off in some Ukrainian city than they end up prosecuted in the Hague
Ah, so you think they'd rather all die, and have all their families die, in a nuclear holocaust?
Or, if those Ukrainian bolas are real, die in a biological holocaust?
No one's going to be trying them in The Hague if they just pull out and leave Ukraine. Some of them will be killed in domestic score settling, but that's just Russia politics as usual.
The people who are needed to actually shoot off the nuclear missiles are low ranking people in a boring job.
No one who's been assigned to that job by Putin is going to be happy to be there. And won't feel any special gratitude to Putin.
Why are they going to turn that key?
Amadeus 48 said...
Stalin demonstrated ruthlessness without limits.
Yep. So he killed pretty much every remotely competent senior military official, and utterly alienated Ukraine, just isn time for WWII.
If the Nazis hadn't been at least as fucked up, they would have accepted Ukrainian help against Russia, and Stalin would have been toast.
Just think what the Nazis could have done in Russia if they didn't have to waste a lot of troops on rear-area security in the Ukraine, because those locals who'd managed to survive the Holodomor were working with the Nazis to hunt down and kill any Russians they could find?
But the Nazis were "ruthless", and didn't value those Ukrainian Slav untermenschen
JaimeRoberto said...
"NATO isn't going to invade Russia".
You're probably right, but if you are Russian, do you believe that?
If you don't believe that, then I guess your'e going to have to conquer the Baltic States, since they're all part of NATO.
Then Poland, because now it's "NATO on your border". Then Hungary, then the former parts of Czechoslovakia, and heck, by that point, they've got most of the Warsaw Pact back, and just ned Germany to complete the set!
Now, as I see it you can draw the line at Ukraine, as in "no, you can't have Ukraine". Or there is no line, just Putin pushing until he goes too far, and we get WWIII
Do please feel encouraged to tell me where else the line is reasonably drawn, and why it's reasonable to draw it there, but not on Ukraine's eastern border
Post a Comment